S 0 m E P R 0 8 L E m S 0 F fH E 0 H I 0 r~ P P L E I n 0 US T R Y

f ROm TH t P 0 I n T 0 F V I E lU 0 F T H E W H 0 L E S ~ L E R

by

Raymond c. Scott

Department of .~ .. rrioulturc 1 Eoonomios rnd Rur1 1 ~ooj ology

l·:imoogrnph Bulletin !Yo. 224

The Ohio State Universi~~

and

The Ohio Agriculturr.(l Experiment Station

Columbus, Ohio

~ .. pril 1951

CONTENTS "

Page

Introduotion•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• l

Sources of Apples Handled ••• ,................................. 2

Varieties Handled•••••••••••••••,••••••••••••·•••••••••••••••• 4

Grades Offered•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6

Types of Containers ••••••••••••.•••••• , •••••••••••••• _........ 7

Containers Preferred•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 9

Wholesalers P~eferences for Different ~es of Containers,,. 9

Retailers Preferences for Different Types of Containers,.... 11

Attitude Toward the Handling of Prepackaged Apples,, ••••• ,.,,, 12

Attitude Regardin~ the Enforcement of Grades•••••••••••••••••• 13

Problems Involved in Handling Ohio Apples,,,,,,.,............. 15

summary••••••·•····~········•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 18

INTRODUCTION

A lmowledge of the attitude and opinions of Wholesalers* concerning

the handling of apples is of importance to growers~ retailers, and others

who are interested in the marketing of apples. It is generally assumed

that Wholesalers reflect the thinking of the retailer who in turn reflects

the thinking of the consumer& The wholesaler or commission merchant may

influence the type or container used by a grower, the sizes packed, the

care exercised in ~rading~ and, in some cases, the time or period during

Which apples are marketed, Therefore~ Ohio gro~rs might benefit by a

knowledge of the thinking of wholesalers~ as we11 as retailersf con­

cerning the problems associated with handling their fruit.

This st~dy was conducted during November and December 1950 in an

effort to determine the attitudes of fruit and vegetable wholesalers

concerning different types of packages, the enforcement of grading laws,

problems associated with the handling of Ohio apples and the offerings

of apples from different sources on certain terminal markets. Wholesale

markets in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Pittsburgh, and Youngstown

were visited. A detailed record of apples offered by variety, souroe,

type of container end grade was obtained on the Cincinnati, Cleveland,

and Columbus wholesale markets. A retail survey was conducted in Cleve-

land during the period in which the wholesale survey was made. In this

survey, the condition of apples offered oonsumers 1 merchandising prao•

tioes~ and attitudes and preferences expressed by retailers were

included. The data collected in this survey will be included in a later

*~rimary receivers in the terminal markets. The term i~ used to include commission merchants. Y.uch of the loqal fruit is handled on a co~ mission basis.

- 2 -

report .. wi tL ::;i:~e tl;· ception of preferences expressed i or different t;ypes

of containers~ which is included in this report to reflect the differ-

ences in opinion betweeJ.1. wholesalers and retailers regarding: this S\!b-

ject.

The first surve~r was c-onducted in Cleveland .. November 14, 15, and

16., 1950., followed by surveys in Columbus .. r:ovenber 21., 22, and 24 ..

Youngstown., Deoe:,1ber 12 .• Pittsburgh, December 14, and Cinc:innat:l .. De-

cenber 201 1950.

hn attempt was n~de to interview all fruit e~d veretable whole-

salers and conn:tissjon merchants in the terninul narkets visited in or·io.

Those no+. located in the terminal market area .. who operated in ot·tlyinr

areas or otter pa1.·ts of the cities .. were .aot visited. Records wBre o'b-

tained from prirr ry receivers. Thus .. dupl:i cation was limited since

jobbers purchase most of their produce fron1 wholesalers or conmission

mer-chants. · ,hol0"'a lors or comr-ission mercl~ants wbo were either handl-

ing, Ohio apples or v1ho had 1-andled them were -visited in Pittsburgh.

