The Marketing of Horticultural Produce Grown in Bedfordshire, West Cornwall, Wisbech and the Lea Valley

CIA FOUNDATION OF AGRIGUL L ECONOMIC' BY UNIVERSITY c/3011 READING - Department of Agricultural Economics

By L. G. BENNETT

MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES No. 12 PRICE 10/-

February, 1957 UNIVERSITY OF READING Department of Agricultural Economics

eitto

The Marketing of Horticultural Produce Grown in Bedfordshire, West Cornwall, Wisbech and the Lea Valley

By L. G. BENNETT

MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES No. 12 PRICE 10/-

February, 1957 THE MARKETING OF HORTICULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN IN BEDFORDSHIRE, WEST CORNWALL, WISBECH AND THE LEA VALLEY

CONTENTS

Page I INTRODUCTION •• •• • •• • •• • •• • •• • •• • ••• 1 II THE ENQUIRY •• • •• • •• • •• • •• • ••• 3 III THE STATISTICAL PROBLEMS •• • •• • .•• •• • ••• 5 IV BEDFORDSHIRE ... •• • •• • •• • •• • •• • V WEST CORNWALL •• •• • •• • 38. VI WISBECH •• • •• • •• • • 61 VII THE LEA VALLEY •• ••• .•• •• • 84 VTII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS •• • •• • •• • •• • ••• 98 TABLES

BEDFORDSHIRE Page TABLE 1. Size distribution of holdings growing horticultural crops ... 9 ...... 11 PP 2. Classification of 1,390 businesses by type and size 3. Classification of 1,390 growers according to length of tenure 12 4. Fragmentation of holdings ... ••• ••• ••• ..• 14

PP 5. Classification of growers by marketing equipment used ... 15

9, 6. Classification of 1,323 growers according to grading and culling practices ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 16 of growers identifying their produce...... 18 PP 7. Number • 8. Specialisation of labour on marketing tasks _ ••• ... 19 21 PP 9. Proportions of produce sold through different outlets ••• 10. Classification of 709 growers by number of markets used ••• 23

PP 11. Classification of 709 growers by number of markets supplied and by number of commission agents used... 24 information t, 12. Classification of growers by percentage sending to agents ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 25 horticultural PP 13. Classification of loadings by value and by size of enterprise ... 26 by main IP 14. Classification of growers by type of business and marketing method ... •.. 31 31 PP 15. Classification of growers by number of outlets used 16. Classification of growers with one outlet by method of marketing ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 32 • 33 Pl 17. Relative importance of different marketing regions ... 18. Classification of growers by method of transport used ▪ 35

WEST CORNWALL TABLE 19. Size distribution of holdings growing horticultural crops ... 39 of 1,678 businesses by type and by size 40 PP 20. Classification ..' ••• ••• ••• 43 PP 21. Fragmentation of holdings ••• ••• according to grading and PP 22. Classification of 1,571 growers culling practices - ...... - , - ••• 44 their produce... ••• ... 45 PP 23. Number of growers identifying through different outlets ••• 46 PP 24. Proportions of produce sold number of markets used ... 49 PP 25. Classification of 1,207 growers by percentage sending information PP 26. Classification of growers by to agents ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 50 and by size of enterprise 51 PP 97. Classification of loadings by value 28. Classification of growers by type of business and by main marketing method ... - ...... 54 number of outlets used ...... 54 PP 29. Classification of growers by .,, 30. Classification of growers with one outlet by method of marketing ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 55 growers on different sources of empties .. 55 OP 31. Dependence of ' ••• ... 56 tl, 32. Empties used for different kinds of crop ••• different marketing regions ... . , 57 1, 33. Relative importance of ' WISBECH Page TABLE 34. Classification of growers by size of fruit enterprise and by total acreage ...... ••• 62 35. Classification of 2,234 businesses by type and by size ... 63

99 36. Classification of growers according to length of tenure ••• 65 37. Classification of growers by marketing equipment used ••• 66

99 38, Classification of 809 top fruit growers by marketing equipment 67

99 39. Relative importance of different outlets for top and soft fruit 69

99 40. Classification of sales of top fruit and soft fruit by outlet and by form of transaction ...... 70

99 41. Classification of growers by number of markets used •• • 75

99 42. Classification of growers by percentage sending information to agents ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 75

91 43. Classification of growers by number of outlets used ... ••• 79

99 44. Dependence of growers on different sources of empties ... 80

• THE LEA VALLEY TABLE 45. Classification of growers according to length of tenure ... 88

99 46. Classification of growers by marketing equipment used ... 89 47. Specialisation of labour on marketing tasks ... •• • il• . 89 48. Classification of growers by number of outlets ••• ... 92

99 49. Classification of growers by number of markets used ••• 92

99 50. Percentage of growers using different markets as main outlets 95

99 51. Relative importance of different marketing regions ...... 96

111 I. INTRODUCTION The publication in 1924 of the report of the Departmental Committee on the Distribution and Prices of Agricultural Produce, the Linlithgow Committee, marked an important stage in the development of horticultural marketing in Britain. The report was followed by the creation of the Markets and Co-operation Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture in -the same year, by the passing of the Horticultural Produce (Sales on Commission) Act in 1926 and the Agricultural Produce (Grading and _Marking) Act in 1928. Although the Agricultural Marketing Acts, the first of which was passed in 1931, cannot be said to have had their origin in the work of the Linlithgow Committee the report of the Committee nevertheless stimulated much thought about marketing and much activity to improve the methods of presenting home-grown produce, to improve grading and to stimulate demand. By the late 1930's home produce compared very favourably on the markets with imported produce and the relations between growers and the distributive trade were on a more satisfactory footing. The 1939-1945 war, however, very materially set back the pace of progress and can fairly be said to have been the reason for a general lowering of standards which have unfortunately persisted since the war ended. Since 1945 the horticultural industry has made two attempts to invoke the powers of the Agricultural Marketing Acts in order to overcome some of its difficulties. These attempts, however, have clearly shown just how uncertain the industry is about the line which future developments should take and it is clear that some move should be made to determine elementary facts about the present situation. The need for such a move was recognised in official circles and on February 3rd, 1955, the Minister of Agriculture announced in the House of Commons the setting up of a committee under the chairmanship of Viscount Runciman 'to investigate the present facilities for, and methods of marketing home-grown and imported vegetables, fruit and flowers; to consider whether the marketing and distribution of such produce could be improved and to make recommendations.' The Runciman Committee has recently published its report. Early in 1954, the Ministry of Agriculture made a grant from the Conditional Aid Funds to the Department of Agricultural Economics of the ,University of Reading to carry out a study of some aspects of horti- cul .ural marketing during the ensuing three years. A two-part enquiry was'carried out by the Department with the aid of this grant; one part of -the study was made in the Birmingham market, and is the subject of a separate report, the other, the subject of the present report, was

1 The Wholesale Trade in Horticultural Produce in Smithfield Market, Birmingham. University of Reading, Department of Agricultural Economics, Miscellaneous Studies, No. 13. 1 concerned with the growers' end of the marketing process. The members of the Department fully engaged on the enquiry in the production areas were Miss Christian Maxwell, Miss Rosemary Jamison and, for part of the time, Miss Margaret McKellar. Miss Helen M. Cole of the Department of Economics, Bristol University (Bristol II Province) joined the team for work in Cornwall. Mr. T. C. Haddow assisted in the enquiry though engaged mainly on other duties, and Mr. R. H. Tuck advised on the statistical problems which arose during the course of the study. The Department wishes to record its appreciation of the financial assistance, made available under the Conditional Aid Scheme with funds derived from United States Economic Aid, which made the study possible. The Department wishes to thank Mr. F. G. Sturrock and Mr. S. T. Morris, Provincial Agricultural Economists at Cambridge and Newton Abbot respectively, and the staffs of the Agricultural Executive Committees in the areas covered by the study. Finally, special thanks are due to the 600 growers who so readily gave time and effort in answering the numerous questions which were put to them.

4.! II. THE ENQUIRY There are two main ways of making a study of horticultural marketing. One is to examine the processes through which individual products pass on the way to the consumer. The other is to concentrate attention on the organisation of the firms which are engaged in performing the marketing functions. The first method is one which commends itself to those concerned with technical processes and much work on this aspect of marketing (with particular reference to deterioration of produce) has been done by the working party set up by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Ministry of Agriculture. The second method, however, is clearly more appropriate when the study is of an economic nature if for no other reason than that products are marketed jointly and give rise to joint costs. Neither these costs nor the functions which give rise to them can be studied in isolation. Moreover, marketing practices develop because of the complexity or simplicity of production and any study of marketing must take some aspects of production into account. Concentration on the study of the firm, however, might result in the loss of all connection with the approach by way of individual products. Fortunately it has been possible to avoid this danger and to obtain some, at least, of the advantages of both methods in this enquiry. Eight crops or groups of crops are of prime importance to horticulture in Britain; they are cabbages, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, peas, top-fruit, soft fruit and glass-house tomatoes and cucumbers. About as many areas are recognised as being the main centres of production. A study of the firms in the main areas was therefore expected to enjoy the more important advantages of both methods of study. Because the resources available were limited only four production areas were selected for study. These were Bedfordshire, west Cornwall, the Wisbech district and the Lea Valley. In this way the study covered the main crops, viz., Brussels sprouts and the main vegetable crops in Bedfordshire; winter cauliflower and, incidentally, early potatoes, in Cornwall; top and soft fruit in Wisbech and glasshouse produce in the Lea Valley. These studies, however, are essentially regional studies, they are not primarily enquiries into the way different products are marketed.

1 The geographical limits of these areas were:- Bedfordshire-the whole county. West Cornwall-the parishes of Budock, Breage, Camborne, Constantine, Crowan, Feock, Germoe, Gunwalloe, Gwinear, Helston, Hayle, Ludgvan, Manaccan, Mawgan, Madron, Marazion, Morvah, Mullion, Newlyn, Paul, Penzance, Perranuthnoe, Perranzabuloe, Redruth, St. Agnes, St. Buryan, St. Hilary, St. Just, St. Levan, St. Keverne, St. Martins, St. Erth, St. Ives, Sithney, Towednack, Wendron, Zennor. Wisbech-the Wisbech district of the Isle of Ely A.E.C. and the Marshland Division of Norfolk. Lea Valley--the parishes of Cheshunt, Hoddesdon, Nazeing, Roydon and Waltham Holy Cross. 3 The enquiry was designed around the one fundamental hypothesis that many aspects of marketing could well be affected by the volume of produce under the control of a grower or a firm. It was therefore necessary to give large and small growers an opportunity to contribute to the findings of the study. An examination of the official returns for the four areas showed that there were well over 6,000 holdings concerned in growing horticultural crops. In was clear, therefore,that the enquiry would have to be conducted on the basis of some kind of statistical sampling. In three of the areas selected, Bedfordshire, Cornwall and Wisbech, the majority of the horticultural enterprises are relatively small. For this reason a random sample drawn from the population of holdings in each area would have contained so few of the larger enterprises that very little of a general nature could be said about them. The population of holdings in each area except the Lea Valley was therefore stratified into size groups and a random sample taken from each. The total population was ascertained from the 1953 June 4th Agricultural Return for Bedfordshire, Cornwall and Wisbech, and from the 1953 July Glasshouse Census for the Lea Valley. September 1952 Agricultural Returns and Ministry of Food potato acreage returns were used to check and supplement the population in Cornwall. The measure of size used for classifying the population was the total acreage of vegetables reported in the agricultural returns for each holding in Bedfordshire, the sum of the acreage of early potatoes and vegetables in the June return plus the acreage of any cauliflower accounted for in the previous September return for each holding in Cornwall, the sum of the acreages of top fruit and soft fruit for Wisbech, and the acreage of glasshouses for each holding in the Lea Valley. The study was conducted by means of a questionnaire and personal interview and covered five broad aspects of marketing. These aspects were (1) the crops grown and the conditions under which they were produced, (2) the preparation given to the produce by growers before marketing, (3) the methods of sale used, (4) the place where produce was marketed and (5) the means by which produce was transported to the place at which it was first sold. Some questions were also put to growers in an attempt to obtain information on the methods, if any, by which they selected the crops to grow and the markets in which to sell them. During the course of the interview and again at a later stage in the enquiry, all growers were also asked to give information on marketing costs. The analysis of the answers to these questions forms the main body of this report. During the course of the enquiry it became evident that dealers and others in the production areas were important outlets for produce. Many such intermediaries were interviewed and some details about their methods of working are included in this report.

4 III. THE STATISTICAL PROBLEMS

After a number of growers in the first sample had been interviewed it became evident that some of them had made separate agricultural returns for two or more holdings, one of which had come out in the sample. The hypothesis on which the enquiry was based was that marketing • practices might well be influenced by the volume of produce under the control of each grower. But if there were fewer growers than holdings then as a corollary some growers in the sample could have more produce under their control than was indicated by the size of the sample holdings they occupied. There were two questions to be answered: (a) by how many did the number of growers fall short of the number of holdings? and (b) what was the size distribution of 'growers'? The only way of surmounting the difficulty was to obtain from those growers with two or more holdings all the data as if the holdings occupied by each of them were run as units, to call such combined holdings 'marketing units' and then to find some means of estimating from the behaviour, so to speak, of the sample, the number and size distribution of marketing units in the population. In order to cover all the possibilities under which the produce from two or more holdings could be marketed as from one, the following definition of a marketing unit was drawn up. A marketing unit is defined as:— (a) one holding run by one grower or firm; (b) two or more holdings run by one grower or a firm consisting of two or more partners; (c) two or more holdings run by two or more growers or by a firm or firms, but where the produce from the several holdings is marketed as from one business and the produce from each holding does not bear separate identity for the commission agent or the buyer. It is unfortunate that the term 'business' cannot, strictly speaking, be regarded as synonymous with marketing unit, the former implies some financial tie for production purposes, the latter does not necessitate it though it may be, and often is, present. For convenience of expression, however, each marketing unit was deemed to be managed by a grower and throughout this report the terms grower, business and marketing unit are synonymous. The number of growers in each area has been estimated from the

5 behaviour of sample holdings. While the process has obvious advantages it also has some disadvantages. The most serious disadvantage is that the sample growers may not be statistically representative size group for size group of the growers estimated to make up the population. 2 A less serious disadvantage is that whereas the population of holdings is known with certainty, the population of growers is only an estimate however satisfactory the means of making it may be. The problem thus resolved itself into one of making a choice between two courses of action both somewhat undesirable. On the one hand there world have been obvious distortion of fact by attributing to a small holding in the sample those marketing practices which had developed. because it happened to be part of a larger concern for which the occupier had made two or more agricultural returns. On the other hand the marketing unit concept introduces a measure of unrepresentativeness. The second course, however, was followed because it seemed to have lesser disadvantages than were so obviously possessed by the first. The data given in the report have been obtained by raising to population level the material obtained from sample growers, on the assumption that there was no serious measure of unrepresentativeness involved. Wherever possible, a characteristic of the estimated population has been compared to some independent and accepted datum as a check on the results of the study. Thus, the calculated acreage of horticultural crops grown by the estimated population of growers in Bedfordshire

1 The method of estimating the number of growers was as follows:- 1. A multiplying-up ratio was determined for each size group of holdings in the sample, i.e., Number of group 1 holdings in population etc. Number of group 1 holdings in sample 2. Each sample holding in each size group was classified (a) according to the size group of the marketing unit of which it was found to form a part and (b) the total number of holdings in the marketing unit of which it formed a part. 3. Each table of classification-one for each size group, was multiplied up by the appropriate factor determined as in (1) above. 4. The tables were added together in depth, to obtain one table for all groups. 5. All figures in the '1 holding' line were divided by 1, all in the '2 holding' line by 2, and so on. 6. The sum of these quotients for each size group is the number of marketing units or growers of that size in the population.

2 In constructing the sample of growers from the sample of holdings, each stratum contained (a) those which were there originally because no change had taken place in the horticultural acreage, (b) those which had moved up from a lower stratum, (i) because of an actual increase in the horticultural acreage from that recorded the previous year, (ii) because of the amalgamation of two or more holdings in one occupation and for which separate official returns had been made, and (c) those which had moved down from a higher stratum because of a decrease in the acreage of horticultural crops. The calculation of the estimated population of growers takes all these factors into account, but that calculation is based on a sample, each stratum of which contains units sampled at different densities and this heterogeneity appears to be unavoidable in the absence of adequate data about the population.

6 has been compared to the recorded June 4th acreages for the county. A more devious route has been necessary in order to obtain some data for comparisons for Cornwall because of the dearth of official statistics on winter cropping in the alea. Here the estimated value of produce grown has been compared to the estimated value of known tonnages of produce moved out of the area. Reasonable conformity was obtained in each case. For the Wisbech area an attempt was made to check the estimated acreage of top and soft fruit with that reported in official returns. Unfortunately, the calculated acreages are somewhat high for two reasons. First, because a few of the sample growers reported larger acreages to the field workers on this survey than on the official returns and secondly, because of the sampling technique used. The sampling density in the Lea Valley was approximately one in three, and an independent check was hardly necessary. It is interesting to note, nevertheless, that the estimated value of produce sold through the second largest outlet corresponded closely to the known value of produce which that outlet handled.

7 IV. BEDFORDSHIRE I. Production Horticulture in Bedfordshire developed during the middle of the last century with the growth of the railway network serving London. Traditionally, London has been the market on which the industry has depended and, until after the first world war, London was also the source of the ample supplies of stable manure and soot used to maintain the fertility of the light soil. In its early days market gardening was concentrated in the Sandy, Potton and Biggleswade areas and towards Shefford, but in more recent times the character of the industry has changed. With the virtual cessation of supplies of stable manure from London the once highly intensive type of cultivation depending on purchased fertility has given place to a less intensive type and to an expansion of the cultivation of vegetables into other parts of the county. At the present time one of the production problems of the growers in the original area is the maintenance of fertility and this is often being done by the use of short-term leys. This practice, of course, gives rise to economic problems of production which are far from having been solved, but it shows that an extensification of the industry in more ways than one has been in process. Indeed, so far has extensification gone that farms with a horticultural sideline account for a great deal of the production of the Brussels sprouts for which Bedfordshire is so well known. Thus, while the core of the industry is still the Sandy-Biggleswade area large acreages of horticultural crops are grown between Flitwick and Ampthill and Shefford and also in the northern part of the county with an overspill into Huntingdonshire to the north-east. While these production changes have been proceeding there have been changes also in the potentialities of the county and the surrounding area as a market. Bedford, the county town, has developed a certain amount of manufacturing industry and now offers a larger market than formerly, but Luton and Dunstable, once towns with no more industry than straw hat manufacture, have sprung into prominence as industrial centres of no mean importance. Furthermore, as road transport has developed, towns like Northampton, again with a big industrial population, have come within easy reach of growers, so also have the towns on the northern fringe of London like St. Albans and Watford and even North London itself. While there is little factual evidence about the marketing practices in the early days of the industry they are said to have been mainly based on the rail transport of produce to commission salesmen in the London markets. An examination of the present position shows both similarities and differences to that which is believed to have existed, say, fifty years ago. The changes which have come about must have been the result of

8 the changing circumstances attending the production of horticultural crops in the county and the changing potentialities as markets of London and of towns in the region more immediately adjacent to the producing area. (i) The holdings In 1953 there were 1,532 holdings which were concerned with the production of horticultural crops. These holdings varied widely in size and grew widely varying acreages of horticultural crops. They ranged from some of the larger farms growing relatively small acreages to holdings, both large and small, on which horticulture was the main enterprise. On only 8-1- per cent of the total number, however, was the land devoted entirely to horticultural production while pigs and poultry were kept on some of the holdings classed, so far as land use is concerned, as wholly horticultural. The holdings concerned, then, formed a very heterogeneous group but for the purposes of this study all were deemed to come within its orbit. The following table illustrates the inter- relationship of agriculture and horticulture and the size distribution of the holdings. TABLE 1. Size distribution of holdings growing horticultural crops.

Number of holdings with a total Size of area of Total Number horticultural number of wholly enterprise over holdings horticultural under 5-50 50-100 100-500 500 5 acres acres acres acres acres

Under 5 acres ... 356 283 21 16 — 676 95 5-20 acres...... — 445 67 72 5 589 36

20-50 acres... ••• 39 59 81 6 185 —

50-100 acres ••• _ ____ 3 45 7 55 _____

100 acres and over — ....._. __... 10 17 27

356 767 150 224 35 _1,532 131

(ii) The growers A sample of 147 holdings was drawn from the 1,532 which were concerned with growing horticultural crops and the marketing methods and practices of the sample made the subject of enquiry. As already explained, the holding is not always the most useful concept in the marketing context. The fact that some of the holdings in the sample were associated for marketing purposes with others in the sample and with others in the county reduced the number of holdings to 137 so-called 'marketing units.' For the sake of convenience each marketing unit is deemed to be managed by a 'grower' and for ease of expression hereafter 4 the number of marketing units is taken to be synonymous with the number of growers even though, as explained earlier, there is some conflict in the meanings of these terms. The behaviour, so to speak, of the sample would lead one to believe that there are 1,390 growers of horticultural crops in the county. The translation of holdings to growers is shown below together with the sampling density. Holdings Growers Total Number Number Estimated Size of horticultural enterprise number in in number in sample sample population

Under 5 acres ••• ••• ••• 676 30 23 651 5-20 acres ... ••• ••• ••• 589 30 33 515 20-50 acres ••• ••• ••• 185 30 29 137 50-100 acres ••• ••• ••• 55 30 21 53 100 acres and over ••• ••• 27 27 31 34

1,532 147 137 1,390

If in any study of marketing the whole emphasis were placed on the marketing practices and methods of growers much of value would be lost because certain aspects of production are inextricably bound up with marketing and might well have an influence on the methods used. Four aspects of production stand out as worthy of some notice in a marketing study. They are (a) the type of business as shown by the relative importance of the horticultural enterprise, (b) the relative importance of the different kinds of crop grown, (c) the length of tenure of the holding or holdings occupied and (d) the degree to which the land in the occupation of the grower is fragmented. Before going on to deal with marketing methods as such each of these aspects of production will be dealt with in turn. (iii) Types of business Three main types of business were distinguished on the basis of the importance of the contribution which horticultural crops made to the total receipts.1 These three types are I. Mainly horticultural—horticultural crops accounting for at least two-thirds of total receipts. II. Horticulture with farming—horticultural crops accounting for between one-third and two-thirds of total receipts. III. Farming with subsidiary horticulture—horticultural crops accounting for less than one-third of total receipts. The relationship between the size of the horticultural enterprise, the relative importance of horticultural crop sales and the method of marketing will be examined at a later stage. Meanwhile, two facts must be noted;

1 The classification was carried out after imputing to each acre of crops and head of stock the capacity to make a standard financial contribution to the receipts of the business. Most of the data for horticultural crops were supplied by the Price Statistics Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture, supplementary data were drawn from Departmental records. Livestock and farm crop data were drawn from the Farm Management Survey. 10 the first is that the 5-20 acre group of growers is the predominantly horticultural group in the county and the second that horticultural crop production is a subsidiary enterprise on a great many agricultural holdings. TABLE 2. Classification of 1,390 businesses by type and by size.

