.ii i1TIT.
ILL.:_Ti.
by
iitted to
L;1
In part1J r:..iriiient of
the xecu1re:..Fut foxy the
degree of
icbo
AP?ROVIID:
Redacted for Privacy
1rofesaor of gricu1tu?a1
conomica
Redacted for Privacy
i2'2'
of £epa.rtient of Aiicu1tur91
eo:e>niie
Redacted for Privacy
of School Gi.uto CornJ. te
Redacted for Privacy
of
Redacted for Privacy
Typist
ãuat 3ciool
The author ratetui1y acnow1odge5 the
generously contribatd by Dr.
charge of major.
aro1d r .dol1and-:, i'rofe8sor in
iurtier aekw1edeut is
critjcjsn kIndly oifsred b
incc and a$sJ.stace
;er 01' te
ad
or the oontructjTe
r1cuitura]. BCoflo:rjiCs
Department and of the cooertjon and aitariee çIven by retail
store nianagers and vcrious other soures wIth te cnried.
industry.
U
CiiTh 1,
-.
\_*.jA._ 4
*
a.
7
7
000...,.,..0 ......0*500*0
Subject I)etjnecL..,,.,.,,,...,...,,,.,.,.,...,..,..
Purpose of tao :tu(ty..,_.....,..........,,,..,,,.,.
rocedure of t..c
tuc1y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . * . . , , . .
CPTR Ii
IIISISIS
14
of .ers eporting In
. . . . . ..
......
14
ISSIS
1urnbers of Trees nd
Ore;on. . . . . . . . ..
of Liwu
10
10
at1t
runo irees...............
Producti.on of Prunes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3nited states.
. .,,.,.,.,,... ,....,.,.
Oregon..
OS
1
14
16
16
19
orQe Faotor8 Causjn the Growth end Decline or
Protiuction of &runes. . , , . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . .
.izaticn, of Fruries.....,........................
22
.....
Oregon 120's........... 00S0*50
26
3.
GreLoi 1930' a and. i9
000
SI00000I*
OI' .bOCQrS Causing Variationi in tUe Voiueie
s
2b
at t;e Uti1ization of J.une irodued in
Oregon. ......... .
00.......
cijU-rR III,
I
UkiND rhUr: I UTkY
31
Froduction of Canned Prunes.,.,,,........,,...,.,.
3].
....... . ...*.*.,. ....
*0lI*$*
ol
l.er1,, Development. . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ore-:on..... .
United.
al1foruia. S00I0I.0
kx1anatIoxi of the ilictuatioiu in tne FwctiOfl
of Canned .Frunes,
5000000
0000000
64
35
1III*000
Jize of the Italian Prune crop................
Carryover..... .......
Imports and Exports of Oanned Pruneu.....,....
35
38
Per Capita Consumption. . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xp1anation of te 1uctuations in the CoiiunTption
of Canned .Erunes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . .
Appare7it s pba..i Only On Price for Canned
Prunes,. .,.,... ...000....S.. 1000*I 050050000
as1softheConu4er7.Itudy........................
49
4?
50
4.,
Development or the
Tabulation.. ,
. ,.*..,.,,.
.. .
..
53.
b3
RIS[JITS OF IJ:RVIEW8 WITH
ci
1 'T1TP\T
Y&&A
,..... ...,...,...
Introduction,,
,
Pre1iriri.ary Remarks..
.
..
,
... .
.
.,.
.. . . . . . , . * . . . * . .
**
A-Section. . , , * * . . . . . , . , . . . . , . . . * .
, *
B-Sectjøn, * . , . . , . * . . . , , . . . . 4 . , . . . * . . . . . * .
7
*
beetion,
... ,., .... . . .... *.,
4
-setion.. I
*
B13LIoGR,APl3Y.
65
.*..... .. *.,...,,,.,.
* ,. . * , . . . . . . * , . . , * . . . .
66
68
70
71
*
73.
I-Section. . . , . , . .
CHAPTER VI,
,,.*
*
*4
4*0
72
***44
S'iAY LTD C)iCWSIQNS,,,....,,,.,...,,...,
4
*
59
*
**..
75
.*
7?
04040*4*404440*444000**** 4*0*4*0404I
78
**
.
...
u:
VLLL(
ri
uiii1
iiw
1- rv
.4
IT5iX?
t
The Italian and Petite Yarieties of prunes diseuzsed in this
paper are ought to be native to Southeastern iurope or ostern
Asia.
These and other plums and prunes
ware
introduced into tle
atates of Oregon and ash1ngtoz about 1350. Pluiiis and prunes were
rown in California soaehat earlier, Ibst of the early day production of prunes in those Pacific Coast stite w:s dried and
consum&d locally,
Dried prunes served as a stp1e food for
years before modern cirnin and recigerated
many
iippin iethods of
handling fresh fruits wore developed.
Limited comrciai transactions involving dried prunes began
aeon after prune propagation was established on te Pacific Qoast,
Lost of the early commercial production of rune;
WL.
in California.
The principal variety in that State wa the medium to small sweet
Petite.
st of the small production of prunes in the Pacific
Northwest was of the scraowhat larger tart-sweet Italiai. variety,
When dried the prunes from the:e to areas ce into direct com-
petition for foreign and domesi markets.
:srune produoers in
Oregon hoped that demand for their 1arer and distinctively tart-sweet
Italians would bring higher prices to offset the lower costs of production of Petitos in California. It
competition from California
which cone
I prune
rowars in On on rirty ye:.rs ao. (4,pp.2-4)
.Liateiy after ;wnld
Inc as
r I t?:'.ere W
a lerge
for dried prunes for export end for ich higher
export prices. These f'ctors were partially reoonsIble for the
extensive plantings of prune trees In the i1ll&iette Valley and
elsev*ere on the PacIfic Coast in tI'e early l82O's. But te export
demend weakened and to high prices for dried prunes exported decresed
by the middle and .Lte fl20' s causin the prune Industry nch concern.
With the advent of the world-wide depresSIon or the l9O's the export
price for dried prunes fell to new low levels at the. save time that
moat of the he vy plertin
of prunes in the eanl lS2O'L had come
to bearIng age. Prunes were in economic surplus In the United States
throughout the i's.
limited, f2'os- prune Industry was developed in the Pacific
Northwest along witn t:e early deveiopent of shIpment of rreth
plums from California.
Principal early districts producing prunes
for fresh shipment were the Milton-reewater district or reonashinton and the Boise and Payette aJ.leys of Idaho.
o.uewht
later a fresh prune inthstry was developed In the i.kia Velley of
.aehington.
The fresh trade outlet for prunes produced in the
Pacific Northwest did. not ex.nnd to alleviate the surpluses In the
prune Industry duni: ti depression of th lO'.
Co
As the comrcial cennn Industry devioped on the Pacific
t least as eorly as ic;oo.
me fre.h prunes were can
But It was not until after orld ;r I that cenned fresh prunes
began to be recognized and to be do7eioped as a standard erticle
for coxrnsrcia1 sale in appreciable voluiQe, Canning w5 exa:r;ineü.
as a possible outlet for the large and isuntir economic surpluses
of prunes in 0re,on during the late 1920's. However, canning of
prunes enjoyed nediocre success as an outlet adecuate enough to
absorb the surpluses of prune
'
in Oregon in ani of the
years from 1929 through 19'.
?st of the reduced production of prunes in the Pacific Northwest was uses for fresh ship:nent fro.n 1940 t.rcuph 1948.
Drying
aLnost dispasred except in Cc1if'rnie where most of the crop
was still dried. Canning und otter uses icremed in iltonFreeweter, aidiia, and o eciu1J in the il1astte Valley; but
uot &dequstely to prcvent large surp1uies, neLeet of prune orchards,
and eventually large decresses in numbers of prune trees in those
districts.
Varieties grown in the various prune ro.cing districts of
the Pacific Coast reaeined essentially thc
the e- r1;
of the prune i.aitry.
prunes in Croon, washington, and idaho
t.irough 19
entire production of
s of the Italian viriety
with the ezception of sna11 quantities of Petites produced in dis-
tricts in ostern Creon. Pro.uction of prunes in California
remained aLo.t c:itire1:. of the Petite variet through 1948.
However, a few Italian prune were grown in California also,
in the more Northern districts.
The
ppro...iate locations of districts on the Pacific Coast
which produced prunes in 1948 are indicated in F1uree 1, 2, 3,
and 4. At that tine prunes were prod.uoe cc?nntercially in the
4
Willamette Valley, Roseburg, }.&rord, The Daues, Milton-Freewater,
and Maiheur districts in Oregon..
(See Fig. 1)
Districts in
included the
Washington which produced prunes in
In Idaho prunes
(See Fig. 2)
Milton-Freewater, and Claric County.
aic1ma Valley,
were produced in the Boise and Payette VaLLeys, Gem County end a
limited wunt at Buhi.
centrsted prune producing
California.
(See Fig.
)
districts on
The largest and nst conthe Paciric
They included the Sonoma-MandocnO,
Coast were in
and the Sacraiuento,
San loaquin, and Santa Clara Valley districts. (See Fig. 4)
Fig. 1
OREGON
Prune Producing Districts
1-Willarnette Valley
2-Roseburg
-Medford
k-The Dalles
5-Milton-Freewater
6-Maiheur County
Fig. 2
WASHINGTON
Prune Producing Districts
1-Yakima Valley
2-Milton-Freewater
3-Clark County
Fig.
IDAHO
Prune Producing Districts
1-Payette Valley
2-Boise Valley
3-Gem County
k-Buhl
Fig. k
CALIFORNIA
Prune Producing Districts
1- Sonoma-Mendoc mo
2-Sacramento Valley
3-San Joaquin Valley
u-Santa Clara Valley
Sub j ec t
A prune is any plum capable of beint dried without ferns
tation eccordin to ebstor's New Inte.rnt1onai Dictionary. Both
the Italiarn and Petite vr1eties of prunes meutioned froquently
in this paper are of the name genus and species, PrunusLo::ietica,
and are illustrated and described in Bgures
and 6.
Italian prunes were particuiar1 wl1-suited for canning
because uan: persona believed that, when cinned, their light
tartness was more
Petite prunes.
The
lsL1 than t
toss of canned
eit.r .;
acif1e Northet
L:t: oL area in the
United 2tatea where Italian priiei attaiuez.
size and
volume of yield to cause thot varit to be jrodced conercially.
Italian prunes ser also knovi as reilen
rg 2-L;i5 CflQ
Prunes, eseciailj I
rs heir of he United tatoa.
etite prunes were we11-sdt onlc for drixig. Potites dried
one pound far evsr tea an one-half pouads fresh while Italians
required three to four pounds fresh for every one pound dried.
Also the sweetness of Petite prunes did not seem to be objectionable when they were dried.
Californis achieved the highest pro-
duction of this prune, Other names for the Petite verety were
Prune d'ge.
:ru, an hoe de srent.
California otlo rrunes wore sold under the trade na.e
;any dried
aata
Clara Prunes.'
The term "conned pranes' as used in this paper aiwas refers
to caed fros.t It1ian prunes, unless otherwise specified.
The
10
ITALIAN PRUNE--Size, mediimi to large, roundish but
tapering at both ends; suture small but distinct;
color, dark purple; salk, one inch long; cavity,
shallow; flesh, yellowish-green, juicy, parting
easily from the stone; flavor, sweetish sub-acid;
hardy; very productive.
ig. 6
PETITE PRUNE--Size, medium to small, oval to eggshaped, not uniformly pyriform; suture, small distinct;
color, violet purple; stalk short, slender; cavity,
small and sriallow; flesh, greenish-yellow, sweet,
full of sugar, rich; hardy; very productive.
11
Northwest Cainers' Asociation ate?.:1pteO. for a number of ye&r
iuãiate1y prior to this study to brine shout industry-wide adoptiori of the trade name "Purple Plums" for canned fresh Italian
prunes. .i-ur1e 'l
usm
occasionally i;i t1s paper and denotes
that product; is, cined fxs Itliau punes.
"iflaiette Valle.y c siar' as u.ed in this paper always
refers tz the 400 parsons interviewed in roer store in vrious
towns in the i1lemette Vllei; of Orezori in Lrc of l49 in
conjunction with the fieldwork for this study. It w&.. asumed
that they constituted a representative sample of opinion toward
canned prunes at that time
Purpose of the ta
This study was undertaken for the dual purposo of deterniln
1) why uses for prunes pred in Oregon, mainii canning,
so 1iited from .L9 through 1946 that s lr. s decline in the
prune industry in ure'on CWI1O about and, 2) how sales of canned
prunes might be ittcre.:
S
Procedure of the
Various data regardin.: t
tudy
rune industry in ths United tato
and in Oreoa were examained and trends noted with some exaiiination
of data regt.rdin soiie important competing fruits. Parts of such
previous work as of a nature similar to this study and found useful
wore also ax iined and incorporated into this study1 Data wore
analyzed and corparad with the present situation and policies as
an indication of basic charies and direction of study 'Co increase
sales of canned prunes.
The twenty-year period from lc;2 throug l3 wes often con-
centratod upon. It was duriri that 2eriod that the market outlet
for dried prunes procuced in Oro:on bco thdeuate to absorb
profitably eli. of t.tete's productiox of prunes. Other market outlets, maInly carnIng, wee eveioped and became of importance
to the prune industry in Oregon.
