=) 36) - 
in 1960. The marketing margin went up 
from 44.3 to 48.3 cents; so growers re- 
ceived more than half the gain in retail 
prices. The volume of oranges sold fresh 
from the 1959-60 crop was smaller than 
that from the 1958-59 crop, largely be- 
cause the California Navel and Valencia 
crops were short. Prices in the final 
quarter of the year were strengthened by 
reduced marketings from the 1960-61 
crop. Shipments from Florida were late 
in starting and increased slower than 
usual; the California crop was light again. 
Processed Fruits and Vegetables 
Total marketing charges for processed 
fruits and vegetables in the family market 
basket were about the same in 1960 as 
in 1959 (table 19). The total farm value 
of these products declined 14 percent, 
accompanied by a 3 percent reduction in 
the retail cost. 
Lower prices for canned orange juice 
and frozen juice concentrate accounted 
for much of the reduction in the retail 
cost of the processed products. Similar- 
ly much of the decrease in the farm value 
resulted from a sharp drop from 1959 
to 1960 in prices received by growers 
for oranges for processing. The bulk of 
the processed products sold to consumers 
in 1960 were processed from 1959-60 
Florida oranges. Prices received by 
growers for the 1959-60 crop were con- 
siderably lower than those for the 1958= 
59 erops 
Marketing Margins for Oranges 
Grower-retail marketing spreads have 
been analyzed for Florida fresh oranges 
sold in Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, New 
York and Pittsburgh, for California fresh 
oranges marketed in New York and Chi- 
cago, and for canned orange juice and 
frozen orange juice retailed in New York 
and Chicago. 
Florida Fresh Oranges 
Retail prices of Florida oranges mar- 
keted in five large eastern and middle 
western cities during the 1959-60 season 
varied from $7.57 per 90=pound box in 
Atlanta to $9.66 in New York (table 20). 3/ 
Prices at all market levels were lower 
in 1959-60 than in the previous season. 
Spreads between retail prices and re-= 
turns to the grower (‘‘on-tree’’ returns) 
in 1959-60 ranged from $5.92 in Atlanta 
to $7.16 in Detroit (table 20). As per- 
centages of retail prices, these spreads, 
or marketing margins, ranged from 74 
percent in New York to 80 percent in 
Pittsburgh, Im each of the five cities ex- 
cept Pittsburgh, marketing margins de- 
creased from 1958-59 to 1959-60, along 
with prices at retail and other market 
levels. Though marketing margins de- 
clined, decreases were not proportionate 
to reductions in retail prices, so mar- 
keting margins relative to retail prices 
increased from 1958-59 to 1959-60. 
Returns to growers in 1959-60 varied 
from $1.05 per 90 pounds of oranges 
shipped to Atlanta to $2.55 for those 
marketed in New York. As percentages 
of retail prices, returns to growers 
varied from 20 percent for Pittsburgh 
shipments to 26 percent for New York 
shipments. 
Differences in quality of fruit may ex- 
plain part of the variation in on-tree 
returns from oranges shipped to different 
destinations, Thus, New York, for which 
retail prices and on-tree returns were 
highest, received fruit of a better average 
quality than most other cities. 
The drop in prices at all market levels 
- 3/7 The retail price is for 87 pounds. For every 90 pounds of oranges bought by 
retailers, about 
were lost through waste and spoilage. 
87 pounds on the average were sold to consumers and 3 pounds 