Number of businesses

Size of Farming horticultural enterprise Mainly Horticulture with All horticultural with subsidiary types farming horticulture

Under 5 acres ••• ••• ••• 170 254 227 651 5-20 acres ••• ••• ••• 266 171 78 515 20-50 acres ••• ••• ••• 33 40 64 137 50-100 acres ••• ••• ••• 22 23 8 53 100 acres and over ••• ••• 6 20 8 34

497 508 385 1,390

(iv) Crops grown The June 1954 Agricultural Returns for the county showed a total of 19,509 acres of horticultural crops. This acreage, of course, does not include double cropping. It would appear that a total of 20,775 acres of horticultural crops was in fact grown on these holdings in that year and was distributed by size of enterprise as follows:— Under 5 acres • • • • • • •• • 1,656 acres 5-20 acres ... • • • • • • .• • 4,758 „ 20-50 acres ... • •. • • • .• • 4,119 „ 50-100 acres • • • • •• .• • 3,290 , 100 acres and over • • • • •• .• • 6,952 „ 20,775 acres By far the greater part of the acreage was devoted to Brussels sprouts and other brassica crops, peas, and root crops such as beetroot, parsnips and carrots. It is instructive to note that the cropping pattern varied little with the size of the horticultural enterprise. The different classes of crops were, in fact, of approximately the same relative importance in each size group. The figures below show the percentage of the total horticultural area devoted to five classes of crop in each size group.

Size of horticultural Under 5-20 20-50 50-100 100 acres enterprise 5 acres acres acres acres and over ° °A 0/0 °A °A A Type of crop Brassicas ••• ••• 62 61 68 80 72 Peas and Beans ••• 15 15 17 8 13 Roots ... ••• ••• 8 7 6 6 5 • Onions... ••• ••• 3 3 2 1 2 Other crops ••• ... 12 14 7 5 8

100 100 100 100 100

11 Of the 1,390 growers, 1,057 grew Brussels sprouts, 604 grew some. type of cabbage crop and 713 grew peas or beans or both. It is remarkable that the smaller units have not developed a cropping programme more. suitable to their scale of operations. While this is mainly a production problem, it does mean that crops which are eminently suitable for bulk handling and large-scale marketing are produced by growers who each contributes only a small quantity to the market. This may well explain the concentration of the so-called `lorrymen' in certain parts of Bedford- shire, dealers whose function seems to be, amongst others, the assembly of produce for convenient bulk handling. (v) Length of tenure In any consideration of marketing practices it is relevant to know as. far as possible for how long growers have been in business. The length of tenure of the holding occupied at present is not, strictly speaking, a measure of the grower's experience in the marketing field but in the of any more precise measure it gives a rough-and-ready guide to marketing experience. Length of tenure has been taken as the number of years the grower has occupied his present holding or, if the holding consists of two or more parts held for different periods then as the length of tenure of the longest occupied. The interesting point which emerges. from an examination of the position is that no less than one-third of the growers had occupied their holdings for under ten years, one quarter for between 10 and 20 years and only two-fifths for 20 years or more. TABLE 3. Classification of 1,390 growers according to length of tenure.

Growers with tenure of A 1 Size of horticultural Under 10 years 10-20 years Over 20 years enterprise Number % Number % Number %

Under 5 acres ••• ••• 311 48 142 22 198 30

5-20 acres ..• ••• 145 28 113 22 257 50

20-50 acres... ••• ••• 5 4 47 34 85 62

50-100 acres ••• ••• 3 6 20 38 30 56

100 acres and over ••• 6 17 5 15 23 68

470 34 327 24 593 42

Almost one-half of the occupiers of the smallest size group had entered into occupation since the end of the last war and over two-thirds had commenced occupation during the war and post-war years. All these growers had most probably developed their marketing experience either in a time of instability or when marketing practices in general left much to be desired. On the other hand, a substantial proportion of the growers. in the largest size group had entered into occupation of their present.

12 holdings before the mid-1930's. These growers are, of course, relatively more important because of their scale of production. Nevertheless, it is a startling fact that as many as one-third of the growers appear to have held their land for under 10 years. Bedfordshire County Council, as the Smallholdings Authority, is one of the most important landlords of horticultural holdings. At the present time it provides 836 holdings of which 658 are 20 acres or less in size. Most of these holdings are 'bare land' only. Thus, a substantial proportion of the holdings of this size which are included in Table 3 must be County Council smallholdings and it is therefore useful to have some corroborative evidence on length of tenure for this type of holding. An analysis of 101 tenancy agreements for two smallholdings estates showed that 49 commenced during the last 10 years, 36 between 1935 and 1944 and 16 before 1935. These figures not only provide some confirmation for those given in Table 3, they also indicate that relatively short tenure is not confined to the tenants of County Council smallholdings., (vi) Fragmentation of holdings The fourth production factor influencing marketing is the degree to% which growers occupy more than one parcel of land intermingled with land in other occupation. One of the most striking features of Bedford- shire horticulture is the length to which fragmentation has gone because the evidence suggests that very nearly one-half of the growers occupy two or more plots of land. This situation has come about partly because separate holdings have been amalgamated for the present purpose to make a marketing unit but as this.can have affected only 142 holdings there remains the fragmentation of 544 holdings as a result of the peculiar conditions in the county. The County Council must take some share of the responsibility for this state of affairs. As growers wish to expand their acreage they can do so only by taking over the tenancy of holdings which have fallen vacant. Thus, many tenants of smallholdings have several detached plots of land and this state of affairs is being remedied by consolidation whenever possible on the County Council estates. This condition, however, appears to be general throughout the county. At the risk, of over-emphasising the importance of fragmentation it may be stated that two growers in the sample each had 20 separate plots of land. One of them grew 118 acres of horticultural crops but the other no more than 28-i acres. The importance of fragmentation cannot, however, be over-emphasised in Bedfordshire because it is the starting point of one of the difficulties of the marketing process, viz., that of organising production on and assembly of produce from scattered parcels of land. Only rarely was fragmentation considered to be an advantage and the reasons then put forward were scarcely valid. A grower, for instance, with a plot of 'late' land would regard the acquisition of a detached plot of 'early' land as advantageous to his whole economy. The earliness,

13 however, would confer the advantage not the detached nature of the land acquired. The grower with relatively early land had nothing to gain on this score and both necessarily assumed all the disadvantages of fragmentation in acquiring detached plots of land.

TABLE 4. Fragmentation of holdings.

Number of growers with Size of horticultural holdings Number of growers with enterprise 6 or more Whole Fragmented 2 plots 3-5 plots plots

Under 5 acres ••• 414 237 84 118 30

5-20 acres ••• ••• 177 338 145 145 48

20-50 acres ••• ••• 66 71 24 38 9

50-100 acres ••. ••• 20 33 10 13 10

100 acres and over ••• 10 24 10 11 3

687 1 703 278 325 100

II. Preparation of produce for market In general, the marketing process can be deemed to start with the assembly of the produce from the fields at some central point on the holding such as the packhouse or yard and to end, so far as the grower's functions are concerned, with despatch to market. In particular cases, of course, the marketing process may consist solely of striking a bargain with a potential buyer of a standing crop, while at the other extreme it may extend to the actual transporting of produce to market and selling it as well. In between these extremes are those of grading, washing, weighing, packing and others connected with the preparation of the produce. The amount of preparation given depends upon two factors: first, the method by which the crops are sold and secondly upon the kind of crops grown and the inclination of the grower. Thus, crops sold in situ require no preparation while those sold by way of commission agents may be well prepared or ill prepared according to the standard to which a grower aspires. Some crops, however, will demand more preparation than others even from those growers who do not set themselves a high standard. An attempt was made to find out how well equipped the growers were to carry out the various marketing processes, the extent to which the more obvious kinds of preparation like grading and weighing, were carried out, and whether there was any degree of specialisation of labour on the more frequently repetitive tasks of preparation. Each of these aspects will be considered in turn.

14 (i) Marketing equipment The evidence shows that one-tenth of the growers sold all their crops standing in the field. Clearly, no special equipment was needed by the growers concerned in order to market them. The remaining 90 per cent of growers therefore performed some marketing functions and could reasonably be expected to possess specialised marketing equipment of one kind or another. No less than about 26 per cent of them, however, appeared to have no marketing equipment of any kind, the majority of these being in the lowest size-group. It is a striking fact that about 30 per cent had no equipment for weighing though this must not necessarily be construed as meaning that these growers marketed produce in containers holding less than the reputed weight. It can mean one of three things. First, that there is unlikely to be uniformity in the weights of containers of produce and that some on occasion could be underweight. Secondly, that in order to be sure that the containers were at least of full weight the growers were overfilling with resultant loss to themselves. Thirdly, that produce was sold by count only. The value of produce marketed by those growers with no marketing equipment of any kind was estimated to be £157,000 and represented 7 per cent by value of all the horticultural produce of the county. TABLE 5. Classification of growers by marketing equipment used.

Size of horticultural enterprise Under 20 20 acres Total acres and over

Number of growers ••• ••• ••• 1,166 224 1,390 Number selling all crops in situ ... ••• 132 12 144

Number who should have some equipment ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 1,034 212 1,246 Number who have:-none ••• ••• 317 8 325 some ••• ••• 717 204 921

Number with: packhouses ••• ••• 432 114 546 weighing machines ••• 673 197 870 other equipment ... ••• 16 40 60

Estimated value of produce sold by growers with no equipment ... ••• £125,000 £32,000 £157,000

Other equipment not specifically noted in Table 5 consisted of graders and washers. No other important equipment was found.

(ii) Grading There are no universally recognised standards of grading for vegetable crops. The Ministry of Agriculture has drawn up 'Recommended Grades' for 58 kinds of fruit and vegetables but few growers appear to be aware of

1 Selling produce by count cannot be important in view of the data on the kinds of crop given earlier.

15 this fact. In the absence of a standard then the question 'Do you grade your produce?' can have only a limited meaning and few growers would admit to marketing any produce from which the inferior parts had not been removed. An analysis of the answers given by growers to this question shows, however, that they can be divided into those who (a) graded to some standard of their own,(b) graded some kinds of produce and culled others, (c) merely culled out the inferior produce and (d) those who may or may not have culled but who certainly did not grade. In effect the following three categories can be more readily distinguished; those who graded ( (a) or (b) above), those who are known to have culled but not to have graded and those whose practices are uncertain but who are known not to grade. TABLE 6. Classification of 1,323 growers according to grading and culling practices.*

Number of growers Size of horticultural Total enterprise Selling standing Grading Culling Uncertain crop

Under 5 acres ••• ••• 85 283 226 594

5-20 acres ••• ••• 47 125 218 125 515

20-50 acres ••• ••• 9 28 71 24 132 \ 50-100 acres ••• ••• 2 16 28 5 51

100 acres and over ••• 1 14 15 1 31 ^ 144 183 615 381 1,323 * Information on grading practices is not available for some growers in the sample.

It would seem, then, that 84 per cent of growers did no more than cull out inferior produce, leaving 16 per cent to grade to some undefined standard. A striking feature of this situation is that nearly one-half of the growers who are known not to grade and who may also not cull sell produce through commission agents on the national markets. The grading of tomatoes is, of course, an accepted practice and accounts for much of the grading reported during this study. On the other hand, a few growers are known to grade Brussels sprouts to very exacting standards. If there is any justification for such care in preparation then it would seem that a function of potential advantage to vegetable growers is being insufficiently exploited. (Hi) Measurement All harvested horticultural crops are sold in containers reputed to hold a certain weight or are sold by count or by both weight and count. The point here discussed is whether or not growers took steps to ensure that the reputed weight or count was in fact given. This is particularly

16 important in view of the statement made eanier that nearly one-third of •the growers possessed no equipment for weighing ; no equipment, of course, is necessary for counting. On the basis of the evidence obtained it seems that 90 per cent of growers weigh or count all produce in some appropriate manner; a further 3 per cent would appear to weigh occasional bags of sprouts or nets of cabbages as a check on the quantity packed. It is somewhat surprising that even 7 per cent of growers appear not to weigh produce though, it must be remembered, the majority of these growers were small-scale producers and thus relatively unimportant. If 93 per cent of growers weigh produce but only 70 per cent possessed weighing equipment then there would Qeem at first to be some conflict in the information obtained on these two points. On the one hand 7 per ,cent of the growers were either unconcerned about the weight of market packages or overfilled them at the cost of valuable produce. On the other hand, 30 per cent of growers appear to have no weighing equipment, but some, at least, grew crops which could be marketed by count and others stated that they borrowed such weighing equipment as they needed from neighbours. The real position is very difficult to determine because few growers would admit to a practice which could hardly be construed as being to their ci edit. It is probable that fewer than 90 per cent but more than 70 per cent of growers regularly check the weight of market packages.

(iv) Identification It is possible to identify all packed produce with the grower or business producing it, by label, trademark or by the grower's name printed on the container. The importance of identification lies in the fact that a satisfied customer can ask for a particular grower's produce if •that grower's name or mark is a conspicuous feature of the package. There are, of course, other reasons for identification such, for instance, as helping the salesman to recognise whose produce he is selling, but •that reason is one of pure convenience connected with the mechanics of selling. One curious practice in Bedfordshire which passes for identification is that of tying containers with coloured string. It is, in fact, common •to see bags of cabbages or nets of sprouts in stacks by the roadside with no recognisable means of identifying the grower but each bag tied with red string or string of some other colour. The lorry driver who will collect such stacks of produce knows by whom they are sent (through having been instructed and by the location of the stacks), knows to whom they are to be delivered (again from instruction) and the salesman knows that produce tied with such a colour string comes from a particular grower (because of the allocation of that colour to the grower). But the buyer of such produce could well regard similar produce with the same 'colour string but on two different market stands as coming from one a. grower when in fact two or more different growers are almost certainly 17 concerned. Whatever function coloured string performs, then a label could perform it better unless that function included the desire to avoid the disclosure of the grower's identity to buyers. In view of the particular circumstances in Bedfordshire it is instructive to show the number of growers who believe they identify their produce and the number who in fact do so. This examination refers only to those growers who sell produce by way of commission agents, for identification is clearly of little or no importance when sales take place on the holding or are made by the grower himself. In Table 7 the term 'all' means all kinds of produce, 'some' means some kinds of produce but not others. Where growers attach a label to, say, every fifth net of sprouts that practice has been construed as coming within the category

TABLE 7. Number of growers identifying their produce.

Number of growers Number of growers identifying selling Size of horticultural r A , through enterprise All Some No commission produce produce produce agents

Under 5 acres ••. ••• 142 — 28 170

5-20 acres ... ••• ••• 343 31 16 390

20-50 acres ••• ••• 66 24 9 99

50-100 acres ••• ••• 28 5 10 43

100 acres and over ••• 20 2 5 27

599 62 68 729

On the basis of the evidence obtained it would seem that 82 per cent of growers selling through commission agents attempt to identify themselves with the produce they send to market and that a further 8 per cent. attempt to identify themselves with some kinds of produce. In cases where no identification is used the grower normally -advises the commission agent, frequently by telephone, of the quantity of produce sent. On occasion, however, the haulage contractor informs the commission agent of the quantity he is delivering for the grower concerned. If 90 per cent of growers identified themselves with their produce in an effective manner then the situation would be by no means un- satisfactory. In view, however, of the statement made earlier that. coloured string is commonly used for this purpose it is interesting t& examine the situation from the point of view of the kind of identification used The evidence obtained would suggest that 50 per cent of growers using commission agents effectively identify their produce with either a

18 trade mark, a label or with both label and string. The remaining 50 per cent attempt no identification whatever or use coloured string alone which in this context is regarded as an ineffective means. Such a situation must surely arise from a misconception of the purpose of identification because while 90 per cent of the growers make some attempt at it only 50 per cent succeed. The purpose is to link the name of a grower with a particular quality of produce in the mind of the buyer. This fact seems to have been overlooked by one-half of the growers concerned. (v) Specialisation of labour on marketing tasks The tasks which are normally performed in the preparation of crops for market include assembly, grading, washing, packing, weighing, labelling and transporting. It has been shown that by no means all growers perform all of these tasks. Nevertheless, some are necessarily performed and some are of a repetitive nature or call for special responsibility on the part of the worker performing them. Complete specialisation of worker and task was not found in any business, but 18 per cent of the growers appeared to have adopted some degree of specialisation. That is to say, a few of the tasks performed were always carried out by the same worker. The greatest degree of 'partial specialisation' was found quite understandably on those holdings with more than 5 acres of horticultural crops and particularly on those with more than 20 acres. The figures in Table 8 relate to the 1,246 growers who appear to have sold harvested produce, i.e., they exclude growers selling the whole of their crops standing in the field. TABLE 8. Specialisation of labour on marketing tasks.

Percentage of growers with Size of horticultural A enterprise 'some specialisation no specialisation\

Under 20 acres ••• ••• 14 86

20 acres and over ••• ••• 44 56

All growers •• • ••• ••• 21 79

III. Methods of Sale (i) Relative importance of different methods of sale Five channels of sale were distinguished in the county. They are as follows:— (1) Sale through commission agents. (2) Sale by the grower to retail shops. (3) Sale through or to dealers. (4) Sale direct to consumers. (5) Miscellaneous methods, including sale at auction and sale through growers' co-operative society.

19 The terms of sale fall into two categories, fixed price sales and agency sales. In the former there is a simultaneous exchange of goods and agreement on price and the producer has the option of accepting or rejecting the price offered by the potential buyer. In the latter the producer relinquishes physical control of the produce before he knows the price he is to be paid for it and that price is determined, as to one side of the bargain, by an agent. The relative importance of these methods of sale is revealed by estimating the value of produce which annually flows through each channel. A brief note explaining how this estimate is made will first be necessary. Standard per acre values were attributed to each crop produced by each grower to get a total estimated value of. produce available for marketing from each business.1 Each grower in the sample had given an estimate of the proportion of his sales which were marketed through each channel used and the total estimated sales for each grower were divided accordingly, aggregated for each channel for each size group and raised to county level. It must be pointed out that the figures do not show the return to the grower because unharvested crops sold in the field are given the same per acre values as those crops sold retail when in fact the return to the grower is much less from the former than from the latter. The figures' measure the relative quantities of produce which move in the ways shown. They also, of course, measure the relative values of produce sold in the ways distinguished if that value is taken at a particular point in distribution, viz., the harvested produce on the holding. Thus, if crops are sold unharvested to a dealer then when harvested by him they have a value comparable to that of similar crops harvested by a grower. Though there must be an element of approximation in these figures it may be pointed out that the relative importance ascribed to the different channels very closely reflects the estimates made by the growers concerned. Estimated in this way, then, the following values of produce moved in the ways distinguished:— Value of produce £'000 Sold through commission agents •• • 1,430 68 Sold to retailers... • • • • • • • • • 300 14 Sold through or to dealers • • 285 14 Sold to consumers •• • • • • 47 2 Other methods ... • • • • • • • • • 44 2 £2,106 100

Of the produce sold by growers direct to retailers two-thirds was sold either on the holding or on lorry rounds to retailers' premises and one-third was sold from stands in wholesale markets. Of the produce sold to or 1 Few growers were willing to disclose the actual value of produce sold.

20 through dealers, 60 per cent represented harvested produce which the dealers sold on behalf of the growers and 40 per cent represented the harvested value of standing crops which the dealers bought outright. The relative importance of different channels of sale varied according to the size of the horticultural enterprise. One group, however, stood out conspicuously from all the others. Commission agents receive much smaller proportions and dealers much larger proportions of the produce of growers in the smallest size group than of any other.

TABLE 9. Proportions of produce sold through different outlets.

Percentage of total estimated sales to A Size of horticultural Commission Dealers Retailers Consumers Other Total enterprise agents outlets °A) °X) 13/0 0io Under 5 acres ••• 27 55 8 8 2 100

5-20 acres ..• ••• 70 15 10 5 - 100

9 0-50 acres... ••• 64 11 25 - - - 100

50-100 acres ••• 83 9 6 2 - 100

100 acres and over 73 5 2 - 20 100

All groups ... .•• 68 14 14 2 2 100

A reclassification of the sales by type of transaction shows that approximately £458,000 or 22 per cent are fixed price sales and approximately £1,648,000 or 78 per cent are agency sales. The former includes standing crops sold to dealers, sales to consumers and sales to retailers, and the latter the sale of harvested crops by dealers, sales by commission agents, and a small element of sales through a growers' co-operative and an auction.

(ii) Sales through commission agents The term 'commission agent' is used to mean the firm with premises in one of the main centres of population and one which does not normally acquire a legal title to the produce while that produce is in its physical possession, but which acts as the agent for the grower, sells the produce for the best price it can obtain and charges the grower a commission on the selling price and makes, perhaps, other charges for services rendered. The distinguishing feature of such firms is that they have to sell whatever any grower may decide to send to them, they have no direct power to select those suppliers who grow the kinds or qualities of produce which they can most conveniently handle and have no control over the quantity sent to them. It has been stated earlier that 729 growers are believed to use the services of commission agents. If this is correct, then 53 per cent of the growers use this method of sale to dispose of 68 per cent of the produce available.

21 Each of the growers visited and who sold produce in this way was asked to state the name of the firm or firms used. Some firms were naturally mentioned by a number of growers but, in all, 94 growers used the services of 153 firms of commission agents' located in the following markets:— Covent Garden •• • 32 firms Bradford 13 firms each Brentford • • • • • • 18 firms Liverpool Spitalfields • • 14 firms Borough • • • • • 12 firms Leicester 12 firms each Stratford • • • • • 10 firms Southend Bolton All London Markets ... 86 firms Huddersfield Rotherham Manchester • • • Chesterfield • • • 112 firms each Sheffield • •• • • • Northampton p, firm each Birmingham • •• • •• Edinburgh 1 8 firms each Leeds • •• • • • Glasgow Newcastle • • • • • • Brighton 1 4 firms each Nottingham • •• • • • Peterborough In contrast to the situation in some other areas commission agents appear to have few so-called 'local agents' acting on their behalf in Bedfordshire. Three growers interviewed stated that they acted as intermediaries between the commission agent and other growers. Three haulage contractors were also acting as agents for principal firms of commission salesmen while only one person was met who, while being an agent, took no part in the physical handling of produce. The function of these agents is the dissemination of market price information sent to them by their principals, the storage of empties and, in the case of the contractors, the haulage of produce for the principal firm or firms represented. Local agents for commission salesmen are, however, by no means a conspicuous feature. It will be shown later that in Wisbech the top fruit grower sometimes puts a minimum price on his produce before sending it to a commission salesman and that other growers sometimes sell produce outright to commission agents who then act as wholesale merchants. Neither of these practices were found in Bedfordshire and the reason is not far to seek. All the vegetable crops are relatively perishable and no minimum price can be set by the grower. Neither is the commission agent likely to take the trading risk involved in buying such produce outright.' Sales through commission agents from the Bedfordshire area therefore means precisely what it purports to mean.

The number of firms used by each grower is given later.