SOt1RCE::3 OF APPLES P~ll. DLED

Since Oh ... o is an important jndustrial stnte with relatively higr

consumer i:womes, markets in the state provide excellent Ol>tlAts for

.apples. CompAtition is Jreen on the larre terl'linal markets in thE:; st..a"·e.

·-·hen the surveys were conducted in Cincinnati and Cleve land cluring Fo-

venber a·,1d Dece'!Tiber 1950 .. apples from 11 sta ';es and Britisr Columbia

were co~petin' for the buyers dollars. Apples from five states were

competi.Hf' or: he Youngstown wholesale marker., and from five states and

:,ri tisL ·:)olu:::ut.::_a on r,he Colum1Jus market.

- 3 -

More Wholesalers displayed Ohio apples than apples from any other

state. Of the 21 wholesalers (primary or first receivers) visited in

Cincinnati~ 15 had Ohio apples on display and 14 displayed Northwestern

apples., the second most important source in terms of the number of

wholesalers handli~g. This compared with 22 of the wholesalers in

Columbus displaying Ohio apples and 11 displaying Northwestern apples.

On the Cleveland market 20 of the 36 wholesalers displayed Ohio apples

and 17 displayed ~orthwestern apples. Eleven whole$alers in Columbus

had only OLio ~pples., compered with one in Cincinnati., and seven in

Cleveland.

The relative importance of the sources of Eastern and Midwestern

apples handled on these markets may be indicated by the proportion of

displays* from different sources (Table 1). Of the displays on the

Cincinnati and Cleveland Wholesale markets from Eastern and Midwestern

orche.J•ds~ Ohio a-pples made up about 43 and 46 percent I"espective;Ly, and

was followed in impoi"tanoe by New York apples., which made up about 25

percent of the diaplays on the C~oinnati market and 30 percent of those

on the Cleveland market. Michigan ranked third, making up about 10

percent of the displays in Cincinnati and 15 percent in Cleveland. Ohio

was by far the most important source of Midwestern and Eastern apples

handled by wholesalers in Columbus, supplying about 90 percent of the

lots of apples displayed.

* A display was defined as a variety of a given size and grade from one grower.

- 4 -

rAilLE J.• 'l.EL..'i'IVE H.PORTANCE OF TEE VAhlOL.., ... OuRCEb OF :al. "E& TI Rl ... ..J.·r, EAS TERr APPLES OFFERED OJIT ··;Fol.I:&.h.LE 'iJiF.TIF ':'8 ~ CIJ Cir ATI, DFCE~iBER 20, CLZVELJuT, roVE· BER 14, 15., lc, A.rD COLUI'"BUS, NOVEt1BER 21., 22, 24, 1950

:-=.:...-;= -=-~·=========-

Proportion of displays 1/ Cincinnati Clevel:md Columbus

. --------·-------------------------------------------

Ohio J)Tew Yorl-:-• iohit,an I~•di.::ma

Vir,sinia Pe:nnsyl vnnia ~tl or

Total

(Percent)

43.4 24.8 9.7 7.1 7.1

.9 I 7 0 2 . -

100.0

(Fercent)

4.G. 5 29.8 15.2 1.0

.5 4.0 4 0 Z/ . -

100.0 --

(Percent)

90.4 1.2 e.o

-2.4 !;/

100.0

1/ 1Tunber of displays as follows: C incinnuti, 113. - Cleveland, 198, and Columbus, 83. 5/ Origin of one lot unknown. Not more than three lohs

from i..he following states: Illinois, Ili.a:ine, '\iisC'onsi.n, and Pew Jersey.

3/ Not more than two lots frow the follov,ir,f states: '.aine, - l~ow Jersey, North Carolina, and .:aryland. 4/ Not r1oro thnn two lots from {est Vurinla and Uow York.

