If 50 or 100 farmers in a local district would cooperate and build a cold storage near a railroad track for storing their apples, where little or no loss from the apples rotting will be had, and if prices were low they could be held longer; while a farmer alone, with a poor cellar, perhaps, for keeping apples, often loses largely if he attempts to keep a few hundred barrels in his house or barn cellar. The cost for a cold-storage plant pro rata would be comparatively light among 50 or more farmers. Under the cooperation plan, an interested agent could be sent to Europe in the fall, if thought best by the farmers, to take charge of all shipments, thereby increasing their profits.' 8. COLD STORAGE RATES IN CITIES. Cold storage rates in Cleveland.-There are but two cold storage companies in Cleveland that are open to the public-the Cleveland Cold Storage Company, with a capacity of 50,000 cubic feet, and the Sheriff Street Storage Company, with 600,000 cubic feet. Almost every firm dealing in perishable goods has some cold storage of its own, but for public use 650,000 cubic feet is Cleveland's limit. The rates for cold storage are as follows: 40 Hops 40 Maple sugar. 35 Maple sirup 36 Onions .do .do Oysters in shell. Oil Pears Peaches 40 Pork 35 Sauerkraut 35 Sirup 35 Vegetables .do Walnuts Wine in wood. Wine in bottle. Per bale per month Per barrel per month. $0.124 30 .15 .10 10 20 10 .001 50 12 10 00 .00 25 25. 06 04 00 .10 .10 .20 00 .00 . 10 .15 .10 004 03 .00 25 .25 25 25 10 . 10 25 1.00 .05 .50 .10 . 10 .25 25 25 10 .00 .10 1 Quoted from Orcharding: its Possibilities and Profits, by Edwin Hoyt, Virginia State board of agriculture, 1899, p. 25. The influence of storage stocks upon prices has been in the direction of uniformity. There are no longer extreme fluctuations in the market, because goods can be bought in first-class condition out of season as well as in season. The average price now is higher than before, however, for the cold storage men come in for their share of profit. Percentage of depreciation in handling products in cold storage. Eggs, 1 dozen in 30. Potatoes, about 5 per cent at most. Apples, can not estimate; depends on primary selection, method of packing, and the season. Sometimes apples with very sound external appearance rot rapidly; 5 to 10 per cent not considered too much. Onions, very slight loss. Cabbage, slight. Watermelons, if kept any length of time, become a total loss so far as edibility is concerned; they lose flavor. Poultry, kept in a frozen state does not depreciate at all, but rather appreciates if anything. Strawberries, usually stored for such short periods of time that no estimate could be given. Oranges, 1 dozen in 16 a fair average. Butter and cheese, very slight, if any. PART EIGHTH. THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TOBACCO CROP. 1. Productive area of tobacco.. 2. Production, packing, and prices. 3. Disposition of the crop in manufacturing. 4. The expenses of distribution 5. Expenses of marketing at primary markets: (1) Richmond, (2) Louisville, (3) Durham. 6. Methods of marketing and manufacturing tobacco in Pennsylvania: (1) The village cigar industry (2) Cost of packing leaf tobacco (3) Services of the dealer in distribution 7. Cost of exporting leaf tobacco: (1) Producer's proportion of consumer's cost on lowest grades.. 8. What makes the price of tobacco? (1) Warehouse sale charges... (2) Packing charges in South and West (3) Does the "trust" fix prices? (4) Fall of farm values.... 1. PRODUCTIVE AREA OF TOBACCO. Page. 307 308 309 310 311-314 315 316 317 317 318 319 320 320 320 320 Seventeen States have regularly during the last 14 years produced almost all the tobacco crop of the United States. All other States have yielded from 2,000,000 to 5,000,000 pounds additional out of a total yield of not less than 400,000,000 pounds. Of these 17 States, 2 lie in the Connecticut Valley and produce, mainly for cigar wrappers, a product varying from 12,000,000 to 16,000,000 pounds. Seven States-Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia-lie on the Atlantic slope. Within the borders of these States are found several of the greatest manufacturing centers into which the cured crop is gathered for marketing. The other tobacco States lie west of the Alleghenies and east of the Mississippi River, with one exception, and include the States of West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin. and Missouri; Missouri being the only tobacco State of the first rank lying beyond the Mississippi. As a rule the large manufacturing centers which work up the crop of the interior region stand on the rivers which drain this territory. The total production of tobacco has not varied much from 1882 down to the present time. Three tendencies may be noticed among the different States as to the volume of production. Within this range of time. from 1882 to 1899, inclusive, Arkansas, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and West Virginia show a more or less constant tendency in the volume of production. In Arkansas and Tennessee this constant tendency is characterized by increase in acreage, showing that the extensive methods of cultivation still prevail there. In Connecticut and Massachusetts a constant production is characterized by a shrinkage in acreage. North Carolina alone shows any extraordinary increase in total product. Practically all other States tend to contract and expand their product according to the elasticity of demand. There seems to be no such tendency in the volume of production as corresponds to the increasing consumption of tobacco in different parts of the world. Each of these States has produced a million or more pounds of tobacco per year. During the past 16 years the areas of production of tobacco have not shifted, as has been the case with certain other farm crops. Even in the Connecticut Valley it is still a subject of controversy among producers as to whether tobacco growing does not exhaust the resources of the farm to such an extent as to impair the productive efficiency of the farm as a whole.' 1 Report of the Connecticut Board of Agriculture, 1898, p. 113-114. |