2 The Horticultural Produce (Sales on Commission) Act, 1926, expressly forbids' the purchase of produce by the firm (in the capacity of merchant) from the same firm (in the capacity of commission agent) to which it was sent by the grower unless this fact is disclosed to the grower. _

22 The majority of the growers interviewed were able to state the names of the firms of commission agents used as well as the markets supplied. The evidence points to the fact that- 65 per cent used 1 market 19 per cent used 2 markets 9 per cent used 3 markets 4 per cent used 4 markets and 3 per cent used 5 or more markets. It also appears that- 58 per cent used 1 commission agent 20 per cent used 2 agents 13 per cent used 3 agents 6 per cent used 4 agents and 3 per cent used 5 or more agents. As the size of the horticultural enterprise increases, the numbers of markets and agents used increase also. It will, however, be sufficient to show the relationship for one of these factors only. Table 10 classifies the growers by the scale of production and by the number of markets used. TABLE 10. Classification of 709 growers by number of markets used.

Number of growers using A Size of horticultural 1 market 2 markets 3 markets 4 markets 5 or more Total enterprise markets

Under 5 acres ... 141 29 — — — 170

5-20 acres...... 234 78 47 16 — 390

20-50 acres •• • 61 19 9 5 5 99

50-100 acres •• • 18 8 2 5 10 43

100 acres and over 4 3 3 3 9 27

458 137 61 29 24 709

Some growers used one commission agent per market, others used more than one. On the other hand, some growers used the services of firms which had branch establishments in different markets so that in effect these growers used fewer firms of agents than markets. The position appears to be that- 81 per cent of growers used 1 agent per market. 15 per cent of growers used 1 agent in excess of 1 per market. 2 per cent of growers used 2 agents in excess of 1 per market. 2 per cent of growers used 1 or 2 agents fewer than 1 per market. This means that 81 per cent of growers used one agent per market however many markets they may have supplied, 17 per cent used two agents in at least one market and so brought about a degree of competition between

23 different consignments of their own produce and that only 2 per cent, used the services of the larger multiple firms of commission agents so that the total trade of each grower was concentrated in the hands of one firm even though made up of supplies to a number of markets. Table 11 sets out what appears to be the relationship between the number of markets supplied and the number of firms used.

TABLE 11. Classification of 709 growers by number of markets supplied and by number of commission agents used.

Number of growers using Number of markets A supplied 1 agent 2 agents 3 agents 4 agents 5 or more Total agents

1 ••• 411 38 8 458

2 ••• ••• ••• - 96 39 2 - 137

3 ••• ••• ••• - 4 40 17 - 61

4 ••• ••• ••• 2 - 18 9 29

5 or more ... ••• - - 3 5 16 25

411 140 91 42 25 709

It is generally regarded as important that there should be a free flow of information on prices from the commission agent back to the grower. What is perhaps not so generally recognised is that there should also be a flow of information from the grower to his chosen commission agent or agents about the kind and quantity of produce which will be forthcoming or which is being currently dispatched. The commission agent needs to know some time in advance just what crops he will be expected to sell. He can then cultivate his customers and so help to ensure a ready sale when the produce eventually reaches him. Moreover, there is one special feature of horticultural marketing which relates to the flow of information from grower to agent. In order to enjoy the protection of the Horticultural Produce (Sales on Commission) Act, 1926, producers must send with every consignment an advice note stating the kind and quantities of produce consigned or send such advice by post so that it arrives before the produce is sold. Few growers would believe that this was nowadays a necessary provision for their protection, but it greatly facilitates the smooth working of the , agent's business to have such advice notes, concerned as he is with many kinds of produce from many growers and in widely differing quantities and qualities from each. It is instructive to show the frequency with which different sizes of growers appeared to be sending these two kinds of information to their agents. Table 12 classifies the 729 growers who use commission agents by their practices in advising their agents.

24 TABLE 12. Classification of growers by Percentage sending information to agents.

Percentage of growers Size of horticultural enterprise sending advance advice information note 0/0 0/0 -Under 5 acres ••• ••• ••• 16 67

5-20 acres .•• ••• ••• 40 57

20-50 acres ... ••• ••• ••• 67 75

50-100 acres... ••• ••• ••• 70 61

100 acres and over ... ••• ••• 89 78

All groups ... ••• ••• ••• 42 62

It is interesting to note that the percentage of growers sending advance information increases as the size of the horticultural enterprise increases, while the percentage sending advice notes remains relatively constant throughout. It should also be noted that the percentage o growers giving advance information exceeds, for the two larger size groups, the percentage sending advice notes. This paradoxical situation is explained by the fact that the larger growers are in frequent contact with their agents by telephone and notify them not only of produce to be marketed shortly but also of the quantities currently despatched. For the purposes of the Act such advice is of no effect. It was essential, however, to place only one construction on the advice note—did it or did it not meet the requirements of the Act? —because a further point was to be made the subject of enquiry, the prevalence or otherwise o the so-called 'net sales.' The Horticultural Produce (Sales on Commission) Act, 1926, requires firms selling horticultural produce to do so on commission and to state the charges they make except where the grower has entered into a written agreement that the agent shall make net returns, i.e., deduct the charges without showing them or the gross price realised. In the absence of an agreement net sales appear to contravene the Act. The relative importance of net sales may be illustrated by stating that 18 per cent of growers appeared to be selling produce through agents making such returns, though only 6 per cent of growers sold the whole of their produce in this way. A somewhat disquieting feature of the situation is that only one producer had entered into the necessary agreement with his agent, none of the others had signified their willingness to accept net returns, though it must be added that none showed any anxiety on this account and some even stated that they preferred such returns. Marketing charges. In view of the importance which is laid upon the alleged high cost of marketing, it is surprising that few growers could give any reliable data on this matter. Specific questions were addressed

25 to growers on the cost of empties which they themselves provided and which they hired, and on the cost of transport to market, but the attempt to obtain reliable information was abortive. Estimates of some of the costs were obtained from some growers, but comprehensive statements were lacking. Some light on the difficulty of demonstrating the cost of marketing at all effectively is shed by an analysis of the commission sales accounts which 29 growers provided for inspection. The acounts covered 8,500 separate transactions with a total gross value of £279,000. This analysis showed that charges consisting mainly of commission amounted to £28,543 but included charges for pitching, market expenses, use of empties and toll inextricably bound up with the commission charge. Charges mainly for empties totalled £3,781, but included return of empties. Charges made for transport amounted to £3,432 and covered haulage and cartage (presumably from the growers' premises), carriage and cartage, and carriage on returned empties. Items classed as market charges amounted to £2,540 and covered market expenses and charges; market dues; toll; dues, toll and wharfage; and porterage. Other charges amounted to £2,255 and covered porterage, pitching, handling, agency handling and delivery and/or handling. The lack of uniformity in ways of charging for services makes any itemised statement of charges virtually impossible. The total charges of £40,571 levied in this inconsistent manner represented 14-1- per cent of the value of the produce, but it is by no means a complete statement of costs. It would be presenting a more valid picture to state that charges levied for services rendered as selling agents amounted to £37,139 or 131- per cent of the total gross value of the produce sold and that in addition the growers had to meet all costs of transport and containers. It is most regrettable that on precisely these matters growers were apparently in no position to supply information. Size of days' loadings. Data were obtained from a small number of growers which makes it possible to demonstrate for each of three size groups the frequency distribution of daily loadings and to• show the percentage of the total loading-days for each group which fall into each loading-day size group. TABLE 13. Classification of loadings by value and by size of horticultural enterprise.

Percentage of total loading days which are A Size of £250 horticultural under £5—£10 £1O-202O-50 £50—£100 £100—£250 and enterprise £5 over

Under 50 acres 19 44 30 7

50-100 acres 4 10 20 34 20 11 1

100 acres and over 3 3 7 34 29 19 5 26 The importance•of these figures lies in their implications rather than in what they ostensibly portray. They indicate the advantage which the large grower has in negotiating with all the agencies concerned in marketing as compared to the small grower. (iii) Sales through dealers The term 'dealer' is used to mean the individual or firm buying standing crops and harvesting and selling them or the firm selling harvested produce for growers. The dealer, the so-called clorryman' in Bedfordshire is in one sense a commission agent in disguise, but is distinguished from commission agents by two characteristics. The first is that he operates from and has his base in the production area. The second is that, unlike the commission agent, he has the option of not taking produce because if he finds sales difficult he ceases to call on growers. In another and less important sense he operates entirely on his own behalf as he buys growing crops at a firm price per acre, bears the responsibility for harvesting, and sells at the best price he can get and thus takes the risk of the crop and the price failing to come up to expectation. The term lorryman' current in Bedfordshire arises because most, if not all, such persons or firms actually send a lorry or lorries around to growers' holdings to deliver empties and to collect produce. The clorryman' or commission agent aspect seems to be the more important and the dealer aspect the less important. The evidence obtained suggests that about 450 growers dispose of some or all of their harvested produce through dealers, rather a higher proportion of the smaller growers doing so than the larger. In all, 35 dealers were traced and interviewed. Some, in fact, had been interviewed as growers when they had stated that the produce which they grew was marketed on a wholesale lorry round. The lorryman's business is quite often associated with his producer's business so that when he buys standing crops he drafts his labour to the holding on which they are growing in order to harvest them. The majority of the firms traced were situated in the Clophill-Maulden area though they collected produce from the whole county and even outside it. In general, this type of outlet was favoured by the growers with relatively small acreages of horticultural crops grown on holdings with a strong agricultural bias. The terms on which the dealer handles harvested produce are difficult to define. In effect he resembles a commission agent making net returns, but he also provides transport and empties. The price he pays the grower is therefore a net price for produce only on the holding. The dealer takes such a quantity of produce as he thinks he is able to handle and after selling it pays the grower on a subsequent visit a net return, very rarely, so far as experience suggests, showing the actual price realised and the charges for his services. Dealers call more or less

27 regularly on some producers, but only irregularly on others. In this way they obtain just that amount of produce which they can conveniently handle. The prices which dealers pay are stated by growers to fluctuate less. widely than Covent Garden prices in times of scarcity the dealers' plices are lower, in times of plenty they are higher. This quite naturally arises from the fact that the dealer sells to retail shops and though the prices, at which he sells are governed by those ruling on the market there are factors other than price which the dealer and the retailer take into account. Convenience, continuity of supply, quality of the produce, freshness, absence of frequent handling and so on are reasons why the retailer is willing to pay more than market price in times of plenty, but to offset this he is said to be disinclined to pay scarcity prices. Taking all these factors into account growers who use the services of dealers express themselves as satisfied that they obtain relatively good prices. There is, too, a strong element of competition between individual dealers and between dealers in general and other forms of outlet. This fact must compel the dealer to give, in the long run, as good a net price on the holding as the grower would get from other forms of outlet. Evidence to support (or to refute) this view is, however, not easy to obtain. Given that over the season the dealer pays as good a net price on the holding as the commission agent (but no better price) then it would seem that dealers by their favourable position in selling and by having only just that quantity of produce which they can currently handle, tend to take the cream of the trade, leaving the commission agent the more difficult task of disposing of produce when it is plentiful. To the extent that the grower gets as good a price from one as from the other he is not concerned, of course, in this matter, but it is by no means beyond the bounds of possibility that growers as a whole would get better terms of sale and better prices if all produce were channelled through commission agents. The multiplication of outlets each competing for the retailers' custom cannot be of any advantage to the grower. The thirty-five dealers traced and interviewed probably account for the majority of such firms in the area, but there is no certainty that they represent all of them. In view of the fact that most of these dealers were also growers and that they operated as dealers in the producing area a note on their businesses is included at this stage. All the dealers interviewed handled vegetables and all except one- handled potatoes as well. Ten reported that they dealt in fruit, three that they handled flowers and canned goods and seven that they handled imported produce of various kinds. Only three handled all kinds of produce and four handled vegetables, potatoes, fruit and imported produce. These seven can be said to have been able to provide practically all of the requirements of the greengrocer (but none of them did so),, whereas the remaining twenty-eight could have supplied only a part.

28 In all, these thirty-five dealers themselves grew 1,939 acres of horticultural crops and 825 acres of potatoes. Twelve dealers grew at least two- thirds of the produce handled, five grew between one-third and two-thirds and eighteen grew less than one-third; seven,in fact, grew virtually nothing. There was a tendency for dealers to handle for other growers a much greater proportion of potatoes than of vegetables. Some, in fact, drew supplies of potatoes from Lincolnshire and the Fens. All the dealers provided all types of empties needed by growers. In addition, their equipment consisted of 112 lorries distributed as to twelve businesses with 1 lorry each, seventeen with 2 to 5 each, five with 6 to 10, and one with 12 lorries, together with banana rooms (2), cold stores (3), potato stores (6) and a grading machine (1). Fifteen dealers sold produce mainly in London, six mainly on the northern fringes of London, three in Northampton, two in Cambridge, one in Buckingham and eight in local towns. The main outlet in each case was the retail shop, one dealer supplied seven shops in West London, while at the other extreme another supplied approximately 600 shops, 46 schools, 8 hospitals, and 6 canteens very few, however, supplied more than 100 shops. Eleven dealers supplied shops to order only, ten carried the estimated requirements of their customers, eight did both and four appeared to have no fixed policy on this matter. It is clear from this that the dealers only take from growers those amounts of produce which they estimate or know for certain they can sell. This leaves the grower with the problem of finding an expandable outlet when produce is plentiful and demand relatively constant. The dealer, nevertheless, may sometimes still have a surplus to the requirements of his customers despite the precautions he has taken to prevent such an occurrence. This surplus may be held for a second day, be disposed of to commission salesmen, to other dealers, to retailers not regularly visited, kept in cold store, fed to stock or thrown away. Few dealers were prepared to disclose the size of their businesses as measured by turnover, but one of the largest had a turnover of 060,000 per annum. Some businesses were most complex, produce being grown, sold for other growers, bought from other growers, bought from other dealers and sold to retailers, to other dealers or disposed of to commission agents. The price at which produce was sold to the principal customer, the retailer, was generally stated to be the current price ruling on the market or some variant of it. Other dealers stated that prices were fixed by a bargain with shopkeepers, by guesswork, that the aim was to keep a steady price or that selling prices were fixed before the delivery took place. Sales were made both for cash and on credit with credit of a week or, more rarely, a month. From the realised prices some dealers deducted a fixed charge of 1,i6d. or 2/-d. per bag or per box before paying the grower. In addition some

29 sort of commission was charged based on the value of the produce and this commission varied between Ti per cent and 10 per cent of the sale price, but the grower was paid a net price by all except one lorryman. Some dealers gave no written statement at all to growers but merely handed over a certain sum in cash for produce taken on a previous visit. It would be wrong to give the impression that the dealers were reaping exorbitant profits from the trade. One dealer provided two years' accounts of his business for inspection showing a profit of 3i to 4 per cent on the turnover. Detailed figures for one year are given below.

Purchases of produce, etc. •• • 36,000 82 Wages •• • ••• •• • .•• 3,100 7 Lorry expenses •• • •• ▪ 2,750 6 Other expenses ••• •• • ••• 550 1 Profit ... •• • •• • •• 1• ,600 4 Value of produce sold ••• ... £44,000 100 Thus at least 18 per cent of the selling price was absorbed in expenses and profit and it is possible that this method is a somewhat more costly one than selling through commission agents. (iv) Direct fixed price sales Only one of the fixed price methods of sale need be mentioned, viz. the sale of produce by growers to retailers. The evidence obtained indicates that about 200 growers sell produce in this way and that retailers take approximately 14 per cent of the total value of produce grown in the county. Rather more than two-thirds of this produce was sold on lorry rounds maintained by groweis and rather less than one-third was sold on the wholesale markets on stands which individual growers themselves maintained. In this class of sale growers assumed the function of commission agent or dealer or of both. These methods seem to be confined to relatively few growers and to be adopted by those who are also dealers. (v) Type of business and predominant method of sale It has been shown earlier that growers fall into three categories according to the relative importance of horticultural sales in the total sales of each business. Although no grower stated that his method of marketing was linked to the type of business he carried on, the relative importance of the horticultural enterprise must have been a factor, and an important factor, taken into account in making the choice of method. It is therefore interesting to note how the predominant method of marketing appears to be influenced by the relative importance of horticultural sales. Table 14 classifies the growers by the type of business and by the main method of marketing chosen. The figures for only three methods call for comment. There seems to be a notable decrease in dependence on commission agents as the relative

30 TABLE 14. Classification of growers by type of business and by main marketing method. Percentage of growers selling mainly to• 1 Type of business Commission Dealers Dealers Retailers Consumers Total agents (harvested (standing crops) crops)

°A. °A. 0/0 0/0 0/0 °A. Mainly horticultural 52 15 6 24 ,3 100 Horticulture with farming ...... 58 25 6 6 5 100 Farming with subsidiary horticulture 23 27 31 12 7 100

importance of the horticultural enterprise diminishes. This is counter- balanced by an increasing dependence on sales to or through dealers. Sales of harvested crops to dealers seem to be significantly more attractive to the 'horticulture with farming' group of growers than to the 'mainly horticultural' group but, with a still further decline in the relative importance of horticultural sales, not to gain in attractiveness. Sales of standing crops to dealers appear to be unimportant except to those growers in the 'farming with subsidiary horticulture' group. The situation noted above is to be expected in view of the inter- dependence of horticulture and farming while the relative unimportance of horticultural sales to a great many producers explains the attractiveness of sales to or through dealers. (vi) Number of outlets used It has been shown that five different channels of sale could be distinguished. It is instructive to show to what extent growers depend on only one method or channel of sale or use two or more methods. Moreover, it is also instructive to show what the methods are when only one is used, what combinations of methods are adopted when two or more are used and whether the methods in any combination are complementary or competitive. The following table shows the number of growers using different numbers of outlets irrespective of their kind. TABLE 15 . Classification of growers by number of outlets used.

Number of growers with Size of horticultural enterprise One outlet Two outlets Three outlets

Under 5 acres ••• ••• 482 141 28 5-20 acres ... ••• ••• 343 172 — 20-50 acres ... ••• ••• 99 33 5 50-100 acres... ••• ••• 23 25 5 100 acres and over ... 18 13 3*

965 384 41

• * (Including 1 business with 4 outlets). 31 It may be presumed that when only one outlet is used then the grower chooses that which he regards as most suitable for his particular circumstances. The growers who use one outlet only are therefore classified in Table 16 by the size of their horticultural enterprise and the method of marketing used. There would appear to be a distinct swing away from the dealer to the commission agent with increasing scale of production. a

TABLE 16. Classification of growers with one outlet by method of marketing. Number of growers using r-- A Size of horticultural Commission Dealers Retailers or Other Total enterprise agents consumers outlets

Under 5 acres ••• ••• 113 256 85 28 482

5-20 acres .•• ••• ••• 249 78 16 343

20 acres and over ... ••• 100 19 14 7 140

462 353 115 35 965

When the grower uses two or more outlets he must still regard the combination he chooses as the most suitable for his circumstances, but he has obviously to take many more factors into consideration in making his choice. Basically, however, the main considerations are (a) that one outlet is either too much subject to the risk of price fluctuation or is unable to cope adequately with the volume of produce he has to offer or (b) that the net return to him (net of all costs and of inconvenience) will be the same from each outlet chosen, or both these considerations together. What combinations of outlets are chosen by the growers who used two or more outlets? It would be unwise to raise the sample results to county level because there are 19 different combinations of outlet used by 52 growers in the sample and the number using any one combination rarely exceeds two. Examination of the sample results, however, strongly suggests that dealers and commission agents are most frequently used together. The most likely reason for this has already been given in another context; it is that a second and expandable outlet is generally necessary where sales are made through dealers. Combinations consisting of the sale of harvested produce through dealers and the sale of standing crops to the same or other dealers are less important. Still less important were sales to retailers and sales through commission agents, methods which could be regarded as complementary if the retailers supplied were outside the orbit of the commission agent supplied. Outlets which were competitive one with another were sales to retailers and sales to consumers. Com- binations of this kind appeared to be of infrequent occurrence. (vii) Provision of Empties There are well-known advantages and disadvantages to growers in their being, on the one hand, dependent on the distributive trade for

32 empties, or on the other, providing their own. The present purpose is not to argue the case for one or the other but merely to state the extent of dependence of producers on the distributive trade for empties. It would seem that over three-quarters of those growers in the county who use empties at the point of sale depend upon the distributor f3r the supply of all of them, one-seventh provide all empties themselves and one- fourteenth provide some themselves and depend on their distributors for The remainder. There appears to be no significant difference in the situation as between the larger and the smaller growers.

IV. Place of Marketing The relative importance of different places of marketing (in the sense of the place where produce first changes ownership) cannot be stated in precise terms. Growers interviewed were generally able to name the markets supplied but were unable to state the relative importance to them of each market when two or more were used. Moreover, a considerable amount of produce was sold to or by dealers and this has inevitably been classed as a local sale even though the dealer may have sold it, and most probably did sell it, in London. The only way to determine the relative importance of different places of marketing seemed to be to count the number of times different markets were stated as being used and to construct an index by weighting the figures so obtained by the relative importance of each group of growers. In all, 24 towns or markets were stated to be supplied and these have been grouped for convenience into geographical regions. The relative importance of each of these regions measured in the way indicated above is given in Table 17. TABLE 17. Relative importance of different marketing regions.

Index of importance to each size group of

Size of Local London Midlands Yorks. Lancs. North South horticultural sales and enterprise south-east

-Under 5 acres 74 26 - - - - -

5-20 acres ••• 33 47 8 6 6 - -

20-50 acres ... 27 61 - 5 7 - -

.50-100 acres... 23 42 15 15 15 5 5

100 acres and over ••• 16 40 13 11 9 9 2

All groups .•• 47 39 5 4 4 1 -

It would be true to say that local sales in the table above refer mainly to sales to or through dealers. These sales have been estimated to account for only 14 per cent of the total by value. The sales to the markets or

33 regions named refer to sales on commission which account for 68 per cent by value, and sales to retailers which account for a further 14 per cent. Thus, Table 17 overweights the importance oflocal sales, and underweights the importance of London, in terms of value, but with this proviso it shows the importance of the London market quite strikingly. Indeed, if local sales are excluded from the picture for the moment then the index for London becomes 75 and this must be still further raised by that proportion of local sales which are in reality made in London. Moreover, an analysis of sale notes from some of the larger growers relating to commission sales shows that London was the most important market despite the fact that the larger growers tend to distribute their produce over a wider area than those with smaller enterprises. The attractions of London stem largely from its ease of access by road and the transport facilities available. Similar road transport facilities do not exist between Bedfordshire and other markets with the consequence that traffic for these markets is not forthcoming and absence of traffic, in turn, results in absence of facilities. V. Transport The importance of adequate transport between the production area and the markets cannot be over-emphasised. The economic significance of the different methods used, however, is centred on the degree of self- sufficiency of the grower. As measured by the value of produce moved only one method of selling is of any great importance, viz., sale through commission agents; as measured by the number of growers using different methods then sales through dealers also become important. Before discussing the methods by which produce sold in these two ways is transported it might be wise to state that those growers who sell direct to consumers do so in the main from the holding and provide no transport. Approximately 15 per cent of the growers sell to retail establishments and two-thirds of them have lorry rounds to the retailers' premises. It is more important, however, to show how produce sold on' commission and sold through dealers gets to the place of sale. Table 18 sets out for the growers who are believed to be concerned in these types of selling, the number who are self-sufficient and the number who are dependent on outside agencies for transport. It would seem, then, that most growers depend on outside agencies for transporting produce. The provision of transport, of course, is an accepted part of the service which the dealer gives to the grower and one of the attractions of that service is that the grower is relieved of all responsibility in this respect. It would appear that the provision of transport is also an important function of the commission agents because nearly 25 per cent of growers selling in this way depend wholly or partly on this kind of transport.