VARIETIES Ell.• DLED

CO"'l.S.l.aerablo differc..noe existed in th\3 rf..lni..ive l.mportance of uif-

ferent vericties on tho three markets s budiod. Pnrt of this differ' I!CE.l

Jl'laY b\) accounted for by the lapse of ti.ne bc,twc,cx. surveys. The ~.ifr'£>r-

encos r1ay be illustrat-ed by th~.. fivo most inporto.nt vo.riatic.s of Eastorr

and .·idwostorn dlsplayed on thesE~ markets~ sl own as follows in descend-

tng order of importance:

Clc.velnnd Qincinno.ti December 20 November 14, 151 16

DeB oious Romo Beauty Jonathan Stayman · inesap Golden Lclicious

Delicious Jonathan Mcintosh Stayman ·rrinesap Rome Beauty

Columbus Fovember 21~ 22~ 24

Stayman Vi"inesap Delicious Rome Beauty Jonathan Golden Delicious

- 5 -

!he rulative i~portance of the various vur1~ties in terms of dis­

plays is shown in Table 2. Generally .. green and yellow varieties wore

of more importance in Columbus and Cincinnati than in Clevelnnd, ~von

though tho surveys in those cities were conducted later in the season

than tn Clovolnnd. The Rome Beauty variety was of greater importance

in Cincin·oi..i nnd Columbus thnn in Cleve land. This was probably due

in part to seasonal differences, and the f~ot that the Ro~n Beauty

variety is taorc important in tho growing areas in the Southern part of

th~ state. ~ilo relatively unimportant in Cincinnnti and Columbus, tho

Mcintosh vorioty was tho third most important vcricty in terms of the

numbor of ~isplnys of the Eastern and ~idwosborn varieties offered by

wholesalers :in Clovola.nd,

Northwostcrn apples, principally from Washington and British Co•

lumbi~, probably made up a significant proportion of tho total sales.

Ls pointed out ba.i'oro, a large percent of tho wholesalers handled lTorth­

westorn applos. SeverJl sjzes were usually carri~d in stock. On the

Clevelund market tho Delicious, Golden Doliolous, and Romo Beauty

variot~e;s from tho Horthwost wore being mnrkotod at tho time the sur­

vuy ~s conduotod 1 while in Columbus, Northwestern ~lioious, Romo

Beauty, and Jonnthrm vc.rif..tios wero offered. At :he tim~_, of the sur­

vey in Cincinnati .. tolioious, Colden Dolic1ous, Ro~ Beauty, Jona~hnn~

and iinter Dnnann varieties from tho North,rost wore being merohondisod.

- 6 -

J'ABLE 2, Vl.RIETIEb OF IDV.ESTERN AND EL.STERl~ APPLES IISPLAYED BY ~-110LESALERS, CINCUlNATI, DECE "DER 20, CLEVELA11D, rOVE:! BER 14, 15~ 16 AND COLIDIDC'S, NOVEl'.BER 21., 22, 24, 1950

Percent of displays 17

Variety Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus

Delicious 17.7 17,2 19.3 Rome Beauty 16,8 7,6 15,7 Jono.than 15.1 14.7 13.3 Staymo.n Winesap 10.6 8.6 24.1 Golden Delicious 10.6 5.1 8.4 · iaal t;hy 7.1 1,0 1.2 1iiclntosh 6.2 13.6 1.2 Grimes Golden 6,2 1.0 7 .. 2 Cortland 3.5 5,1 Northern Spy .9 4.0 1.2 Ba.ldwin .9 I 1.1 I 3.6

4/ Other 4 4 2 15.0 ~ 4.8 . -Total 100.0 100,0 100,0

1/ Toto.l of 113 displays of Eastern and l:idwestern apples - at Cincinnati, 198 at Cleveland, and 83 o.t Columbus. 2/ Included one display of the followinb varieties: King - David, King., Pippin, Deacon Jones., and 1 il ton. ~ Included tho following v~rieties (number of displays

indicated after variety): King (6), R. I. Greening (8), iifi.."lter Bo.nana ( 4), and Macoun \1).

y Included one display of the followinr vo.rioties s \"lin­ter Banana, Eucee, York Imperial, and Block Twig.

