46- 
BULLETIN 1242, tT. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
creasing supply of the • early crop. Evidently the price of early 
cabbage is somewhat steadied by the presence and competition 
of the storage supply, as the quotations applying to Virginia stock 
during May and June show even sharper fluctuations than those 
occurring during the preceding months. 
l 
?IDA- 
i i i 
-VIRGIN!/ 
"1 
-- ' 
.... 
\ 
i Lur 
1 i 
I 
^^^. 
\ 
-,. 
SP/920 
m 
y 
V 
s 
\ 
z 
► 
cVv L 
%- 
- • — 
. 
/ 
->I92I 
\ 
I ! 
/ 
V 
\ 
\ 
'A 
19 
22 
«* 
' 
y 
-- 
\ 
/ 
s( 
M 
~T 
>, 
\ 
\ 
^^ 
1 1 
■ 
1920^ 
NLvv y wn r\ u/ain ion i rrc." 
y 
J. - 
*«N, 
"'] 
N., 
— • _ 
* 
1922' 
V 
79. 
V* 
"\ mmt 
■■■ 
~~ 
""' 
»■"• 
^—m 
DOLLARS 
PER 
100 LBS. 
5 
4 
3 
2 
I 

7 
6 
5 
4 
3 
2 
<yg# JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE 
Fig. 30.— Jobbing prices of early and late cabbage in New York City. 
COST OF MARKETING. 
No accurate information on cost of marketing cabbage is at hand. 
Costs yary tremendously for different varieties of cabbage and from 
season to season. Hence average costs for the whole crop are of 
little value for market purposes. Studies of costs of marketing at 
wholesale 330 cars of northern and approximately 150 cars of early 
cabbage in 1920 and 1921 were made by the Joint Commission of 
Agricultural Inquiry. For these cars, the total sales were approxi- 
mately $160,000. It appeared that the northern shippers received 
45 per cent of the wholesale price, the California shippers 43 per cent. 
and the Texas shippers 12.5 per cent. Freight charges were 41 per 
cent for northern, 71 per cent for California, and 75 per cent for 
Texas cabbage. On the northern cabbage the receiving distributor 
apparently made about 1.75 per cent, on Texas cabbage a little over 
2.5 per cent, and on the 20 cars of California cabbage he lost 17.5 per 
cent. Figures like these indicate the great differences in marketing 
costs and the folly of drawing definite conclusions from averages or 
incomplete studies. 
No good study of the city costs of wholesale handling and retailing 
of cabbage has been made. Some data were collected in Boston in 
1921 for the United States Department of Agriculture showing 
price margins or spreads of marketing charges as between wholesale 
and retail handlers. These are presented in Table L6 and Figure 31. 
As shown by the more detailed Boston market data, approximately 
four-fifths of the city distributing charges between wholesale receiver 
and consumer went to the retailer; the other one-lilt h went to tin 1 