34 TABLE 18. Classification of growers by method of transport used.

Sales through commission agents Sales through dealers A Number of growers who Number of growers with no transport using Number of growers who Size of horticultural Provide Provide no Sell through Hired Rail Commission Deliver to Have Sell through enterprise transport transport commission road agents' dealers produce dealers agents transport transport collected by dealers

Under 5 acres •• • 170 170 170 28 57 198 255

5-20 acres •• • •• • 125 265 390 234 125 125 15 125 140

20-50 acres •• • •• • 47 52 99 47 28 23 23 23

50-100 acres •• • •• • 20 23 43 20 13 23 20 20

100 acres and over ••• 18 9 27 14 11 10 4 2 6

210 519 729 485 205 181 76 368 444 The most important method of getting produce to market is by the use of hired road transport. A number of firms specialising in handling horticultural produce exist in the area and one such firm provided the data on which the accompanying map has been prepared. This illustrates the complexity of the road transport of produce from the holdings to the market and shows the places visited by one lorry in one day in order to load produce, the number of growers visited at each place, the kinds and quantities collected from each grower visited and the commission agent

25 bags Sprouts 4 boxes Beans B 23 boxes Beans 16 bags Sprouts 1 13 35 bags Potatoes F 4 boxes Cauliflower 1 21 bags Sprouts 2'boxes Beans A 0 60 bags Potatoes F ® 8 boxes Cabbage 13 bags Sprouts I B 7 boxes Beans j

12 boxes Beans A 16 bags Potatoes 1 r. 7 boxes Marrows /14"

19 boxes Beans 1 H boxes Marrows 3 11 15 boxes Beans 1 10 B 15 boxes Marrows 12 boxes 27 boxes Beans 1 D boxesMarrows8 Beans 10 boxes Cabbage

DEPOT

11 boxes Lettuce 1 Points at which produce was 1 crate Beans collected and number of growers 7 boxes Beans concerned. 5 crates Marrows

Grower delivered to depot.

A, B, etc., denote Commission agents to whom produce was delivered.

8 boxes Marrows 10 boxes Beans 1E 1 10 boxes Parsley 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

36 to whom the produce was to be delivered in one of the London markets. When loaded, this lorry returned to the contractor's depot and was then driven to London, calling in turn on each of the commission agents. The true complexity of the process is revealed when it is stated that the contractor had a number of lorries traversing the same area collecting produce destined for different commission agents in the same market and for commission agents in other markets, that each driver was given detailed instructions as to the growers on whom he had to call and the kind of produce he had to collect, and that very frequently the commission agent depended upon the transport contractor for notification of the kinds and quantities of produce he would receive and the names of the growers from whom he would receive it.

37 V. WEST CORNWALL I. Production The production of horticultural crops in Cornwall on a commercial scale developed on account of three factors. First, a climate which favours the production of winter crops; second, the recognition by growers of the potentialities of distant markets; third, the existence of railway transport. Distance from the market has always been a factor which has tended to offset the advantages of a mild winter climate and this has brought transport more prominently into the marketing picture in Cornwall than in almost any other horticultural area in the country. The cultivation of vegetables and flowers has been carried on under two main systems. Crops such as early potatoes and broccoli have formed part of a farm rotation or they have, together with bulb flowers, spring cabbages and other less important crops, been grown on horticultural holdings. The hub of the industryis in the Gulval-Marazion area bordering Mounts Bay, an area predominantly, but by no means wholly, horticultural. Outside this area horticultural crops usually form part of a farm rotation. They are sometimes grown on small patches of cliff land on farms because of the freedom of such land from frost. 1 Traditionally, the main crops have been narci§si, early potatoes, spring cabbages and broccoli with the yellow curded Penzance type of broccoli in general cultivation until Roscoff types were introduced some thirty years ago. In the last thirty years other crops, too, have been introduced, anemones in particular, but still the industry is concerned with producing a limited number of crops. The conditions under which they are produced and the way in which they are marketed formed the basis of the enquiry in the area. (i) The holdings In 1953 there were 1,783 holdings concerned in growing horticultural crops in the parishes west of Truro. The majority of them could be described as small farms because two-thirds were below 50 acres in size, and in most cases the horticultural enterprise was below 5 acres in extent. Only a very few could be described as wholly horticultural. The basis of the sample used for the enquiry was not, however, the population of 1,783 holdings noted above but a population of 1,611 holdings which the June 1953 Agricultural Returns showed as growing horticultural crops. These returns did not include the broccoli which was subsequently found to be growing on some of the holdings and the total population was made up by adding those holdings which the September 1952 returns showed as growing broccoli alone of the horticultural crops.' 1 The area of these small patches of land is measured in a peculiarly local measure, the 'lace.' Such areas are necessarily hand cultivated. 2 1952 was the last year in which all holdings made a quarterly return. In subsequent. years only one-third of the holdings made returns at each quarter so that they were unsuitable for sampling purposes.

38 TABLE 19. Size distribution of holdings growing horticultural crops.

Size of Number of holdings with a total horticultural area of Total Number enterprise number wholly Under 5 5-50 50-100 100-500 of holdings horticultural acres acres acres acres

1 acre and under 157 386 77 24 645 —

1-5 acres ... 100 348 167 55 670 31

5-20 acres ••• 4 171 142 81 398 15

20-50 acres ••• — 8 28 30 66 1

50 acres and over — — 1 3 4 —

261 913 415 194 1,783 47

(ii) The growers A sample of 148 holdings was drawn from this population. As in Bedfordshire, some of these holdings were associated for marketing purposes with others in the sample and others in the county. By using the same conventions as in Bedfordshire it would appear that there were 143 marketing units or growers in the sample and 1,678 growers in the area. The translation of holdings to growers is shown below together with the sampling density.

Holdings Growers Size of horticultural Total Number in Number in Estimated enterprise number sample sample number in population

1 acre and under ••• 645 . 40 20 318

1-5 acres... ••• ••• 670 35 38 636

5-20 acres ••• ••• 398 42 54 598

20-50 acres ••• ••• 66 29 18 90

50 acres and over ••• 4 2 13 36

1,783 148 143 1,678

Except where it is stated to the contrary all the data given subsequently will refer to the 1,678 growers. The main weakness of this method comes about as a result of introducing broccoli growers into the population after the sample was drawn. This weakness, however, is by no means so serious as it might appear at first because there is no reason to suppose that those growers introduced after sampling used methods which differed at all from those used by growers with similar acreages who were in the population beforesampling. The weakness should, nevertheless, be borne in mind in interpreting the results of this study.

39 (iii) Types of business Three main types of business were distinguished according to the relative importance of horticultural sales in the total sales of each business. The three types were (i) mainly horticultural, (ii) horticulture with farming and (iii) farming with subsidiary horticulture. The impression given by Table 19 that horticulture is closely linked with farming is re-emphasised in Table 20. On over one-half, or 53 per cent, of the holdings horticultural sales appear to be relatively unimportant while in only one-fifth of the businesses do they exceed two- thirds of the total receipts. Where horticultural sales form between one-third and two-thirds of total receipts, in the horticulture with farming group, dairying and horticulture seems to be the most frequent combina- 'tion of enterprises, followed secondly by mixed farming and horticulture, and thirdly by pigs and poultry keeping with horticulture. TABLE 20. Classification of 1,678 businesses by type and by size.

Number of businesses

Size of horticultural Mainly Horticulture Farming with All enterprise horticultural with farming subsidiary types horticulture

1 acre and under... ••• 33 — 285 318

1-5 acres ..• ••• ••• 151 100 385 636

5-20 acres... ••• ••• 102 271 225 598

20-50 acres ••• ••• 45 40 5 90

50 acres and over ••• 17 19 — 36

348 430 900 1,678

Table 20 suggests that where the larger acreages of horticultural crops are grown then most of such businesses are less concerned with farm production than where smaller acreages of horticultural crops are grown. In other words, the bona fide horticultural holding, while being something of a rarity in West Cornwall, tends to grow relatively large acreages of horticultural crops. (iv) Crops grown The June 1954 Agricultural Returns show that there were 5,397 acres of early potatoes and 4,786 acres of other horticultural crops grown.2 These acreages, of course, show only the less important parts of the picture because winter cropping is the mainstay of the industry and no adequate statistics, official or otherwise, are available to show its full extent. The total acreage of horticultural crops grown by the 143 growers in the sample was 2,264 acres. This leads one

The method of classifying business is given on page 10. 2 Including the Cornwall side of the Tamar Valley.

40 to believe that the 1,678 growers were responsible for the cultivation of approximately 14,000 acres of potatoes and horticultural crops distributed as shown below:— Acreage of Size of horticultural Early Broccoli Spring Anemones Narcissi Other Total enterprise potatoes cabbages crops

1 acre and under 149 4 2 9 7 42 213

1-5 acres ... 770 406 96 70 63 183 1,628

5-20 acres ... 1,764 3,190 649 394 119 609 6,725

20-50 acres ... 650 1,576 356 134 19 243 2,978

50 acres and over 492 1,271 310 114 147 299 2,633

3,825 6,447 1,413 721 355 1,376 14,177

Official horticultural statistics are recognised as having serious short- comings when drawn from areas such as Cornwall because the manner in which they are recorded is designed for quite different areas and conditions. The 5,397 acres of early potatoes given in the official statistics covers the whole county and the apparent total of 3,825 acres of first earlies is probably a fair approximation to the actual acreage grown in west Cornwall. An estimate of the spring cabbage acreage has been given as 1,800 acres and two estimates of the broccoli acreage (one official and one unofficial) have been 3,500 acres and 4,500 acres respectively. The official acreage of narcissi at 693 is almost twice as great as that obtained as a result of this survey while the 721 acres of anemones appear to have no place whatever in official statistics. It is impossible in these circumstances to use the official figures as a check on the validity of the acreages which the present survey suggests were grown in west Cornwall. Whatever the position may be as to total acreage the relative importance of the different crops seems to vary with the size of the horticultural enterprise. Those growers with the smaller enterprises appear to have a high proportion of early potatoes, while those with the larger enterprises a high proportion of broccoli and spring cabbage. The high proportion of early potatoes on the smaller enterprises comes about because on many farms there are small patches of very early sheltered land suitable for potato growing, the crop causes little or no disturbance to the farm rotation because feed crops can be grown after the potatoes have been lifted, and marketing the crop imposes no strain on the resources of the grower. Indeed, of the 20 sample growers with one acre of horticultural crops or under no less than 15 grew early potatoes only. Approximately 46 per cent of growers are engaged in producing narcissi, anemones and other flowers, some with and some without

Some corroborative evidence on the quantity grown was obtained by using data on loadings kindly supplied by British Railways. 41 Size of horticultural 1 acre 1-5 acres 5-20 acres 20-50 acres 50 acres enterprise and under and over

Crop—

Early potatoes 70 47 26 22 19

Broccoli •• • •• • 2 25 47 53 48

Spring cabbage •• • 1 6 10 12 12

Anemones ... •• • 4 4 6 5 4

Narcissi •• • •• • 3 4 2 — 6

Other crops •• • 20 14 9 8 11

100 100 100 100 100 vegetable crops. No less than 95 per cent of the growers appear to be concerned in producing one or more of the three vegetable crops which are of outstanding importance. Thus, 42 per cent appeared to be growing one crop only (31 per cent early potatoes only, 9 per cent broccoli only and 2 per cent spring cabbages only), 30 per cent were growing two crops (15 per cent early potatoes and broccoli, 12 per cent early potatoes and spring cabbage and 3 per cent spring cabbage and broccoli), while 23 per cent were growing all three crops. For a great many growers marketing must be concentrated into a relatively short period of the year, while for most of them it cannot extend over more than six months.

(v) Length of tenure The evidence available on length of tenure suggests that 36 per cent of the growers had occupied their land for under 10 years, 31 per cent for between 10 and 20 years and 33 per cent for over 20 years. There appears to be no significant difference in the length of tenure as between different sizes of horticultural enterprise no doubt because horticulture is so frequently associated with farming. The important point to note in connection with length of tenure is that well over one-third of the growers are most probably familiar with the pre-war marketing of broccoli and early potatoes when very high standards of grading and packing were commonly reached.

(vi) Fragmentation Fragmentation of the holding is by no means an important feature of the situation in west Cornwall. It would seem that over 70 per cent of the growers have holdings which are within a ring fence and only 30 per cent have holdings which are split into two or more parts. Even where fragmentation occurs it does no more than take the form of two or perhaps more separate farms each growing horticultural crops. Because the small farm predominates there is a tendency for the larger horticultural enterprises to occupy two or more holdings.

42 TABLE 21. Fragmentation of holdings.

Size of horticulturid Number of growers with holdings enterprise Whole Fragmented

1 acre and under ••• 270 48

1-5 acres ..• ••• ••• 435 201

5-20 acres... ••• ••• 454 144

20-50 acres ••• ••• 30 60

50 acres and over ••• 11 25

1,200 478

As the maximum recorded number of separate parcels of land in the occupation of any one grower was eight and as only two such instances were found in the sample then there is not likely to be a problem of assembly of produce for marketing such as is found, for instance, in Bedfordshire.

II. Preparation for Market (i) Marketing equipment With a limited range of crops there can be little scope for the use of any considerable amount of marketing equipment. Moreover, broccoli are normally marketed by count. Two crops, however, are marketed by weight, early potatoes and spring cabbage, so that all growers of these crops should have a weighing machine of some kind. Because much of the production is on farms no special buildings for packing would normally be required. There would appear to be just over 1,400 growers producing early potatoes or spring cabbage or both. The evidence suggests that only about 8 per cent of them do not possess any weighing equipment. How- ever, except for a minority who sell through their own retail establishments, all of this 8 per cent sell either to local dealers or through commission agents. The only relieving feature of the situation is that these are among the smaller growers. Thus, 92 per cent of growers who need weighing equipment do actually possess it and these growers account for much more than 92 per cent of the production of early potatoes and spring cabbage. (ii) Measurement of produce Information on growers' practices in measuring produce suggests that 85 per cent weigh or count the contents of all containers of all produce in some way appropriate to the kind of produce handled, 13 per cent weigh some crops but not others and only 2 per cent weigh no crops at all. Those growers who did no weighing were in the smallest size group and thus relatively unimportant.

43 (iii) Grading As in the case of Bedfordshire, the information on grading does not admit of hard-and-fast conclusions because what one grower describes, as culling, another would describe as grading. Three categories can, nevertheless, be distinguished: (i) those growers who graded or both graded and culled, (ii) those who culled only but did not grade and (iii) those who certainly did not grade and may not even have culled.

TABLE 22. Classification of 1,571 growers according to grading and culling practices" Number of growers Size of horticultural A enterprise Grading Culling Uncertain' Total

1 acre and under... ••• 80 48 128 256

1-5 acres ... ••• ••• 334 201 84 619

5-20 acres... ••• ••• 498 44 22 564

20-50 acres ••• ••• 96 — — 96

50 acres and over ••• 36 — — 36

1,044 293 234 1,571

The improvement in the situation with increasing size is quite. evident in Table 22, but it would seem that a hard core of small growers exists who still remain unconvinced of the value of grading. The most ,usual practice appears to be to cull out the smallest of the early potatoes, to grade broccoli into three grades and to sell spring cabbages ungraded. Some growers, on the one hand, make a practice of grading early potatoes, flowers and other crops, while at the other extreme there are growers. who make no attempt whatever at grading or culling.

(iv) Identification The identification of the grower with his produce is only of importance for those crops which are sold by commission agents and the data obtained suggests that about 72 per cent of them were marketing produce in this, way. All such growers visited were asked whether they identified themselves with all crops marketed, with only some crops and if so with which, or with none. The overwhelming majority appeared to identify all crops and the following table sets out what is believed to be the position. When only some crops are identified with the growers' name or trade mark_ no uniform practice is followed. There seems, however, to be a tendency to identify broccoli and flower crops with the growers' names relatively frequently, spring cabbage less frequently and potatoes only rarely. Those growers who identify some or all crops use either a tag label, a name or mark printed on the container, or sometimes both, according to whichever is most appropriate for the container used. Sixty-seven per- cent appear to use a label, 14 per cent a name or trade mark, while 19 per-

44 cent use both. Little is known about the kind of identification used except that 63 per cent appear to use their name or labels on containers and 3 per cent to use a trade mark. It is probable that the remaining 34 per cent use a number allocated by the commission agent concerned as the only form of 'identification,' but this must be regarded as an ineffective means. TABLE 23. Number of growers identifying their produce

Number of growers identifying Size of horticultural Selling through enterprise All Some None commission agents

1 acre and under... ••• 143 — — 143

1-5 acres ..• ••• ••• 343 75 — 418

5-20 acres... ••• ••• 421 99 — 520

20-50 acres ••• ••• 65 25 — 90

50 acres and over ••• 33 — 3 36

940 181 3 1,207

III. Methods of Sale (i) Relative importance of different methods of sale Produce .grown in Cornwall is marketed in five different ways, viz., by commission agents, dealers, to retailers, direct to consumers and by other ways. A measure of the relative importance of each can be obtained by attributing standard values to the acreages grown by each producer and then dividing the total value of produce in proportion to the relative importance of different methods to each grower'. Estimated in this way the total value of produce marketed amounted to £2,236,000, of which rather less than £2,046,000 was exported and the remainder sold locally to consumers or to retailers. 2 The values of produce passing through different channels were as follows:— Value of produce £'000 Sold through commission agents •• • 1,581 71 Sold to or by dealers •• • •• • 465 21 Sold direct to retailers •• • •• • 148 7 Sold direct to consumers •• • •• • 33 1 Miscellaneous sales ... •• • 9

£2,236 100

'See page 20. , 2 Part of the £465,000 sold to or by dealers was sold to retailers in the vicinity, but the greater part is believed to have been exported.

45 Some corroborative evidence of the value of produce leaving the area can be obtained by attributing values to the quantities of different kinds of produce known to have been dispatched by rail. Information is available for only four crops, flowers, early potatoes, broccoli and spring cabbage for the year 1953/4, but these, of course, are the main crops grown. If one-half of the boxes of flowers are assumed to have realised 7/6d. a box and one-half to have realised 15/-d., if the broccoli and spring cabbage crops are assumed to have realised £60 a ton and early potatoes £31 a ton, then the produce moved out by rail would have realised a total of £1,813,500, made up as follows:- 821,312 boxes of flowers • • • • • • • •• .. £458,000 11,443 tons of potatoes • •. • • • • • • ... 355,000 16,675 tons of broccoli and spring cabbage ... 1,000,500

£1,813,500

In addition, a certain but indeterminable amount of produce was moved out of the area by road. The estimate of E2,046,000 as the value of produce passing through the hands of commission agents and dealers is therefore reasonably accurate if the value of produce moved out by road amounted to about £232,000. As only four or five firms shift any substantial amount of produce by road and as two of these gave estimates showing that they consign a total of approximately £200,000 in this way then some confirmation of the figures given above is available from independent sources. 2 It is clear, though, that only two methods of sale are of any great significance, but their relative importance is shown by Table 24 to vary with the size of the business.

TABLE 24. Proportions of produce sold through different outlets. Percentage of total estimated sales to Size of horticultural, A enterprise Commission Dealers Retailers Consumers Other Total agents ° °AA ° °A °AA °A 1 acre and under... 26 34 12 28 100

1-5 acres ... ••• 49 41 9 1 — 100

5-20 acres... ••• 74 21 3 1 1 100

20-50 acres ••• 88 5 7 — — 100

50 acres and over 47 19 34 — — 100

All groups... .•• 71 21 7 1 — 100

Data on quantities have been made available through the courtesy of British Railways (Western Region).

2 Incidentally, these figures give some confirmation of the estimated acreages of crops grown and stated earlier to be of the order of 14,000 acres.

46 A reclassification of the values of produce by the type of transaction shows that £287,000 or 13 per cent was accounted for by fixed price sales and £1,949,000 or 87 per cent by agency sales. The former includes sales to retailers, consumers, and £97,000 of the sales to dealers, and miscellaneous sales; the latter includes sales through commission agents and £368,000 of the sales through dealers.

(ii) Sales through commission agents The evidence obtained suggests that 72 per cent of all the growers concerned use the services of commission agents. The percentage of growers using this form of outlet varied with the size of the enterprise. Thus only 45 per cent of the growers in the smallest size group used commission agents, 66 per cent of the next largest size, 87 per cent of the next and 100 per cent in the two largest size groups. Some 141 commission agents were used by the 110 growers visited and who sold produce in this way. The markets in which these firms were situated were:—

Covent Garden • • • 32 firms Newcastle 3 firms each Spitalfields •• • • • • 9 firms Bath 1 Brentford ••• ••• 3 firms Bradford Hull firms each All London Markets ... 44 firms • Merthyr Tydfil J

Manchester • •• • • • 12 firms Derby

Birmingham • • • • •• 11 firms Doncaster

Bristol ... • •• • • • 9 firms Coventry

Nottingham • • • • • • 8 firms Edinburgh

Glasgow • • • • • • Barnsley 7 firms each Leeds ... • • • • • •1 Wolverhampton

Cardiff ... • • • • • • Tonyrefail firm each 5 firms each Liverpool • • • • • •1 Rotherham

Leicester • •• Monmouth 4 firms each Sheffield • • • • • •1 Leamington Spa Dundee Pontypridd Stoke-on-Trent

Two firms can be described as local as they both take physical possession of produce at branches which are maintained in Cornwall. Approximately one-third of the firms of commission agents named by growers are known to have local agents of one kind or another. In an attempt to reveal the manner in which such local agents work and the form of relationship with their principals eleven such agents were traced and interviewed. Only ten, however, were prepared to answer the questions put to them. It would appear that the 'agency' is the main interest of most of the persons concerned because six had no other occupation, two were growers in a very small way and two were haulage

47 contractors. These ten local agents represented no less than 33 firms of commission agents, the number which each agent represented varying from one to six. In general, there appeared to be a very loose arrangement between the parties concerned and seldom did a local agent owe un- qualified allegiance to a single principal firm. One local agent received a salary from one of the firms he represented, but from five others he received a percentage commission on the produce he could persuade growers to consign to them. Other local agents received a percentage commission or a per package commission or both. These rewards are given for the performance of specific functions including that of persuading growers to consign to one or other of the principal firms represented. Where more than one firm is represented it is difficult to see how this function can be carried out to the satisfaction of all the principals. In addition to obtaining and retaining suppliers of produce most local agents are responsible for the storage and distribution of empties owned by the principals. The two haulage contractors transported produce from the holdings to the stations on their own account, and most of the local agents made arrangements for bulking the produce of several growers sent to individual commission agents so as to obtain cheaper rail rates. This function is, however, something of a superfluity because any grower can individually obtain the same facilities from a number of commission agents by consigning the produce carriage forward in the name of the consignee. In all cases the principal firms sent out the sale notes direct to the grower but usually also provided the local agent with a copy. In all cases the growers concerned were paid for produce by the principal firm. All except one of the agents stated that they were informed daily by their principals of the prices ruling and realised by produce sent by local growers. It is instructive to record what happens to this price information after it reaches the local agent. One agent stated that he passed on this information to growers when he saw them on market days (i.e. the local cattle market days). One agent representing 6 firms stated that he disseminated price information by telephone or personal visits if prices were good. Five agents stated that they informed growers if the growers asked. Two only stated that they telephoned growers more or less regularly. If commission agents rely on their local representatives to distribute information on prices realised, then it seems that their faith is in many cases without any solid foundation! If the local agents dutifully disseminate price information then they might enable the producers to make more effective marketing decisions. The continued existence of such agents must be justified only by the fact that they provide storage for returnable empties. Experience in Birmingham market has shown that commission agents welcome the opportunity of decentralising their stocks of containers in this way because storage space in the market is at such a high premium. Two firms of commission agents receiving produce from the district

48 call for special mention as they both maintain branches in west Cornwall .and these branches perform special functions. Neither of these firms employs agents in the locality. One of the two firms has selling branches in twelve markets and the other in eight. In the case of one firm, growers bring or send produce to the firm's depot; in the second case the firm's lorries collect produce from the holding. Their distinguishing characteristic is that produce is •despatched from the depots in Cornwall to whichever branch is likely to dispose of it at the best price or where the market prospects are brightest. The destination of the produce is not determined by the grower but by the local managers of the firms concerned. Transport is arranged by road or by rail as convenient and paid for initially by the firm, being later deducted from growers' sales accounts. The two firms are not in any way unique in this respect but, along with other commission agents, pay for the carriage of fruit and vegetables in order to obtain bulk rates and thus give the grower an advantage. Sales accounts are sent to growers by the branch concerned in selling the produce. Payment is made by the head office of one firm, but may be made by the head office or the selling branch of the second firm, depending on the way in which empties have been provided. These two firms can only operate in the way noted above because they have branches in a number of markets. Having these branches, however, they effectively provide a service which other firms cannot give but which the local agent for a number of firms professes to give.