GRJ,..DI:S OFFERED

Sixty percent or more of the displo.ys of apples from ~idwestern

and Eo.stern states VJere morkcd us U, s. lro. l (Table 3). Few were

marked u. s. F~noy or grades other than U. s. No. l and a significant

proportion, ospooio.lly of Ohio apples, had no grade markings.

None of tho Hidwestern and Eastern apples observed in Cincinnati

were marked U. S. Fancy. ~J!ore than one-third of tho displays of Ohio

apples on that markot had no grade markings.

- 7 -

Of the displays in Cleveland~ more than one-fourth hod no grade

markings o.nd 60 percent were marked U. s. liTo. 1. About si:x: percent of

the displays were lo.beled o.s 11 Growers Grade.," which was abolished in

1949.

All but about ten percent of the displays observed in Columbus had

grcde :rnnrldngs, most of which (84 percent) were u.s. No. 1.

TABLE 3. GRADE ~·IARKUTGS 01\T DISPLAYS OF o:no A.Drr. OTHER MIDWESTE,"UJ lll'D EASTEIDT .APPLES OFFER;::D ON THE '.tOLESALE ~·'ARKETS J

CINCINl'Jl"TI, DECE:"BER 20, CLE'lEL.c'l.rD, NOVEI·_BER 14, 15, 16, .AJ:'D COLL:1J3US, NOVEIV:BER 21, 22, 24., 1950

-----Percent of displays by source

Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus*

Grade l.o.rking Ohic Other Ohio Other Ohio --u. s. Fancy 2.2 8.3 u. ,.

i::>. No. 1 61.2 93.7 60.0 75.0 84.0 u. s. C Olii:me rcio.l 2.2 2.7 Col.lbino.tion u.s. Eo. l

o.nd U. s. Utili..ty - 3.1 2.7 u. S. Utility 2.1 1.6 1.1 1.3 Grower's Grade 5.6 Not indicated 36.7 1.6 28.9 16.7 9.3

·---·-Total 100.0 100.,0 100.0 100.0 100.0

-----·- .. ~- --*Only eight displays fror,1 illidwestern and Eo.storn sto.tes other than Ohio. Five were mo.rked u. S. No. 1 and three wore not marked.

TYPES OF COT'.PAiliT:RS

The bus he 1 basl:et was the most i!ilpo:rtant type of c onto.iner used for

apples from Ohio and other Midwestern and Eastern states (Table 4).

Cardboard cartons were relo.tively importantJ particularly in Cleveland.

About 43 percent of the displuys of Ohio npples offered on the

wholesale mo.rLet in Cincinnati and 46 percent of those in C1eveln..nd

were in types of containers other than bushel baskets. r;ooden bo::x::es

- 8 -

were the seconG most important conta1ner used for Ohio ~pples in Cin­

cinnati and cordboord cartons the third most important 1 while the re­

verse was true in Clevelo.nd. Growers marketing t.pples through the Co­

lumbus wholesale market apparently have bean slow to shift from the bu­

shel bo.s1<.:et as n wholesale container for npples. About 87 percent of

tho displays of Ohio apples on that market wer~ in bushel bnskets and

nine percent in cardboard cartons.

Of the apples shipped to the Cincinnnti and Cleveland markets froM

Hidwestern o.nd Enstern sto.tes other than Oh'io, about three-fourths of

the displays on the Cincinnati market were in bushel baskets. The card­

board carton was the second most important type of container used on that

market, being used for 14 percent of the displays. The bushel basket

was usec.1 for about 44 percent of the displo.ys of shipped-in Mdwe'stern

and Eastern o.pplos o.nd the cc.rdbo::: rd canto inor was used for o.bout ono­

third of the displays on the Clevelcnd morket.

Tho shift nwo.y from the bush~l basket has been more pronounced on

the Cleveland nmrket tho.n on the other markets visited. :nmy of the

wholeoalers a.nd coz.anission merchants in Pi ttsbure-h expressed the opinion

that the bushel basket wo.s by far the most importo.nt type of container

used for i"idwestern and Eostern o.pples on tho.t market.

The wooden box o.nd cardboard carton with tray or layer pc.ck was

used for ~o.ny ~isplays of app1es from the Forthwost.