The Vorld War II period of rationing of carmed fruits (l43-
44-4) was often c:;lete1y eliminated fra.
analysis, The nor1 play of both supnly
rs1deration in the
n
deman'l wa
diutorted
';hile that proEra. us i effeet.* All other ththg beIng equal,
consumption ol' cLrIred prunes should have been stimulated by the
low retlon-point values on canned
beavy-syrup canned fruits.
axd prunes rela'tivs to other
lLowevar, wartime ;acks of canned prunes
In the United States were made
OIIISJi
prices to
(7, p. 133)
owar
for prunes.
by OPA rui.igs ragulatin
Canners, trade ox'&:aizetjons, wholesale grocers, retel
end consumers weie considered a a major ource of o;Itiins for
study to determine how sales of canned prunes could be increased.
Consuzrz were eiected since it ws believec that thy v;ero the
ultirrate source of the opinions desired, it wa to avoid bias
and to pet the desired information "firsthand" that the other
ouroesmentioxiod were not used ao tbe ma3or ource of opinions
Table XVIiI (appendix) shows L
rtIon-poiut values for
elocted cLrine1 fruits.
to determine how s1es or oann.sd prunes ooi1d bo inczased. Oe
tora1 questionnaire w&s prepared and it Wa used only with conswaers.
Infria1 diessions vere hold with eauner, store rnar'ars,
tind other industry sorce during th coure ot the fieldwork for
thi study,
fruits, but
cussod also.
ee diacisicns ereroi1 eocorned margins oi
the:
camned
aspects ot areting of canned fruits were die-
Iii most osacs the sorce of data obtained in this
porona1 annor re'ueted to be held corfi T :itja,
14
0TiL II
P115 iuI
1:Du,2iy EXi41iThED
Numbers of Trees and Uumber of Farms
oi
Ii urezon
Nwnbers of Flu and Prune Tr008
Nwnbers of
plum and prune trees of all ages in Oregon
increased from 2,193,000 in 1914, to 4,331,000 in 1919 an to
5,678,000 In 1924.
(See Table I) By 1929 these numbers
decreased alightly to 6,622,000 end by 1934 to 4,720,000; after
large-scale reductions ere begun, By 1U39 a further decrease
to 3,684,000 occurred, and by 1944 numbers or plum and prune
trees of all ages in Oregon decreased to 3,099,000. Unfortunately
In 1924 and In 1944 the separation of numbers of plum
trees into bearing
the Census.
and
and
prune
non-bearing age grop v:as not rnade by
There remains, however, the picture of heavy plan
ing in Oregon iwdiate1y after
I, the decrease In
the rate of planting in the late 1920's and the large-scale
or1d Wa
reductions in the numbers of pluLn and prune trees begiuiIng at
least by 1934.
Numbers of Farms
Nu.abers of farms in Oregon reQortjng numbers or p1ui and prune
trees were not recorded by the Census until 1924.
Little reduc-
tion In the numbers of thee farms took place between 1924 and 1934.
lb
TAI3LE I
0? PIATh4 aND F1UJNi TREES OF B RIiC £) UQ
G10LWS AW
FIVE-YEA
Category
1Y14
Th' FJ3L
R
T.t1'G £i. 0EiG(Th, AT
TVAL3 1914-44
1919
1924
1929
1934
1. 39
000 omitted -
T?ees not ot
beaxing ae
Tree8 of
bearing age
Farms
reporting
428
1,332
329
u.S
104
3
1,765 2,9c9
5,283
25
24
4,720 3,6o
25
22
i/Not avai1b1e
Sources: 1914-39, U. S. Dept. of Corirrc, Birecu or tlic. Census,
16th Ceuu of th 'Jitd
huitoa D. C. 1040.
1944, U. S. Dept. of Coirimerce, Bureau or thi Census,
U. S. Cenaus ot Agriculture, washington 1). 0. 1945.
16
Fro: 33
to ic44 the reduction in rwibers of rars reporting
Ws not proportion&rtejy e Large as Th:' decrease Li tr:s nibers
of plum and prune trees during the
period.
Acoit
000
terms in Oregon reported pluii ant3jor prune trees in 1924 and
about 20,00Q still did in 1944. .vidently, many prune
1934,
producers in Oregon rei.uced their tree nuirbers but did not pull
their entire orchards.
Nwnbers of plum and prune trees were not recoried separately
by the Oeusus in the ye:r acted in Thhlo I.
3ut since rela-
tively small quantities of p1ws were produced in Oregon,
8uc
data may be used as an approxjatjon of numbers of prune trees
alone.
(2, p. 1)
Production of
United States
The ist rapid increases in production of prunes in the
United
tates were in the latter half or the 1920's, although
significant volume waii aehievod prior to iiorl War I.
roduc-
tion of prunes in the Jn1ted States 1ncreaed from 445,bOO tons
in 192b to b8,20O tons in 1926.
(See Table II) In 192? pro-
duction increased further to 887,900 tons.
In 1930 the produc-
tion of prunes in the United States reached 84,800 tons,
which was the 1arest crop recorded through 1948.
The output in 1930 indicates the production potential built
up in the prune industry. But average production or prunes in
pu
'8'6T ..tQqwa&o
UOTUx D0 flO3
tJO8.r
'8dQX
'vgyfl
uoocJrj
X
txo?ox
UOOT '.lr
JO UO
'G1
'3TTTA.IoD
3flO*Içj UT
''5T JTT1
JO
tb
'ioonpo.x (o.qpnoT1)
ULZ1
eOTA.zec
PUQ.ZL
lIfl
4E61
) (J UOtja
T1fl PU 'T119
rt.x
'698t
'0 'CI UOTt9t
8176!
UOTTodsTG
'1'6t-59$1 '91t'' J° U0TZTTT.fl PtIT 'tA
'UOi4DflpOL
(nOI1.TOtrOtr)
rLr
:rnoG
£u T1aXt-(1
0004qcg
000'662
00!'
4176!
g
61
OOC't14
000'40c
008 'r'?9
91761
61
178t
oo 'g
176T
006 '89
001 'cc
11761
01761
00 '49
6 6!
009 cg
ec 6!
6c 8t
9c 6t
009 'fr16
00"99Q
98t
0017
009 '6 ec
17 6!
cc 61
00 'iec
O08'989
6!
004 '1799
tc 61
OO8t'c8
009 4tc
OO8'ar4
oc 61
6t
86t
008' 6
009Q
1T
008 'cc
5T
OO1'917
5!
oo 'g
ooc
009
0 51
ooc '1i
8161
UOT.OflpO.Xd
(Tq
£117-Ole! 'Hvg' JS ''fJ
t19.ZJ
'uo)
(TTJ1INfl 'TJ NI
TiThkT I0 T0LLOflaog
i
6!
FIGURE 7
TCYrAL PRODUCTION OF FRITNES INTTE UNITES STATES, BY YEARS, 1929-48
a .bx
Least-sjuares trend: Y
a
641,145 tons
b
-2173 tons
x
6 months
Origin at mid-year 1938
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
ruch saUer than
in 1930. The trend or production ot prunei in tie United States
declined in that twenti-year period. The decline was a resu.lt of
the United States front 1029 through 1043
the large proth.ction or prunes iii 1030, lI3b, and 10Z not being
offset by correpond1ngly 1arr;e production in the 1940's.
Ignoring those years ot large produotion in the l0's, the trend
or produeto:
prunes in the United States was about constant
from .W29 through
The acti.iai. trend of production or prunes In te United ;ties
Was downward from 1'20 t1irou
14 at toe avsr.
race or 434
tons per year or about 0,7 per cent or tIle mid-yea least-squares
a1uo 641,14b tons.
(See Fig. 7) The least-squares straight-line
method of fitting the trend was selected because no regular
periodic factors were known whose effects hold be removed, and
because no curvilinear relationship was noted in the series.
Oreg
Production of prunes In Oregon to 1929 was siailar to that
in the Uni.te States as a whole except that the Oregon output waS
more eratic from year to year. The production of 186,300 tone
of prunes in Oregon In 1029 was the 1arjest recorded through 1948.
(See Table II) From 1929 through 19, however, production of
prunes in Oregon declined proportlonatelj rre than in the United
States as a whole. The trend-line of production of prunes in
Oregon from 1929 through 19
illustrates the decline which
20
T3L:., III
TOThL P1-tuiiC.I0i 07 ki
(Pois rre
L 0LG0i, BY riw
basl$)
Pout1on
Ye r
1919
1) )(j,
1
3.
47,500
1922
1923
102,bOO
124
69,900
1925
49, 00
1$2Ô
,500
60,000
ic 2?
1 (9
46, bOO
12$
186,300
107,700
100,800
101,700
95,600
118,800
139,600
133,000
30,700
92,700
154,300
42,700
69,400
70,500
104,000
1030
1933.
1932
p
1934
19 3b
1933
193?
Ii' L
1940
141
19.2
19
1944
1945
1946
194?
60,400
9'10Q
101,100
34,400
48,800
143p
p-Prel .n1nary
Source: "?1u&3 ami Prunes, hoviect
US1i.-BAi GrO)
1943. JJ.so
ttmates or Pr,duction, WU-41"
eortinj Joird.
1ter rvj
cray r
D. C.
or
or the B'.
Soptexber
FIGURE 8
cf
210 -_
TOT.L PRODUCTION OF PRThES IN OREGON
Lea5t-.Qre trnd: Y
a
b
x
180
BY YRARS, 1929-48
& + bx
95,730 tona
-1990 tons
6 months
Origin at mid-year 1938
120
90
T
i29
I
r
I
I
43
II
I
45
I
46
47
I
48
22
aiunted to an averac.o or
0 tons per year, or 4.2 per cent of
the fnld-year least-sçuars vU.ue 9b,7Z0 tons. (See Figure 8)
The least-squares trend was used for tao som reasons a3 for
the trend of production or prunes in the United states in F1ure 7.
Sons Factors Causing the Growth and Decline of Production of Prunes
The reatly increased demand and higher prices for dried prunes
exported from the United. states, especiaLLy in 191v ana 1920,
helped to bring about the ra.id expansion in the prune industry
in the 1920's.
(See Table IV) Also euch factors as increasing
popuJ.wtion and general agricultural prosperity iimriediately after
World War I probably helped to influence the increased plantings
of 'prune trees in the ac1fic Ooaat states in the early 1920's.
Since prune trees require from six to eight years to coxr to
bearing age (1, P. 37), production of prunes began to increase
ehorply about l92 arter the hoary plantings begun about 1919.
The
avsrae price for dried prunes exortea tros tne United. StateB
broke somewbet earlier, in 1921, partially under the unuually
large yolurne of dried prunes exported in that year. The average
price for dried prunes exportea troui the United States decreased
from
cents per pound in 1920 to 7.9 cents per pound in 1921.
In 1922 the corresponding average export price increased to 9.8
cents per pound, but then decreased to .O cents per pund by l24.
From 192b through 192
the aversUe price for dried prunes exported
from the United States stayed in the raigo 5.b to 7? cents per
TJ3Li L
UNITED $TAT.S 1CiO1ST$ OF D1L
2L .'QUND, BY
(Calendar
Year
years l/-4, Ju1
3.912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
3.918
1919
1920
1921
3.922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1926
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1930
1936
1937
3.938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1945-46p
1946-'?p
3.94?-48p
TOTAL VALUE J1W AV.FAG
1909-47-48
1-Jrne 30 tor 1945-46 through 1947-48)
Ave race Value
Volui-ie ot Exports
(pounds)
1909
1910
1911
23
22,602,268
89,014,660
51,030,711
74,323,074
117,950,875
69,813,711
43,?8,392
57,422,827
59,645,141
32,926,546
108,08,2b7
'15,138 ,'179
117,933,740
94,216,105
59,103,757
220,911,703
146,484,984
156,070,067
229,bi9,30
267,706,790
197,227,583
235,037,406
257,799,889
210,203,920
193,039,202
171,b1,83
197,78,86
16?,39Z,104
1&9,lbl,132
235,L88,256
157,702,061
61,565,496
166,537,063
103,073,047
117,006,635
117,270,&b4
71,249,276
154,414,000
137,740,000
213,034,000
Total Value
(dollars)
1,073,210
4,0].,5b4
3,271,973.
4,995,053
6,665,870
4,662,546
3,274,197
3,9ri,3g6
4,934,329
2,177,976
15,?1,9b1
11,738,312
9,280,298
9,211,630
5,211,262
13,218,266
11,265,773
10,635,123
12,613,770
16,221,383
14,837,915
13,560,241
11,520,860
7,782,494
9,352,494
9,609,155
9,4U,0
9,203,oSl
9,867,961
7,067,201
2,950,352
8,565,467
6,91b,382
10,707,737
15,696,07?
9,956,060
19,013,000
22,456,000
17,039,000
per pound
(cents)
4.8
4.5
6.4
6.7
5.6
6.7
7.5
6.9
8.3
6.6
14.5
15.8
7.9
9.8
8.8
6.0
7.7
6.7
5.5
6.1
7.3
5.8
05
3.?
4.8
4.8
4.9
4.2
4.5
4.8
5.5
6.?