Number of markets and number of commission agents. The evidence suggests that about 1,200 growers marketed produce through commission agents. Of these, 9 per cent used one market only, 30 per cent used two markets, 30 per cent three markets, 14 per cent four markets and 17 per cent used five or more markets; some are known to have used as many as twelve.

TABLE 25. Classification of 1,207 growers by number of markets used.

Number of growers using Size of ,-- A , horticultural 1 market 2 markets 3 markets 4 markets 5 or more Total enterprise markets

1 acre and under 48 63 16 16 _ 143

1-5 acres... ••• 16 184 134 84 _ 418

5-20 acres ••• 44 100 177 66 133 520

20-50 acres ••• _ 10 30 5 45 9C

50 acres and over 3 _ 3 _ 30 36

111 357 360 171 208 1,207

49 Approximately 81 per cent of the growers selling through commission agents appear to have used only one agent in each market supplied, 15 per cent to have used two agents in one of the markets and 4 per cent to have used either two agents in each of two markets or three agents in one and one only in others. Thus, nearly one-fifth of the growers appear to have been putting their produce in competition with itself on some, at least, of the markets they had selected. In view, however, of the fact that many growers produce only two or three crops for export it is possible that some, at least, might market one kind of crop through one agent and another kind of crop maturing at a different season through another agent in the same market. Some information is available on this point because it can be stated that of 29 growers in the sample sending to two or more agents in one market 9 could have sent one kind of crop to one agent and another kind to the second, though there is nothing to indicate that such was their practice. On the other hand, 20 of the growers must inevitably have sent at least. one kind of crop simultaneously to two agents in the same market. The reason for doing so is that such a practice is believed to keep agents on their mettle, but whether there is any justification for such a belief is. very much open to question. The majority of growers appear to hold the contrary view. Terms of sale. The information which is available on the flow of advice on quantities and kinds of produce to be marketed points to the conclusion that relatively few growers give any advance notification to- their commission agents. Indeed, those growers in the most important horticultural group were conspicuous for the low proportion who were in the habit of giving advance information to their agents. On the other hand, a relatively high proportion of growers appeared to send written advice notes either with the produce or by post informing their agents of the kind and quantities actually consigned each day.

TABLE 26. Classification of growers by percentage sending information to agents.

Size of horticultural Percentage of growers sending enterprise advance information advice note 0/0

1 acre and under .. ••• 11 75

1-5 acres .•• ••• ••• 8 87

5-20 acres ..• ••• 4 74

20-50 acres... ••• ••• 22 88

50 acres and over ... ••• 15 83

All groups ... ••• ••• 8 80

50 Thus, it appears that 80 per cent of growers selling through commission agents send the essential advice notes to them. In view of this it is interesting to note that 59 per cent of the growers appear to be given statements by their agents showing the gross price realised together with the charges made, 15 per cent received net returns only and 26 per cent received net returns from some agents and gross returns from others. Marketing charges. As in Bedfordshire, no useful comprehensive information on the cost of marketing produce was forthcoming from growers. It has been possible to throw some light on costs, however, by an analysis of the commission sale accounts which 16 growers provided for inspection. These sale notes cover a total of 3,042 consignments to a total gross value of £77,560. The analysis showed that charges for commission amounted to £7,872, but that such charges were sometimes described as selling expenses or selling charge. Market expenses, toll, handling, toll and handling and porterage amounted to a further £1,234, charges for the use of empties to a further £1,167, carriage charges to £3,005, and charges for telegrams to £21. While the charges levied by commission agents appear to be described by them in numerous ways the combining of different charges into a single figure seemed to be of only relatively infrequent occurrence. Charges for commission and handling in the market totalled £9,091 and represented 117 per cent of the gross value of the produce on which they were levied. The large sum charged for carriage arose because of the fact noted earlier that some commission agents pay the cost of transport and later deduct it from the growers' returns. Size of days' loadings. Information was obtained from some growers which illustrates the size or value distribution of daily loadings. This information covers a total of 2,484 days' loadings and has been classified for two groups of growers, those with under and those with over 50 acres. TABLE 27. Classification of loadings by value and by size of enterprise.

Percentage of total loadings which are _A Size of £250 horticultural Under £5 £5-£10 £10-£20 £20-£50 £50-£100 £100-£250 and enterprise over

Under 50 acres 25 12 17 21 14 9 2

Over 50 acres ... 17 11 11 25 20 13 3

In comparison with Bedfordshire there would seem to be a tendency for growers in Cornwall to make larger daily loadings and this is no doubt due to the highly seasonal nature of cropping in Cornwall and the concentration of marketing into a short period. It is a striking fact that growers with less than 50 acres loaded over £50 a day on one-quarter of the days on which they sent produce to market and that some of them

51 loaded over £250 a day. This emphasises the very great importance of the grower having up-to-the-minute market information and of his being in a position to place each day's sendings in the most appropriate market.1 (Hi) Sales through or to dealers Although approximately 20 per cent of the produce of the area is sold to or by dealers no less than 53 per cent of the growers dispose of produce in this way. Thus, the dealers tend to draw their supplies from the smaller producers and it is a well-known fact that they cater more especially for the small-scale early potato grower. Fifty-five per cent of growers in the smallest size group appear to make use of dealers (35 per cent exclusively), 61 per cent of the second size group (29 per cent exclusively), 44 per cent of the third (11 per cent exclusively), 39 per cent of the fourth and 53 per cent of the fifth. There are two distinct types of dealer in west Cornwall. Information obtained by interviewing 19 dealers shows that 7 of them have local outlets only and that 12 may or may not have local outlets, but certainly act as intermediaries between the grower and commission agents in the national markets. A brief description of each of the two types follows. Dealers with local outlets only. Of the seven dealers of this type interviewed one handled flowers only and six handled vegetables with or without flowers. Six dealers handled early potatoes, six handled summer grown local produce like salads and tomatoes, five handled broccoli and spring cabbage, three handled flowers and three handled imported produce. Five firms carried most kinds of produce needed by retailers, though only one carried all kinds. Three dealers obtained all produce within thirty miles' radius from their places of business, four obtained home-grown produce from other producing areas and from the London markets. Six dealers either bought outright or sold on commission all the produce handled; one dealer who was also a grower produced 25 per cent of his supplies and obtained 75 per cent from other growers. All these dealers bought supplies from growers at fixed prices, but five took produce for sale on commission as well. Those selling on commission appeared to charge approximately 10 per cent of the selling price, but only one dealer rendered an account of the gross price realised together with the commission charges made. Some of the dealers owned one or more shops but supplied up to 750 or more retailers in addition, as well as hawkers, hotels and canteens; one dealer supplied 4 wholesalers in addition to 130 retailers. The equipment owned by these dealers consisted of from one to six lorries each and a stock of bags, boxes and mats; flower boxes were not supplied. In addition, five of them had some kind of warehouse for the storage and sorting of produce.

1 See page 58 on transport and the limitations imposed by the system of'nominated' days'.

52 Dealers with outlets in distant markets. Twelve dealers interviewed had a regular trade in Cornish produce with commission agents in distant markets. Two were concerned primarily with local outlets and a further two sold some produce locally, but all were in some respect concerned with moving produce out of the area. Of these twelve firms, one consisted of six dealers who had combined for the purpose of handling their early potato trade. Three were firms in this combination, but are included a second time because they handle broccoli and other produce independently of one another. The remainder are wholly independent firms. Nine of the twelve firms handle early potatoes, three exclusively. The early potato trade of the remaining three firms is concentrated in the hands of one of the nine above. Nine dealers handle both broccoli and spring cabbage. These several kinds of produce are bought outright at prices agreed with the grower by two dealers, are sold on commission by a further two dealers, while eight handle produce both on commission and at agreed prices. Whether sold on commission or bought, of course, produce handled is sold on the national markets through commission _agents and thus two intermediaries at least come between the grower and the retailer. One of the dealers interviewed sold early potatoes -through one of the commission agents with a branch in the area for collecting produce. The advantage to be obtained by selling produce to or through dealers is that empties are provided, the produce is generally collected from the holding and the grower is relieved of all responsibility in marketing. The attraction of the system must be great for those who grow small acreages of the main crops. The evidence available, in fact, shows that -the smaller growers tend to use dealers very largely. It has not been possible to estimate the value of produce which is sold in this way, but the impression gained is that a large proportion of early potatoes pass through the hands of dealers and that a substantial proportion of the £465,000 of produce estimated to be sold to or through them passes through the hands of two firms performing the function of wholesalers. The methods of working of the most important firm handling potatoes calls for a brief description. Growers of early potatoes are required to register their names with the firm before lifting commences. Each grower is given a number which appears on all labels attached to the bags used. Growers are required to grade to a reasonably high standard and to deliver the potatoes to stations in and around Penzance where all consignments are inspected before loading on rail. The firm has agents in the principal markets who sell at agreed prices to commission agents on the day of arrival. The prices for all markets are averaged each day and a deduc- tion 'made for services rendered, the balance being returned to the growers.

The produce may be sold to a commission agent on the market at a firm price which allows the commission agent to resell at a profit.

53 (iv) Type of business and predominant method of sale A classification of growers by the type of their business and by the predominant method of sale suggests that there was little difference in. the methods as between those which could be described as 'mainly horticultural' and those in the 'horticulture with farming group' except that rather more of the former than the latter sell direct to retailers. Quite significant differences, however, appear to exist in the marketing methods of these two groups of businesses and those where the horticultural income is less than one-third of the total income. TABLE 28. Classification of growers by type of business and by main marketing method. Percentage of growers selling mainly to

Type of business Commission Dealers Consumers and agents retailers Total

Mainly horticultural ... ••• ••• 61 19 20 100

Horticulture with farmnig ... ••• 69 21 10 100

Farming with subsidiary horticulture 47 43 ' 10 100

(v) Number of outlets used No grower appeared to use more than four of the different types of outlet available. Indeed, few seemed to use more than two outlets, roughly one-half using one, rather less than one-half using two and the remainder three or four outlets. As might be expected, a rather higher proportion of the smaller growers used only one outlet, often a local dealer, while a rather higher proportion of the larger growers used two outlets, one of which was the local dealer and the other the commission agent. TABLE 29. Classification of growers by number of outlets used. Number of growers with Size of horticultural enterprise One outlet Two outlets Three outlets or more

1 acre and under ... ••• 191 111 16 84 1-5 acres ..• ••• ••• 268 284 255 33 5-20 acres... •• • ••• 310 20 20-50 acres •• • ••• 40 30

50 acres and over ••• 11 17 8

820 697 161

There appear to be rather more than 800 growers using one outlet only. An examination of the data on the outlet used by growers of this kind strongly suggests an increasing dependence on commission agents and a decreasing dependence on dealers with increasing scale of

54 production. The growers who appear to use one outlet only are classified in Table 30 by the outlet used and by the size of the horticultural enterprise on the basis of the information drawn from 'one outlet' growers in the sample. TABLE 30. Classification of growers with one outlet by method of marketing.

Number of growers using ---A ( -1 Size of horticultural Commission Dealers Retailers and enterprise agents consumers

Up to 5 acres •• • •• 148 262 49 5-20 acres .•• ••• ••• 255 44 11

20 acres and over .•• ••• 51 454 306 60 (vi) Provision and use of empties Four different kinds of empties are used in marketing produce from Cornwall: crates; bags, mats and nets; boxes; and chips. The main crops grown may be marketed in two or more kinds of container. Broccoli and spring cabbage may be marketed in mats or bags, but it is highly desirable that they be marketed in crates. Potatoes are usually marketed in bags, but some growers market the first liftings in chip baskets or boxes. The different kinds of empty used may be either returnable or non-returnable and each may be provided either by the commission agent or dealer on the one hand or by the grower on the other hand. The extent to which the grower is dependent on the distributor is perhaps the most important feature of the matter because a high degree of dependence seriously limits the grower's ability freely to choose his outlet and the firm to handle his produce. Stated in general terms it would seem from the evidence available that growers in west Cornwall are highly dependent on distributors for the supply of empties. For instance, nearly 80 per cent of those growers using bags and mats and over 50 per cent of those using crates depend entirely on the distributive trade for their provision. TABLE 31. Dependence of growers on different sources of empties.

Percentage of growers

Kind of empties Wholly providing Wholly dependent Using both their own on marketing agency sources 0/0 0/0 °A Crates ••• ••• ••• 35 54 11

Boxes ••• ••• ••• 32 38 30

Bags and mats... ••• 12 79 9

55 There appeared to be no difference in the situation as between growers with different sizes of horticultural enterprise. All growers interviewed were asked to state the kind of produce packed in the different kinds of empties used. As was expected, most growers used boxes for flowers, crates for broccoli and bags for potatoes. But answers to the question revealed the fact that a number of growers were still using mats and bags for broccoli and spring cabbage (a long outmoded container for these crops), while, on the other hand, some potato growers had advanced from the traditional bag and were using boxes and. chip baskets for marketing the early liftings. TABLE 32. Empties used for different kinds of crops.

Percentage of growers using each kind for Kind of empties Broccoli Spring Potatoes Flowers Other cabbage crops

csh 0/3 0/0 0/0 °A. Crates ••• ••• ••• 83 57 - - 32

Boxes ••• ••• ••• 6 6 5 100 19

Bags and mats... ••• 11 37 95 59

100 100 100 100 100

There is little reliable information on the extent to which chip baskets are used for early potatoes, but it would seem that perhaps one-tenth of the growers use them for marketing the earliest liftings. Little evidence is also available on the use of returnable or non-returnable empties. It seems clear, however, that the returnable empty predominates even in the case of the cardboard flower box.

V. Place of Marketing As in the other areas studied, growers in Cornwall were able to name the markets which they used, but when two or more were supplied were unable to state the relative importance of each of them. For this and other reasons it is not possible to show the relative importance of different towns or regions as outlets with any degree of precision. Moreover, the situation is complicated by two other factors. The first is that some produce is sold by way of commission agents having depots in the area. Such produce is consigned by the depots concerned to whatever branch is best able to sell it and the grower usually does not know the market where the produce changes ownership. The second is that the dealers in the area determine the place at which the produce they handle is sold and the grower always remains in ignorance of the place of sale. These two factors inflate the apparent importance of local sales as compared. to sales in distant markets. The relative importance of the different places of marketing is shown by counting the number of times each market was reported as having

56 been used and then constructing an index by weighting the figures so obtained by the relative importance of each group of growers. In all, 17 different towns or markets were reported as having been used and for convenience they have been grouped into 9 regions. Table 33 shows the relative importance of these regions when measured in the way outlined above. TABLE 33. Relative importance of different marketing regions.

Index of importance to each size group of Size of horticultural , A enterprise Local London Mid- Yorks Lancs North South- Wales Other sales land West regions

1 acre and under... 60 11 4 4 7 4 — 10

1-5 acres ...... 41 16 16 1 4 6 6 — 10

5-20 acres...... 15 24 12 9 12 6 9 3 10

20-50 acres 10 26 14 3 11 6 12 4 14

50 acres and over 10 19 15 3 18 12 9 2 12

All groups...... 28 19 13 5 9 6 7 2 11

As the scale of production increases there is a very striking decrease in the importance of local sales, partly balanced by an increase in the importance of London as a market and partly by a tendency for the • larger growers to disperse their products over a wider field. If local sales which are mainly to dealers are left out of account, then London appears to be the most important market, followed by the Midlands, Yorks. and Lancs. together, Wales and the Bristol area and the North. A rather better picture of the relative importance of the different markets may perhaps be obtained by examining the situation of those growers in the most important group of enterprises who sell by no other means than through commission agents. This shows that the London markets are the most important to them, that Bristol and Bath together are second in importance, followed by the Midlands and Lancs. together third, Yorkshire fourth, South Wales fifth and the North sixth. VI. Transport Because the area is so far removed from the markets used transport is one of the most difficult and most costly of the marketing functions to perform. It has been shown earlier that nearly three-quarters of the produce is sold through commission agents and this has necessarily to be transported long distances. Bristol, for instance, is 180 miles from Penzance, London 300 miles, Birmingham 270 miles, Manchester 340 miles and Edinburgh and Glasgow each almost 500 miles. A further one-fifth of the produce is sold to or through dealers and a large proportion of this is also transported out of the area for sale on the national markets.

57 Information on the methods of transport used in connection with sales to or through dealers it somewhat limited. It appears that 58 per cent of growers selling in this way depended on the dealer to collect produce from the holdings, that 36 per cent used hired transport and that 17 per cent themselves delivered produce to the dealer. More than one method was used by 11 per cent of growers. After assembly at the dealers' premises produce was moved to market mainly by rail, though an increasing proportion appears to leave the area by road. It is unfortunate that no comprehensive data are available on this point, but one of the largest firms of dealers stated that approximately one-fifth of the produce it handled is transported by road in a normal season, but that in 1955 the dislocation of rail traffic resulted in its sending approximately one-half by road. Road transport appears to be eminently suitable for early potato traffic, but is stated to be less suitable for broccoli. The most important sector of the industry of the area, however, is that which is concerned with sales through commission agents. No less than 94 per cent of the growers selling through commission agents appear to send produce by rail, only 22 per cent seem to make use of road transport direct to market and only 3 per cent appear to use road transport to commission agents' depots in the area; 19 per cent of growers are estimated to use more than one method. Clearly rail transport is of outstanding importance. In view of the wide use of rail transport it is interesting to examine some aspects of it. It would be instructive to learn, for instance, to what extent rail transport restricts the grower in his choice of market, the time which consignments of different kinds of produce take in transit, how this affects the grower's ability to select the most appropriate market, and to have some data on the cost of rail transport as compared to possible alternatives. London and Bristol are the markets most frequently used by the most important group of producers. London would, of course, naturally be used, but Bristol has more limited potentialities as a market and is, moreover, relatively close to the Vale of Evesham. Both London and Bristol are comparatively well served by rail from Penzance, Bristol in particular. Broccoli traffic for Bristol is accepted at Penzance up to 1.30 p.m. each day from Monday to Friday for delivery on the following day and up to 1 p.m. on Saturday. It is accepted for London up to 9.15 a.m. from Monday to Friday for delivery the following day. For delivery in London on the second day after despatch it is accepted at Penzance up to 6 p.m. from Monday to Wednesday, up to 2 p.m. on Thursday and Friday and up to 1 p.m. on Saturday. A system of 'nominated days' is in force for other markets. Thus, broccoli for Birmingham is accepted up to 10.15 a.m. only on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and up to 1 p.m. on Saturday. No broccoli can be sent to Birmingham on Thursday or Friday. The same nominated

1 This must almost of necessity have been cut and packed the previous day. 58 days apply to Manchester, but with acceptance up to 3 p.m. For the north-east the nominated days are Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, and for Scotland Tuesday and Friday. The relative infrequency with which Midland and Northern markets are used as compared with Bristol and London must, in part at least, stem from the system of nominated days. Moreover, all produce except flowers (which travel by express passenger and parcels trains) and broccoli for Bristol takes two days between acceptance by the railway and delivery at the market unless taken to the station before 9.15 a.m. In contrast, road transport from Penzance takes 12-12-- hours to Birmingham and 16 hours to Manchester. The system of nominated days and the long time taken in transit must tend to channel an inordinate amount of produce to London and Bristol. It must also severely restrict the growers' choice of market. Growers are unable to place their produce in the market where prices or prospects are thought to be best partly because they cannot send by rail to any market on any day, but partly also because produce has to be consigned for sale two or perhaps three days ahead. During this interval the relative prices ruling in different markets may well have undergone considerable changes. It is the recognition of these limitations which has caused a number of growers to use road transport in place of rail for vegetables and potatoes. The purchase of heavy lorries is justified, of course, only in the larger businesses, but where they are used the time that produce is in transit is much reduced. It is even more important to note that these growers often send a lorry away to market while still undecided as to the destination, the driver telephoning back at some point for instruction. Thus a driver may ask for instruction at Gloucester when he could be sent to South Wales or to Birmingham or even further north. By the time that the lorry had reached Gloucester the grower would have selected his market by getting into contact with several while the lorry was on the road between Penzance and Gloucester. Contrast the position of such growers with that of those whose produce travels by rail! Information obtained indicates that little more than perhaps half a dozen growers undertake the transport by road of all their produce in their own vehicles. A rather larger number, however, use haulage contractors regularly and a still larger number occasionally. The advantages are by no means wholly to be found in cheapness; flexibility in the choice of market is at least of equal importance, though relative cost is also a factor which growers take into account. Indeed, the increasing use of road transport has been most marked over the last four or five years when railway charges have been raised though the dislocation as a result of the 1955 railway strike was also an important factor contributing to the increased use of road transport. The most important users of road hauliers are those firms of commission agents which have collecting depots in the area and a few of the larger dealers. With a large bulk of produce to move they can obtain favourable rates from long-distance

59 hauliers by sending produce as 'return loads.' Although growers themselves are seldom able to obtain these facilities they can nevertheless, obtain cheaper rates by road than by rail. For instance, the rail charge for broccoli at the three-ton rate compared to the road charge is as, follows:— Transport costs per crate. Station to Delivery Total rail and Total road station delivery charge charge

Bristol •• • •• • 2/—d 3d 2/3d 2/—d

Cardiff ... •• • 2/4d 3d 2/7d 2/5d to 2/6d

London ... •• • 2/51d 3d 2/871d 2/6d

Liverpool •• • 3/1d 4d 3/5d 2/11d to 3/—d

It is somewhat difficult to determine precisely the costs which growers incur in providing their own long-distance transport. Neverthe- less, four growers out of the half-dozen or so of this kind gave some quite reliable data on the cost of fuel, repairs, licences and insurance and depreciation of the lorries used. It is interesting to note that these costs, were almost uniform for the four holdings and amounted to between £14 and £16 an acre. In addition, the cost of the drivers' time must be taken into account. Railway charges including collection and delivery for consignments of 2 tons and upwards are approximately £5 8s. Od. a ton to London. At potato yields of 5 tons an acre the grower would incur transport costs of E27 an acre. He could therefore afford to spend about £10 an acre for lorry drivers' time if he had his own lorries and still find it profitable to, use road transport. This sum of £10 an acre would have been more than sufficient to have paid the appropriate number of drivers in each of the four cases noted above. An attempt to obtain some specific information on transport costs from growers met with little success. All the 143 growers in the sample were asked for such data for their businesses. Fourteen replied to the request and nine of these were either unable or disinclined to give it, two gave inadequate data, while only three made an attempt to provide the necessary information. In view of the great and recognised importance of transport costs to growers in west Cornwall it is a striking fact that nine-tenths of those approached gave no assistance whatever in this, matter. Whatever the relative costs of different methods the important point, to note is that while road transport gives the grower flexibility in his choice of markets rail transport seriously limits the ability of growers to choose markets effectively. Thus, even if there is an adequate flow of price information back to growers from the commission agents of their choice this information is of little .use in the short run selection of most, profitable markets.

