Table 8.--Fruits and vegetables: 
Retail cost, farm value, marketing margin and 
farmer's share of retail cost, 1953 and 1958-62 1/ 
Year ore Rebar cost Farm value Margin Farmer's share 
: All fruits and vegetables 
Dollars Dollars Dollars Percent 
HORI eet) Bs 210.56 62.39 148.17 30 
MOE OMe meee stots ers es 233.60 66.59 T6720). 29 
OS OS. eee les ote $ 230.60 68.00 162.60 29 
TOCOS Se a ES 237607 71.44 165.63 30 
NOG aa eT ae ens 237.89 70.50 167.39 30 
1962.22 roves nsec 238.670 69.25 169. 45 29 
: Fresh fruits and vegetables 
rie eens ee 121.48 Wl. 40 77.08 37 
ILO). Sierevereueneue xe ces one 139.57 49.30 90.27 35 
NOS D sveus:.e, «sca ecehs sacs 133. DO 45.68 87.70 34 
OOO ocravorn Gases ote es 143.30 52.14 91.16 36 
MO Oiene evaeeivera siete 140.27 48.25 92.02 34 
MOCZEe antec ae 144, 49 19.7 3 94.76 3h 
: Processed fruits and vegetables 
TOSS oneratekenetonene eselte : 89.09 17.99 (lcs tO 20 
WO 5G steie oe ebel aie a Gis : 94.02 i729 Oe 18 
NOS Or eiesiocete cies ersks 97.23 22.82 74.91 23 
L9GO2 bores oe ats 93.77 19.30 74.47 Zit 
ROOM eee wie sae 97.62 22625 T5837 23 
MOG 2 G22 west ahcce s 94.20 19.53 74.67 van 
ay Data are for quantities of fruits and vegetables included in the market basket 
of farm foods, which includes quantities of farm-originated foods bought for home 
consumption per family in 1952 by urban wage-earner and clerical-worker families. 
2/ Preliminary. 
the market basket decreased from $98 in 
1961 to $94 in 1962. Nearly all of the 
decrease was absorbed by the producer. 
Consequently, the farmer’s share of the 
retail cost dropped from 23 percent in 
1961 to 21 percent in 1962, 
During the last 5 years, the farmer’s 
share of the retail cost for processed 
fruits and vegetables has varied more 
than the farmer’s share of the retail 
cost for fresh products. An explanation 
is found inthe behavior of the respective 
marketing margins. During 1958-62, the 
marketing margin for processed fruits 
and vegetables varied 3 percent from the 
low to the high annual average. As a 
consequence of this relative stability, 
practically all changes in the retail cost 
were absorbed by the farmer, and his 
- 25 = 
