- 43 - 
Frozen FRE 
CANNED CONC. 
SN 
BRU. 
HTT 
SQN 
~~ 
8 
NEECRS 
RETAIL Price. JUICE 
eae 
WHOLESALE - RETAIL MARGIN LA 
TRANSPORTATION 
PACKER OR PROCESSOR 
PICKING scccctcceresccceercseeseeld C77, — [77 
Ss 
RS 
SS 
GROWER 
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
¢ PER 24 OUNCES OF JUICE EQUIVALENT 
CALIF. (FRESH) 
<= 
> 
= 
m 
=z 
OQ 
> 
FLORIDA —— 
EES 
CHICAGO 
FRESH AND PROCESSED ORANGES 
Retail Prices, Marketing Margins and Grower Returns, 1958-59 Season 
= 
Q 
ree 
SSNs 
IIS 
NAVEL 
x 
SS 
“Ss 
J 
SSN 
RIN 
RR 
FLORIDA 
F 
SR 
SS 
S 
SS 
RT 
NS 
SS 
. 
PSS 
By 
RTE 
SSN 
SS 
SSS 
PIS 
=) 
2 
SANS 
= ITER 
RRA 
TIISLR 
m 
no 
= =) 
SITTIN 
| 
PERN 
Kee 
FROZEN 
CONC. 
CANNED 
Qo 2 
cANSS OTS 
mS 
Ss 
SARE 
S 
2 
SS 
NEES 
! 
| 
NEES 
SAN 
SSSSRN 
cs Py 
| 
SS 
SS 
| 
SRVVPVT: 
S 
RN 
oS 
SS 
| 
SN 
Py RN 
SS 
R 
Ss 
SS 
SS 
VS 
RS 
b> 
> 
> 
eS 
oS 
RI 
RS 
S 
C77 — 77) 
NEW YORK CITY 
t 
J INCLUDES CARTAGE AND TERMINAL SELLING CHARGES ON FRESH ORANGES 
NEG. 8354-61 (1) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE 
Figure 8 
Oranges than for equivalent quantities 
of the processed products, principally 
because of differences in weight. Shipping 
charges for Florida oranges were nearly 
five times those for frozen con- 
centrate. Charges for processing canned 
juice and frozen concentrate, however, 
exceeded packing and other local market- 
ing charges for fresh oranges. The 
processing margin for frozen concentrate 
was more than twice packing charges for 
Florida fresh oranges. 
Returns to Florida growers derived 
from retail prices in New York and 
Chicago during the 1958-59 marketing 
season were higher for fresh oranges 
than for oranges for processing. For 
the entire 1958-59 crop, however, prices 
received by Florida growers averaged 
higher for oranges for processing than 
those for fresh use. 
