View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

U3.3:<?*7
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WOMEN’S BUREAU
Bulletin No. 187

LABOR STANDARDS AND
COMPETITIVE MARKET CONDITIONS
IN THE CANNED GOODS
INDUSTRY




UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
FRANCES PERKINS, Secretary

WOMEN’S BUREAU
MARY ANDERSON, Director

+

LABOR STANDARDS AND
COMPETITIVE MARKET CONDITIONS
IN THE CANNED GOODS
INDUSTRY

;

Bulletin of the Women’s Bureau, No. 187

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1941

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C.




Price 10 cents

'




CONTENTS

Letter of transmittal
Introductory
Character and source of data
Terms used
Producing regions
General marketing practices
Quality, grades, and labels
Summary of findings_________________________ ;__________________
Competitive conditions of canned spinach marketing___________________
Trends in production___________________
10
Labor costs
10
Distribution by producing States
11
Grading-,
12
Marketing localities_______________________________ _____________
Delivered prices
13
Other marketing localities
14
Competitive conditions of pimiento marketing
15
Trends in production
15
Labor costs
15
Distribution by producing States
15
Grading
16
Marketing localities
16
Delivered prices_____ ___________________________________________
Competitive factors
17
Competitive conditions of canned tomato marketing___________________
Trends in production
18
Labor costs*___________________________________________________
Distribution by producing States
19
Grading_______________________________________________________
Marketing localities____________________________________ ________
Delivered prices
21
Other marketing localities
22
Competitive conditions of canned green and wax bean marketing_______
Trends in production..1
Labor costs
24
Distribution by producing States.,...
Grading
25
Marketing localities
25
Delivered prices__________
Other marketing localities
Appendix—Tables

Page
v
1
1
2
3
3
4
7
10

12

17
18
19
20
20
23
23
24
26
26
27

TEXT TABLES
r.

1. Total cases packed in United States and proportions packed in major
producing States, 1934 to 1939—Spinach
10
2. Total cases packed in United States and proportions packed in major
producing States, 2-year intervals, 1927 to 1937—Pimientos_______
3. Average price per ton received by grower, 1937 to 1939—Pimientos___
4. Total cases packed in United States and proportions packed in major
producing States, 1933 to 1939—Tomatoes
18
5. Carry-over, pack, and shipments of canned tomatoes in actual cases of
all sizes, 1936 to 1940
6. Total cases packed in United States and proportions packed in major
producing States, 1933 to 1939—Green and wax beans____________
7. Carry-over, pack, and shipments of canned green and wax beans in
actual cases of all sizes, years beginning July 1, 1937 to 1940________




HI

Page
15
17

18
23
23

APPENDIX TABLES
I. Average hourly earnings of employees in season of 1939, by State
and occupation—Spinach-------------------------------- _----- _--------------II. Distribution of employees according to hourly earnings in season of
1939, by State—Spinach-----------------------------------------------------III. F. o. b. cannery prices, shipping costs, and delivered prices at
Chicago and New York of canned spinach, pimientos, tomatoes,
and snap beans in 1939-------------------------------------------------- - —
IV. Average hourly earnings of employees in season of 1939, by State
and occupation—Pimientos------------------------------- -------_-----------V. Distribution of employees according to hourly earnings in season
of 1939, by State—Pimientos----------------------------------------- - - —
VI. Average hourly earnings of employees in season of 1939, by State
and occupation—Tomatoes---- ------------------------- ------;------------- VII. Distribution of employees according to hourly earnings in season of
1939, by State—Tomatoes----------------------------------------------- —
VIII. Average hourly earnings of employees in season of 1939, by State
and occupation—Snap beans
------------------------------------------ IX. Distribution of employees according to hourly earnings in season of
1939, by State—Snap beans--------------------------------------------------rv




27
28
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
United States Department of Labor,
Women’s Bureau,

Washington, June H, 191fl.
have the honor to transmit herewith a study of Labor
Standards and Competitive Market Conditions in the Canned Goods
Industry.. The study was made in order to determine the degree of
interstate competition prevailing in an industry with widely varying
base rates of pay in 1939.
Women’s Bureau funds were supplemented by funds from the Wage
and Hour Division for this survey. It was directed by Bertha M.
Nienburg, Chief Economist of the Bureau. The field work and statis­
tical compilation was done by Johannes Stuart assisted by Bernard
Cahill.
Respectfully submitted.
Mary Anderson, Director.
Hon. Frances Perkins,
Secretary of Labor.
Madam : I




v

Labor Standards and Competitive Market Conditions
in the Canned Goods Industry
INTRODUCTORY
The survey of wages and hours in canneries made by the Women’s
Bureau in 1938 and again in 1939 1 showed wide variations in amounts
paid to cannery labor preparing the same products. At the hearings
held by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor
during 1940 questions were asked repeatedly concerning competition
between regions having different wage scales. As opinion differed,
a brief survey of competitive marketing conditions was believed neces­
sary. The survey was confined to two of the most widely grown and
used vegetables, tomatoes and snap beans, and to two other vegetables
grown under special conditions and canned in a few areas, spinach
and pimientos.
The general movement of these four products from their principal
points of canning was determined, and their entrance into the whole­
sale markets of New York and Chicago, markets supplying a retail
trade in surrounding States, was traced. The survey shows the extent
to which the products were sold within the State in which they are
canned and the extent to which they enter interstate competi­
tion. It also shows the effect of the expansion of the industry in
regions with low wages upon existing industry in regions with high
wages.
Since this study was made, the Administrator of the Fair Labor
Standards Act has redefined “area of production” for fresh fruit and
vegetable handling and first processing. Under the new definition a
single basic wage rate is set up for all establishments having more
than 10 employees. While this definition will narrow materially the
differences in rates paid to cannery labor in 1941, differentials will
remain in State minimum-wage and hour regulations and in tradeunion agreements.
CHARACTER AND SOURCE OF DATA

The main sources consulted concerning marketing methods and
grades of canned foods were the canners’ associations in the various
States, as well as the National Canners Association in Washington.
When necessary, individual canners were visited in order to round
out the picture of the situation of an individual canning State. Data
on marketing methods were obtained from canners in Texas, Indiana,
Maryland, and California.
1 Women’s Bureau Bull. No. 176, Application of Labor Legislation to the Fruit
Vegetable Canning and Preserving Industries.




1

and

2

COMPETITIVE MARKET CONDITIONS IN CANNED GOODS

Information was gathered also in Chicago and New York from a
representative group of brokers and of wholesale buyers. The whole­
sale buying group includes regular wholesale houses? chain-store
organizations, and representatives of the voluntary chains.
It was found that for certain regions and for certain products the
process of transfer from manufacturer to wholesale purchaser was
effected through field brokers, and a group of firms acting as field
brokers also were visited. In addition to these, a number of importers
who act as wholesalers of certain products were consulted in New York
City.
_
Data on wholesale prices for the year 1939 were collected from
both published and unpublished sources. The publications from
which wholesale prices were obtained are The California Fruit News,
The Canning Trade, and The New York Journal of Commerce. To
these quotations were added, for regions for which published prices
were not available, the quotations obtained from individual brokers,
wholesale buyers, canners, and canning associations. The unpublished
figures also revealed certain instances in which published prices did
not completely reflect the extremes of price ranges. In fact, the price
ranges recorded here do not include certain individual sales made at
very extreme prices. However, they do include some very low prices
at which tomatoes were sold by field brokers, as well as the high
prices at which certain nationally advertised brands were sold.
To obtain the cost of canned goods at terminal markets, the costs
of shipping must be added to the wholesale price, which is that given
as the price at the factory. Transportation costs were obtained from
the railroads, the truck lines, the steamship companies, and the freight
conference associations/ These rates were recorded for each type
of carrier used in a particular movement of goods. Ranges of rates
were recorded from the lowest possible cost to the highest cost per
dozen at which any appreciable quantities of canned vegetables moved
from factory to market. Costs include the expense of hauling canned
goods from cannery to dock when water lines are used, as such charges
must be met by the wholesaler. But costs do not include the terminal
costs of the buyer of canned goods, as these differ with each individual
purchaser/
Basic data dealing with raw-material costs, carry-over, and packs
were obtained from Western Conner and Packer, and publications
of The Canning Trade, The National Canners Association, and the
United States Departments of Agriculture and Commerce.
Terms Used.
All information on surveys of beans, tomatoes, and spinach has
been given in terms of No. 2 cans so that materials gathered from dif­
ferent parts of the country would be comparable. This can size is
predominant for these three products throughout most of the country
except California, where both spinach and tomatoes are commonly
packed in No. 214 cans; as these are considerably larger than the
No. 2 cans, quantities given are converted to cases of No. 2 cans2
2 Common carrier truck rates were used throughout. Contract and private carrier rates
were not sufficiently accessible to be included, though canned vegetables may be moved by
these means of transportation.
8 There may also be differential terminal charges for goods shipped by water as com­
pared to those shipped by rail and by truck. These costs cannot be adjudged with sufficient
accuracy to be tabulated.