9.2
13.4
14.0
12.3
16.3
.0
p-Preliminary
Sources: 1909-45, "Foral8n Coiiierce and Navi8ation at tue U. S."
Bureau or orierce, ah1netoa 3). 0.
1945-46 to 47-6, ".oroign r. Trade," Dec. 1948, Oti'ice ot
loregin gr elationa, Ji1'., ashin toil 3). 0
24
pound.
ian prune producers in Oregon and Iashington operated
at a loss even during those years.
for seTercj. years prior to (1928) growers in
certain sections and some growers throughout this
producing area (Oregon and Vashiugton) had not been
obtainiu.g from their prunes sufficient returns to
operate their farms and orchards and maintain their
customary standard of living. (1, p.1)
Ia 1228 and 129 prices ror prunes were sowhat sore favorable
for producers than for several years prior to then. (5, p.1)
The
situation of most prune producers in Oon did not become desperate
u.ntii. the advent of the world-wide deprossion ol' the 1930's.
By
132 the average price for dried prunes exported from the United
States fell to 3.? cents par pound. In spite or ts dollar
devaluation by the United States Government in ic
and 1934 and.
the intended favorable effects upon foreign trade and prices, the
aYere price for dried prunes exported from the United States
topped
.0 cents per pound only once from 1931 through 1940.
The average price of dried prunes exported from the United
States again increased to 14.0 cents per pouni during World .ar II
with the lend-lease program.
The 1JNRRA and other foreign civilian
aid. by the Ud.ted States Government after or1d War U helped to keep
the ayerago price for dried prunes exported from the United :tatos
relatively high until 194?-
Then the prioe dropped to
an
average of 8.0 cents per pound.
possile factor causin... production of prunes to decline in
Oregon proportionately nre th.n in the United States as a whole,
froi i92 tbrougZ 14S, was the apparcnt 10
outlet for dried prunes to other urcs,
in:i
of the remaimig marzet
Oalifornia.
.nother
he fziiure of other outict, suci as car
possible factor
to be devoloped adequately to absorb profitably all of the pro
duction of prunes in Oregon.
ttr fvorjng the dried prune industry in California over
Oregon an other areas in the Pacific Northwest was that casts in
producing dried prunes in California wouJ. seem to have bcn Lower
than in the pacific Northwest. some 01' the factors that would seem
to have resulted in lower costs i producing dried pruLIes in
California were: 1) the prune drying ratio in Oalifornia wa;
pounds
fresh to 1 pound dried as opposed to 3 to 4 pounds fresh to 1 pound
dried in the xacif to orthwest, 2) priiaes wars eu;toar1ly driod
In sunlight out-of-dcor in California whereas prunes were custom-
arily ctried by artificial host In the Pacific Northwest and,
large dried prune industry was s3aintained in Csiifornia through
1c44.
(Jee Table
OD appendix)
Utilization of Prunes
Beeui
in the aar] days of the prune industry
1
Oregon, as In the
other ixaportsnt pruue producing areas of the Pacific Coast, most of
the crop was dried.
however,
1?45 that situation remained only
in Celifornia. in the acIfic orthwest, ospciall In Oregon and
Washington, mar
prunes were then used for fresh shipment and for
canning as well as for Jrying. (2, p. 1) In Idaho nerl all the
crop of runes was shipped fresh.
ot Of tL ::rothiction a!' canned
26
prunes was in Oregon.
Oregon 1920's
In the 1920's, drying was atlU. oy far the largest commercial
use of
prunes in Oregon.
portion of the Oregon
about bO per
in
cent
Eowever,
tho average pro-
dried declined from aoout
O per cent to
during that decade oecause production of prunes
Oregon increased
trade in
crop
(see Table v)
faster than
did the quantity dried.
The fresh
prunes was just getting wel]. established in Oregon in
1920's. At that time, tue volume
the
or fresh shipments of prunes
produced in Oregon was erratic from year to year, especially in the
early 1920's.
Canning of prunes was in its infancy airing most of
the 1920's, although by 1929 canning was the outlet for 11,000 tons
or prunes produced in Oregon.
Oregon 1930's
and 1940'S
The drying of prunes produced in Oregon from 1930 to 193? was
more uniform from
year to year than it had been during
However, such drying Was at about the same
the 1920's.
average annual volume as
during the 1930's.
Only the canning of prunes made increases during
the middle 1930's.
In 1933 commercial canning of prunes used 11,600
tons
of prunes produced in Oregon, and
by 1936 it used 25,bOO tons.
In 13?, for ;ne first time, canning used about tue same proportion
of the prunes produced in Oregon as did drying.
].
the last before
duced in
The year 1939 was
during which a J.arger volume of prunes pro-
Oregon was used for drying than ror any other use.
From
TiO3L
UTILIZATION OF
Year
191
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
12b
1926
1947
1929
1930
1901
1932
1933
19i4
1935
1936
193?
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
3.945
1946
1947
1948
J1iS HODUC.:j)
Fresh /
D SOLD L. (RLjGCu EY YiJiBS, 1919
(Tons)
Dried
1,bOO
1,0L'u
,1O0
4,200
10,100
9,400
19,500
l2,Ou
30,000
22,:0..)
2O,.0
8,200
8,600
2?
V
/
Canned .?J
Other
,
LI
1,600
1,100
1,400
0,100
2,(i0
12,bOO
14,0OL.
5D,OUQ
1L,300
18,200
23,200
20,500
7,OoO
4c,7O0
23,100
2.,9O0
23,600
21,600
18,900
130O
13,500
13,400
20,700
14,200
18,700
13,900
17,900
20,300
17,000
13,800
19,000
17,600
17,000
23,600
16,100
13,000
21,000
2,600
33,000
24,000
,10O
13,00:
2,603
2,600
6,bOO
b,900
11,300
4,100
7,700
8 ,0O
300
1,600
/ Fresh Basis
,,/ Dry Basis (Drying ratio 3 to
7,300
11,000
6,103
10,600
8,000
11,00
13,600
20,500
2,50O
23,200
12,700
28,600
11,300
29,600
15,0O
31,000
14,800
1,000
44,200
13,700
8,000
100
300
1,00
12,bOO
9,200
10,900
8,200
1,bOO
800
pounds fresh t 1 pound dried.)
Waiziy frozen
For some years siil1 arnØunt were not harvested on account of
econothc conditions,
$ourees: 1919-28 Reports o1 tiW 0k
1929-44"Fruits (noncitrous) Production, Farm Disposition,
Value and Utilization of Sales, 16D-i94." (ashington D.C.
May 1946
p.
c)
194-4? Same 19b-47, .Tuly 1948, p.36
1948 Prelininary Utilization of ?runes "Prunes 1948 ProductIon
and Utilization-1946 "USDA-BAk Estimates, 306 Courthouse,
Portland, Oregon
1940 to 1U48, with the possible exception ot 1'i4, canning used at
least as much oi the prune crop proaucea in Oregon as did drying.
The two seasons, 1U.? and i94, saw the virtual disappearance of
drying of prunes produced in Oregon.
Drying of prunes produced in Oregon actually decreased xore
from 1929 through 194C than canning increased, Fresh shipment at
prunes produced in Oregon remained ircre unifox'm in volume than did
the other commercial uses tnroughcut 1U31 to 148.
Little year-to-
year fluctuation took place in th fresh trade and no apparent
absolute growth or decline occurred.
freezing, jaeis, and preserves were other co.ieDcial uses for
prunes tro 1929 through 1948.
ueh uses were of importance for
prunes produced in Oregon only during World
ar II.
In 1943,
there sre 12,500 tons ci' prunes produced in Oregon used i'or proc-
essing other than drying or canning or sold for fresh iipment.
In 1948, theco other uses had decreased so that Ofllj 600 tons of
prunes produced in Oregon were so absoroed.
Some Factors Causing Variation in the Vo1we of the
Utilizations of Prunes Produced in Oregon
The dried and calmed utilizations of prunes produced in Oregon
fluctuated rre from year to year d.iring the period covered c this
study than did. th ftath utilization. Part of the explanation oX'
this was In tr1e fact that usually relatively few prunes prouucea
in Western Oregon were snipped fresh. Prunes prod.ucea in Vestern
Oregon deteriorated ire when shipped fresh than did prunes
29
produced in. iastern Oregon. (5, p.c)
Jthough otherwise good areas
for producing :prues for drying and cann.in:, prunes distrios in
1estern Oregon er often drenched with rai.r at blossom-time resultin
in a poor sett' of primes and srnaJ.ler amounts or prunes for drying
end canning In certain
itai1ar1y, faoraD1e weather helped
to produce unusually large crops or prunes in disrictn iz Western
Oregon In other yers.
Apparently the tresn market outlet for prunes produced in
Oregon Was more stmole then the other outlets available for prunes
produced in the tite from 192 throuI1 1941.
Most of the pro-
duction of prunes for froan sn.i.iert rro.r; Oregon was in iastern
Oregon districts becaue prunes from triose areas w"re setter adapt-
ed to that use. Also fresh utIlization peld the ihest 'En.sona1
average price to growers for primes in Qregon from 1933 through
l9'.
(eo Table XL,
pendli)
In occe sional years, suet as 1931
end 193, when the volume of production of prunes in astern
Oregon was far b3iow everage,* large volumes ci' prunes produced
in estern Oe.nn were usi to supplennt the 1' roh utilization.
(ee Table VI)
Howeve
when prunes produced in .asteru Oregon
were of average volume, few prunes produced i
ed. fresh.
et.rn Oregon were
From these facts it would appear that a
sustained increase in. ecanU for pn.nes for fresh shipment would
Damage frau frost aoout slossom-ti.ie occasionally causec. roauctIon
o p;nes in fle;torn Ore;on to s s:.11er than averaLe.
eav,y damage
from frost was less frequent ii ser oregon tha was .rsn.vy dame
frori rein at biosscm-tth- ir ster hresn fros
tii. 19.
30
result in increased production o± frune in kestern Oregon and be
of little benefit to producers of prune in Western Oregon.
I
PBODUCTi0L OP
.astcirn Oregon
Tons, fresh Basis
(ear
OB'3N I3 YiMiS
Ti3IJT AN1)
1929
1?, 300
11 iQ
2.931
2.932
14,200
,400
2.933
1,O00
1'3,0O
,800
11,400
10,400
/
Western Oregon
Tons, Fresh
19 3
19 6
133?
V2,40c1
'OO
bOO
100,300
132,800
121, bOO
19 33
i',000
._0, OO
'?U, 700
1939
1940
14, .O0
1O,UL0
1, ':oo
lb,400
19 1
as1s /
1e9,0OO
93,z0(J
1,20O
1934
1929-4
54, iiOO
information nt uviiab1e for earlier years.
rie to
Converted fr.
pounds fresi:.
Sou.rea
'Plu
c
a
U$fl-B.
.
'ci baois b te ratio of 3 to
pound iried.
.evisect :.j1'L5t
J.roduction, 190941."
ijiorting 3oard, e;'ternbr 194$.
:' c;ii
T?roduction ot Canned Prunes
Deveiient
Before the 1920' 8 production of canned prunes in Oregoxi
relatively small. (See Teblo VII) This wa boeuse virtually all
usc& ror arin. iot until
the rket OUtlet ror dried pine began to be iat::iete to
absorb proritabiy 1l of the runting prodctiü of prunes abou;
or tfle output of rrur
3.92h w
in Orogon w
co;IerCtTJ. eanLi.n! or prunes widely co$darea a a
e Ia
or prune.
large eü':.tJ
os.t
otLer uses for p'i were tmined and wie pru.d intc rest
developed in Oreci ith respect to the possibilities of oannir
as an additional uarkot outlet roi prunks
Nortiwest.
(, p. 1)
.t'cte
In Oregon in 13O
ulletiu
xperimant Station jihlished it
ii the
othie
o.
i1eultux&1
S entirely devotod
to the canned rreii orune with special r'.gerd to ith market sit-
uation and outloc. That piiblicaion urged the rnpid expern3ion of
ttie.ve otlet" for
coi:ercia1 cannL
prodie
Li tne £'ao1ic
rines
t
0rgon
or o
,J4 oas of cenaed
basic or standard cc Oontai lag
o.
isi Oregon
6Tz t
';.t[ P
cJ76!
fl 'F8T
=tr) 'PUTZO 'uOooy
.tOc-T T°T
1XGTxtrT
;T
T6T
Trzo:v
PtV
r'
TZTX
Al flqij,
;rtDf TJrLT t3
c6T
l41cy)31
Q U9r(nc eT!3
flOZ()
l-6tVt OtPI P
oo inq.ov
'UOUI4U
OiQSI
ur-aTeA
8'8t
000 '000 '1:
C 419
/eP6t
'qg
g 06
' 6t
ECO6'1
L11'1 t 0 'T
6t
r9810cfl'T
nofl' r;
W' St
T7 St
69
8iO '
.t '419
OT'60G
ir)q
Tc3' /O'
'1:
t' St
O' 6t
3'
3cSt
6
q?o1
o
oøme
'1:
o et
'i
41c St
yi '1c:;4 '1
09I,,99
5
o0z'goq
0' Sh
194 '0"T't
t 'Tc
c.
6t
8t
9 St
t St
oc:?
