changes from season to season. For 
example, of the $1.04 increase in the 
Valencia price from 1961 to 1962, 89 
cents went for marketing and 15 cents to 
the .growers. The 5l-cent increase in 
the Navel price went mostly tothe growers 
-- 48 cents, Although the Florida orange 
price decreased 65 cents, the marketing 
margin increased 34 cents from 1960-61 
to 1961-62. Both of these changes were 
absorbed by the growers, reducing their 
returns by 99 cents per box. 
In the 1960-61 season, the percentage 
distribution of the retail price was quite 
similar for the 3 orange types, but in the 
following season wide differences oc- 
curred, Most noticeable were the large 
increase in the marketing margin for 
Florida oranges, from 70 to 79 percent 
of the retail price, and the largedecrease 
in the growers’ share, from 30 to 21 per-= 
cent. The increase in the marketing 
charge was almost entirely in the whole- 
sale-retail margin. In contrast, the share 
of the retail price to growers of California 
Navels increased from 32 percent in 
1960-61 to 37 percent in 1961-62. As 
with Florida oranges, most of the change 
resulted from a change in the wholesale- 
retail share. For California Valencias, 
the growers’ share decreased from 26 
percent in 1961 to 24 percent in 1962. 
Also, there was some shifting among the 
marketing agencies. An increase inthe 
wholesale-retail margin from 41 to 47 
percent was partly offset by decreases 
in the shares for auction, transportation, 
and shipping-point services. 
In summary, this is how the orange 
consumer’s dollar was shared in1960-61: 
California Valencias, 74 cents for mar- 
keting -- 26 for the grower; Florida, 70- 
30; and California Navels, 68-32. Inthe 
same order, the shares for 1960-62 were 
76-24, 79-21, and 63-37, 
Florida White Seedless Grapefruit 
Prices and marketing margins for 
Florida grapefruit sold in Detroit and 
Pittsburgh were relatively stable from 
1957-58 through 1960-61. In Detroit, 
the seasonal average retail price ranged 
from $9.74 to $10.37 per 1 3/5 bushel 
box. 5/ In Pittsburgh, the range was 
from $8.88 to $9.57. 
Total marketing margins varied by 53 
cents per box over the 4 seasons in 
Detroit or, as a percentage of the retail 
price, from 83 to 86 percent. In Pitts- 
burgh, the total margin varied 86 cents 
per box during the 4 seasons, or from 
81 to 85 percent of the retail value. 
In both markets, the largest marketing 
cost was the combined wholesale-retail 
margin. For the 4 seasons, this margin 
averaged 67 percent of the retail price 
in Detroit and 63 percent in Pittsburgh. 
The second largest margin component 
was for shipping-point services, which 
included picking, hauling, packing and 
selling. This margin, which averaged 
about 19 percent of the retail price, 
increased nearly 5 percent during the 
4 seasons. Most of the increase was 
in 1960-61. 
Growers’ returns from grapefruit sold 
in Pittsburgh from 1957-58 through 1960- 
61 ranged from $1.40 to $1.70 per boxand 
from $1.46 to $1.75 or those marketed in 
Detroit. For fruit sold in Pittsburgh, the 
growers’ return, both in dollars and asa 
percentage of the retail price, decreased 
each season. The total decrease was 30 
cents per box or 18 percent. For fruits 
sold in Detroit, the growers received 6 
cents more per box in 1960-61 than in the 
preceding season. However, the percent- 
age of retail value remained at 15 percent. 
The relative stability in grapefruit 
prices, margins, andgrowers’ returndur- 
ing the 4 seasons may be partly explained 
by stability in the volume of production, 
and particularly in the part of the crop 
sold fresh. Fresh sales during the period 
ranged from 14,544,000 to 16,479,000 
boxes, a variation of 13 percent. In 
comparison, sales of fresh Florida 
oranges varied 23 percent in the same 
period. 
5/7 Season extends from November through June. 
oe 