INTRODUCTORY

3

and prices given are those quoted on No. 2 cans. Data on pimiento
packs, from the United States Census of Manufactures, are in actual
cases of all sizes, and prices are quoted for 4-ounce and T-ounce
cans, the most common sizes in which pimientos are packed.
Producing Regions (Names Used in Report).
Throughout this report several producing regions have been desig­
nated by names that are to be considered as including the States in­
dicated below.
1. Tri-State.—Maryland, New Jersey, and Delaware. The can­
neries in this region are in and around Baltimore, in western Mary­
land, on the eastern shore of Maryland, in Delaware, and in southern
New Jersey. The largest number are within the State of Maryland.
2. Ozarfc.—Arkansas and Missouri. The larger number of
canneries in this region are in Arkansas.
3. Indiana-Ohio.—Indiana and Ohio. The canneries in these two
States are in the same producing region, with Indiana having the
larger output.
4. Northwest.—Oregon and Washington. Green beans are packed
in both these States in what constitutes a single producing region.
Though California beans do not enter eastern markets to any great
extent, the quality and type of pack in this State are similar to those
of Oregon and Washington. Furthermore, factory prices for the
three coast States are approximately the same. Wage rates are
slightly higher in California, but Oregon and Washington scales are
considerably above other major bean-canning regions, so it is pos­
sible to consider these three States together as has been done in the
text of this report.
GENERAL MARKETING PRACTICES

The process of movement of canned goods from manufacturer to
consumer may follow a number of different channels. Canned goods
may be sold directly to the retail distributor by the manufacturer,
as occurs when a chain-store organization buys from a packer. They
may be purchased from the manufacturer by a field broker, whose
function is that of a buying and selling organization for canned
goods of all kinds; he in turn sells to the retail chains and to the
wholesalers. They may be sold to distributors through brokers in
marketing regions who have the exclusive right to represent a par­
ticular manufacturer in such sections. They may be handled by
both field broker and associated broker, the former in the general
region where the canneries are located and the latter in the marketing
region.
It is impossible to determine specifically what proportions of all
canned goods or of particular products are handled in the different
ways enumerated above, or how much of the canned foods purchased
by wholesale buyers comes directly from the canner, from the field
broker, and from the regular broker. There are three factors that
make each of these important and also tend to limit their field of
operation.
The first of these three factors is the size of the canning plant. A
small canner cannot afford to maintain a sales force in every market­
ing center in which he wishes to have his goods sold. This means
328320”—41-----2




4

COMPETITIVE MARKET CONDITIONS IN CANNED GOODS

that to have access to the marketing center he is forced to obtain rep­
resentation through some kind of broker who is not dependent on
the single account of one manufacturer. Only a large canning firm
can afford to have direct representation in even the larger cities.
Canners of substantial size usually market their goods through
brokers who are their exclusive representatives in a particular city.
Small canners may rely more largely on field brokers4 who represent
a number of canners and whose sales area is not restricted. Still
other small canners may have connections with a field broker who
helps them financially during the packing season, who sells their
goods, subtracts his expenses, and returns to them what is left.
The second factor operates to make buying direct. A large whole­
sale purchaser may wish to eliminate entirely any sales intermediary
and to do business directly with the canner. In case a portion of his
purchases are from small canneries, he may purchase through a field
broker who holds title to the goods he sells.
The third factor that to some extent directs the course of purchases
is the operation of the Robinson-Patman Act of June 1936. The pro­
visions of this act, as they affect purchases and sales of canned foods,
prohibit discrimination in price “between different purchasers of com­
modities of like grade and quality” when such transactions are in inter­
state commerce, but permit such differentials in price as “make only
due allowance for differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or deliv­
ery resulting from the differing methods or quantities * * * sold
or delivered.” The courts decided in 1940 in a case involving the Great
Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company that the company could not accept
brokerage allowances on its purchases, and that the acceptance of such
allowances constituted a discrimination of price. In compliance with
this court decision the company has directed its buyers to avoid any
possible acts that might involve the company in transactions sus­
ceptible to adverse interpretation, and at the same time to attempt in
so far as possible to make their purchases from sellers who employ no
brokers.5
While accurate figures are not available, it is estimated that the
wholesale buyers visited in Chicago and New York make at least onefourth of their purchases of the four canned vegetables under consid­
eration in this report directly from owners, that is, from canners or
from field brokers who had title to the canned goods they sold.
Quality, Grades, and Labels.
The problem of the quality of canned goods, under which is included
grading and labeling practice, is fairly complicated because of the
varieties of crops and the number of interested parties. The majority
of canners classify their output as to grade, and associations of can­
ners may issue standards. The United States Department of Agricul­
ture has enunciated grade standards, and the buyers of canned goods
4 The field broker differs from the regular broker in that he may represent a number of
canners, his sales territory is not restricted in the same way as that of the regular broker,
and his sales are made either through other brokers or to wholesale distributors. Char­
acteristically he represents the smaller canner who has no sales organization of his own
and who is therefore d< pendent on the field broker for the sale of his product. However,
the field broker may also function as sales representative for canners who sell through
other agencies and may therefore have a variety of accounts ranging from a few thousand
cases for some canners to the total pack for others. He sometimes extends his operations
and becomes the purchaser of canned goods, which he then sells directly to wholesale
distributors.
B The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., Manual on the Robinson-Patman Act, pp. 7—8.




INTRODUCTORY

r*

o

may also have definite and personal opinions of grade. In respect to
each of these groups there is a tendency toward the stabilization of
grades around some norm, but individual departures from any set
grading formula are not uncommonly met with and overall quality
within grades may vary considerably from season to season depending
on the quality of crops.
The most important single factor in the determination of quality
has been the Department of Agriculture’s Canned Fruit and Vegetable
Grading Service, which has organized a procedure whereby a canned
product may be scored on such factors as uniformity, flavor, color,
tenderness, drained weight, and character of medium. The sum of
the individual scores determines whether a particular lot of canned
goods shall be classed as A, B, C, or D in grade. These grade designa­
tions are similar, respectively, to the trade grades of Fancy, Extra
Standard or Choice, Standard, and Substandard. This service, which
is permissive and not regulatory, is often called for by buyers and
sellers both to establish grades in purchases and for arbitration in
cases where disputes over grades arise.
In addition to this service the Department also may arrange for con­
tinuous inspection of a firm’s canning process and the product of such
a firm may carry a statement of grade on the labeled merchandise.
This inspection service has been operating in only four canneries on an
experimental basis, two of which can one or more of the products with
which this report is concerned.
The Federal Food and Drug Act of 1938 also has a bearing on the
quality of canned goods. Under this act standards of quality, identity,
and fill can be set by the Food and Drug Administration to which label­
ing must conform. At the present time only the standards of quality
for tomatoes and corn have been formulated. For canned tomatoes
the label must carry a declaration of any added ingredients, such as
strained tomatoes and spices, and if the product is substandard in
quality or fill this must be indicated.
The majority of canners also are engaged in classifying their prod­
uct by grade. In some cases they may even make distinctions within a
trade or Government grade. For example, some of the California
pimiento canners have two standards of quality within the Fancy or
Grade A designation, and the Indiana tomato canners sell both a Spe­
cial Extra Standard or Near Fancy and an Extra Standard tomato
which fall within the Extra Standard or B grade. However, in the
case of spinach and pimientos, the great bulk of these products fall
within the Fancy grade, as no Extra Standard or B grade has been
recognized, and in such cases wide qualitative differences may exist
between the standards of different packers or of different producing
areas. In such a case the quality of a lot of canned goods as stated in
terms of its grade is not particularly revealing.
The practices of buyers have considerable significance in regulating
the quality of canned foods. The price paid to the manufacturer is
directly associated with quality and therefore a number of methods
have been developed to insure the purchaser the quality he wishes
to obtain. The most far reaching of these methods involves the
inspection of the canning process at the cannery and a number of
firms undertake to do this. Another way in which the buyer may




6

COMPETITIVE MARKET CONDITIONS IN CANNED GOODS

establish grade is by obtaining a certificate of inspection from the
Department of Agriculture’s Canned Fruit and Vegetable Grading
Service at the time of purchase. Buyers may also purchase on grade
subject to approval of samples.
_
Labels may be classed into three groups: Advertised canner’s
labels, other canner’s labels, and private or buyer’s labels. The first
of these, the advertised label, may receive either national or regional
advertising and recognition. The second, a packer’s label, has no
such brand value and is often used as a competitive weapon by
buyers. The private or buyer’s label is one sponsored by a whole­
saler or chain distributor and its sales area is identical with that of
the distributor or its sponsor.
Usually the owner of a nationally advertised or of a private label
is concerned with maintenance of a standard of quality which he
wishes to have the public associate with the label. It is customary
trade practice to associate a certain label with a particular
grade of canned products and to attempt to purchase or manufacture,
for that label, a quality of product that exceeds the minimum speci­
fication for the grade "desired. To this general practice there may
be certain exceptions. Different grades may be marketed in different
sales regions under the me label when a particular market will not
buy above a certain price. Some firms may use one of their labels
for all Grade A canned products except tomatoes, for example,
because they feel they have no call for fancy canned tomatoes.
Finally, crop failures or crop-damaging factors may affect the
quality of goods within a particular grade.
In a study carried out by the Federal Trade Commission6 of the
quality of canned vegetables sold in retail stores, some findings were
made on samples of canned vegetables under private and manu­
facturers’ brands, as graded by the Department of Agriculture, to
see if variation in grade occurred within samples packed under the
same label. It was found that about 47 percent of the manufac­
turers’, 38 percent of the cooperatives’, 37 percent of the wholesalers’,
and 30 percent of the chains’ samples showed variation in grade.
This is a considerable percentage, especially when the fact is
considered that the number of cans per lot was small.
Some distributors have adopted the practice of declaring the grade
of a canned product on the label, either in connection with the
brand name or separately. In such a case, a significant departure
from the grade declared may make the distributor liable to a
complaint for mislabeling.
fl Federal Trade Commission, Chain Stores : Quality of Canned Vegetables and Fruits
(under brands of manufacturers, chains, and other distributors). Doc. No. 170, Govern­
ment Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1933.




SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The four canned-vegetable markets studied illustrate clearly the
extent of competition between products originating in low-, medium-,
and high-wage regions. Each of these vegetables is canned in places
with different wage levels. Two markets, the tomato and snap bean,
illustrate competitive marketing conditions when the products are
grown and canned in many States; the spinach and pimiento markets
are illustrative of marketing conditions when products are grown in
limited areas. Together their handling affords answers to the
questions for which the survey was undertaken.
First: To what extent are products sold outside the State in which
canned ?
Major canning States market the larger part of their canned
vegetables outside the State of production. Minor canning States
with large wholesale food markets may dispose of most of their
pack within the State of production.
The major tomato-canning States are Maryland, Indiana, and
California; 60 percent to 80 percent of the tomatoes canned are
marketed outside the State of pack origin. New York, a sec­
ondary tomato-canning State, markets over 80 percent of its
total pack within New York State, by far the largest fooddistributing State in the country.
The major snap-bean-canning States are Maryland, the Wis­
consin-Michigan region, the Oregon-Washington region, and
New York. The first three of these market the major part of
the snap-bean production outside the States of origin; New
York canners market a smaller but material volume outside New
York State. Production of snap beans in California is largely
directed to local use.
California, Arkansas, and Maryland have canned about 80 to
85 percent of the total spinach pack in the last six years. Each
State ships three-fourths or more of its canned spinach to markets
outside the specific State. Texas, a growing but still minor
producer of canned spinach, ships out about one-fourth of its
product.
Georgia produces over two-thirds of the canned pimientos;
over 90 percent leave the State. California packs about one-fourth
of the volume of pimientos and sales are confined largely to the
Pacific coast.
Second: To what extent do these canned vegetables compete in the
major wholesale markets?
New York City and Chicago are the largest canned-goods
markets. About 60 percent of New York’s domestic canned toma­
toes are packed in the Tri-State region of Maryland, Delaware,
and New Jersey; about 15 percent each come from Indiana and