0c6t
66T
19
,/
41' 99
1cO
/a
8t
6L41 'OOQ
'yg4
8t
cyt'ggt
n roi. ;o
t!Ce.X(
.UGO
eic ?TtX1
's
p.xm,m
TT8 x)
rt
6tT
tflt1'I
iIT'L X
!0
Try9()
'ir
t'Y1?
T:trm
';
'I
r'!r
-'
L:O
P1L fIY
o
ILIt riv1r4
FIGURE 9
TOTAL PRODUCTION OF CANNED PRUNES IN OREGON, BY YEARS, 1929-48
Least-squarea trend: Y = a + bx
Thousands
of
1,111,085 canoe
42,549 oases
one year
Origin at mid-year 1938
a
aeoe of
b
x
24 No. 2e
3,000 2,750 -
2,500 2,250 2,000 /
1,750 -
Two.. ear mo'rin. averae
1,500 -J
1,260 -
Leant-squares trend
1,000 750 -
500 250 0
I
'30
'31
Source: Table
1929
'32
'33
I
'34
I
'35
I
'36
'37
I
'38
I
'39
I
'40
I
'41
I
'42
I
'43
1
'44
I
'45
F
'46
'47
'48
in 1929 was nct exceacd until. 134 when 804,16? cases of prunes
were canned in te state.
(3ee
b.i.e VII)
Output of eanned prunes
in Oregon inerouseti to 1,3YL,$3 cases in 1S
ina re&ained between
1,3b0,00u and. i3OO,OOQ eases until i3, when production decreased
to ?274O3 cacs. Froi W7 through 1947 production of canned
prunes in 0reon incroasu nd ctecreaseU in aiternL
fluctuations were 1ar; in certain years such a
1,676,56 cases in 1S9 to 809,210
in 1940.
yer. The
deeoe IOia
fo 1are
increase over 193-7 production or canned Puxias 1 0reon w
iie UAtII
In that year production of canned prunes in
Oreon ir
deceo.rd
oses, }iowever, i.i L47 the cutput
to
to 1,260,031 cases and in 194B de r.;i rurtln3r to
7b?,u3 cui; not iaucb above te lu tt or
Ttoj
rodutjor of canned vrunes Ii 0reon from 19
tirough
14G ! Wa in Figure 9. Much or to a1trnating incr
and decreases in ttiat figure were
of a two-year ooving average.
otbed by tho a.1cstion
To il1utra tAe rt or To\ctb
e least-squares streight-line trend wa; corn
ana ap:iied to
the series.
Unitcd t.jtes
Prothction of canned pruno in the nation as a wfloJe wai
alRlller k: t
produetio
In reo
in the period flJ9-47 beaaue Ore..on
nstituted sou1. three-rourtrs of tue total in the
Unjte States on tiie average.
(LJut in Orej:on averageO. ?2.B
per cent or the total. prociuction of canned prun
in trio United
States in those
(see Table VII) For the five-year eriod
1c444-4E3 proctuctlon of cennod prunes in Oregon constitutea an
avsrne of ?4Se per cent of all
3iat
ouxi.tect to
i5C
Dduction in the United
per cent in l44. Betien 1J2.9 end
1q46 production of canneu prunes in tin. UniteC tnte 111 U areas
out&ide Or','n did not
to a.i. ter the ren of the proportion
of such roductjen in Oroon to the totel in the. Unitea htates
California
lthouli the source cited revlow1r for utilizt.&t ion of prunes
n Celifornia flesiod onIp
e ccL;:OTcia1 UJE
pr .ries a record of production of cenne
founct fo
&ppendix)
co:t:in
It
orrij.a wes Icr, s
Of ttLt
prunes: in aliThr.ia w
are rro 192b through 19.c.
(dee Table XLI
peared that production of cezmo prunes in CaLif-
bith absoluteiy ena crocortionately in the 1920's
than it was during the l3O's. California Uid not account for
over 8. per cent of the production of cnnod prunes in the United
dttee in any year froiri 1933 tirowh 1940.
lanation of Fiactattozw In Production of Cinned .Prune
Jize of the Italian Prune Crop
Total voleno ol' productior4 of cennd
Stete
aro
wac
&rtially dependent upon
t-
ruxie
in the United
of tne Italian prune
143.
199 t :
noted revio1y
of tne crops of prunes
&cn :eofl, a u.uon, and
dz
erioi. 1r
.
36
Idaho were shipped fresh in that period. Apparently few canning
type (Italian) prunes were producect in California from 1929 through
1948.
At any rate few were canned. Petite prunes, which ooxisti-
tuteci the bulk of the production of prunes in California, are not
well-sutea for CeT)nlnJ.
Production of prunes in Western Oroon ws probably a large
dotor1ninant or year-to-year tlucuttjos in the production of canned prunes in tfle United States frori 1929 through 143.
production in estern Lregon w
o;ever,
not te tole do;xnt
tota.L volume of production of cennsd prunes In the Jnited
during tnat period.
ot even fro
14 did the cnning
1Y40
of prunes utilize all of the i1uction of r-;
&eater
regon,
By that time proauction of prunos i Ore-oii wa much reduced from
ita high levels of the 1930's end conuitiQn of omnned pzunos in
te .nited States reached ne high levels.
Carryov r
Total volume or production of canned prunes wa probably also
depenuent upon the carryover from the previous year.
VIII)
(See Table
Carryover or canned plums C: :runes iricreaued from 1934
through 1936.
About 193? the tridmicy
and decreasing carr:.iov'r
o aiterae ta
tfle y:yr3 of increasing
evident.
.L'his alternation
of volume of carryover was in tie years opposite t that noted
previously in the production of canind prunes.
(..ee Table VU)
For instance, in 1939 ,.roduction ol: cnnad prunes in the United
C0
AT
OF
RcIAL SPOC?
JGI
FiJiL: I
Ci? C_L_L iLJ.;;. Ai)
...
i
Ii
'
rj ' 1(jJ. LL Lt b ±CK
C
I
.1um
and
195
/ /
193?
1E3,0)0
19
2?,000
24
1943
1944
194b
1946
runes
25
19
16
18
10
8
18,000
36,000
22,500
21,620
8,eGb
10,12b
9,67
12,375
190
1941
142
P £,
1'?
4,0Ju
1938
1939
21J
Prviou Year Pack
3,0u()
31,O0
193Q
IT
of Ciiri.
rune3
(1,000'3 ib.)
193'
T
£ 24 o, 2 cans eqiai to 43 jounda)
Pc'r Cent of
(Weight pe
Year
14-46
I
5
8
6
/ inQjues stocks of whoieaje ditribt.itors and stocks in ciinstore warehotos
&'ot available tar ecrile: years.
Source; 2ureau of
r.Lcu1turai LCC.1C;10E,
Cozupi1e fi reports of ti
U.
ii
h1iiti. D, 0
De;t. of Coierce
.
.
eac aac 400,UUU ce of canxed plumo and
Statee wac
ruinea were earriec ovr fr. th
t1n or
IUiLOa Ia
eoc,00c
jj
rviooi
err,
hi. 1940 proc[uc-
te was 1,2ti,11
TTijt
arict
Cr eaxwd plum an hrrnoo were carried ov.'r rroni
tte pr: viotis year.
Uarryover
of cari.xe
p1Ui
JJer durin
anu prunea Wei
ar II tlmn in the pre-&r period tron 1934. Data rerd1
World
carrver of
a
rune
in 14? and. 14 wore not available
for this study. iowcver, th2 rclativeiy large
OC
prunes in the nited tates in i4b
doereesee. lurthei in i43 wouLI
11sui.L
ee
01' C...utied
ix J.''7 arid
t
a larr than
irtd1c.Lt
carryover in those eare, *
Isiporto and oort of
ei
an1 prunes
itf .totes in
Liports of oannoa ;.Lw; aa pruneo into t.
yerb fro i7 trou.d11 14.i wore smaLl WiOU. C:. a 4 with
the pductio of c;.nao. iu .a urto
tho Jmzitd ...tates in
cettalut
.
those yecro.
(See 2able L) Lcports of cannad ilwns and prunes
were so sxisJJ.
frOm 1929 through 1948 that t.1.8g
Como'ce cad
Naviatii: o! time tilted. :tai.,es" did not hat tbemi in a 3
quantity of enad. 4u1 and ,r
of
¼IC i
*Ca1u.im
.i.CiO
1:.
i.datr,, soarc.a coat
for tIa s.idy indieute.i caiov.mr o
1ar,e, especially in 1..
kre: rEd.
arid £ruueUas, n, e. a.(not e1se,here
e
BratC
equal to 1.9 per cent
ji..
t.:e ;.:iited d.tates
o ul tin
ie1dwork
cta uausually
rved plum, prune
sj'eeifieU) *
39
J-
41V4/V
flTrtrt
Lt# c.L '-...
V
2
-
.
'':.
..r
.....
,r
.
.
.
.-.
-
.
..
1937, LiA3, 193'.), L4.., li)4(,
.
J.
-
.L-
rear
.er eit
1937
1938
1.0
1.0
1°43
194
1947
0.8
/ Less then 0.0 per' cent.
ourc: "irrmrtes o: .itarlfl' 1riformt1oxi," VoIu
rocsucts aU .rOV1eiOflE1, u.
1948.
.
.ritt
OiS31OTt,
..-;gr1CuitU11
ingtou, I. C.
40
quantity of eaime
d..d.
u
of detic production n ln
in that year accorI:1:.n
wee 0,2 p
ent in. ioi
.runeu equal to 1.9 per cent
iiorted into the United Otetes
o Te1e IP
Ths cor 'ng poreeze
per cent in 1047.
aru5
that inçorte of cnec p1w
prunes into t:
It would appear
.miti
tates wore
8mall in the period rrorrL 1537 tirouh lç47.
he iaport dutp on eanrie3 pi
ad vnlorem froi 1; 2 thi
1047.
anU prunes wa
Zb per cent
Eov;ever, tin;
a i.s
oduced
to 17.5 per cent ad valoreni lo 19' by the 0cnc-ia Uofnrenee
(6,
p. 152). Lnport of conne
luio. aet
c)rLine
Into the Onited
5ttae nia tncreese aft:n 11046.
prt6 of cr1 u; n.rc
pruaen fro
iaeCc. continuelly fro. 1029 thro
volume of theee e.portu. ua
1047-48
n1ip
thu Unite
tate
(see Table X)
wore
The
aae11 and erratic averaging about
the eqiivalent of 64,000* ce:cn out of an nmia1 pack averaging about
1,000,000 case,
trend upwu'd or donwrd wa apparent in this
series aithougl an upn:U tronn of production of caimed prunes in
the united tate wau apparent fron 1029 through 1046. Table VII
ehowod that 1946 was the year of largest production of canned prunes
on record in the hnited. states. however, eporte of canned p1uns and
prunes froo the Uniten ;Otates in the first two years following the
large pack in 194 wore not the 1arest on record. hxport of canred
prunes from the United htates fron u1y 1, 194-6 through Tune uO, 1947
were the equivalent of 174,555 cases, the largest since 14l.
5ii b
947 through Ju.ue d3
'ro
e:knortu of conned prunes from the
of stancmara cu-is conLain:p
ho. 2 cans.
'0
a
:T
'flOtTc, TTT1OTIT :j(
L frOj '-i3T
'Ut,'rq tflt
tj
tt jo uo-
;o r.xti 'eziwo ;o
pu
onwo
TtO
JO
JJC)
-Q61
thrj
fl
OoO'; '
1.tT' OQ
qgg'it
000'
OO9'O'
c?
1g
7LjLi '19
1136
9'c;9c'1
oo ''Lj
cc'3' &1
L 3'
'o
'g
2C0T00'c
iTY'T
:
ct
1T'T'T
Q8T
0fr'9t9'
tn'T
X2pt
Jo
JO
I51
68t
Vpt1no)
IcI
tiC)
-5t
-Q3T XOJ C$ flC-T
O7L
--: $7 '
'rL' arTnn UiL
-
IrnL ar
rir
r
io
rrz
x na
Un1ti $tat
o1ui
o
.1
ox;cTt of
In 12 vher t.
with
tc
t
.1 p!u
274,000 caoo wo
anti
f1ur
oi
eort
1.9
juivLLcnt o
zi
cC,311
actu11 ie& thui
8,144 cs. The yeor
run
1L3
eortei,
That
I 41 wie tb::
f1j; tie Jnited
iiv1ent of
43
Capita Consuaption
The civilian per capita consumption of canned plums* and prunes
in the United States averc. about 0.3 oound per capita annually for
the period 1909-47.
(See Tb10 XX)
To indicate how small a quantity
this was it is noted that even olives averaged 0.b pound per capita
in the same period.
roin 1929 through 1947 tho civilian per capita
consumption of canned plums and cruneo averaged 0.
pound annually.
From 1946 to 1947 per capita consutior. of canned piums and
prunes incre&ed greatly.
In 1946, pex cwit&i cousuirotion of canned
pluiis and prunes was 0.6 pound and in 1947 it Increased to 1,0 pound,
It civilian per capita oonsunptlon of canned lun' and prunes was
aintaired at the rate o± 1.0 pound annuaU,
,0O0,0O0 cases con-
taIn.ng No. 2* cans would be recuired.** The produotlorn of 3,576,009
cases of canned prunes in 1946 rade ponsiblo oouswption at th rate
of 1.0 pound per capita in 1.94?.