60 VI. WISBECH I. Production The town of Wisbech falls almost on the boundary between the county. of Norfolk and the Isle of Ely and gives its name to the so-called Wisbech Area. The establishment of the industry here was fortuitous and in this respect it differs from most of the other main areas of horticultural production. Cornwall and Bedfordshire, for instance, needed the coming of railway transport and Evesham the break-up of farms in the agricultural depression of the last century to bring about a horticultural industry. In Wisbech, however, all conditions favoured the establishment of horticulture long before the fact was recognised because not until the end of the last century did a few pioneer growers, one of the more important of whom had migrated from Kent, see the possibilities which the •district offered. These early ventures were based on production for processing, the growers negotiating contracts for the sale of fruit with jam manufacturers in London. The main crops grown were apples, strawberries and, mainly as a jam-setting agent, gooseberries. As farms came into the market at the beginning of the present century they were frequently divided up into small parcels of land and met a ready sale as horticultural holdings. The county councils have also played no small part in the development of horticulture, again by the provision of smallholdings. Perhaps the greatest development of this kind took place shortly after 1900 and particularly after the passing of the Smallholdings and Allotments Act of 1908. Then, after the first World War, the canning of fruit and vegetables made an important contribution towards widening the market and processing factories were set up in Wisbech itself. This gave a further impetus to the industry which was still further encouraged by the more recent development of quick freezing.

'The main outlet has been, and still is, the processing industry and in this respect Wisbech is probably unique among the centres of horticultural production in England.

(i) The holdings and the growers , In 1953 there were 2,394 holdings on which top fruit and soft fruit were grown alone, together, or with vegetable crops as well. Because the enquiry was concerned mainly with showing how top and soft fruit were marketed all holdings solely concerned with vegetable production were excluded. These 2,394 fruit holdings varied greatly in the size of the fruit-growing enterprises which they carried but on the majority of them it was below 5 acres. The holdings in the population were classified and a random sample of 176 drawn as follows

61 Size offruit enterprise Number of holdings Number in sample Under 5 acres ••• ••• 1,906 79 5-20 acres ... ••• ••• 385 41 20-50 acres... ••• ••• 74 28 50-100 acres ••• •• 14 13 100 acres and over ••• 15 15

2,394 176

After making the adjustments necessary because of the amalgamation of holdings to form marketing units the sample and estimated population became Size offruit enterprise Number in sample Estimated number in population Under 5 acres ••• ••• 67 1,587 5-20 acres ... ••• ••• 43 512 20-50 acres... ••• ••• 21 94 50-100 acres ••• ••• 13 24 100 acres and over ••• 17 17

161 2,234

As in Bedfordshire and west Cornwall the majority of the growers appeared to be engaged in farming as well as horticulture and it seems that fewer than 10 per cent derived the whole of their incomes from the • sale of fruit. Table 34 shows the relationship between the total acreage and the fruit acreage of the 2,234 growers and clearly illustrates the interrelation- ship of fruit growing and farming. Perhaps the most striking feature shown by these figures and those given above is the preponderance of small growers. No less than 98 per cent have under 20 acres of fruit and 71 per cent under 5 acres while the majority of them appear to have an associated agricultural enterprise.

TABLE 34. Classification of growers by size of fruit enterprise and by total acreage.

Number of growers with total acreage

Size of fruit enterprise Under 5 5-50 50-100 100-500 500 acres Total acres acres acres acres and over

Under 5 acres ••• ••• 521 852 24 166 24 1,587 5-20 acres ... ••• ••• 333 60 83 36 512 20-50 acres... ••• ••• — 41 9 40 4 94 . 50-100 acres ••• ••• — 13 9 2 24 100 acres and over ••• — — — 15 2 17

521 1,226 106 313 68 2,234

62 (ii) Types of business Three main types of business have been distinguished according to the relative importance of fruit sales, viz, mainly horticultural, horticulture with farming and farming with subsidiary horticulture. But because of the diversity of cropping on some of the holdings concerned the first type has been sub-divided according to the contribution to the horticultural sales made by soft fruit and top fruit. Thus the types of business distinguished are as follows:— (i) Mainly horticultural (a) mainly top fruit (b) mainly soft fruit (c) mixed horticulture (ii) Horticulture with farming (iii) Farming with subsidiary horticulture The first group of businesses has been sub-divided with the object of isolating so far as possible the main technical types of production so as to show the scale on which the majority of each type operate.

TABLE 35. Classification of 2,234 businesses by type and by size.

Number of businesses

Size of fruit enterprise Horti- Farming Mainly horticultural culture with All with subsid- types Mainly Mainly Mixed farming iary top soft horti- horti- fruit fruit culture culture

Under 5 acres ••• ••• — 142 142 592 711 1,587

5-20 acres... ••• 60 12 155 71 214 512

20-50 acres ••• ••• 14 4 31 9 36 94

50-100 acres ••• ••• 4 — 11 5 4 24

100 acres and over ••• 1 — 11 2 3 17

79 158 350 679 968 2,234

It seems that 26 per cent of all the businesses could be described as mainly horticultural, 31 per cent have an important horticultural enterprise, while 43 per cent are predominantly agricultural. But the important point to note in Table 35 is that 90 per cent of the businesses are concerned with fruit growing as a minor enterprise only. It should also be noted that there appears to be a lower limit of size for the mainly top fruit growers in the 5-20 acre size group and an upper limit for the mainly soft fruit growers in the 20-50 acre group. It would seem that growers give practical recognition to the diseconomies associated with small-scale orcharding and to the diseconomies of large-scale soft fruit growing.

63 (iii) The crops grown The 2,234 growers appear to have had a total of 9,170 acres of top fruit and 6,784 acres of soft fruit in 1954. The acreages officially returned in 1953 for the 2,394 holdings concerned were 7,117 acres of top fruit and 5,861 acres of soft fruit. The differences between the estimated and official acreages are accounted for to some extent by a few of the sample growers having given larger acreages to the field workers on this survey in 1954 than they had given officially in 1953. Such differences may well have been genuine increases in acreage from one year to another. To some extent, however, the differences in total acreage are due to the sampling technique employed. The distribution of the fruit• acreage between different sizes of fruit enterprise was as follows:— Size offruit enterprise Acreage of top fruit Acreage of soft fruit acres acres Under 5 acres... ••• 426 2,209 5-20 acres ... •• • 3,407 2,450 20-50 acres ... •• • 2,008 843 50-100 acres ... ••• 1,079 522 100 acres and over ••• 2,250 760

9,170 6,784

By attributing appropriate standard values to each crop grown on the sample holdings it is possible to estimate the total value of fruit grown by the 2,234 growers assuming, of course, that the total acreage of the two classes of crop obtained by the sampling process are reasonably accurate. The evidence points to there being a total soft fruit production to the value of £1,373,000 and a total top fruit production to the value of £1,036,000. The estimated values of the different crops grown are as follows Estimated Value £'000 £'000 Soft fruit Strawberries ••• ••• ••• ••• • • • 1,157

Gooseberries ". ". ". 165 Currants and other soft fruit •.• ••• 51 — 1,373 Top fruit Culinary apples .• • • • • •• • •• • • • • 454 Dessert apples •• • • • • • • • ••• . ••• 222 Other top fruit and mixed orchards of culinary and dessert apples ••• • • • •• • ••• 360 1,036

• £2,409

64 Strawberries are by far the most important single product and soft fruit the more important group of products. Top fruit comes second in importance and here the emphasis is clearly on cooking apples. Although all groups of growers are concerned with both classes of crop the relative importance of each class varies from size group to size group. Soft fruit is more important to the small growers and top fruit to the larger. Size of fruit enterprise Percentage offruit sales represented by Soft fruit Top fruit °A °A Under 5 acres ••• ••• 90 10 5-20 acres ... ••• ••• 58 42 20-50 acres... ••• ••• 41 59 50-100 acres • •• ••• 45 55 100 acres and over ••• 35 65 It is clear that with increasing size of enterprise there is an increase in the relative importance of sales of top fruit balanced by a corresponding decrease in the importance of soft fruit. Thus, although much the same crops are grown irrespective of the size of the business there are quite ,significant differences in the relative importance of the main classes of crop grown by different sizes of growers.

(iv) Length of tenure The evidence on length of tenure points to the conclusion that 28 per cent ,of the growers had occupied the whole or a portion of their present holdings for less than ten years, that 26 per cent had been in occupation for between 10 and 20 years and that 46 per cent had been on their present holdings for more than 20 years. There appears to be an increasing proportion of growers with a tenure of over 20 years with increasing size of enterprise and a corresponding decline in the proportion who have held their land for less than ten years.

TABLE 36. Classification of growers according to length of tenure.

Growers with a tenure of

Size of fruit enterprise Under 10 years 10-20 years Over 20 years

Number % Number % Number %

Under 5 acres ••• ... 429 27 476 30 682 43

. .5-20 acres... ••• ... 179 35 90 17 243 48

20 acres and over ••• 18 13 19 14 98 73

626 28 585 26 1,023 46

65 (v) Fragmentation The fragmentation of holdings appears to be by no means serious despite the fact that rather more than one-half of the growers occupy two or more separate parcels of land. The task of marketing is, however, not materially more difficult on fragmented holdings as a consequence of fragmentation because soft fruit, the main product, is usually despatched to market or to the dealer direct from the field. Evidence on the relationship between size of enterprise and fragmentation suggests that a rather higher proportion of the larger growers occupy fragmented holdings. II. Preparation of Produce for Market (i) Marketing equipment One of the more striking features of the situation is the high proportion of growers who are equipped with some kind of weighing machine but who have very little other specialised marketing equipment. Thus, of the 2,234 growers 97 per cent appear to have weighing equipment of some kind ranging from spring balances to platform scales. But while 60 per cent possess some form of packhouse, only 9 per cent own or hire cold or gas stores and even fewer have any grading equipment. TABLE 37. Classification of growers by marketing equipment used.

Size of fruit enterprise

Under 5-20 20-50 50-100 100 acres Total 5 acres acres acres acres and over

Number of growers ... 1,587 512 94 24 17 2,234

Number with no equipment ... ••• ••• 71 — — ____. — 71

Number with some equipment ... ••• ••• 1,516 512 94 24 17 2,163

Number with:— Weighing machine ... 1,516 512 94 24 17 2,163

Packhouses ••. •.. 876 357 67 18 15 1,333

Cold or gas stores owned ••• ••• — 24 27 15 10 76 hired .•• ••• 107 9 2 4 122 244

Grading machines ••• — 36 13 11 12 72

Other equipment ••• — 24 13 5 12 54 Table 37 may perhaps give less than a wholly satisfactory illustration of the position because not all growers need to have all the kinds of equipment noted in order to be fully equipped. There would seem to be just over 800 growers of top fruit and the situation can best be described by giving the number of them who possess certain items of equipment generally regarded as essential or, at least, desirable. • 66 TABLE 38. Classification of 809 top fruit growers by marketing equipment used.

Size of fruit enterprise

Under 5-20 20-50 50-100 100 acres Total 5 acres acres acres acres and over

Number of growers ••• 308 381 81 22 17 809

Number with:— Weighing machine ••• 308 381 81 22 17 809

Packhouse ••• ••• 166 314 58 18 15 571

Cold store ••• ••• — 131 36 17 14 198

Grader ... ••• ••• — 48 13 11 12 84 Thus, 90 per cent of the top fruit growers appear not to possess a grading machine though it does not necessarily follow that they do no grading. The fact that there seems to be no cold or gas storage used by 76 per cent of the growers leads to a paradoxical situation because more growers appear to have cold stores than have grading machines. This is explained by the fact that some growers hire cold storage space for fruit which is hand graded. It seems that growers of all types are well equipped to weigh their produce but that top fruit growers have a long way to go before they have fully provided themselves with facilities for storage or mechanical grading. (ii) Measurement of produce The information available suggests that 92 per cent of the growers weigh the contents of the market containers of all crops and that 7 per cent do so for some crops but not others. Only a very few growers appear to carry out no weighing whatever. (iii) Grading Special attention was given during the study to throw light on the kind of grading which was carried out by the top fruit growers; because most of the soft fruit was sold for processing no enquiry was made as to the grading given to it. There appear to be about 800 growers of culinary apples of whom 24 do no grading 27 cull out the inferior fruit and send one category to market 276 sort into two categories 455 sort into three categories 17 sort into four categories and 1 sorts into five categories. Those growers who sort into one category and those who do no grading must market a somewhat heterogeneous collection of sizes and qualities of fruit. The heterogeneity of the fruit within each category is reduced, of course, as the number of categories is increased.

67 There appear to be 336 growers producing dessert varieties of apples of whom 3 sort into only one category for market 164 sort into two categories 151 sort into three categories 17 sort into four categories and 1 sorts into five categories. The Ministry of Agriculture recommends 4 grades for dessert varieties and 3 for culinary varieties so that 94 per cent of the dessert apple growers and 40 per cent of the culinary apple growers fall short of this standard. It is not surprising, therefore, that the fruit growers appear to be so ill-equiped with grading machinery, or conversely, that being so ill-equipped so little grading of top fruit is carried out. • It is also not surprising that so many growers sort their fruit into so few categories when grading is necessarily carried out manually on the majority of the holdings. On the other hand, it is both notable and commendable that some growers grade to higher standards than those laid down by the Ministry of Agriculture. (iv) Identification Information on the extent to which growers identify themselves with their produce is available for approximately two-thirds of the growers in the sample. This limited information suggests that 58 per cent of the growers mark the containers of all kinds of produce with their name, trade mark or with a number allocated by the commission agent used and that a further 28 per cent mark some kinds of produce; 14 per cent appear to employ no identification whatever. Not all those growers who employ some sort of identification for some or for all kinds of produce achieve effective identification. For instance, 12 per cent use nothing more than a number allocated by the commission agent and this is an ineffective means of informing the buyer of the identity of the producer. The position seems to be that approximately three-quarters of the growers effectively identify some or all produce and that one-quarter use an ineffective means or none at all.

III. Methods of Marketing (i) Relative importance of different methods of sale Six different forms of outlet were distinguished. They are dealers, commission agents, processors, growers' merchanting businesses, retailers, and other kinds of only minor significance. The relative importance of each of these outlets has been estimated as in the other areas studied and from this estimate it appears that the total of £2,409,000 of fruit was disposed of as follows:-

68 Estimated value of produce £'000 % Sold to dealers ... •• • • •• 1,026 43 Sold through commission agents 731 31 Sold to processors ... • • • • •• 357 14 Sold through growers' merchanting businesses • • • • • • •• • 176 7 Sold direct to retailers .• • •• • 39 2 Sold in other ways • • • 80 3 £2,409 100

Fruit growing for processing is generally regarded 'as an important feature of Wisbech horticulture. It is therefore somewhat anomalous to find that apparently no more than one-seventh was sold to processing firms. In actual fact, almost the whole of the fruit sold to dealers goes indirectly to processors, the dealers, as will be shown later, acting as buffers to ensure a smooth flow of fruit to the factories. This means that between one-half and two-thirds of the produce goes directly or indirectly to processors, thirty per cent is sold through commission agents and the remainder to retailers and other buyers. The relative importance of the different outlets varied greatly as between the two kinds of crop. Table 39 gives the estimated values of each kind of crop which were marketed through the several outlets. TABLE 39. Relative importance of different outlets for top and soft fruit.

Relative importance of each outlet for the sale of Outlet Top fruit Soft fruit £'000 £'000

Dealers ...... ••• ••• 212 20 814 59 Commission agents ... ••• 557 54 174 13 Processors ...... ••• 149 14 208 15 Growers' merchanting businesses 89 9 87 6 Retailers and others ...... 29 3 90 7

1,036 100 1,373 100

Thus, commission agents are the most important single outlet for top fruit and dealers the most important for soft fruit. Dealers take second place in the disposal of top fruit and processors for soft fruit. There are six different forms of transaction between the growers and the persons or firms at the point of first sale. The six types and the circumstances in which they apply are explained in turn. Fixed Price. This type of transaction applies to a sale by a grower to a wholesaler or retailer with both parties taking current supply and demand into account. There is, in fact, a simultaneous agreement on price and exchange of goods.

69 Agreed Latitude. On occasions growers instruct their commission agents to withhold consignments from the market if a certain price is not reached. They may also agree on a mutually satisfactory price but decide that produce is to be withheld unless it can be sold at not less than some agreed lower price. Such agreements are often made before a grower opens a cold or gas store. Contract. This is a common method of selling soft fruit to dealers and processors. Contracts are usually made well in advance of the time of harvesting and the price is usually that which has been agreed with the Wisbech Fruit Growers' Association. Sale on Commission. This applies to the conventional method of selling through commission agents under which the agent is free to accept the best price obtainable whether it be high or low. Sale by Auction. A fruit auction is held at Wisbech by a private firm and is used mainly by the smaller growers and those with part-time holdings. Transfer. Some producers are subsidiaries of processing firms or are associated with dealers and merchanting businesses. Fruit sold by one part of the business to another is merely transferred in the books at a nominal price roughly approximating to the price ruling at the time. The form of transaction used in selling top and soft fruit to or through the several outlets is given in Table 40. TABLE 40. Classification of sales of top fruit and soft fruit by outlet and by form of transaction.

Values of fruit sold

with at a agreed on on at by fixed price contract commission auction transfer price latitude £ £ £ £ £ £ (a) Top Fruit Dealers ... ••• 91,500 - 72,000 48,000 - - Commission agents 128,000 71,500 5,500 352,000 - - Processors ••• 91,000 - 57,500 - - Growers' merchanting businesses... - - - - - 89,000 . Other ••• ••• 11,500 - - - - 17,500 Total top fruit ... 322,000 71,500 136,000 400,000 106,500' (b)Soft Fruit Dealers ..• ••• 18,500 1,000 783,000 11,500 - - Commission agents " 3,000 5,000 166,500 - - Processors ••• - 207500,- - - Growers' merchanting businesses... 5,500 - 22,000 - 1,000 57,000 Other ••• ••• 6,500 - 25,500 9,000 49,500 Total soft fruit ... 33,500 1,000 1,044,000 178,000 10,000 106,500 Total fruit ••• 355,500 72,500 1,810,000 578,000 10,000 213,000 1 The Wisbech Fruit Growers' Association is a specialist branch of the National Farmers' Union and acts on behalf of growers in discussions with dealers and processors for the purpose of settling a mutually satisfactory price for fruit for processing. 70 Increasing size of fruit enterprise appears to have no corresponding reflection in the extent to which different outlets or groups of outlets are used. It may, however, be wise to give the proportions of top and soft fruit marketed through different agencies by different sizes of business.

Percentage of top fruit Percentage of soft fruit marketed through marketed through

commission processors other dealers commission other Size of fruit agents and outlets and agents outlets enterprise and growers' processors dealers merchanting businesses %%° A 0/0 °A °A Under 5 acres 70 - 30 72 18 10

5-20 acres 95 5 - 67 15 18

20-50 acres 58 41 1 95 1 4

50-100 acres 80 20 - 68 9 23 100 acres and Over 70 25 5 88 2 10

(ii) Type of business and method of marketing As shown earlier, three main types of business have been distinguished, viz. (i) mainly horticultural, (ii) horticulture with farming and (iii) farming with subsidiary horticulture. The first type has been subdivided into those concerned mainly with top fruit, those concerned mainly with soft fruit and those with a mixed horticultural enterprise. In any attempt to show the relationship between the type of business and the marketing method it is essential to devise as realistic a measure as possible of the importance of different methods of marketing to different types of producer. In the absence of any data on the relative importance of different outlets to individual growers by the actual value of produce going to each, then one measure seemed to be to count the number of growers who used different outlets. This is, of course, a somewhat crude measure, but nevertheless it goes some way towards illustrating the position. The data were classified by ascending order of importance of top fruit and of soft fruit as follows:— (i) Farming with subsidiary horticulture, (ii) Horticulture with farming, (iii) Mainly horticultural, (iv) Mainly top fruit (or soft fruit) as a section of (iii) above. The relative importance of the different outlets to the businesses falling into each of these groups was then measured by the method outlined.

71 The position seems to be that as top fruit becomes more prominent there is a tendency for a lower proportion of growers to use dealers and commission agents. This situation was rather unexpected, but is explained by the fact that growers' merchanting businesses are associated with the mainly horticultural and mainly top fruit groups of businesses. Thus, if these merchanting businesses are regarded as synonymous with commission agents, then increasing importance of top fruit to the grower is associated with increasing use of these outlets together. But the merchanting businesses may be equally well regarded as synonymous with the dealers—when quite a different picture is presented. Much the same situation is revealed by an examination of the information for the soft fruit growers. A second measure of the relative importance of different outlets to different types of business is an estimate of the values of produce moving into different channels from different types of business. It would be unwise to analyse this information in any detail, but it is possible to show the approximate percentages of top fruit and soft fruit by value moving into four different outlets from the three main types of producer.

Percentage of top fruit sales made through or to A Type of business Dealers Commission Growers' Processors Others agents merchanting businesses % °A °A Mainly horticultural ... 21 51 20 8

Horticulture with farming ... ••• ••• 22 75 3

Farming with subsidiary horticulture ... 22 73 2 3

Again the picture is complicated by the growers' merchanting businesses, but it seems safe to conclude that no significant differences are to be found in the practices of growers with different types of business. The evidence available on the relative importance of different outlets for soft fruit to different types of business suggests that the dealer takes a slightly higher proportion from the mainly horticultural group than from either of the other two. It also appears that in those two types of businesses where horticulture is relatively unimportant more soft fruit goes direct to processors than in the first group, and further that the fruit which, in the middle group of businesses, goes to commission agents is divided in the mainly horticultural group between commission agents and the growers' merchanting businesses. The position seems to be somewhat different here than with top fruit and the figures below illustrate the situation.