7

8

COMPETITIVE MARKET CONDITIONS IN CANNED GOODS

from New York, with smaller amounts shipped from California,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Michigan. The
Indiana-Ohio producing region supplies the Chicago market with
its largest volume of canned tomatoes, with some originating in
Illinois, Michigan, the Tri-States, Utah, Wisconsin, California,
and New York.
About one-third of New York’s canned snap beans are pro­
duced in New York State, one-third in the Tri-State region,
one-sixth in the Northwest, with smaller amounts from a number
of other States. The Chicago market is supplied by Wisconsin,
Michigan, the Tri-States, and New York, with smaller amounts
coming from the Northwest and the Ozarks.
About half the canned spinach marketed in New York City
comes from Maryland, about 30 percent from California, and
smaller amounts from New York, Arkansas, Texas, and other
States. The major producing regions for canned spinach sold
in the Chicago market are California, Arkansas, and Maryland.
In both the New York and Chicago markets all but about one
percent of the pimientos originate in Georgia, the remainder
coming from California. These figures do not take into con­
sideration imported Spanish pimientos, which are difficult to
secure.
Third: Under what price disadvantages are competing products
marketed from places with different wage levels?
New York and Indiana Standard canned tomatoes were found
to sell at from 73/!> to 11 y2 cents a dozen more than Maryland and
Delaware tomatoes in the New York City market. Average earn­
ings of workers in Maryland were lower by 5 cents an hour than
those in New York State and Indiana.
New York Standard cut No. 2 canned snap beans sold at 65
cents to 67 cents a dozen, while Tri-State beans brought 56 cents
to 72 cents in the New York market. Northwest beans were sold
chiefly as Fancy cut at $1.13 to $1.25 a dozen. Average hourly
earnings of workers in New York and Maryland differed by only
1V2 cents an hour, while Washington workers earned three-fourths
again as much as Maryland workers.
In the Chicago market, Tri-State Standard cut beans were
delivered at slightly lower prices than Wisconsin beans. New
York and the Northwest competed in the Chicago market chiefly
on Extra Standard or Fancy grades, as they could not compete on
Standard grades. Wisconsin and New York wages are similar,
but those in the Northwest are very much higher.
Delivered prices for a dozen No. 2 cans of spinach in the New
York market were as follows: Maryland, $0.76 to $0,945; Cali­
fornia, $0.98 to $1,325; New York, $0.80 to $0.92; and Texas,
$0.64 to $0,805. Average hourly earnings were $0,208 in Texas,
$0,258 in Maryland, $0,275 in New York, and $0,465 in California.
In Chicago, California spinach at $1.02 to $1.27 competed with
Arkansas spinach at $0,685 to $0,835, and Maryland spinach at
$0,825 to $1. Maryland and Arkansas wages on spinach were
similar, but California earnings on spinach were 85 percent higher
than those.




INTRODUCTORY

9

Georgia pimientos delivered prices in Chicago were, per 4-ounce
can, $0.41 to $0.51, California pimiento prices $0.55 to $0.80.
Earnings in Georgia were $0,207 an hour, in California $0.38 an
hour.
Fourth: Is there evidence that the expansion of the canning industry
in low-wage regions leads to its curtailment where wages are high ?
Yes, when canning is limited to specific regions because of soil
or climatic conditions.
In 1934 California produced 71.2 percent of the Nation’s canned
spinach, the Ozark (Arkansas-Missouri) region 6 percent. In
1939 California produced 47.5 percent and the Ozark region 24.6
percent. The decline in the importance of California spinach in
the Chicago market is ascribed directly to the cheapness of the
Ozark product by the distributing firms in Chicago. California
wages on spinach canning are 85 percent higher than Arkansas
wages. California spinach prices in the Chicago market are
almost 50 percent higher than Arkansas prices. In the New York
market California spinach has had to compete with Maryland
spinach, though California prices are about 30 to 40 percent
higher and earnings of workers about 80 percent higher than
Maryland’s.
Maryland, with wages only a little higher than those paid in
Arkansas, has been able to maintain a relatively stable position
in production, with a steady eastern market that was protected
from Arkansas competition by considerable advantage in freight
rates.
California pimiento canners, paying hourly wages about 85
percent higher than Georgia pimiento canners, are losing their
pimiento markets. In 1927 California canned 51.6 percent of the
pack, Georgia 47 percent; in 1937 California canned only 27.8
percent and Georgia canned 68.3 percent. California pimientos
enter the major markets today only as they are handled by several
large distributors who operate on a Nation-wide basis; Georgia
pimientos can be found in Pacific coast markets.
The study of markets for the four canned vegetables indicates that
high-wage regions can compete with medium- or low-wage regions
only on a quality basis. California spinach, Northwest snap beans,
the best grades of Middle Western and New York tomatoes command
premium prices.
However, the great volume of the canned vegetables marketed is
bought and sold on a price basis and quality is a secondary considera­
tion. No figures on pack by grade are available, but trade practice in
buying clearly indicates, for example, that the Tri-State region, as the
one most important single source of supply for three of the canned
vegetables considered, competes in the mass production of beans,
tomatoes, and spinach by stressing output that can be sold at low cost,
and this is associated with low hourly rates of pay. This same demand
for merchandise at a price attractive to buyers has developed the im­
portance of canning of Georgia pimientos and Ozark spinach.




COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS OF CANNED SPINACH
MARKETING
Trends in Production.
The production of canned spinach in past years has varied consid­
erably, both in the total amounts packed and in the States from which
the pack came.
As with the packs of other agricultural products, crop failures as
well as curtailment of production may influence the output for certain
States.7
While the National Canners Association combines production figures
for several States in the following table, Delaware and Missouri spin­
ach canning is insignificant. California, Arkansas, and Maryland
have been the primary spinach-canning States in the last six years.
Table 1.—Total cases packed in United States and proportions packed in

major producing States, 1984 to 1939—SPINACH
[Basis: 24 No. 2 cans to the case]
Percent of total produced in—
Total num­
ber of cases New
York

Year

1934
1935.......... .....................
1936......................... .
1937....... ........................
1938.___ ___________
1939................................

3, 602,131
4, 318, 001
4,143,167
6,136,051
2, 883,106
4,000, 476

3.3
3.4
4.3
3.8
4.9
3.3

Maryland
and
Delaware

Arkansas
and
Missouri

Texas and
Oklahoma

California

11.5
10.1
7.3
8.2
15.9
12.0

6.0
3.9
7.1
28.0
19.2
24.6

3.5
2.2
2.5
4.5
4.8
4.5

71.2
70.5
65.4
48.1
46.3
47.5

Other
States
4.5
9.9
13.4
7.4
8.9
8.1

Source: National Canners Association. Canned Food Pack Statistics, 1937, 1939.

Two significant trends may be observed from the table: The first
is the rapid advance of Arkansas and Missouri from a minor to a
major producing region; the second is that California has suffered a
proportionate decline in conjunction with the rise of ArkansasMissouri canning.
Labor Costs.
The hourly earnings of labor are quite different in the various sec­
tions producing spinach. The Women’s Bureau study of earnings in
the canning industry showed the following average hourly earnings
for productive workers in 1939, by State:
State

Number of
workers with hourly
earnings reported

Arkansas---------------------- 1,387
California 4, 654
Maryland_____________
602
New York_____________
151
Texas_________________
85

Average hourly
earnings (cents)

25.1
46. 5
25.8
27. 5
20.8

’No figures on carry-over available for total packs in tlie United States.
10




SPINACH

11

It will be seen that Texas earnings are lowest, with Arkansas
practically 4y2 cents higher than Texas. New York workers have
earnings almost 2 cents higher than Maryland workers. California’s
average hourly earnings of 46.5 cents are 86 percent higher than the
minimum required by the Wage and Hour Administration for the
period under consideration and almost 70 percent higher than the
average for New York, which ranks second. Detail by occupation
and by earnings distribution is shown in tables I and II in the
appendix.
The attempt was made to collect the labor costs per case of packing
spinach in different parts of the country,, as this cost might be ex­
pected to vary with the average wage rates paid. Unfortunately,
as methods of cost accounting vary from firm to firm, the interpreta­
tion of cost figures is difficult. Judging from data collected, the
labor cost per case in California, where the prevailing can size is
the No. 2y2, is around 25 cents a case. In other States, where the
prevailing size is the No. 2 can, labor costs given were below 10 cents
a case for most canners in Arkansas, about 11 cents for one New
York canner, and from 10 to 12 cents for Texas. No figures were
obtained for Maryland and Delaware that could be used to represent
labor costs. Obviously, differences in earnings are reflected in
differences in labor costs per case of spinach.
Distribution by Producing States.
Information was collected from associations, brokers, and canners
concerning the percentage of canned spinach sold outside the State.
In most cases the percentages obtained were estimates, though the
South Texas Canners Association has made a study of the distribu­
tion of Texas canned goods and information of an exact nature was
available for Texas canned vegetables.
California. Canners, brokers, and associations in California gave
estimates of the percentage of canned spinach moving out of the
State. These estimates ranged from 75 to 95 percent. The lower
figures came from the canners and probably are more accurate, since
they reflect more closely the recent decline in markets for California
spinach. All persons interviewed agreed that insofar as markets
for California spinach still existed, they were not confined to any
section of the country, but that spinach was sold throughout the
United States in all sections but the South.
Arkansas and Missouri.—No inquiry was conducted in Arkansas,
and therefore it is not possible to say exactly how much Arkansas
spinach was shipped out of the State. However, since this section
produced almost one-quarter of the total United States pack of spin­
ach in 1939 and Arkansas spinach was found in both the Chicago
and New York markets, by far the larger proportion was shipped out
of the State in which it was produced.
Tri-States.—Estimates obtained on distribution in this producing
region did not attempt to distinguish between Maryland and Dela­
ware as producing States, though the bulk of the spinach is canned in
Maryland. The Tri-State Packers Association estimate was that
from 75 to 80 percent would be approximately correct for out-of-State
sales.
New Yorlc.—Probably the New York canned spinach is used al­
most entirely within the State. This was the opinion of local whole328320°—41---- 3




12

COMPETITIVE MARKET CONDITIONS IN CANNED GOODS

salers consulted. Some may be marketed in nearby States and New
England.
Texas.—In Texas the South Texas Canners Association recently
made a study of the movement of Texas canned products. While
figures for Texas spinach are not exactly the same as for all Texas
products, the association believed that the following estimates would
be quite accurate for the distribution of Texas spinach.
Percent