However, it would appear that con-
eumption was not maintathed at the rate 1.0 pound per capita because
production of canned prunes in th inited totes was 1,80,94l cases
in 194? and about 1,000,000 cases in l9.
Yeer-to-year variations of civfliau per capita oonsunption of
canned plums and prunes in the Uriitec
ates were
iii1ar in timin
to year to year variations of corropoiidin consption of all
canned fruit in the period from
trirough i%2.. (See Fig. 10
*Piw.1 tonpaça sold for carnin wa .nali fro;t l4 to 1946. Table
XLII (appendix) iudIctes productiun end. utilization of plwu in
i-ar ni taiIforn1a, t to legtjnc T.Luru pro'iucing states
durinc; tho'a vers.
a civilian population of 135,OCXi3O00 in ti:te united States.
'o
cx
r
.1
10
T'.iJ rvtr13
ZT1'
tO.T
C''
-
..:!i
J)
"i
c't
-
-
9T
-
9.
9.
2"T
9'T
9*
6'crt
T1
9*
r*nt
OT,r
it ..I
/-'
0c
:a3zno3
PTtO
231
-
ic
61
113'8T
q'c
-E.I
I.
C''
c'c
3*
C'4
c'6t
001
9f.3[
*ct
4*
90
0'!
9,
/'
I*
TC31
Ifr
6'
rc
0*Tt
04
'2'
C'I
-.
T'9
C"
TT
/06
8'!
T'2:
0,2:
-"I
7
Ts
3'T
12:6!
oa1
0T5t
9'
'T
Lt5t
17
9*9
C'1
Cs'!
0'
t.
6'
8'
t0.
9'
I
0c
:!JIrr$
9*
90
'
9'
2:0
-
(sptxno) (cptmo)
Tt)
TO
-
(spiino)
8'
rT'
t -1Ir.
'iL
t4T
t6t
(Fpuno)
:Oi
9UTci
r' t0 l:I
r]
O V1t.TT0 Id
'A110 rcr\L1(.r
'2
,i
D ci
2:18!
1181
0181
806t
(pur.o) (ptmo..)
U1I
tcL_
4-608T
xtr
1'tVITrIAIO TvjcL .T
'GuIWV
vi:o jt&i :yriro
:o
FIGURE 10
ANNUAL PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF CANNED PLUMS & PRUNES AND OF
ALL CANNED FRUITS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY YEARS 1929--1947
Pounds,
All Canned
Fruits
All Canned Fruits
.-
Canned Plums & Prunes
Pounds,
Canned Plums
and Prunes
-.---.-
-.
40
2.0
30
1.5
20
15
Eft. \
All Canned Fruite
1.3
0.9
.8
I
c
,
urns and Prunes
/
-
10
.7
.5
9
8
7
6
.4
\\\,
\\,/
.3
5
4
.2
3
2
.1
r Ration
Period
.05
1929 '30 '31 '32 '33
'34 '35 '36 '37
'33 '39 '40
'41 '42
'46
'47
Aowever, the re1atje :n
lt
of the variations of con-
auption of canned plums and prunes was greater than for a.Ll
caxuied fruits. Th 1oarithmjc scales in Figure 10 were selected
to aid. conparisons of relative chanes in the t1vo series,
It night appear that consumption of the relatively inensjv-e
product, canned prunes, would decline less than the aver3e for all
canned fruits when national incene declined. According to Figure
101 consumption of canned plums and prunes decreased relatively
ire than the total of all crmd fruit2 iii th dcpr3siofl oi' the
1930's, Siilarl, it uight appear that consuiption of canned.
prunes would increao less than tie iverae for all canned fruits
when national iucoie increased.
}iowever
according to igure 10,
consuxration of canned plums and prunes increased while the con3uup-
tion of all canned fruits decreased fros 194 to j47 in the postdo2'].d War II boom.
Evidently once alone w
not ao iartnt as other tctors
causing eonmpt1ori o canned. fruits in the United States during
the perjpds cited.
jt
TT
)T.
J
TY
.10 Z0T2TT
r,
ThBLi xii
P...C}c.. ;P
L
iAJGIfl
L..i?
14
:::,
Canne irit
Co-iparth1e
13rndc
revai1i, .Price po: ;oc1i Cane
N. 2 ojee
Frunc
Peac1e
*cicaJ
Source:
.;-Vklli
O1i iice pr
eoic
u .o.
ot
Bargifl
ro
Lri n
(per cent ot
rice)
3C
.oO
fruit Lockt&L1
vo1u.z
Appro-. Average
4
Arioots
CiJu)
li4A; LTx VJY,
2.90
;.6b
fto acut
1
.29
34
.3
37
to 10 per c;it
ii; upon
bUSiXAC
.uthor' personal mrvey of onridentia1 traie orce.
49
19 cents per can.
That niade a gross rrgir or 36 per cent of
the packer price between the packer and the consumer.
ama o
the mediui to n1ler-sjzed stores selling canned prunes at 19
cents got less of this
per cent due to theIr higher wholesale
coats arising from their sa1ler voiwe ol' bualness. .A few stores
were found to be selling iO. 2- Choice canned prunes at 22 cents to
26 cents per can with other canned fruits also gener-lly higherpricod than average. 0ncaral1 store was selling a well-known
brand of canned prunes,
o, 2 Choice, at 30 conts er can.
ost store mayiaera agreed that rnrgins on canned prunes were
generally about the aae es on other canned fruits ror several years
prior to 1949.
1most all of the cRnred prunes industry sources
agreed that rst aspects of sales appeal to cuisuxers received little
ohaais and that canned prunes were regarded as a nprlcett item.
That is, price was the only aspect stressed by uany associated with
the marketing of canned prunes.
The author noteit the following
things regarding canned prunes in retail stores during the flelowork
for this study:
Canned prunes were often placed at or nesr the top or
bottom of display shelves.
No store when visited ehIbited any sort of fancy display ror canned prunes.
The only speci1 atte3pt used. to dra customTri attention to
canned prunes were notices of especially lo prIces in two
stores visited.
*nsensus of store managers' seemed to be that a price andln in
nine was just as effective as one ending Ira eight or seven and much
riore effective than one ending in zero or one. They s:id that this
fact accounted for much of the variations in retail urgins between
various canned fruits.
It might appoar that for lack of an oranjzed approach to the
problem of small sales that a mediocre type of price competition had
developed in the canned prune industry at least by l94.
Consumer Studr
The limited research and data concerning canned prunes before
1949 caused the industry to desire research to help increase sales
of canned prunes,
The conditions which were noted to exist In the
canned prune industry from 1929 through 1948 seeied to indicate the
possibility that, of tbe various aspects of s1e3 appeul to
consumers,
only price received emphasis during that period. since the success
of the development of the canned prune industry from 1929 through
1948 seemed mediocre, the author believed that study interidd to
enable increased sales of canned prunes should be concentrated
upon
some of the other aspects of sales appeal to conaumers such as
flavor, quaiity, texture, and packaging. To accomplish such a
purpose It was decided to determine consumer criticisms regarding
commercially canned prunes as suggestive of methods to increase
sales of canned prunes.
iolQiuent of the ueetionnair
The problem of det?rmining consumers' criticism of canned
prunes wms thought to be xost satisfactorily accomplished by interviewing consumers themselves.
Therefore, a questionnaire was dev-
eloped mainly to determine contIdrs' reasons ror not bu in canned
prunea.
The free-response typo w- selected since this procedure
ws believed to mjnimi2 bias y tne interviewer. hach question,
each section, and finally the complete questionnaire were tested in
Corvallis etore actual euwTatioTL
. reproduction of the
W5 begun.
questionnaire asi in igure 12 of the
appendix of this report. Illustrations of cmrnied fresh prunes and
used darien the enwiorsa;e
canjie. dried (prepared prunes,
ation also appear in the appendix.
(ee figures 13 nd 14, appendix)
Questionnaire Outline
Introduction
1)
PreliLiflery
1)
contact with
U.:ISTS
for iut;rview
zirks
To inaurc that only those consumers fahliliar with canned
prunes pore asked questions requiring fcJiiarity with
canned prunes.
.1ain 3ody of t!e .uest1onnaire
.-Section
To determine those conswaera who had eaten coisraercialiy
canned ruries.
To determiuc homc-cxmers of prunes roy inclusion in the
group asked questions regardis hoc-canning. (D-.ection)
deter;dne charactri.stics 01' cc:.cmcially canned
--.ect1ou
1) To
prunes which, if c::.angod, would eLcouI'a;e consumers
to buy taore eanrze
rneo.
52
C-Soc tion
1) To
detrnijne "brand consciousness" for can-ned prunes
as coipured to coffee,
D-Sect ion
1) To determine bow and why consuiner
oiic-c&u prunes
1nsteLd of buyiw commercially cwuieu .runos.
I-Sect Ion
1) To determine which canned fruit ot:er than prunes
are eaten a often as oncu u iionth arid wn3ther or
not they are home-canned.
ectlon
.) To determine frequency of consurption of th'ied pruxiea.
G-e et Ion
To determine lenth of residence of consumers in the
Pacific Iorthwest.
1)
H-Section
To determine size and age distribution of families
of consunrs interviewed,
1)
I-'?ect1on
1)
o determine arolte fu:11.:: i.ieome of consumers
interviewed and fruquency o cnswtion of calmed
prunes.
ion
Four-hundred consumers were intrvjewed in vcriou.s t. ea of
grocery stores throughout the illametto Valley of Oregon in hrch
of 1949.
distribution of the c iumr geographically
Portland 42 /-i per cent, lei and ugene each
Preceutage
was as fo11ows
12 1/2 per cent, Corvallis 6 1/4 per cent, .L1bafly l
3/
per cent,
and small valley towns (.3rooka, Four-eorner, ImidepenLierzce, arid
i1onuth) 12 i/ oer cent.
Grocery store types arid the prcentse of the total number of
conswuers interviewed in each type were
cxain-atore self-service
3
or cent, large independcnt self-service 9 1/2 per cent, high
class J' 1/4 per cent, acrAail corner rocory type 9 per cent, and
iixed valley town grocery-store types l 1/4 per cent,*
Provision for four complete interviews was made on each ques-
tionnairo. A system of colors was devised tc facilitate earation
of the four interviews on each questionnaire during enumeration and
tabulation. Periodic checking of the questionnaires for obvious
oversights during enuRieration was intended to rocuco errors.
Tabulation
Unused questionnaires were used to record totals of each town
and type of store as those totals were deterjined. Grand totals
of towna and store types were then crosa-caecked by comparison,
and 1ocationi. ci' cooperating grocery-stores appear in Table
XLIII in the appendix.
54
OHdFTR V
RJJSULT
OF IT:d1IhW
VITa
ILk
V.LL.
Totals or replies to each question of the questionnaire are
discussed below in the sane order that the questions appear cii the
questionnaire.
Letters precede rep.tie in the preliminsi'y remarks
on the questionnaire. Consecutive nuisbers from one through 101
precede replies in the main body of the questionnaire. Coesondin letters or numbers aipear Lu. columns heeded ierersnce letter
(1ef. Letter) or reference number (Ref. 1umber) in the tables
below.
In the section dea1in with fu.ri.iy income, 1-hection,
consumers' replies were indiceted In ti.c corrOeponui!; space in
the table in that section.
In the columns heeded "Repiy In the tables below arc the
re1Ies received to the question which is the subject of each table.
In the columns heed
uber of heplies" are numbers denotlug the
nuer of ti....e e:ci rsi wee indicated bp ce.s'r8. it aoi:e
cases consu.erS save two or more replies to a siugle qu.tion.
The base of the ,ercentees in the coluiis headed "Percent
of .
.
." is the number of consumers interviewed for that
question.
2hoes numbers of consuiaers npper in
rentheocs
above the headings of the coldnac.s in the tblos below and are
designated (.
. .
consuisers).
IntroCiuc
ist of the consumers interviewed were women beoau e questions
(O
OT
O(yr,
;zzi:
'J'- 'OU2'
JC
t1
-
--
Ti
-x
-:
0 t(
UT r.Y
.
;r;?
tJi1i
rrrl
r
oçc: :
*
--i
irr
.rrt:
-;r:'
:;
:
't,X'iU t,
.
--
irpoø.z1
-
f
Lt'r.'i&
C1.;
a
,;)
zc
56
Those eonswrs who re:plied canned dried (prepared) prunes"
to the question in Table XIII were asked if they had ever eaten
canned fresh
'unes,
That we
done to thterine their familiarity
with canned fresh prunes for inclusion in the group which was
later to be asked to critize coiwnercially canned prun
8.
i?or
the ten who replied "neither' in Table III above interviewin
procoeded inwiediately to the questions reardix2g oth:r canned
fruits
-ection.
TABLE XIV
The quetiou:
Have
ever eaten this other type of orLnd prunes?