- 9 -

TABLE 4. TYPES OF COtTTAUlERS USED FOR APPLES FROJ OHIO M-TD OTHER mn~·;es TERt-.T AJ:m EAS TEHF STATES 1 C nrc H!NATI J

tECE}ffiER 20, CLE\.IELAN'D ~ NOVEl'BER 14, 15, 16, AND COLDMBDS, NOVEHBER 21, 22, 24, 1950

Percent of displo.ys by source

C inc inno. ti Cleveland Columbus

Type of container Ohio Other 17 Ohio Other 17 Ohio Y Bushel baskets 57.1 76.6 53.9 43.5 86.7 Cardboard co.rtons 12.3 14.0 15.7 32.4 9.3 Wooden boxes 20.4 7.8 10.1 11.1 1.3 Field crates 3/ 10.2 L6 3.4 11.1 2.7 l/2 bushel basket 16,9 Consumer packages 1.9 ·-Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ---2:/ Includes displc.ys from Hidwestern o.nd Eastern states other than Ohio. !/ Only eigpt displays from Midwestern and Eastern states other than _ Ohio, all of which were packed in bushel baskets. 3/ Also includes Ovrosso crntes used by some growers and shippers in - 1~i chigan.

CONTAINERS PREFERitED

lVholoso.lors were asked to state their preference for different

types of wholesale containers for apples. A retail survey was conducted

in Cleve lo.nd o.nd oporo.tors were asked to sta·Go the type of container

which they ho.d found to bs most sntisfo.otory for apples.

~fuoloso.lers Preferences for Different Types ~ Contu~ners

Interviews with wholesalers in Cincinnati~ ClevelunoJ ond Columbus

indicated u decided preference for the bushel basket us u container for

local apples. There was, howuver 1 considerable difference in the emph­

asis placed on tho bushel b~sket by dealers in these mnrkots (Tnblo 5).

While about S6 percent of tho wholesalers in the Columbus market ex-

pressQd u prcferonoo for bushel baskets~ obout three-fourths of those

- 10 -

operating on the Cincinnati market and only one-third of those operotine

on tho Clevclanc market expressed a preference for this type of contninor.

TABLE 5. TYPE OF CONTAINERS PREFERRED FOR 11~IDV1JESTERH AND EASTERN APPLES BY 19 VffiOLESALERS, CINCJ1~~TI, DECV BER 20; 22 YiROLESJ...LERS, COLUJ.~BUS, NOVELBEn. 21, 22, 24 l.ND 32 Ya!OLES.i.LERS, CLEVELAHD, 1-3'0VE13ER 14, 15, 16 1 1950

Percent expressing a preference for each type of container

Type of container Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus ---------------------------------Bushel basket

v:ooden box Cardboard carton Field erato Wooden boxes or cardboard cartons Bushel bJ.sl.:ots or eo.stern orates Boxes or cro.tos No proferonco

Total 100.0

34.4 18.7 15.6 6.3 6.3

3.1 15.6

100.0

95.5

4.5

1oo.o

Considerable interest wns shov~ in the wooden box and cardboard

co.r·t;on on the Cleveland market with about 19 and 16 percent of wholo-

sa1ors rospoctivcly expressing a prefcronco for these typos of con-

tainers. About 10 percent of tho wholesalers on tho Cincinnati markot

expressed interest in tho wooden box o.s r.~ co11kincr for apples. Some

interest, nlthough limited, was shown in the usc of fi~ld crates. This

type of container was bving used by some dealers who also performed tho

jobbing function o.nd thus hnd an opportunity to return tho container to

the grower. This container docs have corto.in advo.ntagos for both tho

grower ~nd rot~iler, even though inconveniences o.r~ ~nvolved in return-

ing it. Tho e;rowors container costs muy bo lower o.nd the retniler may

rccc.ivo o fmr more o.pplos thrm with certe,in othor typos of containers.

- ll ...

,!{~'\j.lo_:~ Pr2!erences .£2!. Different 1'YPos_ 2!. Conto.iners

This section is included to point up the difference of opinion be­

tween wholesalers and retailers regarding typos of oontciners for upplos.