72 , Percentage of soft fruit ,sales made to or through

Dealers Commission Growers' Processors Others Type of business agents merchanting businesses 0/0 0/0 0/0 Mainly horticultural ... 62 12 10 16 Horticulture with farming ...... 52 24 - 23 1 Farming with subsidiary horticulture ... 58 10 2 24 6

(iii) Sales through commission agents The evidence points to the conclusion that about 1,277 growers use the services of commission agents for the sale of fruit.1 This is equivalent to 57 per cent of the total number of growers, but the proportion using commission agents varied with the size of the fruit enterprise. Thus, the proportion of growers in each size group who were using commission agents was as follows:— Percentage of growers selling Size offruit enterprise through commission agents

Under 5 acres • •• •• • •• • 54 5-20 acres •• • •• • 84 20-50 acres •• • • •• • •• 51 50-100 acres •• • •• • .• • 71 100 acres and over •• • • •• 71 The 94 growers in the sample who sold produce in this way used the services of 194 commission agents situated in the following markets All London Markets 27 firms Manchester 27 firms Sheffield 14 firms Hull Leeds firms each Newcastle Birmingham 10 firms Glasgow 9 firms Liverpool 8 firms Nottingham 7 firms Bradford 6 firms Derby 5 firms Bolton 1 4 firms Leicester each Blackburn Coventry 3 firms each Dewsbury Sunderland

1 A further 130 growers appeared to use commission agents for the sale of vegetables but to sell their fruit in other ways. 73 Blackpool Bristol Burnley 2 firms each Edinburgh Middlesbrough Redcar Aberdeen Barrow Barnsley Carlisle Chesterfield Darlington Doncaster Halifax 1 firm each Peterborough Rotherham Mansfield Nelson Scarborough South Shields Worksop Wolverhampton

Sales through commission agents often have two somewhat unique features and these have been mentioned earlier. First, top fruit may be sold outright to the agent at an agreed price so that the agent takes all the risks involved. The commission agent then acts as a wholesaler and obtains his profit by reselling at the highest price possible; no commission is involved. Secondly, the grower and the commission agent may agree on a satisfactory price for top fruit, especially fruit out of cold or gas store, or on a price range bounded on the one hand by the lowest price the grower will tolerate and on the other by the best price the agent thinks he can at the time obtain. In effect, this somewhat vague arrangement ensures that the agent holds the fruit until he can make at least the minimum price which the grower will tolerate and thus be recom- pensed for storage. It is probable that the fruit marketed in this way is actually sold in the market before it leaves the farm; it is not surprising that relatively few growers adopt the practice because fruit must be of a high and reliable quality to be sold on description in this way.

Number of markets and number of commission agents. Growers selling through commission agents used widely varying numbers of agents and markets. The evidence available is set out in the following table which shows the number of growers believed to be using different numbers of markets.

74 TABLE 41. Classification of growers by number of markets used.

Number of growers selling fruit in r . . Size of fruit 1 2 3 4 5 or more Total enterprise market markets markets markets markets

Under 5 acres ... 497 213 48 — — 758

5-20 acres...... 119 131 60 60 59 429

20-50 acres ••• 4 5 18 13 18 58

50-100 acres ••• 4 5 4 — 7 20

100 acres and over — 2 1 — 9 12

624 356 • 131 73 93 1,227 The maximum number of markets recorded as having been used was eleven. The number of commission agents used by 12 per cent of growers exceeded the number of markets which they used; most of them appeared to use two agents in one market and one in others, but a few used two agents in two markets and one in others or two agents in each of three markets and one in others. Thus, they were all putting their own produce in competition with itself in some of the markets supplied. No growers were found to be using commission agents with branches in several markets. Terms of Sale. The information available suggests that 12 per cent of growers give their agents advance information on the kinds and quantities of produce likely to be marketed. It suggests also that there is no connection between the size of the fruit enterprise and the practice of giving this sort of information to agents. Precise information on the sending of written advice on the actual quantities was obtained from only about two-thirds of the growers visited. The pattern revealed by the evidence available shows a slight tendency for the proportion of growers giving such advice to increase as the size of the enterprise increases. TABLE 42. Classification of growers by percentage sending information to agents.

Size of fruit enterprise Percentage of growers sending

advance information advice note

Under 5 acres ••• 3 43

5-20 acres ... ••• ••• 30 81

20-50 acres ••• ••• 16 67

50-100 acres ••• ••• — 100

100 acres and over ••• 25 80

All groups ... ••• ••• 12 55

75 The prevalence of the practice by commission agents of making net. returns is revealed by information obtained from the growers concerned. No less than 52 per cent of those using commission agents received net, returns only, a further 27 per cent received net returns from some agents and gross returns less stated charges from others, while only 21 per cent received gross returns from all agents used. The proportion of growers receiving net returns is higher in Wisbech than for any of the four areas which were studied. It is almost certainly due to the fact that sales through commission agents partake of the nature of sales to wholesalers. when the grower and agent agree on a price before consignment or agree on a latitude about a certain price. The grower may be ensuring against, a low price and may be hedging against risks of price fluctuation, but in so doing he may also be paying too high a price for security.

Marketing Charges. Very little information was obtained from growers. on the costs which were involved in selling through commission agents. Data obtained from growers and relating to sales on commission of a total value of £67,220 show that selling costs were of the, order of 16-- per- cent of the gross price realised. The costs were made up as follows:—

Gross value of produce •• • • • • £67,220 Charges:—Commission • •• ... £6,727 Transport •• • ... 1,343 Empties . •• • •• • 3,130 11,200

£56,020

In view, however, of the very common practice of making net. returns and of the habit which some growers have of selling 'firm' it is impossible to do more than speculate on the marketing costs which are incurred. It is likely that the actual costs, were it possible to reveal them, would be enlarged by the price paid (in reduced returns) for shifting the selling risk on to the distributive trade. A somewhat unusual method of rewarding the commission agent was reported by one grower. This grower regularly costs all crops grown as an essential part of the system. The arrangement with the commission agent is that to the ascertained cost for the previous year the grower' adds a margin for profit and a further margin to cover hazards to give an 'expected' average for the season. The commission agent agrees to take only 5 per cent commission if the realised price does not exceed the expected price, but takes 25 per cent commission on that part of the realised price in excess of the expected price. It seems to be an arrangement which is highly satisfactory to both parties concerned.

76 (iv) Sales to Dealers It has been shown that selling to dealers is the most important single outlet for Wisbech produce, and further, that dealers handle 43 per cent by value of the produce grown. It is estimated that nearly 1,600 or 71 per cent of the total number of fruit growers use dealers as an outlet, the proportion in the several size groups varying from 66 per cent to 85 per cent. Ten firms of dealers were traced and interviewed about their methods of trading. The scale of operation of these firms as measured by their turnover of top fruit, soft fruit and vegetables (but excluding potatoes) varied from £25,000 up to £500,000, approximately 90 per cent of the combined turnover of the ten firms was accounted for by five of them. The premises occupied varied from sheds in the station yard and empties' stores on the one hand, while at the other extreme one firm had grading and packing houses, empties' stores, a pulping factory and pulp store, a cooperage and a laboratory. Two kinds of business were carried on by these firms. Six were engaged mainly in the pulping and storage of soft fruit and therefore had to provide not only commodious and varied types of premises but also normally have a great deal of capital locked up in the fruit while it is in their possession. On the other hand, four firms do no processing but consign the fresh fruit to processors or, on occasion, to, commission agents. The ten firms reported the following outlets for produce Processors only ... • •• • •• •• 3 firms Commission agents only... •• • 1 firm Processor and local dealer • •• 1 firm Processor and commission agent • • 5 firms In the main, soft fruit went to processors, apples of market quality went to commission agents and apples of loW quality to cider makers. One of the dealers took produce from growers, sold it to another dealer who in turn sold it to processors. The total value of the transaction of this type was, however, relatively small. Almost the whole of the produce handled by these firms was the subject of contracts, first with the processors and secondly with the growers. Dealers contract to supply certain quantities of fruit to the jammers, canners and quick-freeze factories and then make up these quantities by negotiating contracts with growers. Contracts with growers may be (i) for the whole crop from a given acreage, (ii) for a given weight of fruit or (iii) for a given acreage and estimated tonnage. Contracts for the sale of strawberries may stipulate the quantity to be 'plugged' or may require the grower to 'plug' at the request of the dealer when an agreed higher price is paid. The system of contracting appears to work reasonably well but in fact the 'contracts' are little more than the trappings of a system built on confidence in the good faith of all concerned. The contracts could

77 never have the force in law which their name suggests they might have. For instance, dealers state that some factories with which they have contracts are occasionally so full that they refuse to take more fruit for some days. The dealers then have to divert supplies to those other factories with which they have contracts or to put fruit on the fresh market through commission agents. In practice, while the contracted tonnage is taken by each factory, during the season the dealers have to perform the very essential function of matching fluctuating supplies with outlets of varying capacity. Again, the contract between the dealer and the grower, even if for a definite quantity, could not be enforced if the crop does not come up to expectation. In practice, of course, what the dealer does not get from one grower he makes up from another by taking supplies surplus to the contract. The terms of the contracts are very ambiguous and are open to different interpretations by the two parties. An extract from the conditions specified in a contract will illustrate this point. It is laid down that "all fruit to be loaded same day as picked, free from mildew, and in such a condition that it will travel a reasonable journey and arrive in sound marketable condition and fit for human food".' In cases of dispute between a dealer and a grower the accepted solution is to invoke the aid of two growers and two dealers to act as arbitrators. Two firms stated that if growers with whom they had contracts had more fruit to sell than had been expected then such growers had to find other outlets. One dealer took such fruit but made a new contract for it, while the remaining firms usually took surplus fruit and usually at the same price as that for which a contract had been made. The price which forms the basis of the contract for all sales to dealers (and for sales by growers direct to processors) is that negotiated annually with the Wisbech Fruit Growers' Association. All the dealers interviewed supplied empties to growers. All except two firms provided transport from the holding or from a local depot to the firms' main premises. All provided the transport to the processors, but at the processors' expense. Rail transport was used in one instance but in all others the firms either provided their own lorries or hired lorries on contract for the season. Three of the dealers stated that they sometimes advanced money to growers on the soft fruit crop on the signing of a contract and one of them also supplied fertilizers and seed potatoes on extended credit.

(v) Sales to Processors Sales by growers direct to processors account for nearly one-fifth of production. In all it is estimated that about 500 growers or 24 per cent of the total number sell direct to one or more of the jamming, canning

1 Writer's italics. 78 or quick-freezing firms in the area. The terms of sale are practically identical with those for sales by growers to dealers and such sales are invariably the subject of a contract. Contracts are usually for a given tonnage. They are made usually for one season only and are negotiated at least one month before the crops are ready for harvesting. Some firms are, however, now embarking on contracts for blackcurrants and strawberries covering from three to five seasons. Processors state they they prefer to obtain produce direct from growers rather than through a dealer mainly because by so doing they avoid having to pay the dealer's commission of £5 a ton and a further charge of £5 a ton for the use of the dealer's empties. A representative of one of the largest processors stated that his firm annually purchased from growers about 300 tons of gooseberries which were packed in bags having only a negligible value. If purchased through dealers the fruit would cost the firm an extra £3,000 of which £1,500 would be for the use of empties.

(vi) Number of outlets per business There are eight possible outlets for produce but only four of them can be considered as important to most growers or to handle any substantial quantity of produce. These four outlets are dealers, commission agents, processors and growers' merchanting businesses. Of the 2,234 growers all but 119 sell through one but not more than three of the four outlets 39 per cent use one outlet only, 52 per cent use two outlets and 9 per cent use three outlets. Even in the smallest size group more growers appear to use two than to use one outlet.

TABLE 43. Classification of growers by numbers of outlets used.

Number of growers who use

Size of fruit enterprise 1 outlet , 2 outlets 3 outlets Total

Under 5 acres ••• ••• 687 758 47 1,492

5-20 acres... ••• ••• 83 298 107 488

20-50 acres ••• ••• 40 36 18 94

50-100 acres ••• ••• 4 7 13 24

100 acres and over ••• 2 5 10 17

816 1,104 195 2,115

The relative importance of different outlets or combinations of outlets varied with the size of the fruit enterprise. ‘_. 79 Order of importance of different outlets Size offruit enterprise 'First Second Third

Under 5 acres ... Dealers and Dealers alone Commission agents commission agents alone

5-20 acres ...... Dealers and Dealers, Commission agents commission agents commission agents and processors and processors

20-59 acres ... Dealers alone Dealers and Equal commission agents (i) commission • agents alone (ii) growers' merchanting businesses alone

50-100 acres ... Commission agent Equal Growers' merchant- and processors (i) dealers and ing businesses alone processors (ii) dealers and commission agents

100 acres and over Dealers, commission Dealers and Equal agents and processors (i) dealers alone processors (ii) processors alone (iii) dealers and commission agents (iv) commission agents and processors

(vii) Provision of Empties Little reliable information is available on the use of the more important kinds of empty in vogue. All growers visited, nevertheless, were able to state their degree of dependence on the distributive trade for the different kinds of container used and the following table illustrates the position as it is believed to exist in the area.

TABLE 44. Dependence of growers on different sources of empties. Percentage of growers

Kinds of empties Wholly providing Wholly dependent Using both their own on marketing sources agency

0/0 0/0

Trays •• • •• • 97 2

Boxes •• • •• • 9 78 13 2 Chips •• • •• • 41 51

81 11 Bags •• • .•. 8

It is a very striking feature that the marketing agency used appears to provide some or all of the empties to such a high proportion of the growers. No less than 99 per cent of them, for instance, depend on the

80 distributive trade for.trays, 91 per cent for boxes and 93 per cent for bags. It is, of course, not surprising that so few growers provide trays as these are almost wholly used for fruit sold under contract and intended for processing. Indeed, the high degree, of dependence on distributors for empties is linked to the predominant practices of selling under contract or making some bargain under which the grower receives a firm price for his produce. Where soft fruit is sold on the fresh fruit market through commission agents the producer tends more frequently to provide the chip baskets, but even here over one-half of the growers depend on •the marketing agency for their provision.

V. Place of Marketing As in other areas growers were unable to give any information on the relative importance to them of the different markets used, though all were able to state which was their most important market. The data on the place of marketing are presented in a rather different form for Wisbech as compared to other areas studied because different outlets are used for different products. First, the index of relative importance is given for each market or market area for soft fruit and top fruit. ,Secondly, the main market or market area is given for each of these two crops for the growers producing them. The relative importance of different markets or marketing areas for the disposal of soft fruit was as follows:— Index of importance Local outlets • • • • • • 53 Lancashire ... • • • • •• • • • 14 Yorkshire • • • • • • • • • • •• 13 Midlands • • • • • • • • • • • • 8 North • • • • • • • • • • • • 7 London • • • • • • • • • • • • 5 No important differences in practice were seen between different sizes of enterprise. Dealer's are less important than commission agents for the sale of top fruit and it is therefore to be expected that growers disperse their •top fruit more widely than their soft fruit. Local outlets are nevertheless still the most important. Index of importance Local outlets , • • • • • • • • • 26 Yorkshire ... • • • • • • • • • 24 Lancashire ... • • • • • • • • • 18 Midlands • • • • • • • • • • • • 14 North • • • • • • • • • • • • 13 London • • • • • • • • • •• • 4 All other • • • •• • •• • •• • 1

81 s The distribution patterns for the two classes of fruit are thus quite different. If an imaginary line be drawn from Bristol to the Wash, then for soft fruit the sales at the eastern end of the line, i.e. local sales, have an index of importance of 53, sales north of the line an index of 43 and sales south of the line 4. For top fruit, sales at the eastern end of the line have an index of importance of 26, sales to the north an index of 60 and to the south an index of 5. Information obtained suggests that the main market is in the immediate locality for no less than 82 per cent of the soft fruit growers, only 18 per cent sending the bulk of their crops farther afield. The local outlet is the most important for fewer than one-half of the top fruit growers as the main market for 38 per cent is in the immediate locality; for 27 per cent it is in Yorkshire, 19 per cent in Lancashire, 12 per cent in the Midlands, 4 per cent in London and for a very few growers it is in the North. In so far as it is possible to generalise about the place of marketing for these main crops together then it can be stated that the great majority of growers tend to sell most of their produce to or through local distributing firms, towns in Yorkshire take second place in order of importance and towns in Lancashire come third. There can, however, be no doubt whatever of the great importance of local sales to Wisbech growers be they made through dealers, to processors or in any other way.

VI. Transport It has been shown that three outlets are of primary importance to growers. Dealers and processors are essentially local outlets and the commission agents are normally situated in distant markets. The importance of transport is in consequence much greater for the distant sales than for those made nearer the production area. For this reason the data available are presented so as to deal with local sales and with distant sales separately. The evidence obtained suggests that approximately 1,700 growers sold produce to dealers, to processors or to both. It seems that no less. than 79 per cent of them depend wholly on the buyer to move produce away from the holding, that 31 per cent use their own transtiort or hire it, while 10 per cent use buyer's transport as well as their own; 10 per cent use more than one method. It is clear, though, that growers are markedly dependent on the buyer for transport. This can be described as a willing dependence and almost certainly arises because growers are much concerned to obtain a firm price for produce at the farm gate. They are not at all willing to take the risks which attend selling in the open market nor to take the additional responsibility which selling in this way entails.

82 It is estimated that about 1,277 growers use the services of commission agents. It is evident that road transport from the holding to the market is the more important method involved in this form of selling and that rail transport is the less important. In fact, 40 per cent of the growers selling it this way depend wholly on road transport, only 24 per cent depend wholly on rail transport, while 36 per cent use both methods. Two points of interest arise at this stage. First, it is important to know just how significant road transport is as compared to transport by rail and the data given above demonstrate this fairly clearly. Secondly, it is important to show whether or not the grower who uses road transport is dependent tipon some outside agency for its provision. The evidence which is available points clearly to a high degree of dependence upon the distributive trade for transport for no less than 60 per cent of the growers who sell through commission agents appear to depend wholly or partly on them for the provision of transport. This state of affairs adds some corroboration to the view expressed earlier to the effect that the Wisbech grower is mainly concerned with a. farm gate price for his produce and has little concern for and perhaps little interest in the wider field of marketing.

83 VII. THE LEA VALLEY I. Production The Lea Valley is the most important area of glasshouse production in England or indeed, in the British Isles. It accounts for fully one-third of the total glasshouse acreage of the country and falls into parts of three counties, Hertfordshire, Essex and Middlesex. At the present time, five parishes account for the greater part of the glasshouse acreage. They are Cheshunt and Hoddesdon in Hertfordshire and Nazeing, Roydon and Waltham Holy Cross in Essex. The Lea Valley is one of the most intensive of the horticultural areas of the country as it has by far the highest value of production per acre, the greatest concentration of labour and the greatest concentration of capital. The capital investment in glasshouses, for instance, in what is a relatively small area has been estimated to be of the order of E10 millions. Glasshouse production in its present form developed at the end of the 19th century in what have for long been virtually parts of London—. Tottenham, Edmonton and Enfield in Middlesex. But over the last 50 years there has been a constant movement of glasshouse production northwards as the boundaries of London have extended until at present very little remains in Middlesex. Despite these changes in location the industry is still linked closely to London, its traditional market. Tradi- tionally, too, London was the source of the stable manure on which glasshouse production developed and was for long maintained. Specialisation has always been a feature of the Lea Valley, specialisation in a particular form of production, on few crops in the area as a whole and on even fewer crops by each grower. Although tomatoes and • cucumbers have been the two crops of outstanding primary importance a few growers, nevertheless, specialise in glasshouse roses and carnations, while yet others grow bedding and pot plants, though these exceptions only serve to add greater emphasis to the two main crops. (i) The holdings and growers In the five parishes there were 464 holdings for which a return of glasshouse cropping was made in the July 1953 Glasshouse Census. 'These 464 holdings formed the population from which a random sample was drawn for study. The size of the horticultural enterprise has been taken as the acreage of glasshouses per holding and the distribution of the 464 holdings by size is as follows:— Size of horticultural enterprise Number of holdings -I- acre and under • •• • • • 153 1- acre-1 acre ... •• • •• • 90 1-2 acres ••• ••• ••• 92 2-5 acres • •• • •• •• • 89 5 acres and over • • • • • • 40 464 84 The sample consisted of 131 holdings drawn randomly from the 464 in the population. On the basis of the behaviour, so to speak, of the sample holdings, it is estimated that there were 427 marketing units or growers in the five parishes. These growers were distributed by the size of their horticultural enterprise as follows:— Size of horticultural Number of growers Estimated number of enterprise in sample growers in population acre and under • •• 36 144 1--1 acre • • • • • • 28 83 1-2 acres • • • • • • 24 92 2-5 acres • • • • • • 20 72 5 acres and over • • • 20 36

128 427

Part of the difference between the number of holdings and the number of growers was the result of the amalgamation of holdings to form marketing units because two or more glasshouse census forms had been completed for separate holdings in one occupation. Part, however, was due to the fact that 10 holdings had, between July, 1953, when the census form had been completed and the spring of 1956, when the field work of the enquiry was carried out, been abandoned to building sites or gravel pits. These two points call for further brief comment. While no precise data on the matter were obtained it was clear that there is a considerable amount of 'engrossing' of holdings going on. The more progressive firms appear to be taking over holdings which have proved unprofitable under their previous management and, by the use of more modern techniques of production, by centralised direction and by economies of scale to be turning them into profitable units of large businesses. The second reason for the reduction in numbers, the abandonment of holdings to urban development, adds factual evidence to the statement made earlier to the effect that the glasshouse area is, so to speak, 'flowing' northward. This 'flow' is, in fact, brought about by the abandonment of individual holdings, a few each year, the former occupiers usually starting afresh further up the valley, sometimes in other parts of the country, but in some cases going out of business.

(ii) Types of business In all the other areas studied at least three types of business were distinguished on the basis of the relative importance of horticultural sales in the total receipts. Only one type is to be found in the Lea Valley, namely, businesses which are wholly horticultural. It would seem that all the businesses derive the whole of their income from the sale of horticultural produce and that about 400 of them sell nothing but

85 glasshouse produce. Approximately 30 businesses appear to sell some outdoor horticultural crops, but only as a minor sideline and for the present purpose these outdoor crops have been ignored. (iii) Crops grown In all, eleven glasshouse crops were reported as having been grown. Only tomatoes and cucumbers are of major importance and only a further four crops, carnations, roses, chrysanthemums and bedding and pot plants call for individual mention. The 427 growers are estimated to have produced a total of 1,051 acres of glasshouse crops distributed as follows:— Acres Tomatoes •• • • • • •• • • •• 573 Cucumbers • •• • • • • • • ... 274 Carnations • • • • • • • •• • • • 94 Roses ... •• • • •• •• • • • • 34 Chrysanthemums •• • • • • • • • 28 Bedding and pot plants • •• • • • 25 Other crops ... • •• •• • •• • 23 1,051

The outstanding importance of tomatoes and cucumbers is very clear from the figures given above. Indeed, it is estimated that the number of growers with neither tomatoes nor cucumbers was less than 20. As many as 370 growers appear to have been engaged in growing tomatoes and 340 in growing cucumbers. On the other hand, it is estimated that no more than just over 90 grew chrysanthemums, only 30 grew roses and only 17 grew carnations. The evidence obtained from growers suggests ,that the relative importance of the main crops varied with the size of the enterprise. Thus, the smaller growers tended to devote a greater proportion of their glass to the more intensive crops with a relatively high monetary yield like cucumbers, carnations and chrysanthemums, while the larger growers appeared to concentrate on tomatoes.