(79 consumers)
Eef. Letter
one
one
None
uer
of Beplies
lereent
of 7
lee
71
29
Don't krgw
0
Part II of the preiiiiinary rexark was concerned with whether
or not confusion was evidenced by consuuers after being shown illus-
tration of two different types of canned prunes and asked which
one they thought of when just "canned prunaa" wa ientiones,
The
enumerator interpreted reaction to the question in Table XIII above
far nan of these replies. Threehundred sixty-six consumers of
the 400 interviewed did not appear to be confused as to the difference between the two types of canned prums shown to them.
The preliainary rairarks were intended to determine thoae co
uxcers interviewed who were femlliar ononh with canned fresh prunes
to allow their inclusion with the group who wouI later be asked
questions which deriided familiarity wit'.; conned prunes. To deteriia osiy those c
Ifi eac;i question of
ca..ab1e of O..0
the interview heforo it was asked
a policy of to. -intire
n 9ody of the ,uestionnaire
Jcctjon
The main purpose or A-Section was to dternmine those consunrs
who bad eaten ccmcrc1a1iy canned prunes.
eaten coirixiercially cnecL prtrne were
duct.
&:;3
This was dona in such manner that
11 con umrs who had
ked to criticize that pro-
at the ze times the
group was deterrn.nad which was to bo asked qu.est ions regarding
hoie-canning of prunes, D-&etion.
The queEticns regarding home-
eann±n of prunes ware asked to det'erxnine how and why conauxrrs
hou-can prunes instead of buying cexsrmorcially canned prunes.
Two-hundred twentythree of the 400 consumers interviewed said
that they usually horne-cannd prunes. Fata previously
ted
indicate thet such a large proportion of home-canners of prunes
wa
probably a characteristic of the Pacific i\orthwest.
uetion:
Do you usually lloLne-ewa prunes?
(400 consuxuers)
hoply
Ref. Nuniber
1
*
*fl
of heplies
es
223
Not applicable (pie xu.reriarks)
reply did not aipe
of 400
l6
9
403
on the questionnaire
42
2
100
A number ol' tots for ttiticollj iJfiennt d1ff..rrt
In the queatlonnairc data wcr
In SAL area as nearly io.:o-
genout In soea1 uiO. ecociic cTrotcr1ics a tao WIl1ata
Valley, few snicint a]ff
rupingo of
i::& oc
eotd betwess
isenre. stj.
ucb a: i::
sound In tne tests for sigiuricant oui
:c: tuat rare
were
uue
Qne of tho tests for u oin1ficant difle use was: Are
oaz.nera of prune suieantli rro critical then nou-hoe canners
wae.
(;t5tLli eL Ifl igure lb in te
o
Other test.. for i Lien: dioiences were eoeuteo oetweea some
varions posoible diff eces beteeu ineoee ;roua, lct of rcidence
In the Facific Northwest, audi between Lortleno anu
;.iio outside of
Portland.
:bout sevei out of every
porsons interviewed ;ho saId
that they uteil houe-cennod prunes indicsteu that tie had eaten
coercial1y cusna3.
at OOLC tiiia or other.
:rni.Le
($ee Table LVi)
None indicata not knowing whether or not he had ever eaten cors-
inercially canned prunee
A2L1 XVI
The qu
sion: Nee ycu aver
en cc.ner s1l UXuLed jruree
consumarz)
Ref.
Tiioiher
2
3
4
Reply
of holiea
1.60
1)cn.'t know
63
0
2.23
Percor.t
o± 223
72
26
About the sue proportion of the L9
4ere wh indLtd
con
that tJiey did not uouaily fione-cen prunes seid that thcy had eaten
ooinaerciaUy enncd prunes at soiae tirae
Lo none jndjcatd ot
(oe Table LVII)
thr or not h
Uore
yer
caima rancs.
T..Li:. Xyi
The queetioi:
90v
;jou evr o:t
c.:.
c
Ref. Nwrther
eiaLLv caaneci prunes?
con
Fe ply
iiimber
6
Yes
7
No
a
loia't knoi
'orcrit
of 1ep1ie
of 169
fl
70
i1
C)
--
1 C9
3-:ctjon.
.iiC total nUrfoer of conswners interviewed vTho
they had eaten coria11y eannee prune
wa.
.
ndioated that
co;isteci
10 in Table XVI and 118 in Table VU. These 2? eonsurcrs wtio
were rami1ia with c;±eeal1y canned rns were asked ir eom
mercially canned prunes could be eied so that tiey would buy
(rre of) thea.
eons.ers a
-is1
part or te interview was o.1aaized to
.
ctarrt :art,
Ref.
hcrceiat
of Rilie
9
60
Ye 3
10
11
3
!on' t know
iftren of th
1C
likin& for then.
h.
t. th.
imiriediatol
rcj4ies in
aL1e
evIou].h de rinLecd fct of wttber
or not jrune were uuai1i ;oe-onned.
hat tbe ai ally
and an indicated a
rn;
and non' t known
u.en th
XVIII were
16
78
uir: c;o rli;d "iion't know" In Table
XVIII Indicated a dialike fcr
catITL
of 2?8
or thoeo
c--cri...
;eiaers mdi-
terviev
jceeded
v t... uestIo:e 1o1 he-cenLere of prune, D-..ection,
indicted that tho tid not usua1ij ori-c.n rine
or
Lviein rr eda 1m1edi6LL to qstione
cerni
othr
eann3. rruita, h-ectiori,
The i&
nsuxe-.
COU1CL be c;- o t
iclid that cer
touid buj (;oro ef) tbea were aiei
just what tooe chan8ee snoeld be,
and texture of cc
given b.j the eo
rcial1
arcIailj caxmed
canned
icr niewed.
Critioir of the flavor, juaIity,
.....
ftur all voluntary replIe3
chanin o the fk- a nd labele of canned
were uge3td to tho8e ccreera who did not crItcie those
were
ivcn, t
thcae
ruxies
6].
aspects of comrcia11y canned pruneo o1unt:rliy. Voluntary replies
were enumerated in the co1uirs headed "not propteU on the que-
Uortnire and the totaLs appear in the corr. idin colunn in
Table
below, Fteplies given arter suggestion of cwin packages
and labels were enwuem.te in the que.tionnaire eolwn beaded
"prompted" end appear in the corresponding colunn in Table
below,
TA]3L Xii
The question; fow could eorecially cairneti prunes rio chae in
any way so you would bu
or) thea?
(16L cors
riber
h)1y
Ref. .iimber
of .'...lien
iot pronipted
*i1cvor
14
Percent
of 165
41
3b
*ta1ity and Texture
1
14
17
*7jetj
19
rg
reaaorw
14
Price
1be1s confusing
20
21
8
8
10
3
**orce ci' habit
20
th
3peclfic critic1ss or cor..c..i'rcia1iy canieo r.nea below.
Those giving no reason ior dialie ror eoIi3mex'ciauy canned prunes
put here
replies
consumers gave
The question;
How eouLd coerciai1y canned prunes be changed in
o
ci1d
(more 01') ih i?
an wa
Ref. 1tumber
(1( consumers)
h03 ly
NuRiber
of
13
21
:i1Cs
Percent
of lob
1
14
34
22
Labels cc using
*See specific orltisxns of ooxrnevcia11y canned prunes below.
62
Spscific critic.
o c'ciauly canned p
Since the replies nzied with one asteriak in Teblea XD an
U were not specific, all conmer wio criticized cerciaily
canned pruue in regard to thoae replies were asked to make their
oritioiam more specific. The replies are indicated in Tables
XXZ tirouh XXV.
The degree of a setness seeied to e the critical tac
rogE11'd1n
the flavor of eoiiereially canned prunes. The most corn
nn criticism was that
sweet enough.
orcja1l canned prunes were often not
The next mot coion criticism of the flavor of
cr:oierc1a11y e.nnec'. rrune was tha'
re otten tGo
TAB1Lf' XXX
The jestion:
dU
Ret. Number
28
29
L1ht atOLLt t 0 IIaV( Lit
(68 consumers)
d
ooly
Iuriiber
or epiies
Percent
ot
oo sweet
Not sweet enough
.ciU
3].
Rancid
32
.hcquirod &islikc, chi.Ldhooc
34a
34e
34d
itcquired dislike, other
TOO JUo1 tU)
Not enougn. srup
Flat
Criticisms of tOWh kii or CO erciaJJ4 cnnei 1:rune, bere
the ruost nusrous of those specific criticiea r.'.rcin quelity
and texture. Two other relaie1y co1axroi co:jlaLts or quality
nd texture of corcial1y ciened irunes were ttret the fruit was
63
often either too firm or too soft,
T.BJ2 XLII
The question;
hat about the quality (texture) to which you are
erring would you like to see changed?
(58 consumers)
Ref. Number
Reply
Percent
i'umber
ot e
or Rerliss
35
3s
3?
38
39
40
41a
41b
41. c
Too firm
12
Too 8Oft
I3roken skin.
21
15
Tough skin
Strinr texture
1
28
2
Color
S
10
Generally poor quality
3
3
S
Dry
1
naU fruit
2
2
U
The difficulty of finding small sizes or cans
rs was nearly
the only corraon critiisxi concerning the packae of
c
ci
prunes
g1ven by consumers intervtewe4.
TABLr XXIII
The question:
What about t-e package (
see changed?
(3
Ret. Number
uld you like to
consumers)
Reply
i'JuluDer
or Replies
42
43
Size: Too large
44
Laterial; Glass hard to find
Jill other
4Ca
Too small
Pc reent
of 32
29
2
2
6
1.
103
Fourteen consuraera Inte viewed, criticized the snape an
p
64
of coisrci&iJ.y anne prunes. Twelve cl tou- consumers said
that they would buy (nr) canned prunes 11 he product wau avai1-
able as haLves inteac o
ti vole rrui
as was the custowry
style for corc5.aLly canned prunes.
r
ould you bu.y
(14 consunrs)
ieply
hot. i.unber
4?
48
Yes
4
Don't know
of iep1iea
Iercont
of 14
12
1
7
14
100
No
The iost coon dietary co.;.1aint of
I
ierciaiiy cawed
rurLes
given by consumers inerviewed wau ti. at tbj wore too acid,
of the replies
this section applieci to otner canncd rruits
well as to canned prunes.
xxv
The chuetion: could you iriake your dieta
canned prunes Lucre specific?
mplaint of coxiirercia11y
(14 con wer.)
Ref. iuia,er
51
o'
Acid
AllerCy
Diabetic
ioui.:e
Arthritis
11 otner
uuther
ep1iea
Percent
of 14
7
2
3
2
14
2].
14
7
0
.0
0-Section
C-Section ws to determine whet per cent of the conswrors who
boueht canned prunes hd selected a "favorit&' brand, This per cent
wee to be coapared to the per cent of those same consuirrs who had
selected a "favorite" brand for coffee,
Of the 206 consuiiiers who indicated that they had purchased
canned prunes at soz
tir
per cent said that they had a
"favorite" brand. Eighty-four per cent of the seine consuinere
said that they had a "favorite" brand of' coffee. The 206 consurners questioned Included some who did not buy coffee and some
who indicated no "favorite" brand, just any "good" brand of coffee.
It would ap'eer that etablishinont of brand rame for
not relativel,
canned prunes
fl
The c
tion:
1
a
complete as for coffee.
D.....r'.
4'(
u have a "favorite" orind of
consuirs)
Ref. .umb;r
56
5?
58
of ieplIes
Percent
of 206
148
72
Nurr'oer
Yes
io
Lit't know
0
296
1ef. Number
heply
(coffee)
Yes
60
61
Don't know
wLber
of hspl!es
1?Z
33
Pare rnt
of 206
84
16
0
206
100
)- etion
Those corLsuuers interviewoä who indicated that they uua11y
hon-cenned prunes werJ aked quetiona re ruin home-cwmin
of prunes for the purposes of determining:
The iethods used to nooe-can piwes
hy thoso methods wore used
)
het ws conoidered to oe the greateot
vantage of
canning
4)
How prunes for cnri n. at hiae
uua1l obtaLaed
S
'ota1s s.ti j;ercantaeo diffet ir. )-.. etion because
gave to or itore rep1ie to a
i.t
.
con-
uOStiorL er5e
17 ren wore interviewed.
iar.a ;ortioii of conoumre ho inoicato. that they usually
ho=-canne prunes oLo inoicted that tiey uaed the open-kettle
method.
which '
This w....-.
in. dieet contrsot
tL
c....oiercie.L canning o1 prunes
entirely b tao cold-peek method.
.
small nu..&ier of
iaiervieees saia ihat they usually hoie-car;nod brano
h.
ethods.
two
AxV
hz;
nen-kettle or cold-pack runesf
coasuerS)
uber
of eplies
62
Open-kettle
6
Cold-pack
Oven-pack
Two or more x:ietnoda
4
54
42
to
does not appear on questionnoire
3
6
2%
*Reol
hE.]eCflt
of 223
10
f'.;
Tt
r
freount jef:.r.:iL.
Of l:c...
cir.hjr1,
j
1]vor
cid-
to.
iVX
ci
.nd. ccld-pack
iioaoc wo. tn&t tie
o1 both open-kettle
rurs
oi
th'y considered tbeir
ivor tri
method ea1er ox' thct tLy
LsL.
The question:
do
ttid.