Within the State75
Outside Texas20
Middle West____________________________
Gulf and Southwest______________________
Atlantic seaboard'_______________________
Arkansas and Missouri__________________

to 80
to 25
3
10
10
1

Grading.
The trade practices with respect to grading and labeling have
been discussed in the general section on grading. Some features of
practice are peculiar to spinach and are noted here.
Both Arkansas and California spinach, the chief competitors in
middle-western markets, are graded as Fancy spinach. Fancy or
Grade A spinach has been defined by the Argicultural Marketing
Service of the Department of Agriculture as “the product prepared
from very tender succulent leaves of the spinach plant; is practically
free from grit, tough or stringy leaves, and other defects. The prod­
uct is dark green in color, possesses the typical flavor of fresh spinach,
and scores not less than 85 points when scored according to the scor­
ing system outlined herein. The Standard canned spinach differs
from Fancy in that it need be only reasonably free from grit, tough
or stringy leaves, and other defects; possesses a “desirable” flavor and
scores not less than 70 points.
However, the wholesale grocer who has his own labels does not
market California spinach under the same label as the Arkansas
spinach, nor does it bring the same price. Upon examination it
would seem that the quality differences within the Fancy grade
may vary considerably.
Marketing Localities.
Sixty-eight wholesalers visited in New York and Chicago sold
almost three-tenths of the 1939 spinach pack.
New York City.—Forty-three New York wholesalers who sold
603.000 cases of canned spinach in 1939 were consulted in August
1940. The 22 New York brokers visited reported a total of about
277.000 cases sold in that year. Of this, 35 to 40 percent came from
California, a little more than 30 percent from Maryland and Dela­
ware, about 15 percent from New York, less than 10 percent from
Arkansas, and from 1 to 5 percent each from Virginia and West
Virginia, the Midwest, and Texas.
The 21 other distributors visited (including jobbers, chains, and
manufacturing jobbers) reported 326,000 cases of spinach sold in
1939. Of this, more than 60 percent was from the Maryland region,
roughly 30 percent from California, 1 to 5 percent each from New
York and Texas, with about 1 percent from Arkansas and the Mid­
west. The high percentage of Maryland spinach reported by this
latter group is due partly to the effect of a few large buyers whose




13

SPINACH

policy is to buy very considerable quantities of spinach from Mary­
land field brokers or direct from Maryland caimers. This practice
probably would not be so common among smaller wholesalers. The
brokers, on the other hand, do not represent Maryland and Delaware
adequately, as these States sell so much of their produce through field
brokers direct to jobbers.
Taking these deviations into consideration in combining these
figures, it may be estimated that for the New York district something
better than 50 percent of the canned spinach came from Maryland,
about 30 percent from California, 5 to 10 percent from New York,
1 to 5 percent each from Arkansas and Texas, and minor amounts
from Wisconsin, Illinois, Virginia, and WTest Virginia.
Chicago.—Twenty-five Chicago wholesalers, who sold 525,000 cases
of spinach in 1939, were consulted. The 11 brokers reported a total
of about 325,000 cases of spinach in 1939; of this about 60 to 65
percent came from Arkansas, about 20 percent from California, about
15 percent from Maryland, and the remainder from Wisconsin. The
14 other distributors (including jobbers, chains, and manufacturing
jobbers) reported a total of some 200,000 cases, of which about onehalf came from California, about 35 percent from Arkansas, 5 to 10
percent each from Illinois and Maryland, and less than 1 percent
each from Wisconsin, New York, and Texas.
It will be noted that while the brokers account for three times as
much Ozark as California spinach, the distributors used considerably
more California spinach. It would appear from a consideration of
the individual returns for distributors that several of the large firms
purchase quantities of California spinach directly from canners.
Distributors are a somewhat more adequate sample of total purchases
than brokers, even though a part of their sales are outside the
Chicago district.
The major producing regions for canned spinach sold in the Chicago
market are California, Arkansas, and Maryland, in the order named,
with Arkansas a close second. California delivered prices on spinach
are very much higher than those of Arkansas, and even Maryland
spinach is more expensive than that of Arkansas.
Delivered Prices.8
Delivered prices in New York per dozen No. 2 cans of spinach
classified from low to high were as follows:
California$0.98 to $1.32%
New York--------------------------------------------Maryland
.76 to
Texas
.64 to

.80 to

.92
.94%
.80%

Delivered prices in Chicago per dozen No. 2 cans classified from low
to high were these:
California$1.02 to $1.27
Arkansas- .68% to
Maryland-------------------------------------------

.83%
-82% to 1.00

About equal amounts come from California and Arkansas; Mary­
land spinach is a little better than that from Arkansas and commands
higher prices, in the opinion of firms visited.
8 See appendix table III.




14

COMPETITIVE MARKET CONDITIONS IN CANNED GOODS

In both Chicago and New York, California spinach can compete
only on the basis of quality. Arkansas spinach is the spinach selling
on a price basis in Chicago, and Maryland spinach sells on a similar
basis in New York. Though the cheapest Texas spinach could be
sold in New York at a lower delivered price than that from any other
region, its importance was relatively slight due to the small size of the
pack in Texas and to the fact that the Texas spinach actually sold in
New York tended to be of the better qualities packed in Texas, and
therefore marketed well above minimum Texas prices.
Other Marketing Localities.
There is no statistical basis on which one can estimate the sources of
production for marketing localities not covered in this study. How­
ever, by combining the information obtained from packers, associa­
tions, and others concerned with the marketing of canned vegetables,
certain general statements may be made:
1. California spinach is distributed throughout the United States
and enters, in varying proportions, into sales in most cities.
2. Maryland spinach is sold chiefly in the East and Southeast, and
also to some extent in the central part of the United States.
3. Arkansas spinach is sold in the central and south central parts
of the country.
4. Texas spinach is sold in the Gulf States and on the eastern
seaboard.
5. New York spinach is sold locally for the most part.




COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS OF PIMIENTO
MARKETING
Trends in Production.
The canning of pimientos in the United States is confined almost
entirely to the two States of Georgia and California, where pimientos
are grown. While no figures on production are available on pimientos
in the report of the National Canners Association, figures obtained
from Western Canner and Packer show actual cases produced by
two-year intervals since 1927. The percentage of the total produced
in these States is shown in table 2.
Tabt.e 2.—Total cases packed in United States and proportions packed in major

producing States, 2-year intervals, 1927 to 1937—PIMIENTOS

Year

1927____ ____
1929
1931___ _____

Total
number
of cases

486,611
506, 012
274, 499

Percent of total pro­
duced in—
Year
Cali­
fornia

Geor­
gia

Other
States

51.6
50. 6
22. 5

47.0
44. 2
71.4

1. 4
5. 2
6.1

1933
1937

Total
number
of cases

269 649
626| 205

Percent of total pro­
duced in—
Cali­
fornia

Geor­
gia

27.8

68.3

Other
States

3.9

Source: Western Canner and Packer. Year Book, 1940, p. 160. Estimated pack for 1939 is 250,000 cases
in California, 475,000 in Georgia.

No figures on carry-over or shipments are available. The position
of California declined rapidly from a little better than half the pack
in 1927 to not much more than a fourth in 1937.
Labor Costs.
Average hourly earnings of labor in Georgia, for 1,628 productive
workers for whom hours were reported, were 20.7 cents. In Cali­
fornia for 987 productive workers the average hourly rate was 38
cents. (For detail see appendix tables IV and V.)
Labor costs per case in Georgia in plants that gave 1939 figures
ranged between 18 and 28 cents a case of 48 4-ounce cans. In
California, for the same size of case, costs ranged from 30 to 38 cents.
Distribution by Producing States.
Georgia.—Georgia pimientos are sold in all parts of the United
States, including California, and dominate the markets of the South,
the Middle West, and the Atlantic seaboard. Over 90 percent of the
Georgia pack leaves the State.
California.—Sales of the California product are confined largely
to the Pacific coast. However, several large distributors who operate
on a Nation-wide basis handle California pimientos in central and
eastern markets.




15

16

COMPETITIVE MARKET CONDITIONS IN CANNED GOODS

Grading.
Fancy or Grade A pimientos are defined by the Department of
Agriculture as “practically whole; firm; are fairly uniform in size;
are not less than 2 inches in length and width when flattened; possess
a uniform full red color; are practically free from defects; possess
a typical pimiento flavor; and score not less than 85 points when
scored.” Fancy pieces must satisfy the same criteria except for whole­
ness and uniformity of size. Pimiento pieces usually are packed in
No. 2y2 cans and sold to restaurants, packers of cheese, and other
manufacturers who use pimientos in flavoring foods.
Though the grades set up by the Department of Agriculture do
mention a Standard grade, none of these were found m marketing
localities.
It is true, however, that there are considerable qualitative differences
between various parts of the pack of the same canners, the higher
quality commanding a market premium from some buyers.
Marketing Localities.
Fifty-three wholesalers visited in New York and Chicago had sold
in 1939 over 350,000 cases of pimientos.
New York.—Twenty-p'ght wholesalers, handling 152,500 cases of
pimientos in 1939, were interviewed. Relatively few of the brokers
visited had pimiento accounts and only 8 were seen who handled
pimientos in 1939. They accounted for 95,500 cases, of which more
than 99 percent were canned in Georgia. ‘ The presence of California
pimientos in New York City markets is associated with the presence
of sales offices of large California canners who carry pimientos to
round out their line of products. Twenty other distributors selling
pimientos were visited who sold about 57,000 cases of canned pimientos
in 1939. Of this amount also less than 1 percent came from California,
practically all coming from Georgia.
An interesting feature of the New York market for canned pi­
mientos has been the gradual disappearance, in the last years, of
imported Spanish pimientos, which were preferred by some buyers
because of their characteristic flavor. Difficulties of importation
have reduced the presence of these pimientos very markedly and
most of the firms previously importing from Spain now market
domestic pimientos from Georgia.
Chicago.—Twenty-five Chicago wholesalers visited had distributed
202.000 cases of pimientos in 1939. Twelve brokers handled a total of
about 163,000 cases, of which only 2,000 cases, or a little more than 1
percent, were from California, all the rest being from Georgia. The
163.000 cases included a considerable amount for industrial use.
Thirteen other distributors reported total sales of about 39,000 cases
in 1939. About 6 percent of these, or 2,500 cases, were from California,
well over 90 percent being produced in Georgia.
Since California prices are considerably higher than those of
Georgia, the emphasis placed on Fancy Pack by California canners
would seem to be the chief reason for selling any California pimientos
at all in Chicago.
Judging from the almost complete absence of California pimientos
from the markets of both Chicago and New York, it is safe to conclude
that very few California pimientos are sold in the Middle West or the