A survey of tho retail stores was conducted in Cleveland during the wook

in which tho wholesale survey wos made. Rotailors wero asked to indi­

cate tho typo of container which they had found to bo most satisfactory

for local (Ohio) npplos.

v~ilo moro wholesnlors on the Cleveland wholesale market prefer­

red tho bushol basket to other types of containers for opplos 1 this

container raru~od as a poor second choice among retailers, Nearly one­

half of tho independent retailers and produce ma~gers in chain stores

int~rviewed expressed a preference for cardboo.rd cartons over other

types of wholosnlo oontninbrs (Table 6), Considerable interest was

shown in tho lnyor or tray pock onrtons, with ab•..Jut 13 poroont of tho

indopond~nt rotnilcrs nnd 19 percent of the produce nr~gors in chain

stores indicating n proforonco for this type of paoko.go, This typo of

contninor wo,s being used by a few growers in :Now York state and Ohio

who wore selling npples in Clcvelnnd when this survey ~vus conducted.

About one-fourth of tho independent rotuilors end one-fifth of

tho produce mnnngors of chain stores exprossod a preferonao for tho

bushel bns1-:ot. Considerable interest was shown in consumer puoko.ges

by produoo managers of chain storos.

- 12 -

TJ.BLD 6 • !<,.OST Si ... TibFAC TORY CONT.b.U.iERS FO.R LOCJ.L .b.PPLES L.S REPORTED BY OPE?J.TORS OF 82 IFDEPENDE:t-TT STORE& J.lYD PRODUCE M.AN.1J.GEP.S OF 26 Crl..IN STORES • CLEVEL....ND~ OlUO~ WEER OF 110VErBER 13, 1950

Percent of retailers indicating preference

Container proforred Independents Chains

Cardboard carton Bushol basket Wooden box 1/2 bushel basket Consumer paokcges Ownsso or field crate Cardboard carton or bushel basket Cardboard carton or wooden box No preference

46.3 ]} 46.2 2/ 28.1 19.2 4.9 11.6 2.4

15.4 1.2 3.8 1.2 4.9

u.o 3.8

Total 100.0 100.0 ----======================================

1/ 13.4 percent specified layer or tray pack. !/ 19.2 percent specified layer or tray pack.

i .. TTITUDE T01i:J.RD THE Hl~NDLIUG OF PREPJ~CYJ..GED l.PPLES

Wholesalers were asked nWhnt do you think about the futuro of han-

dling prepackaged apples through your esto.blish1Pont? 11 Thirty-five

wholesalers replied to this question in Cleveland, 23 in Columbus, and

19 in Cincinnati. Replies were classified according to tho attitude of

individuals to the handling of prepaekaged apples. Tho following shows

the percentage of individuals reporting,

l~tti tude To...w.rd Hnndling Cincinnati Columbus Clove land Propo.cl:o.ged .bpples (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)

Favorable 5.3 4.3 25.7 ·'iill be forced by competition 5.3 :May work 5.3 8.7 11J4 Doubtful 13.1 Unfavorable 84.1 73.9 57.2 Don't know 5,7

Total 100.0 100.0 100,0

- 13 -

Considerably more interest wos sho~m in the futuro of h~ndling

propc,cl::o.r,ed o.pples in Cleveland tho.n in other mo.rkets. ~~~n.ilo only about

ono out of seven in Cinoinnnti and Columbus either thought thut pre­

packaged apples would be handled or that there was n possibility of this

type of pac:~ago being moved successfully through wholesale cho.nnolsJ

about one out of three in Cleveland reported that thoro might be o. fut­

uro to tho handling of prepackaged ~pplcs through wholesale channels.

Tho most common rensons given for unfcvornblo attitude toward tho

ho.ndling of propacko.god apples wore: too expensivoJ spoilage in po.ckngeJ

suitable for handling only by oho.in stores~ retailers not intorestodJ

too much hcmdling involvodJ oustom.or prefers to select from bulk dis-

plo.yJ too much bruising and tried but could not sell.