Ii
u )reVeI' ths o.e-kettle (oo1d-pek) metToth
2Z3 oi-er
ujyen-itettlo
Iefu.ber
&)
38
68
6Bs
69b
iu ber
eply
erccnt
of eLes of
Uo1d-k
1tber
Percent
of hues
of 223
21
9
19
8
A3Vx' oen-kett led
evor cold-pacKed
6?
1a
10
boter
sfor flavor etc.
16
Fct tar s:ao
1d-pack"eierythjn
47
86
£aviiç ir
ne,
1w Ecxee6t
rLe-uAdred twenty-nine conwnei
luterviewed gave t?et resson.
L.L OL.r rec-os ror
4 re:jiio. Ln replies to
that rlsvor, cwi1t;;
4
i;s irequeirjy as
w
advantao of home-caanjn,
received
he iost
ti.cr.
i bett.
w1
oilen-kettic ithd
£o. t;
uco
tex'curc
-cnn1
qiestion it i uio no
:ix.
o1nent.
TL3L xxix
question:
ht do yo e.ir to be the greatest aav
3 eonsuner)
Bar
Percent
ie)1y
Nimber
or Rei.iea ot 223
*ving in money
72
Better flavor etc.
Better quality and texture
73a
Convenience
r, 3
Dont t,
o
129
34
25
11
20
9
lb
lb
any aUVL1tae
22
7
ioU
According to thlo survey xany conirere i t:
for camiin
Valley who home-canned pruneo ot
insxpenive1y or even tree. Others urciiased pruxis ror caaiing.
TABL1 xxx
Th o
questio
How do you uzually
et iour prunes to cariI
(223 conzimiers)
Jercent
or ioplie or 223
Number
heply
N'imber
Re
42
19
Given frce
44
20
1
.adside stand
41
74
75
Have on prone trees
77
3u3 on. tre
73
5Uj ifl grocery
7
Lu
in vrious ways
80a
18
20
1
216
9
98
o tion
The purposec or L-oeticn were te determine which canned fruits
other than prunes
e... ten c
often as once or more per ri;nth and
evc
Trtj
'i-
:;u.
TT'fl
-to .;
TAtoT
0 .J" rc'.: "ti-oU
tO.X
01
TttO
'T
(iPoO3) TJ P
a
tr spO'q
pT(Iuzoa ..tJtJAflSUOO
TI!
TI
got
;o
eçj :c
U9Z9d
0
(omioo $&)
c
rriZj puuo iO
ye fl0! op 0)TXfl.ICI
I
9 PXUT
'G.xa1.
$UtflO
io
uo poumuoa
u
q
/TTPI 3J&
1
POTtt p9tZO.UC:
uizrip PMOfl
ALfflu
O
7tT
trt..
evrt
O. pot
1tOTW PU1
UC Oü1
OTEm() eT
iEVa
t.-u -i:oJ
TIU
OT{
Jo pOif UOT
êC
1$Ot7
UOQcc
.Sflf
UtJu. sO!-CD
tXOT.T.IOJUt ZETPT
00 O.
L4UA
wruoz 0t4 cq p
.ITAT
iot
Ii1O_errcq
69
The question;
Do y.i. .nai1, ae-o,:. these trujts?*
coui.)rJ)
(39
Ref., Nwber
.o1jes or oc
Yes
302
76
8?
22
190
Don' t eat eannoU fruits
*These frutta
flCi5CL
in a.Le
does not ser
recPie
aiove.,
',LtjO1JC,
t.
ir IUded in tue interview to d
quency or eon:tu; or crid prLnC
About three-rourth ci. tie
eT
he
ate r1eo
'ics
or tLiO
LL'.0
I,nterv1ewe
iite the freer
1i1eattu tXiZJt
:owev-, oni. 5o uC tiireeiAt1i
1flCa(J tiat jr ate urie1 jrunes as
per
10
L±IC
or rnore
ntn.
T
The question:
bout Low orei Us ou caP i.rieU (hot canneL uricd)
Ref. Nwilbdr
90
91
-.
ho sly
Once or :rra par antn
ith
once per
Not at 11
Less thr
of P.pUes
143
15
1'.ji
ij99
Percent
of 3c9
1
71
0-Section
The purpose of G-Section wa to determine the length or r
dence in the Italian prune prothioin Pacific :orthwet or the couumers
interviewed.
This iriroriation was useci
o test ior signitcant
dflreronces uetveen coiwiers living in the Pacific ortiweat for
ny years and other consuers whoe residence there wa shorter.
About three-fourtris of the consimers internewed said that
they had livoc in the Pacific ::ortlLwest (Oreon-Iashington-Idaho)
over 10 years.
TABL .LIY
stion;
bout how 1ong have jou lived
the Pa
(399 coiiers)
Ref. Nurnber
1ep1y
Nwnber
Of LBp1ie8
93
¶34
9
9?
Less than 1 year
1 to 3 years
3 to S years
5 to 10 years
Over 10 years
Percent
of 39
24
6
33
8
19
30(j
399
H-Sect ion
The purpose of ii-ection ws to
tiiiie the size of the
family of each conewr interviewed and th..... we distritiutione of
the persons con&tituting those reni1ies. Totals or data obtained
concerning the sizes of falfäiies and age distributions are given
in Table 2Q(XV below.
Faiii1y we
ilterpreteQ to xiean houseo1d.
72
TABLT xxxv
usatlon; How iay people are there ir your family-age-grouj siown on the questionnaire?
coniaers)
(399
iepy
Ier. Number
98
99
100
101
6 years ola or loss
7 to 12 yoars old
1 to 18 years old
NuxaDer
or Ioc1ies
Percent
of 399
178
94
over 16 years
1241
1 person
2 persons
3 persona
4 persons
b persons
b persons or more
21.
139
88
91
37
23
399
22
23
9
100
I-section
It was to examine the relationship between family incorae and
frequency of consumption or canned prunes that I.-ection was
included in the interview, About 88 per cent (33 of the 400
interviewed) indicated their approximate family inconia. By the
aame question it was determined that about one-half (191 of the
400 interviewed) of the consumers ate canned prunes as often as
or more per month,
10 distinction was made in Table 0QVI
between home-carned and coiercia1iy canned prunes.
73
your t
9 consumers
Total family
Income
Group
per week
Once or
irre per
Less tAan
once per
month
Not
at
Total
all
Lees than 2b pox' week
87
42
to 49 per week
50 to 74 per week
;7b to 99 per week
1OO to
20
39
l24 per week
l2b to l49 per week
8
].50 to
Iv
2OO per
lb
2
2
ek and over
*Indieater 8 coneuiirs interviewed indi.oated a family incoae Of lees
per week and a frequency of cozaswption of cannect prunes or
than
once or ztre per month.
Little relationship wa found to
between size of ineon
equeney of cons ption of canned prunes.
The Incomes per
week were combined into four groups In Table )VII as indicated
In Table
II. In the lowest income group (Group I a hIj.her
percentage of oonsuers interviewed indicated that they consumed
canned prunes once or more per month than in ny of the other
three income groups in Table
OVI.
However, the lowest income
group also Indicated a higher percentage of consumers who did
74
(.JLfled
:'i'ir
run
o1
oir tIr
iiicoae
ot;.
Income
Onc or ore
(pei cent)
e; tw once
(pai cts
Lot at all
c3ntj
40
13
bO
60
30
1.0
*ee Table
**In1cat t2 per cn or tie 8? corners in GroUp I or table
t:ey its CwX(i
nce or iore pr nth.
75
CH&}'TiB VI
.irx) OC.lCiE
The essential facts disclosed by this study are:
1.
The commercial canning of prrnes did
not expand enough to
absorb the surpluses and prevent a large decline in the
prune industry in Oregon between 12 and 1948.
2.
Western Oregon is particularly weli-suied to the production
of prunes for canning.
3.
o5t
of the production of canned pruneb in the United. .ttos
has been in western Oregon.
4.
Production of canned prunes hc
fiuetuate
widely from year
to year.
5.
CarryoTer of canned plums and prunes has heipcd to equalize
the supply of canned plums and prunes rrora year to lear.
.
The volume of plums canned has been relatively snill.
7.
Imports and exports of canned prunes have been relatively small.
6.
Standardization on a single trade name for canned prince is
desirable.
tJany home-scanners open-kettle prunes because they prefer the
resulting product.
There may be a market ror such a product
canned commercially.
There is much opportunity for the etablishiuent of brand-Aaiat
for canned prunes.
76
1]..
Sales of canned prunes hav riot been greatly benefited by
prices rclativeli low in r:latiou to other canned fruits.
Sales of canned prunes have been mad alier b undependable flavor, quality, and texture; insufficient avcilabilit
of small-sized packages; and luck of orguiized :promtion
for the product.
irunes canned vhen under-ripe or over-ripe could
e rny
of the colaints encountered in the fieldwork for this
study regarding commercially canned prunes. *
There is need for further study of picking and Lrnndllng tech-
niques of prunes for canning and of cannery practices
retarding canning of prunes.
*prunes do not increase in sugar coutent after picking as do
mary otier fruits such as peaches and pears; acid conten
and color &iso depend upon when prunes are picked. (3, pp.
13, 14 and 18).
77
BIBLIO
Critchf laid, Burke H. Demend, rarkezin, arid production of
Oregon and Washintoa prunes. (JLh üepartrnent Gireular
No. 43.6. Washington, U. C. April 1927. 48p.
.
1.iuins and prunes: revised satlxiates
of production, 1909-41. USii. Bureau of gricu1thrul
icononiics. .ashlngton, U. C.
eptcmber l43, ôp.
Crop Heporti.n J3oird.
Studies relating to harvesting of It&lian
prunes for cairning and fresh fruit shir13nt. ODon
Agricultural Experiment Station Circular o. ?b.
Ha tinan, Henry.
Corval1i, Oregon. Juzie 1928,
4.
24p.
Miller, H. 13. Prunes in Oregon. Oregon grlcu1tura1 nxperiwent Station $ulietin o. 45. Corvallis, Oregon. rune
1597.
127p.
e1on, M. N. and Belden, /. H. The market situation andì
outlook for the Oregon canned fresh prune. Oregon
Agricultural bperiment ation Bulletin Ito, 283.
Corvallis, Oregon. May 1930. 30p.
United States Tariff Oom4osjon. Suruaries of tariff iforxation, Vol. 7, part . Vshington, U. 0. 1948.
184p,
7.
Western camer and packer, vol. 37, no, b. Mule
man
Publications of California. San Francisco, .pri1 25,
li4b. 292p.
P1'ZNDIX
'ct
vçipr ao.ij
o
'6!
o;jo ;o
.0
Ct
UOTIPM
Ot UOT4'OT1TL-T T.:tI0 T1OTZTijTtflper .I
q
O
0
O
O
oc'
0
uo
0
09
08
oc
O
0
o
oc
ot
09
0
09
'T1O
.o ojo
WodeH
:ao.rno
nv
Os
08
08
0.
O
o-
09
09
O1
O
poo
oc
08
00
08
08
09
08
0?
0?
0?
oc
oc
9c
9c
8UTt!
tTv
Lri.xqa
09
09
Ttfl)f
'51
0?1
oc
oc
08
09
08
09
09
09
09
.t9qux9oe
.xquzsLo
.Ieqo;o
oc
oc
c
oc
oc
c
ec
91
frt
9c
.xaqut@oe
.IqtLO
qt
81
/,
6
8!
6
6
91
crt
6?
1?
6?
6?
9?
9?
81
81
6
t?
9!
.
6?
12
2!
1?
t?
1?
1?
I?
!
TUOj
98Tfl12c1
Rm
9P6T t fl)flV-5I tT0i
'IN.7V0
t1CJ. )2 'i -g 'OR 'L
1kT 'IH0V!d
Y) T0
5E0TVA
UB .XBG
IONOt4V
IIi.Ajocx a'iriva
96
79
.'
£
PROi)UCTIUN
C
rear
P..iucion
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
140,000
3.932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
9.
&41j_4
i._'.'_
RC
-'- .-'
139,(00
JC0
"one
27, 6)0
125,600
113,600
138,600
145,600
224,600
220,600
102,700
260,700
213,800
167,700
181,700
170,700
257,700
172,0X)
].82,0C3
171,000
258,000
159,000
249,000
288,000
167,700
181,700
170,700
257,700
158,800
248,800
223,800
(r'
223,00
'i.-'-
3i5,Q00
L0L6
213, 3Oo
1S,800
')
.'.
125, )30
113,600
138,600
145,603
150,600
224,600
220,600
102,700
260,700
150, 100
214,.00
,
-, / , 'J
?7, 300
l26,00L
114,300
139,000
146,000
151,000
225,000
221,000
103,000
274,0
.j)14
184,000
1941
18i, 000
1942
194
1944
174,800
177,800
172, QuO
170, dUO
196,00u
159,000
17L4, 00
177, 00
170,800
195,
1
i5; ,800
id
2/ Dirrerijces between
not .7a'vcC L( GjL
for i; osenoici
iold
consist of £rit
anO
iLied
CC)iiCLjn
In California tk
fre3n fruit to 1 r.CA
/ ?roi.L.ion for 19L incli
lost in tne
'J
process
pçrocLatoi r
IC)
C)
.
0
.0.iivInt of 4,000 ric. tons,
not inciutk in proJuction.
i
TABL; XL
s';.sL
Uti
34
AVs'' P!LIC..