17

PIMIENTOS

East. Georgia manufacturers would be, of course, at even greater
advantage in the South, since freight costs to markets would be less.
The only area of competition between California and Georgia pimientos would appear to be that west of the Rockies. Georgia pimientos
are marketed even there.
Delivered Prices.
The absence of California pimientos in significant quantities from
the Chicago and New York markets is explained by the difference in
delivered cost to these cities. (See appendix table III.) In Chicago
the delivered price per dozen 4-ounce cans ranged for Georgia from
41 to 54 cents, for California 55 to 80 cents. These prices do not even
overlap. Similarly, per dozen 7-ounce cans the ranges were 68 to
79y2 cents for Georgia, 96 cents to $1.33 for California.
Georgia pimientos dominated the New York market for the same
reason. The delivered price per dozen 4-ounce cans was Georgia
41% to 54 cents, California 54 to 78 cents; per dozen 7-ounce cans,
Georgia 69 to 79y2 cents, California 94% cents to $1.29.
Competitive Factors.
The Crop Reporting Board of the Department of Agriculture re­
ports the following prices paid by canners to growers. Judging by
prices for the three years given in table 3, there would seem to be
no significant difference between the two producing regions in the
cost of fresh pimientos. However, there may be some qualitative dif­
ference in product, as the California pimientos are grown on irrigated
land while the Georgia pimientos are not.
Table 3.—Average price per ton received l)y grower, 1937 to 1939—PIMIENTOS

State

Average price per ton received by
grower
1937
$33. 40
33.80

1938
$32.10
33.30

1939
$32.60
27.30

Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Crop Reporting Board,
Truck and Canning Crop Reports.




COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS OF CANNED TOMATO
MARKETING
Trends in Production.
Though individual tomato canning regions vary considerably in
relative importance from year to year as crop failure or abundance
alfects the yield of tomatoes and as prospects of profit change, appar­
ently there was little or no shift in the relative position of the major
tomato-canning States in the 7 years 1933 to 1939 covered by table 4.
Table 4.—Total cases packed in United States and proportions packed in major

producing States, 1933 to 1939—TOMATOES
[Basis: 24 No. 2 cans to the case]
Percent of total produced in—
Year

1933.___ _____________
1934
1935
1936
1937..._____ __________
1938
1939

Total num­
ber of cas

Maryland,
New Jer­
sey, and
Delaware

New
York

20,460,903
22, 376, 349
26. 984, 642
24. 208, 740
26, 076,094
22, 960,184
24, 209,434

Virginia
and West
Virginia

Indiana
and Ohio

25.1
31.6
29.4
33.8
25.2
24.3
26.1

8.1
7.7
11.7
7.2
7.4
8.0
6.7

17.7
19.6
16.3
15.9
17.3
19.2
21.0

4.0
5.6
4.2
3.9
4.0
4.9
5.9

Cali­
fornia

Other
States

13.1
19.7
15.2
19.5
16.3
11.7
15.3

32.0
15.8
23.2
19.7
29.8
31.9
25.0

Source: National Canners Association, Canned Food Pack Statistics, 1937, 1939.

No figures are available on pack, carry-over, and shipment of toma­
toes for the United States as a whole. Data are available for the
United States exclusive of California and for California separately,
but since they are for years beginning respectively July 1 and June 1,
the figures cannot be combined. Table 5 shows these separate data.
Table 5.—Carry-over, pack, and shipments of canned TOMATOES in actual cases

of all sizes, 1936 to 19^0
Number of cases (thousands)
1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

A.— United States, not including California
(:year beginning July 1)
Carry-over
Pack.................................... .........................

946
17, 513
16,877

1,582
19, 950
19,031

2,501
18, 259
17, 689

3,071
18, 240
18', 742

526
3, 504
2,936

1,095
3,045
2, 371

1, 769
1,994
3,117

647
2, 769

2,669

B.—California (year beginning June 1)
Pack________________ __________ ____

Source: National Canners Association. Production Planning Statistics, 1940, p. 18; ibid., News Letter
of July 17, 1940. Western Canner and Packer, Year Book, 1940, p. 172.

18




19

TOMATOES

Retrenchments in pack in 1938 occurred both in California and in
the rest of the United States and amounted to about 2.7 million actual
cases (3.1 million converted cases). There was a further retrench­
ment of minor extent in the pack for 1939 in States other than Cali­
fornia, but the considerable recovery in the California pack more
than compensated for such decrease.
Labor Costs.
Average hourly earnings of canning workers on tomatoes varied
more by State than did earnings on other products. The figures
following show hourly earnings for the major producing States that
probably are representative also for the States adjacent to them in­
cluded in the production figures. Detailed earnings data by occupa­
tion and by State will be found in appendix tables VI and VII.
Number of productive
btate

Average hourly

earnings reported

(cents)

New York---------------------4, 519
Maryland------------------------------------- 2,408
Virginia--------------------------------------624
Indiana---------------------------------------- 0, 963
California 7, 852

30. 6
25. 3
17.3
30. 3
46. 9

The rate for Virginia is only 37 percent of that for California.
The Indiana rate is about the same as that for New York, and Mary­
land is somewhat lower.
Such figures as are available on labor costs per case of 24 No. 2
cans of Standard tomatoes indicate that they would range from 10.5
to 15 cents a case in Maryland, from 17.6 to 23.2 cents a case in
Indiana, and would be less than 10 cents in Virginia. California
costs usually are based on cases of No. 2(4 cans and therefore are not
strictly comparable, but they appear to be higher even when the
difference in can size has been taken into account.
Distribution by Producing States.
Maryland* New Jersey, and Delaware (Tri-State).—As with other
products, the Tri-State Packers Association estimates that about 75
to 80 percent of the Tri-State pack of tomatoes is sold outside the
States in which it is produced, chiefly in eastern markets, with some
going to the Middle West.
California.—With respect to California tomatoes, there seem to be
one group of canners who concentrate their attention on local markets
within the State and another group who manufacture with an eye
to markets outside the State. These divergent tendencies between
groups of canners are associated to some extent with the ratio of
canned tomatoes to tomato products and juice.
Judging by the size of the groups of canners reporting in these
two classes, it is estimated that from 60 to 70 percent of the tomatoes
packed in California go out of the State. The markets for California
tomatoes are the Eastern seaboard, the Gulf States, and the North­
west, in the order named. It may be noted that California tomatoes
are sold almost exclusively in those localities where a water rate
makes shipping costs low.
Indiana and Ohio.—The Indiana Canners Association and a num­
ber of field brokers were consulted on the Indiana tomato-canning
situation. Since the Ohio canneries are in a position quite similar




20

COMPETITIVE MAHKET CONDITIONS IN CANNED GOODS

to that of Indiana canneries, and since the field brokers visited also
handled Ohio tomatoes, Ohio was included in the estimates of dis­
tribution. From the various estimates it is safe to say that not
more than 20 percent, probably only 10 or 15 percent, of the tomatoes
packed in Indiana and Ohio are sold within these States. The chief
markets for Indiana tomatoes are, of course, in the Middle West, to
such cities as Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Kansas
City, and so forth, but they are sold also in eastern markets such as
Boston, New York, and Philadelphia.
New York.—New York tomatoes are able to command satisfactory
prices in local markets and probably over 80 percent of the total
pack is sold within the State.
Grading.
The grading practices already referred to in the general descrip­
tion of grading, page 5, are applicable to tomatoes. No special
features can be added in so far as tomatoes are concerned except
that in 1940 tomatoes were among the few products for which the
Food and Drug Administration had set standards of quality,
identity, and fill.
Marketing Localities.
Sixty-nine wholesalers visited in New York and Chicago were
reported to have sold almost one-fifth of the 1939 domestic tomato
pack.
New York.—The New York market for canned tomatoes uses both
domestic and imported (Italian) tomatoes. It is by far the largest
single market for imported tomatoes, consuming some 50 percent of
the total United States imports, according to estimates of a number
of importers and of the Italian Chamber of Commerce in New York
City. The imports of Italian canned tomatoes were reported at
almost 551/2 million pounds in 1939, and this amounts to something
more than a million cases of No. 3 cans, half of which New York
is reputed to consume. This figure agrees with the estimates of
several importers interviewed. Five hundred thousand cases of No.
3 cans are the equivalent of about 850,000 cases of No. 2 cans, so
Italian imported tomatoes form a considei able part of the total New
York consumption; this in spite of the fact that imported Italian
tomatoes sold in New York wholesale at a minimum of about $2.15
a dozen No. 3 cans, equivalent to at least $1.25 a dozen for No. 2
cans, somewhat higher than the highest delivered cost of any domestic
tomatoes.
However, these tomatoes follow a rather different channel of mar­
keting from that of other canned tomatoes, as a considerable quantity
are sold directly to retailers by the importers and the rest go mainly
to wholesale houses dealing in Italian specialties; hence they do not
form an appreciable part of the sales of the distributors visited.
At present, imports are negligible due to war conditions, and it is
possible that the California product, which of all domestic tomatoes
is most similar to the Italian variety, may enjoy a favorable market.
Forty-five New York wholesalers, handling about two and one-half
million cases of domestic tomatoes in 1939, were visited. The 25
brokers reported a little in excess of a million cases of sales from