Tho most common reasons given by wholesalers who reportod n favor­

able att:i tudo tovrord the handling of propnckc.god apples wore: trend

in morchandisin~ is toward prepackagingJ loss labor roquiredJ public is

po.okngo mindodJ lovror mrgins to.kenJ less bruising, c.nd loss spoilo.ge.

~.TTITUDES REGLRDING TEE ENFORCE}!EI'T OF GR.I ... T.~ES --- -- -Loss than ono-third of tho wholesalers on tho Cincinnati, Clove-

lo.nd r.nd Colum1Jus markGts said that stricter enforcement of grades

would not bo t\dviso.blo {Tuble 7). When asked tho question~ 11 In your

opinionJ would stricter enforcement of grading lnws be advisable?" only

one of tho seven wholesalers expressing their views on tho Youngstown

mnrkot wo.s opposed to stricter onforoo~ont.

It is not surprising th~t a large proportion of tho wholesalers

fnvorod or.forcol"l.Unt of g;ro.dcs since they ofton dcul with shippers or

growc.~s nt distr>ncos which prohibit obsorvc.tion of the product.

- 14 -

Tl.BLE 7. 1:.1'TITtDE OF VVHOLESJ.LERS CONCEEIHYG STRICTER EJ.;Fo .C:CLE1~T OF GrJ...trrG usrs.. 20 'V'ta:OLESL.LERS, cnwn.'Nl.TI; 34 vm::>LESl~U:RS, CLEVEL. ... 1TD; 22 WHOLESL.LERS, COLU~J:DUS, 1JOVEllBER l.>J.m DfCS1 BER 1950

L.tti tude toward enforcement Poroont of wholesalers reporting

of gro.des Cinoinnnti Clcvolo.nd Columbus

Fnvor stricter enforcement 80.0 70 .. 6 59.1 Probo. bly wortmvhi le 9.1 Questionable if worthwhile 5.0 2.9 4.5 Stricter enforcement not advisable 15.0 26.5 27.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 ----Tho following wore among tho more importvnt reasons why wholesalers

wore of tho opinion thut gro.des should be enforced= grade markings moun

lit~lo today, would encourage bet-i:;er packs., koep garbage out of packs,

necessary to have correct grade markings if Ohio growers o.ro to maintain

their market outlets o.nd would facilitate so.lo.

vTholosalcrs opposed to stricter onforooi"'ont of grading laws indi-

oo.ted reasons such o.s the following for their attitude~ customers buy

on tho basis of o.ppoarr,nco, growers doini\ thu bust they can, variation

within u. s. grades too groat~ would force somo growers out of business,

enforcement sotisfoctory todo.y, would provide more jobs.

Sarno wholosnlcrs wore of tho opinion thnt gro.dos should be enforced

o.t the fo.rm level. One mombor of tho tro.de pointocJ out tho.t strict on-

forcoment of ~ro.dc.s would m.o.kc it difficult to rnovo off g;ro.dc fruit.

Tho ~o.in accomplishment of strict enforcement of grndcs would be

tho correct lo.bcling of cento.iners. This mit,ht fo.cilito.to movement o.t

the wholoso.lo level.

- 15 -

PROBLEJ:;s INVOLVED IN H!.11J)LINC· OHIO b.PPLES

The most irportont problem encountered by wholesalers in handling

Ohio apples~ us reported by wholesalers~ wns pack not conforming to

grade or off ~rade apples (Table 8). As was pointed out enrlier in

this report., most apples which were labeled as to grade were marked U.S.

No. 1. ~iany wholesalers mentioned the use of used or dirty containers

as an importont problem in handling apples marketed by Ohio growers.

Lack of uniform sizing was emphasized by some wholesalers in Columbus

and Cleveland.