1'iH, C
1,35
jj
i..,
- BL
i;3b TL,f
L,j
113:
L4P
T4i
r42
7
5
Fresh B
Fresh 31
r
17
55
Cap.iied
65
71
45
25
28
L2.50 11.;3
17
22
50
9.50
95
1).00 45.20
27.70
140
Jrjiug rtio: 3 o 4
n.is fre;.
t,
1
:
219
213
23)
1i
114
104
15.80 36.03 435U
54.90
560
65,80
43.40
:5530
5.70
65.80
13.70
31.30 33.50 24.30
/
Pro lininary
194
0S0 151
Frozen /
//
26r
i.4j
Uoilar S
Dry Basis
Dried 2
Other roc.
193-4tL
p. i
far
J XCiUciOS utiitiesLtUes iroer
W Incluctes s;ia11
ii. sr ;ieu
1
/ ijuivaien1 per
Sourcea:
'.
it packing-hois aoor ro
AgricL1tura1
ri.or .p 1943
tatistics, 1936-37-3-39, 10, 41, 44, 46, 47, 48,
Oash.La
.. 8. 0,
81
TABLE XLI
PRCiTIa.
C. cIL
L: CLL1iL AD TI Ii CEiT TIiI
ORNL i-}CDuCT
'IT1'2UT;D OF Tril. TOT
DJOTLi
IN tELI
CHT14
(On Bais o Standard Cae
12b-4o
or 24/2t's)
Year
Production
Per Cent ot
Total U. S.
192
1926
128,0O
47.6
1926
1029
1930
1931
1932
1933
-
31.6
-
134
18.9
10136
11.8
74,290
b6,7b
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
-
190,b32
10l10?
69,970
85,70?
79,958
93,058
-
10.8
3.2
3.7
5.0
6.6
3.?
7.4
- Not known
*
CALl-
0? OAFathD RUNS
0ron-4ashinton-Idao 125-28; Oreon-Vhi nton, IdahoCalirornia 1929-4?.
Source;
"Western Canner and Packer," April 2b 194
and Nurnber , p. 135.
V03
1934
1935
1936
1937
i93
1939
1940
19l
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946 p
f
JPi
SuiJ)
i
..fiLL.TI:i.
i......,
ü
Sold
iresn
exnoci
66,400
2,150
2,475
7:1150
64,250
49,945
05,510
65,840
53,790
57,060
67,030
69,030
,
77,900
93,660
71,000
105,160
70,550
5,560
64,750
98,110
1,050
52420
6,i00
70,100
64,900
6P,70
6,23O
6,4O
Cr &e4
1,4)0
, ')
2,32 L
_[
2,150
2,a30
/
/
/
uaiities of fresh prunes
Ciifornin (tuns )
J 1nc)ue U e Xu11owi
Source3: Arcu1ur'1 SIi.is tics 1147, Thbio 257.
*
p
Includes SOLE
Preli; :i2 irry
tP'
1,1:.o
5,200
4,000
J .1.)
:3,100
2, o.20
1944-1, 50(.; 1945-1 ,000
4,200
1946-500
w
83
'i!A3E XLVIII
COO.khiTliG fl.TAIL
c. :y ST3
areway
?llc
1212
Mi1wukje Blvd.
Ji Powell :tect
Baseithe -uer ärket
ICimov' a
M1er & Franic Co.
(A
Sateway.'.-Couzt Stxeet
Berg'
Paraiiurit ?.ark3t
Nob Hill. Murkt
i'f!( W"-'
a.hW
Saroway--i11aiette Street
Irish & Swartz
Fononr
.iliott' $ Grocery
COIV.LLIs
Safewey
D*y's Su.:ti
Carnpu
rket
Zduer Market
Corner Groery (11th St,)
ALBANY
Safway
cr000bor1a (East Albany)
SMALL VflJ
TCiNS
Brook3--Ra1ip & ui&te
4-Corners--rickon' s Siper !arket
Indepenaence--M & F Store
buth--Barney' Grocery
FIg. 12 Part I
IT!DDUCTION
an thterviewin people to ot their opinions for an Oregon State College
research project. '1e are making a little study of the canned prune industry.
I would be glad to have your ideas on a fz questions. I dont want your
nane--ust your opinions. Please feel perfectly free to ask me to explain
any of those nuostions which I do not make clear to you at first.
PRELIflIA2Y AENABKS--(To make sure we are talking about the sane product)
'hen I mentioned canned orunes which of these pictures more nearly fits
B...l23L
what came to your mind?
A...l
2314
Canned fresh prunes
C
.
et
.
.
2
1
3
Canned dried(nrenared) prunes
'have you ever eaten this other type of
canned prunes?
14
Yes
. . .
No
Don't 1ow
1
1
1
2
3
3
14
2
2
3
14
14
A below. "no" and)
(A 0 C and 'Yec" answer to P o to Fart II; then
("Lcn't know' anriers to A ;o to Part II; thnecs. F G H I below. )
If label o t.SiOp is volunteered at this point check "A' below; if not
II
A
. . 1 2 3 14
chect "A'.
A. .
.
. .
1
Nave you ev:r
canned arun
(Answers 2
. 1
.
2
3
3
3
14
Have iou ever eaten
riiaa.
i
1
2
'T5_No...l 2314
:erctil
oUen
A-Yes
amow
1
cosIly hore-can runos?
700
i-Y's
.
6-Ye'
1
14
7-No
1
14
A-Acn't 7novr
.
2
2
2
1
3
14
3
14
3
14
6 ro on to all aOCstlons. Answers 3-14, 7-8 o to Sees.
ASAHI.)
3-Section
Could commercially canned prunes he chon;ed in any way so you a'ould buy
(more of) then?
11-Don't knor . . . 1 2 3 14 (determine if)
2 5 14
. . 1
9-Yes
12-Live carred prunes--prompt ad tabulate
lO-io
2
3
14
under
13-don't li:e canned prunes--try to di300ver
nsis of dislike; tabulate 'not prompted'.
Proripted
Not Prornrted
5
1.
114 Flavor
3
3
3
14
15 14unlity anu iexture4*
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
14
1
1
2
3
3
3
1
2
14
1
2
1
2
3
3
3
1
3
14
1
2
2
1
2
3
14
1
2
2
3
14
3
14
1
1
1
1
2
14
14
14
2
L
14
3
1
2
2
1
3
14
14
2
3
3
1
2
3
24
1
2
3
14
1
2
3
14
1
2
14
1
2
3
3
.
1
1
1
3
3
14
23Conrnonplace
214 Advert isin5 end Brands . .
2
2
2
14
25 Display
3
1
1
1
1
2
3
14
2
2
3
14
3
14
2
3
14
. .
16Shape*
l7Pits**
l3Pacaade*
19 Dietary .casone
2OFrice
21 Labels confusing
22 Labels inadequate
261orceofHabit
27a Other
27bOther
.
.
14
14
14
* After all reasons are given without prompting, prompt by mentioning that
packages, labels, marketing etc. could be changed. Tabulate "Prompt".
**Ak 'urther questions-next page.
Fig. 12 Part II
B-S ect ion
*Further Questions
D-S oct ion
Flavor
What about the flavor do you dislike?
28-Too sweet
1 2 3
29-Not meet
ough . . . 1 2 3
30-Acid
1
2 3
31-Rancid
1
2 3
Acquired dislike
32-Childhood
1
2
3
33-Wartime
].
2
3
1
2
3Laother
3
3Li.bOther
1
2
14
14
14
14
14
14
Li.
3
14
Quality and Texture
What about the quality (texture) to
which you are referring was poor?
35-Too firm
1
2 3
14
36-Too soft
37-Broken skin
38-Tough skin
39-Strigy Texture
10-Color
.
.
.
1
2
3
Li.
1
2
1
2
3
3
Li.
1
2
2
2
1
l4aOther
1
85
3
3
3
3
1
2
LilbOther
Package
What about the package çcan, jar)
would you like to see changed?
Size
142-Too large
2 3
1
1
2 3
143-Too snail
Material
1414-Glass hard to find
.
.
1
2 3
1
2 3
145-Tim hard to find ,
1
2 3
Li6a0ther
Lb0ther
1
2 3
Shape and Pits
Li.
Li.
L
14
14
14
14
14
(Ask only answer 1 Section A above)
ou say you home-can prunes. Do you
usually open-kottleor cold-pack them
62-Open-kettle
1
2
3 14
63-Cold-pack
1
2 3 14
614_Both( indicate pref)
1
2
3
14
Why do you prefer the open-kettle( col
pack) method?
65-Never cold-packed . . 1 2 3 14
66-Never open-kettled
1
2 3 L
67- Easier1 less bother 1 2 3 14
68-Prefer flavor etc.
2
1
14
3
69aOther
2
1
3 Li.
L9bOther
1
2
3 Li.
What o you consider to be the greatest advRntage of home-canning?
70-Saving in money
.
1
2 3 14
7l-8ettor flavor etc.
1
2 3 14
72-Better qual. and tex 1 2 3 14
73aOther
73bOther
1
2
3
Li.
1
2
3
Li.
How do you got your prunes to can?
714-Have ovm prune trees 1 2 3
75-Given free
1
2 3
76-Buy on tree and pick 1 2 3
1
2
77-Roadside stand . .
3
78-Buy in grocery
.
.
1
2 3
79-Buy various ways . . 1 2 3
80a0ther
8Ob0ther
1
2
1
2
3
3
14
L
Li.
14
Li.
Li.
L
Li.
E-Section
ich canned fruits other than prunes
14
do you eat as often as once a month?
81-Peaches
1
2
L
3
82-Pears
1
2
Would you bur(more)canned prunes a4ci
3 L
83-Apricots
1
2
1
2 3 Li.
3 L
147-yes
1
2 3 Li.
814- Cherries
1
2
148-No
3 L
D5-Citrus
2
1
149-Don't know
1
2
3 Li.
3 14
B6aOther
1
2
Dietary Reasons
B6bOther
1
2
Get to explain---classify
3 L
Do you usually home-can these fruits?
50-Laxative
2 3 L
(excepting citrus)
51-Acid
1
2 3
87-Yes.
52-High food value . . .
1
2 3 14
88-No
1
2 3 14
53-Allergy
1
2
Li.
3
89-Don't know
1
2 3 14
1
L
514-Diabetic
2 3
55a0ther
1
2 3 14 F-Section
About how ofton do you eat dried (not
C-S eot ion
canned dried) prunes?
classify
You needn't tell me '?yhich brand, but
90-Once a month or more 1 2 3 Li.
do you have a favorite brand of:
91-Less than oncea month 1 2 3 Li.
Canned prunes?
92Not at all
1
2 3 14
56-Yes
1
2 3 L
1
57-No
2 3 Li.
58-Don't know
1
2 3
Li.
Coffee?
1
2 3
Li.
59-Ths
60-No
1
2 3 L
61-Don't know
1
2 3 14
.
14
Li.
314
].
Li.
1 2314
Fig. 12 Part III
86
STATISTICAL I7FOPJAT 107
(confidential)
G-S ect ion
About how long have you lived in the Pacific 7orth"rest? (0rerash-Ida)
93-Less than 1 year . . . 1 2 3 14
2
1
914-1 to 3 years
14
3
2
1
5 years
3 14
1
96-5 to 10 years
2 3
14
97-over 10 years . .
1
2
3 14
953 to
H-Section
i-low many pcoi
98-6
years old or less?
.
.
1
2
3
14
.
.
.
1
2
3
14
00-13 to 18 years old?.
.
.
1
2
3
14
1
2
3
14
99-7 to
1 01-over
12 years old?
18 years?
I-Section
VThero would your family be in this table?
Lx1ain this as necessary alnys
pointIng out that TOTjL FAJJLY IFCOiE IS 'A7ED.
Eat Canned Prunes
Total family income er week
7cr month a-prox. Once/no.
Less than
Lot at
or more
once/mo.
all
less thnn
Loss than ,25 per week
100
25 to
50 to
J9
per week
l5O
714 per wed:
250
-75 to 99
per week
35O
100 to
1214 per week
125 to
l/49 per week
$550
l50
l99 per week
7OO
to
200 per week and over
and over
REMARKS
Fig. 14--Canned. fresri prunes--PurpLe P1uDs
88
FIGTE 13
oinoutat1on ror a $iir1cart Dire
were
e-earer. or pruie s1n11canti- more critical ot
ooicweIcia11r cania jrune
;nan were non-h,
Iave eator CCiTC111y
einnod prunes eriu
ot brur.es?
oizo co:.erciii1y Don't cri1c1r:
canned pru.nos
com'l carmed.
(b)
ore-can rune:
Don' t
rune8
(c)
ore-cfl prunc
h1-quarej
(a X d - b X c)
(a i b i
c ,.
d) (a p c) (b e
b) (c
- (9 x 4b)-(70
9b
70 $ b
(Jbs 70) TTTT.
FT5
(4o - 400O)'
(276)
TThbi (1L3) (ixj (i13)
(10)'
f')
=
3571Y5bb
-
0000??8
Iot $1
ant (with one de
ot freedom)
flAUSt U
lo ie signhlicani
or more with one degree 01 eeom.