TOMATOES

21

domestic sources, of which about 40 percent came from the Tri­
States, about 20 percent each from New York and California, 10 to
15 percent from Indiana-Ohio, and 5 to 10 percent from Pennsyl­
vania. The 20 other distributors interviewed (jobbers, chain stores,
and importing jobbers) reported in excess of a million and a hall
cases handled in 1939 from domestic sources, about 70 percent from
the Tri-States, 10 percent each from New York and Indiana-Ohio,
5 to 10 percent from Pennsylvania, and amounts of around 1 percent
each from California, Virginia, West Virginia, and Michigan.
Because of the part played by field brokers, from whom no returns
were obtained, the figures from brokers significantly underestimate
the percentage of canned tomatoes received from the Tri-States,
while the figures from wholesalers probably overestimate the impor­
tance of the Tri-States, as they do not include a number of Italian
firms dealing in California tomatoes. Combining the two sources
of information, it is estimated that about 60 percent of New York’s
domestic canned tomatoes come from the Tri-States, about 15 percent
each from New York and Indiana, 5 to 10 percent each from Penn­
sylvania and California, with fractions of 1 percent each coming
from Virginia, West Virginia, and Michigan.
Chicago.—Twenty-four Chicago wholesalers, who sold about 2 mil­
lion cases of tomatoes in 1939, were interviewed. Ten brokers reported
sales of about 950,000 cases during the year. Of this total about 90
percent were from Indiana and Ohio, from 2 to 5 percent each from
Michigan and Illinois, and less than 1 percent each from Wisconsin
and New York. The 14 other distributors, comprising jobbers, chains,
voluntary chains, and manufacturing jobbers, reported about one mil­
lion cases sold—85 to 90 percent from Indiana and Ohio, 6 percent
from Michigan, 2 to 4 percent each from the Tri-States, Utah, and
California, and a small amount from Illinois.
The two groups of wholesalers show about the same sources of pro­
duction for tomatoes in Chicago. The Indiana-Ohio producing region
supplies the overwhelming amount of Chicago’s canned tomatoes.
Competition in the 10 to 15 percent of the remaining market is
widespread.
Delivered Prices.
New York.—By far the largest amount of Standard tomatoes sold
in New York are produced in the Tri-States and had delivered price
ranges of 58i/2 to 72 cents per dozen No. 2 cans in 1939. California
No. 2 Standards ranged from 78 to 96y2 cents; however, the California
pack is sweeter in taste and contains puree from trimmings which make
it a somewhat different product. It is on this basis that Standard
California tomatoes are sold in the New York market.
New York Standards sell from 7y2 to liy2 cents higher per dozen
in New York City than Tri-State Standard tomatoes, and IndianaOhio Standard tomatoes sell at a similarly higher price level. From
statements of brokers and wholesale distributors it would appear that
the bulk of tomatoes sold in New York City from New York State
and Indiana canneries are Extra Standard and Fancy in grade.
Chicago.—Close to 90 percent of canned tomatoes sold in Chicago
are produced in Indiana and Ohio, while less than 5 percent are Tri­
State tomatoes. The delivered prices of No. 2 Standard cans are




22

COMPETITIVE MARKET CONDITIONS IN CANNED GOODS

about 2 cents less per dozen for the Midwest pack than for that of the
Tri-States. Since the quality of the Indiana-Ohio output is equal to
if not better than that of the Tri-States, it would seem that lower de­
livered price is the largest factor in accounting for the predominance
of Indiana-Ohio produced tomatoes in the Chicago market.
Other Marketing Localities.
The following distribution of product is estimated for the major
producing States:
1. Tri-State tomatoes are sold chiefly on the eastern seaboard and
in the South.
2. Virginia and West Virginia tomatoes are sold chiefly in the
Southeast.
3. Indiana and Ohio tomatoes are sold in the Midwest and also to
some extent in the East.
4. California tomatoes are sold on the west and the east coasts.
5. New York tomatoes are sold chiefly in adjacent markets.




COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS OF CANNED GREEN
AND WAX BEAN MARKETING
Trends in Production.
Green and wax beans are produced in all sections of the United
States. Considerable quantities are canned in a far larger number of
States than any other of the three canned vegetables with which this
report is concerned. The National Canners Association lists 15 States
or groups of States that canned more than 100,000 cases of beans in
1939, from California, which canned 107,285 cases, to Maryland and
Delaware, which canned 2,057,896 cases.
Tablb 6.—Total cases packed in United States and proportions packed in major
producing States, 1933 to 1939— GREEN AND WAX BEANS
[Basis=24 No. 2 cans to the case]
Percent of total produced in—
Year

Total num­
ber of
cases

1933______ __________ 5, 531,865
1934..___ __________
6,300, 362
1935.................... ........... 7,161,107
1936____________
6, 629, 469
1937______________
10,051,843
1938______ _____ ____ 10. 914, 997
1939-....... ............ .......... 8,486, 770

New
York

16.8
17.6
15.4
15.9
12.9
13.0
11.8

Maryland
and
Delaware

California,
Oregon,
Michigan "Wiscon­ and Wash­
sin
ington

23.1
20.8
18.8
25.4
22.8
22.3
24.2

9.8
8.6
10.7
6.2
6.1
7.4
6.8

9.5
12.6
11.1
9.3
8.8
10.7
12.2

Other
States
35.7
27.9
30.2
25.5
29.5
30.2
32.6

5.1
12.4
13.8
17.7
20.0
16.4
12.3

Source: National Canners Association. Canned Food Pack Statistics, 1937,1939.

The table indicates that in the 7 years 1933 to 1939 the percentage
of total United States pack declined in New York and Michigan,
maintained its general level in Maryland and Wisconsin, and increased
considerably in the far western area. The increase on the Pacific coast
was chiefly in Oregon.
The total pack for the United States in 1939 was considerably cur­
tailed in comparison with the 1938 pack (2,428,327 standard cases—
basis 24 No. 2 cans). Table 7 shows the position of the industry with
respect to pack, carry-over, and shipments, and indicates that 1940
reductions m carry-over were achieved by the 1939 curtailments in
pack rather than by increased sales.
Table 7.—Carry-over, pack, and shipments of canned GREEN AND WAX

BEANS in actual cases of all sizes, years beginning July 1,1937 to 191fi
Number of cases (thousands)
1937

Shipments__________________________________ ___

74
9, 539
8, 646

1938
967
10,332
9,285

1939

1940

2,014
8,056
9, 301

769

Source: National Canners Association, Production Planning Statistics, 1940, p. 21; ibid., News Letter
of July 17, 1940.




23

24

COMPETITIVE MARKET CONDITIONS IN CANNED GOODS

Labor Costs.
There is considerable variation in the average hourly earnings of
labor in the major producing regions for canned green and wax
beans. Though the Women’s Bureau study of earnings in the can­
ning industry for 1939 did not cover all sections canning green beans,
the following averages are available:
State

Number of productive
workers with hourly
earnings reported

Arkansas 946
New York2, 403
Maryland2,151
Wisconsin2, 821
Washington and California________
Texas-------,

734
229

Average hourly
earnings (cents)

23.7
27.3
25.8
27.3
M7.0
20.9

1 Washington 45.5 cents an hour, California 50.3. Oregon rates equivalent to or
better than Washington, according to data in Women's Bureau flies.

The far western States had the highest rates, almost 90 percent
higher than the Federal Wage and Hour minimum for that season
and 72 percent higher than the rates for New York and Wisconsin.
Maryland rates were iy2 cents lower than the 27.3 of New York and
Wisconsin.
Distribution by Producing States.
Maryland and Delaware.—Estimates from the Tri-State Packers
Association indicate that between 75 and 80 percent of the MarylandDelaware pack is sold outside the producing States.
Michigan and Wisconsin.—No reports were obtained directly from
Michigan or Wisconsin canners’ associations, but judging by the con­
siderable volume of Michigan and Wisconsin green beans handled
in Chicago and the proximity of these States to a large middlewestern marketing locality it may be assumed that at least a large
part of the pack of beans in these States is sold outside the State of
origin.
New York.—No information on the extent of the market for New
York beans was obtained from canners or associations in the State.
The broker and wholesale distributors visited in Chicago reported
about 10 percent of their beans as coming from New York State,
while the New York City wholesalers and brokers obtained about onethird of their beans from New York. Since New York beans do
enter the Chicago market to a certain extent, though it is compara­
tively close to the bean-canning States of Wisconsin and Michigan,
the assumption may be made that the New York product is marketed
to some degree in the Middle West, and of course to a larger degree in
the Middle Atlantic States and New England.
Washington, Oregon, and California.—From interviews with field
brokers handling California green beans and from conversations with
canners in California, it is judged that between 80 and 85 percent of
California beans are sold within the State, and that production in
California is directed to local use._ Though no figures were obtained
in the Washington-Oregon bean-canning region, the understanding
among brokers in the marketing localities is that northwestern
(Washington and Oregon) beans, being of a special variety and
quality, sold very largely outside the States in which they were
produced.




GREEN AND WAX BEANS

25

Grading.
The individual feature in bean grading is that beans are packed
in a wide variety of styles. Grading specifications as set by the
Department of Agriculture rate beans only on the basis of uniformity
of kind, color, quality of liquor, freedom from discoloration, tough­
ness, strings and defects, and flavor. In addition to these factors,
they may be green or wax beans, they may be packed whole or cut,
vertically or in a jumble pack; and there are packed also some
French-style sliced beans.
Distributors in market localities may buy all or most of their
Standard beans from one region, and their Choice or Fancy grades
from another. Thus competition between producing regions may
be directly related to the grades of beans packed. For example,
Washington and Oregon beans apparently are purchased in limited
quantities by a number of distributors because of their quality. In
general, demand for certain qualities and varieties of beans is
closely related to the States from which beans are purchased.
The Fancy or Grade A beans must score 90 points or better on the
criteria set by the Department of Agriculture as described in an
earlier paragraph. Extra Standard or Grade B beans are not quite
so tender or uniform; the quality of the liquor is only reasonably
clear; the beans are reasonably free from discoloration, toughness,
strings, and defects; they possess a desirable bean flavor and score not
less than 75 points. Standard or Grade C beans are less high-grade
than Extra Standards in all respects and score not less than 60
points.
Marketing Localities.
Seventy-two wholesalers visited in New York and Chicago sold
more than three-tenths of the 1939 bean pack.
New York.—Forty-seven wholesalers of 1,300,000 cases of snap
beans were scheduled in New York. The 26 brokers visited reported
about 700,000 cases sold during the year. Of this amount it was
estimated that about 40 percent came from New York, about 25 to
30 percent each from the Northwest and the Tri-States, about 5 per­
cent from Pennsylvania, and small amounts, not exceeding 1 percent,
from Michigan and Wisconsin. The 21 other distributors handled
well over 600,000 cases. From the estimates as to source of supply
made by them, about 35 percent of the total came from the Tri­
States, 30 percent from New York, 10 to 15 percent each from the
Northwest and Michigan, and from 2 to 5 percent each from
Pennsylvania, Texas, Louisiana, Maine, and other States (midwestern).
Both of these sources are subject to some error insofar as repre­
senting the New York market is concerned. Brokers do not repre­
sent certain canners who sell direct, and the distributors include some
sales made outside the New York district. Adjusting for these two
errors, it is estimated that of the supply of canned beans for New
York about one-third comes from New York and one-third from the
Tri-States, about one-sixth from the Northwest, from 5 to 10 percent
each from Pennsylvania and the Middle West, and relatively minor
amounts from the Southwest and from Maine.
Chicago.—Twenty-five wholesalers, who sold 1,350,000 cases of
green beans, were visited in Chicago. The 11 brokers visited re­