The fact that the proportion of wholesalers on these markets re-

porting no important problems in handling Ohio apples was less than 20

percent, varying from 7.4 percent in Cleveland to 19 percent in Columbus,

would indicate the need for more serious consideretion of the problems

of marketing fruit by growers who marlre t t;hrough wholesale establish-

ments. SL1ce the important wholesale markets in Ohio are very competi-

tive, with wholesalers usually havi-::1g a wide choice of varjeties from

other states) it is iFportunt trat growers ~ive serjous consideration

to solving so:ne of the problems associated with l'andling their fruit

if they expect to n~intnin their markets. It is only n~tural to expect

wholesalers to place greeter emphasis on products from areas which grade

and pac1:: to better satisfy the needs of their customers and provide less

headaches for the wholesaler.

Very few fruit and vegetable wholesalers in Pittsburgh were handl-

ing Ohio apples at the time of this survey. ~ome of the handlers were

of the opinion that the Ohio pack was genGrally inferior to those from

other areas vr:1.ich were offered on that market. Some of the reasons

given were excessive grade defects 1 overripe fruit from common storages 1

and conto.iners.

- 16 -

The most coffi1"1l.On problems with Ohio apples as mentioned by whole-

salers in Younestown were off grade or false packs~ size, lack of a

fancy pacl:., and poor containers.

T.t>.1LE 8, MOST IMPORT/,."fiTT PHOBLEMS PTVOLVED n,r THE fu..}TDLHTG OF OIDO APPLES 1,S REPORTED BY 19 vVROLES;..LERS ~ C DTC IIDTATI, D:CCE:LBER 20; 2 7 WHOLESALERS, CL.CVELi~ND ~ NOVEMBER 14, 15, 16; J~.ND 21 WHOLESALERS, COLUMBUS, NOVE~mER 21, 22, 24, 1950

Percent reporting if Problem

Pack not conforming to grade Poor containers Lack of uniformity of size Poor appearance of pack Lack of color Lack of confidence in pack: Not overfaced with larger apples Fruit too small Price too high Too much competition Lower quality than out-of-state apples Low quality apples force prices down None

Cincinnati

65,2 21.1

15,8

Cleveland Columbus

70,4 52.4 14,8 4,8

7,4 14.3 11.1 ll.l 4.,8

3,7 4,8 3.7 4,8

9,5 7.4

9,5 7,4 19,0

======---~:==================~=============== 1/ Totals equal •nore than 100 percent because some wholesalers reported - roore than one problem,

SUMI l..RY

Surveys vrere conducted on the Cincinnati, Cleveland~ Columbus~

Pittsburgh, and Youngstown wholesale markets during November and De-

oember 1950 to determine the attitudes of fruit and vegetable whole-

s&lers concerning different types of pacl::ages, enforcement of f:rading

laws, problems associated with the handling of Ohio apples and offer-

ings of apples from different states.

- 17 -

In terms of the number of displays offered~ apples from Ohio

orchards made up by far the greatest proportion from ~idwestern and

Eastern states on the Cincinnati~ Cleveland6 and Columbus markets~ on

which a detailed record was made of offerings.

Delicious, Rome Beauty, Jonathan1 and Stayman Winesap varieties

were among the five most important varieties }~ndled by wholesalers on

these markets. Green and yellow varieties were ~ore important on the

Columbus and Cincinnati markets than on the Cleveland market.

Host displays of l~idwestern and Eastern apples on which there were

grade markine:;s were indicated as u. s. No. 1. J. significant proportion

of the displays of Ohio apples on the Cincinnati and Cleveland markets

had no grade markings on the packages.

Bushel baskets were by far the most important type of wholesale

container used for l idwestern and Eastern apples. Considerable use was

made of cardboard cartons and wooden boxes on some markets.

A greater proportion of wholesalers preferred the bushel basket

than othor types of wholesale containers ~or apples, while more retailers

on the Cleveland market preferred the cardboard carton to other types

of containers.

Little interest was shown in handline:; prepackaged apples through

wholesale channels.

J• lQrge proportlon of the wholesalers favored stricter enforcement

of grades.

Wholesalers were of the opinion that the most important problem

involved in handling Ohio apples was off grade or pack not conforming

to grade markinb• .mong the other important problems mentioned werea

poor containers~ lack of uniform sizing, poor appearance of pack and

lack of color.