THE QUESTION FROM THE GROWER'S STANDPOINT----DO CANKERS PAY A FAIR PRICE FOR PRODUCE ? - OPINIONS AND SUGGESTIONS.

Fifth Paper.

A5 STATED previously (p. 151), the problem of ways and means in fruit growing, so far as its solving is to be done by canning and preserving, demands more consideration in the hands of those who should be the most interested, the growers themselves.

We have gone over the ground of production, marketing and competition, and have come to the logical conclusion that no escape from the ills that beset us can be found through the channels with which we are familiar. As a most natural sequence, then, we must search out new methods of work and disposition in the hope of finding the most profitable way out of the dilemma.

*

Unquestionably there are advantages in the alliance of the canner and preserver with the fruit grower that should not be overlooked; but can any methods be introduced which will materially increase these advantages ? Again, are there no means within our reach whereby we can find a promising solution to the alleged over-production difficulty ? To this end the writer addressed the following questions to residents of Connecticut, New Jersey and New York who had grown fruits and vegetables for many years, both for markets and factories, and who were in a position, we believed, to know something of the subject in which we are interested.

1. Do you grow fruits and vegetables for canning or preserving factories /

2. What kinds and in what quantities ?

3. Do you find it profitable ? In other words, can you make more money growing for the factories on contract than you can putting the same kinds and quantities on the general market at current prices ?

4. In your opinion, are growers paid a fair price for the produce sold to canners and preservers ?

5. What proportion of your arable land is devoted to growing produce for factories ?

6. Are you located near a market where a fair price is paid for produce ?

7. Do you divide your produce between the markets and the factories ? If so, do you consider it more profitable than selling to either one exclusively ?

8. What advantages, if any, accrue to you by reason of the location of a factory in your vicinity ?

9. What would you do with your produce, supposing no factory was near you ?

10. Do you think you would change your crops ? That is, are you of the opinion that you would grow a different line of things if you could not reach a factory ?

11. What plan, in your opinion, would give you higher prices for your products - a plan at once effective and equitable ?

12. Can yon see any relief from the prevailing low prices for such products as you raise ? What is it, and how can it be carried into effect ?

13. What is the future outlook for your business, presuming that you supply both canners and the general markets, or either.

It will be observed that these questions seek to cover the ground again over which we have already gone. It is but just to say that, so far as the writer is aware, none of those who replied to these questions had seen The American Garden, and consequently were not familiar with the line of research on which we had worked. So many of the replies were similar in purpert that we have embodied them in the general text which follows, without regard to the locality from whence they came.

Questions one and two are largely introductory, and have no especial bearing on the subject under discussion.

In reply to question three, the opinions of those who answered were largely in the affirmative, although it should be noted that those who were inclined to favor the markets in preference to the factories were located near good markets. One man replied thus: "My products I consider too good for any market but the best. I ship to a select trade, and hence have no use for canning factories or the ordinary market." Our friend is advantageously situated, and we can leave him out of the question at issue.

Question four brought out wide differences of opinion, and had the replies not been from men whom we had every reason to believe were capable fruit and vegetable growers, we should incline to the opinion that their views were "growls of discontent" from morbid, dissatisfied men. The general impression prevailed that the grower was not paid a fair price for his products by the factory owners.

The main argument was that the factory owner required too good quality for the price paid, and that the sorting or examining was often one-sided. In many cases our correspondents said that the methods of examination were dishonest.

"We take a wagon load of tomatoes to the factory ; if it happens that the season's crop promises to be large, the examiner will complain that our tomatoes are not well ripened, that the color is not up to the mark and that many of them are not fit for use. They make a general 'kick,' and wind up by deducting some hundreds of pounds from the weight of our load. If the injustice is so apparent that we do a little 'kicking' on our own account, we are marked men, and there is trouble with everything w e bring." So writes one correspondent. Another writes: "We are not paid a fair price for our products. W e deliver tomatoes at $7 a ton, and at that price, together with the low prices at which the factory owners procure most of their labor, when compared with the price the consumer pays for the catsup and canned goods of Blank & Co., I would suppose there was 200 per cent. profit in the business." (See comment on cost of labor, page 104, February American Garden).

As stated, the general sentiment is that too little is paid for the produce and that the difference between the cost of manufacture and the cost to the consumer represents a profit entirely too large to be considered fair to the grower who produced the crops by hard labor. Here we come to the first conflict between the producer and manufacturer. It will be remembered that in our account of the interviews with canners, the claim was made that the prices were uniformly good, and that, as a rule, the grower could make more money growing for the factory than he could for the general market. (See answers to question 3, page 436, December; also to question 7, following in this paper). This appears to be another opportunity for further investigation, which The American Garden will endeavor to follow up to the profit of all concerned.

The average proportion of land devoted to growing produce for the factories was five acres out of fifteen, or one-third of the arable land.

The replies to question six were largely in line with the position taken by correspondents on question three, i. e., location near a fair local market brought negative replies to the question, and vice versa. It was found that in the majority of cases when the grower was not prejudiced by the proximity of an unusually good market, the ground was taken that the markets for the earlier crops and the factories for all later, was the proper method of procedure. Question eight seemed to be a poser to most of our correspondents, and the answers were about equally divided between for and against. Question nine fared the same way, and possibly was not a fair one to ask, though the real answer to it came out, in the majority of cases, as answers to number ten, which question was also answered according to whether the grower had a market to fall back on or not. It was found that in every case where the grower took any great portion of his products to the factories, the opinion was that without the factories the methods of cropping would have to be changed or modified.

"I grow on an average ten acres of tomatoes each year for the factories, taking to them also parts of my crops of string beans, squashes, small and orchard fruits" writes a New Jersey grower. "Without the factories, I would be obliged to reduce my acreage of tomatoes at least three-fourths, not being near enough to a market where the demand would be sufficient to anywhere near take the product of ten acres. On the other hand, I sometimes question whether it would not be policy for me to cease growing for the factories and put my strength into raising a number of things of the best quality for local markets." So writes one correspondent. In opposition to this opinion, another correspondent says, in substance, that if he could not reach the factory he would be obliged to turn his attention to growing orchard fruits or to general farming. His argument is based on the fact that he is some miles from a good market, with poor shipping facilities. It is obvious that location is thus one of the prime factors of this question as it bears upon the growers. Questions eleven, twelve and thirteen cover ground somewhat removed from the subject properly in hand, though by no means wholly foreign to the point.

But two of our correspondents cared to express an opinion on these questions, so we have held them for enlargement and to form the basis of our next paper. These questions are of vast importance, forming as they do the very groundwork on which rests the entire question of handling the exigencies arising from the flagrant prostitution of the law of supply and demand. In considering them we may happily strike the chord which will lead us to a desirable solution of the vexed problem ; though if the evidence shall not be positive enough to cause an indisputable conclusion to be formed, we shall believe that the facts brought out justify pur efforts.

The Star-Apple or Caimite. (See page 406).

[TO BE CONTINUED].