2 BULLETIN 1414, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



fruit and vegetable group ; for example, the grapefruit growers who 

 received, in 1924, but 44 per cent of the pre-war price, and the potato 

 growers, who received, during the 1924-25 season, prices varying 

 from 92 to 104 per cent of the base price, that is, the average price 

 from August, 1909, to July, 1914. 



Table 1. — Index numbers of wholesale prices by groups of commodities and by 

 years, 1910 to 191J,=100 1 



Year 



Fruits 2 

 and 

 vege- 

 tables 



Foods 



Fuel 

 and 

 clothing lighting 



Cloths 

 and 



Metals, 

 etc. 



Build- 



House 





ing 



furnish- 



Miscel- 



materi- 



ing 



laneous 



als 



goods 





100.4 



99.1 



133.0 



100.5 



96.7 



97.8 



101.4 



97.2 



97.0 



103.0 



103.4 



88.0 



94.7 



103.4 



84.0 



96.8 



103.2 



83.4 



123.9 



109.9 



106.3 



161.7 



125.4 



130.5 



177.1 



157.7 



137.6 



207.4 



189.9 



153.8 



272.0 



262.5 



172.1 



170.3 



201.8 



112.8 



173.4 



181.8 



103.4 



194.7 



189.3 



108.0 



180.3 



178.7 



102.7 



184.7 



178. 5 



111.9 



188.3 



178.4 



109.6 



183.2 



175.9 



110.4 



179.6 



176. 3 



113.4 



178.8 



176.3 



ll5. 6 



175.8 



175.7 



121.3 



175. 2 



175.0 



126.2 



177.5 



175. 



121.4 



179.3 



173.3 



118.8 



179.1 



173.0 



121. 5- 



All 

 com- 

 modi- 

 ties 



1910 



1911 



1912 



1913 



1914 



1915 



1916 



1917 



1918 



1919 



1920 



1921 



1922 



1923 



1924 



1925: 



January. _. 

 February.. 



March 



April 



May 



June 



July 



August 



September. 

 October. ._ 



91 

 106 

 110 



92 

 100 



83 

 123 

 202 

 162 

 189 

 249 

 148 

 152 

 136 

 124 



122 

 131 



138 



146 

 162 



184 



178 

 178 

 142 

 152 



100.4 



95.8 

 103.3 



99.3 

 101.1 

 103.8 

 120.4 

 166.0 

 187.1 

 205.2 

 218.2 

 143.0 

 137.4 

 142.8 

 143.2 



158.7 



155. 8 



157. 8 

 152. 9 

 152.1 

 154. 2 



156. 2 



158. 1 



159. 2 

 156. 5+ 



101.8 

 97.7 

 99.1 

 101.9 

 99.6 

 100.2 

 129.5 

 178.7 

 232.4 

 257.8 

 301.2 

 183.0 

 184.3 

 204.0 

 194.6 



194.8 

 194.7 

 194.4 

 193. 6 

 192.0 



191. 8 



192. 5 



193. 4 

 193.0 

 193.2 



90.3 

 88.4 

 97.3 

 116.0 

 107.8 

 102.0 

 146.6 

 195.9 

 197.0 

 209.4 

 280.0 

 231. 3 

 252.3 

 214.7 

 197.6 



194.8 

 205.9 

 202.3 

 196. 1 



195. 1 

 200.2 

 199.7 

 197.2 



196. 4 

 199.2 



100.5 

 95.4 

 105.7 

 107.2 

 91.0 

 106.4 

 173.4 

 247.6 

 200.5 

 173.7 

 205.5 

 138.3 

 130.8 

 154.8 

 144.2 



146.1 

 145.3 

 143.3 

 137.9 

 136. 3 

 135. 2 



135. 5- 

 136.4 



136. 3 

 137.1 



102.7 

 94.7 

 100.9 

 101.8 

 99.9 

 102.6 

 129.0 

 180.3 

 197.7 

 210.1 

 230.2 

 149.6 

 151.5 

 156. 5 

 152.4 



162.9 

 163.5 

 163.9 

 159.0 

 158. 

 160.2 

 162.8 

 163.4 

 162.6 

 160.4 



i Supplement to Agri. Situation, June, 1925. 

 2 Farm prices. 



Cooperative marketing, despite its demonstrated advantages, lias 

 not been sufficient to overcome the unfavorable conditions that have 

 existed since 1920. Two fundamental factors have served to keep 

 fruit and vegetable prices at low levels, as compared with other 

 commodities. These, in order of their probable importance, are: 

 (1) Production in excess of what the market will absorb at prices 

 profitable to the producers (see Table 2), and (2) curtailment of the 

 purchasing power of the consumers, to a greater or less extent, ex- 

 pressed perhaps by the purchase of greater quantities of more staple 

 foods at the expense of fruits and vegetables. 



In discussing the adequacy or inadequacy of marketing services, 

 this bulletin deals particularly with the services offered by cooper- 

 ative associations. There is a wide variation in the completeness and 

 efficiency of these services, just as there is in the services of non- 

 cooperative agencies. There is little question of the value of the 

 services rendered by large, well-established associations and ex- 

 changes. Many smail local associations, however, fail to realize their 

 opportunities to improve marketing conditions. 



In part, the general attitude of the producers toward their or- 

 ganizations has retarded the development of the cooperative market- 