26

COMPETITIVE MARKET CONDITIONS IN CANNED GOODS

ported about 800,000 cases sold during the year. Of this about 60
percent came from Wisconsin, about 10 percent each from Michigan
and New York, between 5 and 10 percent from Maryland, and from
1 to 5 percent from Arkansas, Indiana, the Northwest, and Georgia.
Only a negligible quantity of California beans were sold. The 14
other distributors interviewed (including jobbers, chains, and volun­
tary chains, as well as manufacturing jobbers) reported about 550,000
cases sold, with Wisconsin contributing between 35 and 40 percent
of the total, Michigan 25 to 30 percent, Tri-States 15 to 20 percent,
New York about 10 percent, the Northwest about 5 percent, Indiana,
Ozark area, Louisiana, and Mississippi less than 1 percent each, and
Illinois and California insignificant amounts.
A combination of these figures from brokers and distributors would
indicate that the most important producing States selling canned
snap beans in Chicago are Wisconsin, Michigan, Tri-States, and New
York, in the order named, with additional smaller amounts coming
from Washington, Oregon, Arkansas, and Missouri.
Delivered Prices.
Delivered prices on beans are not very suitable figures from which
to develop the pattern of competition between regions of production,
because beans are canned in a number of ways as well as in different
grades. However, since the major proportion of canned beans con­
sumed probably are Standard cut beans, figures for these can be
compared.
In New York, Standard cut No. 2 delivered prices per dozen cans
of snap beans were—
New York-------------------------------------------------$0. 65 to$0. 77
Tri-State-------------------------------------------------. 56 to . 72

In Chicago, delivered prices per dozen for Standard cut No. 2
beans were—
Michigan and Wisconsin$0. 63
to $0. 81
New York--------------------------------------.69% to
Tri-State---------------------------------------.62% to

.80%
.77%

Tri-State beans, even with shipping costs added, were cheaper than
nearby Michigan and Wisconsin beans. For Fancy cut beans, New
York delivered prices were slightly lower than those of Michigan
and Wisconsin, but the supply from the Northwest was bought in
spite of its higher price range of $1.17 to $1.27 per dozen delivered.
Other Marketing Localities.
The following distribution of product is estimated for the major
bean-packing States:
1. Northwest beans are sold in many sections of the United States,
though they appear only in limited quantities in any one
market.
2. New York beans are sold in both the East and the Middle West.
3. Tri-State beans are sold in the East, the Middle West, and the
South.
4. Michigan and Wisconsin beans are sold chiefly in the Mississippi
Valley.
5. California beans are sold almost wholly within the State.




APPENDIX TABLES
Table

I.—Average hourly earnings of employees in season of 1939, ~by State and occupation SPINACH
Employees with hours worked reported

Total

Time workers Piece work ers

Total

Preparers

Key positions

State

Other pro­
ductive

Maintenance Outside yard
and custodial
ana
workers
wo rkers

WO rkers

Aver­
Aver­
Aver­
Aver­
Aver­
Aver­
Aver­
Aver­
Aver­
Aver­
age
age
age
age
age
age
age
age
age
age
hourly
hourly Num­ hourly Num­ hourly Num­ hourly Num­ hourly Num­ hourly Num­ hourly Num­ hourly Num­
Num­ hourly Num­
ber
earn­
ber
earn­ ber
earn­
earn­
earn­ ber
earn­ ber
earn­ ber
ber earn­ ber
earn­ ber
earn­ ber
ings
ings
ings
ings
ings
ings
ings
ings
ings
ings
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
Arkansas............................. 1, 457
California.........—...............- 4,781
613
Maryland
160
87
Texas ................... -.............

25.3 1,457
46.8 2, 662
477
26.0
160
28.0
87
20.9

25.3
47.8 2,119
27.2
136
28.0
20.9

1, 387
45.6 4, 654
21.9
602
151
85

892
25.1
46.5 2, 319
390
25.8
98
27.5
42
20.8

25.0
43.4
25.1
25.0
18.8

46
128
16
6
9

449
27. 1
63.2 2, 207
(>)
196
47
(0
<0
34

25.2
48.8
26.5
29.5
<9

40
78
7
8
2

26.5
60.3
<0
(>)
CO

23
6

co
CO

1

CO

7
43
4

APPENDIX TABLES

Productive workers

All occupations

w
58.6
0)

i Not computed; base too small.




to

28

COMPETITIVE MARKET CONDITIONS IN CANNED GOODS

Table

II.—Distribution of employees according to hourly earnings in season
of 19S9, by State—SPINACH
Hourly earnings

Total

Number of employees with hours

7,098

Cali­
fornia

Arkansas

1,457

4,781

Mary­
land

New
York

613

Texas

87

160

Percent distribvtion
1.4
.2
.6
25.7
4.0
2.5
3.9
6.7
4.4
2.1
10.2
4.3
4.3
29.7

0.1
.3
.6
1.7
1.7
5.1
9.6
6.3
3.0
15.1
6.2
6.3
43.9

95.1
3.0
1.2
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1

10.1
1.3
5.1
41.9
25.3
7.3
4.1
1.6
1.1
.3
.3
.3
.5
.7

41.4
3.4
68.1
.6
21.3
.6
2.5
1.3
.6

51.7
2.3
1.1

1.3
3.8

III.—P. o. b. cannery prices, shipping costs, and delivered prices at
Chicago and New York of canned SPINACH, PIHIENTOS, TOMATOES, AND
SNAP BEANS in 19391

Table

Chicago

Canning State and grade

F. o. b.
price range
per dozen

Low

High

Shipping
cost range
per dozen
Low

High

New York

Delivered
cost range
per dozen
Low

High

Shipping
cost range
per dozen
Low

High

Delivered
cost range
per dozen
Low

High

SPINACH
Arkansas-Missouri No. 2___ $0.60 $0. 75
California No. 2___________ .85
1.10
Maryland and Delaware
No. 2
.725
.90
New York No. 2
.75
.85
Texas No. 2---------------------- .55
.70

$0. 085 $0.085 $0. 685 $0. 835 $0.12
.17
.17
1.02
1. 27
.13
.10
.095
.125

.10
.105
.125

.825
.845
.675

1.00
.955
.825

.035
.05
.09

$0.145 $0.72
.225
.98
.045
.07
.105

.76
.80
.64

$0. 895
1.325
.945
.92
.805

PIMIENTOS »
California:
Georgia:

0. 51
.90
.385
.645

0. 75
1.25
.51
.75

0.55
.96
0.025
.035

0. 03
.045

.41
.68

0.80
1.33
.54
.795

0. 54
.945

0.78
1.29

0. 03
.045

0.03
.045

.415
.69

.54
.795

0. 05
.05
.05

0. 07
.07
.07

0.95
.725
.70

1.17
.82
.795

.835
.71
.585

1.045
.795
.72

TOMATOES
New York:
Fancy No. 2
0.90
Extra standard No. 2_
_
.675
Standard No. 2............... - .65
Tri-State:
Fancy No. 2__________
.80
Extra standard No. 2___ .675
Standard No. 2________
.55
Indiana:
Fancy No. 2_______ _
1.05
Extra standard No. 2___ .70
Standard No. 2
.60
California:
Fancy No. 2-_.................
.80
Standard No. 2
.65

1.10
.75
.725

New York tomatoes not sold
in Chicago.

1.00
.75
.675

0.10
.10
.10

1.10
.85
.70
1.05
.825

.035
.035
.035

0.10
.10
.10

0.90
.775
.65

1.10
.85
.775

.035
.035
.035

.045
.045
.045

.06
.06
.06

1.085
.735
.635

1.16
.91
.76

.09
.09
.09

.10
. 10
.10

1.14
.79
.69

1.20
.95
.80

.13
.13

. 14
.14

.93
.78

1.19
.965

California tomatoes not sold
in Chicago.

1 Transportation costs were obtained from the railroads, the truck lines, the steamship companies, and
the freight conference associations. These rates were recorded for each type of carrier used in a particular
movement of goods. Ranges of rates were recorded, from the lowest possible cost to the highest cost per
dozen at which any appreciable quantities of canned vegetables moved from factory to market. The figures
do not include terminal charges.
* California pimientos not sold in significant quantities in either New York or Chicago.




29

APPENDIX TABLES

Table III.—F. o. b. cannery prices, shipping costs, and delivered prices at

Chicago and New York of canned SPINACH, PIMIENTOS, TOMATOES, AND
SNAP BEANS in 1939—Continued
Chicago
F. o. b.
price range
per dozen

Canning State and grade

Low

Shipping
cost range
per dozen

High

Low

High

New York

Delivered
cost range
per dozen
Low

Shipping
cost range
per dozen

High

Low

Delivered
cost range
per dozen

High

Low High

BEANS
New York:
Fancy whole No. 2.. ___
Fancy cut No. 2_______
Extra standard cut No. 2_
Standard cut No. 2
Tri-State:
Fancy whole No. 2
Fancy cut No. 2
Extra standard cut No. 2.
Standard cut No. 2 ____
Michigan. (See prices for
Wisconsin.)
Wisconsin:
Fancy whole No. 2
Fancy cut No. 2
Extra standard No. 2___
Standard cut No. 2
Northwest:
Fancy whole No. 2....... __
Fancy cut No. 2______
Extra standard cut No. 2_
Standard cut No. 2
Pennsylvania. (See prices
for New York.)

$1.00 $1.40
.90
1.00
.625
.75
.GO
.70

$0.095 $0.105 $1.095 $1. 505 $0.05
.095
. 105
.995 1.105
.05
.095
.105
.72
.855
.05
.095
.695
.105
.805
.05

$0. 07
.07
.07
.07

$1.05
.95
.675
.65

$1.47
1.07
.82
.77

1.00
.90
.65
.525

1.40
1.00
.75
.675

.10
.10
.10
.10

.10
.10
.10
.10

1.10
1.00
.75
.625

1.50
1.10
.85
.775

.035
.035
.035
.035

.045
.045
.045
.045

1.035
.935
.685
.56

1.445
1.045
.795
.72

1.10
.80
.675
.60

1.50
1.10
.85
.75

.03
.03
.03
.03

.06
.06
.06
.06

1.13
.83
.705
.63

1.56
1.16
.91
.81

.09
.09
.09
.09

.13
.13
.13
.13

1.19
.89
.765
.69

1.63
1.23
.98
.88

1. 00
1.00
.80
.75

1.50
1.10
1.00
.80

.17
.17
.17
.17

.17
.17
.17
.17

1.17
1.17
.97
.92

1. 67
1.27
1.17
.97

.13
.13
.13
.13

.15
.15
.15
.15

1.13
1.13
.93
.88

1.65
1.25
1.15
.95

Table IV.—Average hourly earnings of employees in season of 1939, by State

and occupation—PIMIENTOS
Employees with hours worked reported
Productive workers

Outside
yard and
truck
workers

Cannery
office
workers

Average hourly
earnings (cents)

Number

Average hourly
earnings (cents)

Number

Average hourly
earnings (cents)

Number

Average hourly
earnings (cents)

Number

Average hourly
earnings (cents)

Number

Average hourly
earnings (cents)

Number

Average hourly
earnings (cents)

!

Mainte­
nance and
custodial
workers

Number

State

Other pro­
ductive
1

Preparers

1

Total

Key posi­
tions

California__ 987
Georgia____ 1, 628

38.0
20.7

654
971

37.1
18.7

14
44

(*)
31.8

319
613

39.2
23.1

16
14

p)
o)

24

0)

4
51

28.8

'Not computed; base too small.




30
Table

COMPETITIVE MARKET CONDITIONS IN CANNED GOODS

V.—Distribution of employees according to hourly earnings in season of
1939, by State—PIM1ENTOS
Hourly earnings

California
1,007

Georgia
1,717

Percent distribuiion
0.1
1.4
.6
3.1
8.8
7.5
2.4
19.2
4.2
9.0
8.3
7.4
10.7
4.6
12.8
140 cents and over.




7.8
5.6
11.5
4.8
7.6
7.7
6.3
33.8
7.2
2.3
2.5
.7
1.1
1.9

Table VI.—Average hourly earnings of employees in season of 1939, by State and occupation—TOMATOES
Employees with hours worked reported
Productive workers

All occupations
Total

Piece
workers

Total

Preparers

Key posi­
tions

Other pro­
ductive

Maintenance Outside yard
and custodial
and truck
workers
workers

Cannery
office
workers

AverAverAverAverAverAverAverAverAverAverage
age
age
age
age
age
age
age
age
age
Num- hourly Num- hourly Num- hourly Num- hourly Num- hourly Num- hourly Num- hourly Num- hourly Num- hourly Num- hourly
ber
ber
ber
ber
ber
ber
ber
ber
earnearn- ber
earnearnearnearnearn- ber
earnearnearnings
ings
ings
ings
ings
mgs
mgs
mgs
mgs
mgs
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
443
8,046
170
Illinois..................................
984
10, 710
Iowa..- ............................
1,593
Maryland.................. .......... 2, 550
New York....... ......... ...... - 4,822
Texas
1,161
656
Wisconsin______ _____
1,116
California___ _

16.9
47.3
22. 4
41.0
30.7
31.3
25.4
31.5
20.1
17.3
27.4

443
4, 891
170
982
9,591
1, 462
2, 226
4, 646
1,064
624
925

16.9
49.6 3,155
22. 4
40.9
2
30.8 1,119
31.6
131
25.4
324
31.4
176
20.5
97
17.1
32
191
27.3

413
43.8 7,852
166
(o
871
29.8 9,963
28.3 1,491
25.3 2. 408
34.4 4, 519
14.9 1,118
(!)
624
27.9 1,068

16.7
185
46.9 3, 723
27
22.3
38.5
425
30.3 4,560
30.7
991
25.3
838
30.6 2,705
19.9
347
17.3
136
760
27.1

16.0
43.1
0)
32.5
27.8
28.2
24.7
27.0
18.2
17.4
25.6

36
184
11
85
373
96
81
200
61
65
36

19.7
60.9
(i)
49.5
39.8
39.0
32.4
46. 2
25.8
22.1
34.5

192
3, 945
128
361
5,030
404
1,489
1, 614
710
423
272

16.8
49.9
21.5
42.9
31.9
35.0
25.2
34.8
20.3
16.6
30.2

19
123
3
77
342
57
33
137
31
7
23

0)
61.9
0)
61.1
40.1
42.0
31.5
50.7
o)
to

w

5
20
1
23
327
25
96
105
7
23
13

(*)
(*)
to
(>)
31.0
C)
24.5
37.4
o)
m
(‘

6
51

(i)
59.8

13
78
20
13
61
5
2
12

to
32.9
p)
w
44.5
«

APPENDIX TABLES

State

Time
workers

(■)

1 Not computed; base too small.




CO

CO

to

VII.—Distribution of employees according to hourly earnings in season of 1939, by State—TOMATOES

Hourly earnings

Total

Number of employees with hours
worked reported.......................... .

20 cents
21, under 25 cents _________________ __
25 cents 30 cents_____ ____ _____ _____________

1 Less than 0.05 percent.




V

Arkansas

California

Florida

Illinois

Indiana

32, 251

443

8,046

170

984

10,710

0.6
3.2
1.0
4.0
2.0
22.5
9.8
9.3
9.6
7.4
3. 1
3.0
5.4
1.6
2. 7
14. 7

11.3
61.6
2.9
8.8
.2
13.5
.9
.5
.2

0.2

2. 4
15.9
2.9
17.6
1.2
55.3

(1)

.5
.2
1.0
.6
2.6
.9
3.9
3.6
5.5
4. 0
18.9
2.5
7.4
48. 2

2.9
.6
1. 2

4.2
.1
10.7
9. 0
14.4
10.0
4.9
.5
4. 2
1. 5
.9
13.9
25. 7

Iowa

1,593

Percent distribution
0. 4
.3
.9
2.2
0.4
1.8
5.8
32.0
21.1
17.8
5. 8
14.7
12.9
22.0
6. 5
14.8
6.8
4.0
1. 7
1.6
13. 7
1.3
.8
1. 8
2. 6
.7
1.0
2. 6
1. 9

Maryland

New York

2,550

4,822

0.1
2. 7
2. 4
10.6
5.8
47.3
18. 7
7.9
1.0
1.6
.2
.9
.2
.1
.1
.5

0. 6
.2
.1
43.6
5.9
11.6
2.9
20.9
1.3
3. 3
.9
1.6
1. 1
6.0

Texas

Virginia

1,161

656

0.5
29.0
2. 5
39.5
.5
25.4
.6

9.1
46. 5
7. 9
28.2
3.4
2.3
.8
1.1
.2
.2

.3

.3

1.4

.2
.2

Wisconsin

1,116

0.1
8.5
50.4
8. 3
20.6
4.1
3.3
1.6
2.0
.4
.1
.2
.4

COMPETITIVE MARKET CONDITIONS IN CANNED GOODS

Table

Table VIII.—Average hourly earnings of employees in season of 1939, ~by State and occupation—SNAP BEANS
Employees with hours worked reported
All occupations
Piece
workers

Total

Preparers

Key posi­
tions

Other pro­
ductive

Maintenance Outside yard
and custodial
and truck
workers
workers

Cannery
office
workers

Iowa.......... ...................... .......
Maryland. _____ ________
New York........................
Texas__
Washington_____ ____ Wisconsin..........................

978
235
72
475
2,245
2,607
239
534
2,977

23.9
978
50.4
168
25.2
72
475
29.5
26.1 2,245
28.2 2. 595
239
21.4
499
45.9
28.0 2,974

23.9
45.1
25.2
29.5
26.1
28.2
21.4
45.2
27.9

67

12
35
3

946
231
72
457
2.151
(>)
2,403
229
56.2
503
0)
2,821
63.8

23.7
600
50.3
90
25.2
54
29.2
319
25.8 1,156
27.3 1,444
20.9
146
45.5
255
27.3 2,056

23.2
39.6
25. 1
27.3
24.4
24.4
19.7
40.1
25.0

31
10
7
30
71
129
17
10
153

(>>

«
p)
o

35.5
42.6
P>
0)
38.3

315
131
11
108
924
830
66
238
612

24.6
57.2
0)
32.8
26.8
30.0
22.5
50.8
32.5

>
►d

AverAver­
Aver­
Aver­
Aver­
Aver­
Aver­
Aver­
Aver­
Aver­
age
age
age
age
age
age
age
age
age
age
Num­ hourly Num­ hourly Num­ hourly Num­ hourly Num­ hourly Num­ hourly Num­ hourly Num­ hourly Num­ hourly Num­ hourly
ber earn­ ber
ber
ber
ber
ber
ber
ber
ber
ber
earn­
earn­
earn­
earn­
earn­
earn­
earn­
earn­
earnings
ings
ings
ings
ings
ings
ings
ings
ings
ings
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
(cents)
Arkansas..................... ........
California.............................

APPENDIX TABLES

Total
State

Time
workers

Productive workers

18
3

p>
p)

15
31
101
8
12
62

(>)
m

10
1

p)
p)

41.7

48
65

28.6
34.2

P)
40.7

2
44

(*)
33.8

(>)

4
3
15
38
2
17
50

P)

5
tl

ft
h-3

to
t-1

m
CP

P)
(>)
43.5
P)
P)
42.1

1 Not computed; base too small.




r
00
GO

CO

IX.—Distribution of employees according to hourly earnings in season of 1939, by State—SNAP BEANS

Hourly earnings
Number of employees with hours worked reported. _.

Total
10,362

Arkansas

California

Illinois

978

235

72

Maryland

Iowa
475

New York

2,245

2,607

Texas
239

Washington

1 Less than 0.05 percent.




1.2
79.1

3.8

95.8
4.2

3. 2
25.1
33. 4
9.3
23.8

2.1

4.4
.2

50.2

O

.6

1.6
.2
5.9
2.0
57. 5
18.3
9.6
1. 7
.8
.8
.6
.3
.1
.1
.5

2,977

534

Percent distribution
12J4 cents...............
15 cents_________
16, under 20 cents
20 cents_________
21, under 25 cents.
25 cents------------26, under 30 cents
30 cents. ......... —
31, under 35 cents.
35 cents_________
36, under 40 cents
40 cents...............
41, under 45 cents.
45 cents_________
46, under 50 c'mts
50 cents and er.

W isconsin

(■)
3.6
4.4
.9
54.1
3.3
12.9
3.0
8.7
.8
3.2
.9
1.1
.4
2.6

31.4
7.5
7.1

0.6
.1
70.1

50.2
2.1
.4
.8
.4

51.1
2.8
.6
.9
44.6

9.9
4.2
7.1
.8
2.9
.4
1.3
.2
1.7

COMPETITIVE MARKET CONDITIONS IN CANNED GOODS

Table