Percentage of total area of crops devoted to m • 0 § ri) Size of horticultural P4 • o enterprise o pc 0 c.) -po c: rn ,12 0 o F2 7-4.4 1 o ,.0 .... o 0 0 %°A %%% % 1 acre and under 30 27 27 — 8 8 100 1-1 acre ... ••• 49 34 — 3 8 6 100 1-2 acres ... ••• 47 24 16 — 2 11 100 2-5 acres ... ••• 67 30 — — 1 2 100 5 acres and over ... 57 24 9 6 2 2 100

86 If appropriate standard values are attributed to the acreages of each crop then the total value of the crops produced by the 427 growers is almost £5 millions. The estimated values of the main crops are as follows:— Estimated value £'000 Tomatoes ... • • • • • • • •• 2,296 Cucumbers ... • • • • • • • • • 1,875 Bedding and pot plants ... • • • 200 Roses • • • • • • • • • • • • 170 Chrysanthemums ... • •• • • • 140 Carnations ... • • • • • • •• • 75 Other crops • • • •• • 149 ,

4,905

These figures also show how important tomatoes and cucumbers are because together they account for 80 per cent of the total acreage of crops grown and for 85 per cent of the total revenue from crop sales.

(iv) Length of tenure Long establishment on the holding has less significance in the field of marketing for the' glasshouse grower than it has, perhaps, for any other 4 type of producer. There are, for instance, recognised standards of grading and packing which can readily be adopted even by the relatively in- experienced grower. Long establishment, moreover, has some well-known technical disadvantages to the glasshouse grower and the situation in the Lea Valley is complicated by the 6,ct that the glasshouse area is tending always to move northwards. If there are any advantages from long establishment, then they spring from the opportunities which arise for selecting the most suitable marketing system, the most suitable outlet or the firm best able to handle the produce concerned. That is to say, long establishment in business is perhaps more important than long tenure of the holding. Whatever the balance of advantage and disadvantage may be it is instructive, nevertheless, to examine the position, bearing in mind the complicating factor noted above. The evidence obtained suggests that 43 per cent of the growers had occupied their holdings for less than 10 years, 22 per cent for between 10 and 20 years and 35 per cent for over 20 years. The evidence also suggests that the highest proportion of growers with the longest tenure is found in the medium-scale group. Both the small-scale and the large- scale groups appear to contain a relatively high proportion of growers who have occupied their holdings for less than 10 years.

Accumulation of pests and diseases, deterioration in the productiveness of the soil and accumulation of salts in the soil are perhaps the more important of them.

87 TABLE 45. Classification of growers according to length of tenure.

Growers with tenure of Size of horticultural enterprise under 10 years 10-20 years over 20 years Number % Number % Number %

1 acre and under... 122 54 50 22 55 24

1-5 acres ... ••• 40 24 39 24 s 85 52

5 acres and over •••• 21 59 7 19 8 22

183 43 96 22 148 35

(v) Fragmentation It has been stated earlier that one of the reasons for the difference between the number of holdings and the number of growers is that a certain amount of engrossing of holdings is proceeding. This must frequently mean that there is an increasing degree of fragmentation of holdings in the sense in which the term is used in the present context. This paradoxical situation comes about because rarely are the two or more associated holdings in the occupation of one grower contiguous one to another. It would, of course, be unwise to attribute all the fragmentation to the engrossing process, other factors come into the picture. Neverthe- less, it is instructive to note that it is the larger concerns which tend to have the highest proportion of fragmented holdings. From the evidence collected from growers it appears that 86 per cent of them have all their glasshouses on one holding and that 14 per cent have two or more holdings intermingled with land in other occupation. A maximum of seven separate holdings was recorded as being in the occupation of one grower. Fragmentation must be a disadvantage because of the grading and packing which are necessarily carried out in the marketing process. If grading and packing are performed centrally, then produce has to be transported from outlying holdings. On the other hand, if produce is graded and packed on the holdings where it is grown, then there must inevitably be some duplication of function and possibly also a duplication of some items of capital equipment.

II. Preparation of Produce for Market (i) Marketing equipment All growers interviewed were asked to state the kinds of special marketing equipment which they used. From information obtained in this way it can be said that all the growers appear to possess a packing house and, where tomatoes are grown, a weighing machine of some kind. The striking feature of the situation is that few growers with less than 1 acre of glass possess any other marketing equipment. The position

88 seems to be that 73 per cent of the growers have a packing house and weighing equipment only, 24 per cent have a grader in addition, and a very few have other equipment such as motorised trucks and stackers. TABLE 46. Classification of growers by marketing equipment used.

Number of growers with

• Size of Packing house Plus Plus grader Plus other horticultural and weighing grader and trucks or equipment enterprise machine only stacker

Under 1- acre ••• 139 5

1.---1 acre ••• 77 6

1-2 acres ••• 58 30 4

2-5 acres ••• 25 47

5 acres and over 13 14 3 6

312 -102 10

(ii) Specialisation of labour on marketing tasks The grading 'equipment' on those holdings where there is no mechanical grader usually consists of an experienced team of hand packers. Holdings of this kind may therefore be regarded as enjoying some of the advantages of labour specialisation. It would appear that no less than 77 per cent of the growers organise at least part of their labour force to perform some specialised marketing tasks and that this specialisation of labour is almost wholly on grading and packing. Indeed, the evidence suggests that even on the smaller-scale enterprises specialisation of labour on marketing tasks is of frequent occurrence. TABLE 47. Specialisation of labour on marketing tasks.

Percentage of growers with Size of horticultural A enterprise some specialisation no specialisation 0/0 oh Under i acre ••• 53 47

-I to 1 acre ... ••• 85 15

1 acre and over ••• 90 10

All groups ... ••• 77 23

Some growers subscribe to the opinion that an experienced team of workers can grade tomatoes by hand as rapidly as can an equivalent number using a grading machine. Moreover, some growers who use both methods of grading reported that they received a better average price for hand-graded produce., Even if this were not wholly true, experienced

89 hand graders and packers would still be necessary on all holdings growing cucumbers as well as tomatoes because no mechanism has yet been devised for cucumber grading. Whatever the merits of hand grading may be the information available on specialisation of labour strongly suggests that the general lack of mechanical grading equipment is compensated by the presence of experienced grading and packing staff.

(iii) Grading and measurement All the growers in the sample who were growing tomatoes or cucumbers were asked to state whether or not they graded their produce and, if so, to what standard. From information obtained in this way it seems that all the cucumber growers grade by count in the normal way. It is estimated that 4 per cent of the tomato growers did no grading whatever, that 28 per cent graded by machine and 68 per cent by hand. It is difficult to estimate the number or proportion of tomato growers who were using different standards of grading. But the impression gained is that a very considerable number were using the five grades laid down by the Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board. This is a very exacting standard which, by requiring that fruit be not only of a given size but that it be round also, to all intents and purposes rules out the possibility of machine grading. The majority of the growers appeared to be using the five standard grades which are less exacting in respect of 'roundness' than those laid down by the Board, while a few growers were packing in seven grades. The evidence on measurement clearly indicates that all growers weigh or measure the contents of all market packages in some way appropriate to the crops concerned.

(iv) Identification All tomato and cucumber growers were asked to state the manner in which they marked their containers in order to show the identity of the producers. The marking of containers in this way is a relatively simple matter as compared, say, to the marking of a net of sprouts or a bag of early potatoes. Three possibilities present themselves to tomato and cucumber growers: (a) the grower's name on the container, (b) some recognisable trade mark and (c) a number allocated by the marketing agency used. The first two constitute effective identification and the third ineffective identification in the present context. The information available indicates that 73 per cent of tomato growers have their names on all containers, that 16 per cent use a trade mark and that 11 per cent use a number. It seems that only 53 per cent of the cucumber growers mark their names on trays, that 23 per cent use a trade mark and that 24 per cent use a number. There appeared to be no significant differences as between the different sizes of enterprise.

90 III. Methods of Sale (i) Relative importance of different methods of sale Four different kinds of outlet have been distinguished. They are as follows:— (1) Sale through commission agents. (2) Sale through growers' co-operative society. (3) Sale direct to retailers. (4) Sale to dealers and others. The relative importance of these outlets has been estimated by imputing standard values to the crops grown on the sample holdings, dividing the total thus obtained for each holding between the outlets used on the basis of their relative importance to each grower and raising the sum total for each method to population level. Estimated in this way the following values of produce moved in the ways shown:— Value of produce £'000 Sold through commission agents • • • 4,336 88 Sold through growers' co-operative society 312 7 Sold direct to retailers ... • • • • • • 224 5 Sold to dealers and others • • • • • • 33

E4,905 100

Selling through commission agents is clearly of overwhelming importance. It is, in fact, more important than it appears at first because sales through the growers' co-operative, Nursery Trades (Lea Valley) Ltd., are made on a commission basis and partake of the nature of sales through an independent firm. Taken together these two outlets account for 95 per cent of the produce. In addition, a further 2 per cent is sold on commission on market stands which are run nominally by separate firms but in fact run and owned by the growers concerned. The position seems to be that 95 to 97 per cent of the produce is sold on commission and that from 3 to 5 per cent is sold at agreed prices. Sales through commission agents are important both in general terms and to all types and sizes of growers. Thus, if Nursery Trades is taken as synonymous with a commission agent then no size group of growers sells less than 80 per cent of its produce in this way. In contrast to the other areas studied there appears to be a notable tendency in the Lea Valley for growers to use fewer kinds of outlet as the scale of production increases. For instance, some growers with up to an acre of glass use as many as four outlets. But no grower with more than an acre of glass appears to use more than three• outlets and no grower with more than 5 acres of glass to use more than two outlets. I See page 93. 91 TABLE 48. Classification of growers by number of outlets.

Number of growers with Size of horticultural enterprise 1 outlet 2 outlets 3 outlets 4 outlets

1 acre and under... ••• 187 28 8 4

1-5 acres ... •• • ••• 99 61 4

5 acres and over ... ••• 27 9 313 98 12 4

The majority of growers using one outlet only used commission agets. Where two outlets were used then selling to retailers or through Nursery Trades was combined with selling through commission agents. Where three or four outlets were used invariably the commission agent was one of them.

(ii) Sale through commission agents The evidence suggests that nearly 400 growers use the services of commission agents for the sale of produce and that just over 260 of them use commission agents exclusively. That is to say, 91 per cent of the growers use commission agents and 62 per cent use commission agents to the exclusion of all other forms of outlet. Some 117 growers in the sample reported selling in this way, but by no means all of them were prepared to name the firm or firms employed. In all, 80 names of commission agents were given in 15 different markets. No less than 60 of these agents, however, were in one or other of the London markets and 31 of them were in Covent Garden. The majority of the growers selling in this way used no more than two markets although some appeared to use as many as seven. No grower, however, with less than 1 acre of glass used more than four markets. TABLE 49. Classification of growers by number of markets used.

Number of growers using Size of horticultural enterprise 1 market 2 markets 3 markets 4 markets 5 or more markets

1 acre and under •• • 103 75 23 10 43 11 27 Over 1 acre •• • •• • 42 56 145 131 66 21 27

The limited amount of information available on the actual firms of commission agents used precludes any statement being made as to the number of agents used in each market supplied.

92 Terms of Sale. Two factors make the sending by the grower to the commission agent of advance information on crops shortly to be marketed of little value to either of them. First, relatively few crops are grown. Secondly, each crop has a well-defined season spread over many months. Thus, once a grower commences to market a crop there is no further need or, indeed, opportunity to inform the agent of what is in prospect. It is not surprising, therefore, that no more than 12 per cent of growers using commission agents appear to give them this kind of advance information. It would seem, however, that all growers make a practice of sending written advice as to the kind and quantity of produce consigned to each commission agent used on each day that produce is marketed. Information on the kind of statement which growers receive from their agents leads one to believe that the practice of making returns of the gross price realised and showing all charges levied is general. In fact, no grower in the sample reported receiving net returns from any of the commission agents used. Marketing Charges. The initial attempt to obtain some data on marketing charges met with no more success in the Lea Valley than elsewhere. A second attempt to obtain this information resulted in fourteen growers providing statements on (a) the value of produce marketed and (b) the costs which were incurred in selling it. All these. statements combined show that these growers sold produce to a total value of £439,300. They are thus among the larger growers in the area. The total costs of marketing came to £73,500, leaving the grower with a net figure of £365,800. The details are given below. Total value of produce sold •• • £439,300 Costs of selling:— Commission ... • • • ... £33,000 Empties • • • • • • • • • 27,600 Other packing material • • • 4,400 Transport • • • • • • 8,500 73,500

£365,800

The costs given above represent lq per cent of the gross value of the produce and are believed to cover the whole costs which the growers concerned incurred in marketing. (iii) Sales through growers' co-operative Produce to the value of £326,000 was sold for approximately 80 Lea Valley growers by Nursery Trades (Lea Valley) Ltd. in 1954. The greater part of this, viz., £312,000, came from about 40 growers in the five parishes covered by this survey and represented about 7 per cent of the total production.

93 Nursery Trades was founded in 1921 as a co-operative to supply growers with fertilizers, baskets, insecticides and so forth. In 1938 a few growers formed another co-operative under the name of Glasshouse Growers' Sales Ltd. in order to sell their tomatoes and cucumbers. These two organisations were fused in 1947 though the latter had been inopera- tive for some years. The new organisation embarked on an ambitious but unsuccessful venture in 1952 when it built and commenced to operate a co-operative grading and packing station for tomatoes and cucumbers at a capital cost of over £100,000. This station was used until the end of the 1953 season, since when the firm has reverted to its original method of marketing for growers. According to information given by Nursery Trades two different forms of selling are employed, one for cucumbers and another for tomatoes. In 1955 approximately 163,000 trays of cucumbers were sold for growers, 14,000 trays were sold direct to retailers and 149,000 sold through commission agents in the London and provincial markets. Nursery Trades selects the market and commission agent and provides empties. Growers are charged 101d a tray for carriage irrespective of the market used and 6d for the use of the empty. Rebate of 11 per cent of the selling price is made to Nursery Trades by the commission agents used. Commission agents remit accounts of sale to Nursery Trades, which in turn pays growers weekly a common price for each grade. Tomato sales in 1955 totalled 295,000 baskets of which 248,000 were sold to retailers, generally multiple store firms. The remaining 47,000 baskets were sold through commission agents, 32,000 in the London markets and 15,000 in provincial markets. The better grades are sold direct to retailers and the lower grades in the markets. Direct sales are made in three ways. First, multiple store retailers collect in bulk from Nursery Trades and themselves distribute the produce to their branches. Secondly, Nursery Trades makes road deliveries from shop to shop in the London area. Thirdly, retailers in any part of the country are supplied on order by rail deliveries. The charges made to growers consist of a commission of 61- per cent of the selling price, a porterage charge of id per box and a transport charge of 3d per box. The sales organisation of Nursery Trades is used mainly by the smaller growers who are thus relieved of much of the work involved in selecting a suitable market. The grower merely delivers the packed produce either to the local railway station or to Nursery Trades' premises and his responsibility ends.

(iv) Provision of Empties The evidence available suggests that nearly 50 per cent of the tomato growers themselves provide all empties used, just over 30 per cent depend wholly on the distributive trade for empties and that 20 per cent provide some of the empties they use and obtain some from their commission

94 agents. It appears that those growers who provide their own empties use non-returna* bles of one kind or another and that the empties provided by the distributive trade are generally returnable. It would seem that no less than 97 per cent of the cucumber growers depend on the marketing agency for the returnable cucumber trays used. A very few growers appear to provide their own returnable trays and a similar number to provide their own non-returnable cardboard trays. The general impression is that growers are almost wholly dependent on the distributive trade for cucumber empties and that they are still markedly dependent on outside agencies for empties for the tomato crop.

IV. Place of Marketing Some indication of the relative importance of different markets has already been given in stating that of the eighty commission agents named no less than sixty were in the London markets. Growers in the Lea Valley appeared to be in no better position than those elsewhere to give precise data on the relative importance of different markets to them as measured by the quantity or value of produce sent to each. They were, however, able to name each of the markets used and also to state which of them they regarded as the most important. This information has been used to construct an index of importance by weighting the data drawn from the sample by the relative importance of different size groups in the population. Despite its limitations this method of measuring the relative importance shows very clearly that London is the most important of the markets supplied. London was the main market for no less than 82 per cent of the growers, the immediate locality for 11 per cent and the Midlands for 6 per cent. Only a few of the large-scale growers appear to have had their main outlet in the Lancashire area. TABLE 50. Percentage of growers using different markets as main outlets.

Percentage of growers with main outlet in Size of horticultural enterprise London Lea Valley Midlands Lancashire

0/0 °A 0/% 9 1- acre and under... ••• 89 9 2 . .1 acre-1 acre ••• ••• 75 13 12 — 1-2 acres ... ••• ••• 70 19 11 — 2-5 acres ... ••• ••• 94 6 — — 5 acres and over ... ••• 73 18 9

All growers •• • ••• 82 11 6

It may be concluded that the larger growers tend to disperse their produce over a wider field than the smaller growers. This view is confirmed by an examination of the relative importance of the different markets used.

95 TABLE 51. Relative importance of different marketing regions.

• Size of Index of importance of ______A horticultural f-- enterprise London Midlands Lancs. Yorks. North Local Misc.'

1 acre and under 73 7 — — 1 13 6

1-5 acres ... 58 12 4 1 1 14 10

5 acres and over 44 9 20 3 4 7 13

All groups ... 62 10 5 1 1 12 9

Neither of these measures of importance, of course, gives anything but an approximation to the actual position, but they have to serve in the absence of any data on the actual quantities sent to the markets concerned.

V. Transport With the main outlet so close at hand the transport of produce to market is a relatively simple process for Lea Valley growers. The evidence on the kind of outlet used has shown that the majority use commission agents to dispose of their produce and that the greater part of the produce is sold in this way. Thus the transport used for this sector of the industry is of primary importance. It appears that all the growers who sell produce by way of commission agents use road transport to move it from the holding to the market. It also appears that one in eight of these growers use rail transport in addition. The road transport used by the majority of the growers is provided by haulage contractors who, like those in Bedfordshire, make a speciality of handling horticultural produce. Some growers, however, provide their own market transport, while others use that provided by the commission agents employed. Some idea of the relative importance of these sources may be gauged from the figures below giving the approximate number of growers using them. Number of growers using Haulage contractors ... • • • • • • ... 300 Commission agents' lorries • • • • • .. 125 Own lorries • • • • • • • • • • • .. 70

495 Less: number using two methods • • • 105

Number selling through commission agents ... 390

96 Apparently one-third of the growers who use commission agents for selling depend wholly or partly on them for providing transport also. Naturally the commission agents are willing to provide the service (as they are to provide empties), but in making use of it the grower is again limiting his freedom in the choice of outlet. The Lea Valley is not the only area in which this tendency has been observed, but it may perhaps be pointed out here that the distributive trade is tending to perform some functions for the grower which, if he seeks to retain that essential freedom to choose the best market and the best firm, he should perform himself. The Lea Valley, as it happens, also provides an example of how growers have obtained economies in transport while retaining their freedom to choose any market or any firm for the sale of their produce. Evidence obtained in this enquiry suggests that approximately fifty of the larger growers send produce out of the area by rail. These growers take part in a bulk transport scheme and operate it as a co-operative venture under the name of Lea Valley Growers' Transport Ltd. No information is available as to the total value of produce transported in this way, but the growers concerned enjoyed a gross saving of £2,124 and a net saving of £1,647 on rail carriage charges in the year to which the survey relates.

97 VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study has been to show how produce grown in four areas of England is marketed. It has attempted to provide a statistical picture of the various functions which growers themselves perform in the marketing of produce and to show the relative importance of the different outlets for each area by estimating the value of produce marketed through each of them. The total estimated value of produce grown in the four areas was 04 millions and this was produced on nearly 6,200 holdings occupied by about 5,700 growers. The estimated value of the produce and the estimated number of growers in each area are as follows:— Value of produce Number of growers. £'000 Bedfordshire ... ••• ••• 2,106 1,390 West Cornwall ••• ••• 2,236 1,678 Wisbech ••• ••• ••• 2,409 2,234 Lea Valley ... ••• ••• 4,905 427

E11,656 5,729

In all, these 5,729 growers are estimated to have sold no less than 82 per cent of their produce through commission agents or to dealers and only 18 per cent in other ways, though, as the preceding sections have shown, the areas differed in respect of the relative importance to them of the different outlets. Dealers and commission agents were, nevertheless, the most important outlets in all areas. No less than 68 per cent of the produce was sold on commission, 29 per cent was sold at agreed prices or on contract and only 3 per cent in other ways. It is not the purpose of this summary, however, to repeat in general terms what has already been said in detail. Rather it is to record some of the observations which have been made and some of the conclusions which have been drawn as. the enquiry has progressed.

Production In Bedfordshire, Cornwall and Wisbech horticulture appears to be very largely an adjunct of agriculture. These areas have only a minority of relatively specialised horticulturists. Under these circumstances the horticulturist is at a disadvantage in marketing as well as in production unless he grows those crops which the farmer-grower cannot produce. equally well. An examination of the cropping pattern for different sizes of enterprise in these areas shows, however, that there is little difference in the pattern as between the different sizes of enterprise in Bedfordshire, that early potatoes tend to give place to broccoli (both.

98 relatively extensive crops) with increasing scale in Cornwall, and that in Wisbech the comparatively intensive soft fruit on the smaller holdings tends to give place to the comparatively extensive top-fruit on the larger. Horticulture in the Lea Valley is divorced from farming and intensive crops appear to be grown on the smaller enterprises and comparatively extensive crops on the larger. Growers in Bedfordshire and Cornwall have a considerable amount of freedom in the choice of crops. Yet there appears to be little significant change in the cropping pattern with increasing scale of production and dissatisfaction with the marketing system might be traceable to an unwise selection of crops for the scale of production. In order to throw some light on the matter an attempt was made to get growers in these two areas to say why and on what grounds they had selected the crops which they were growing. The most striking outcome of this attempt was that only a relatively small proportion of the growers interviewed gave any really cogent reasons why they had selected their crops. The second important result was that economic reasons for crop selection were scarcely mentioned. Some growers in Bedfordshire stated that Brussels sprouts provided winter work for the farm staff and others stated that the marketing method determined the crops grown. Clearly, the grower who supplies retailers needs to grow a wide range of crops. But growers who were selling to or through dealers also stated that they were compelled by their choice of outlet to grow a wide range of crops, completely ignoring the fact that the function of the dealer is the assembly of different kinds of produce from different growers each of whom is best able to grow the kinds chosen. A few growers in Cornwall who were reducing their acreages of horticultural crops stated that they did so because such crops were unprofitable. These growers may, perhaps, have made some attempt to assess the relative profitability of their different enterprises, but the impression gained is that a large element of conjecture entered into such categorical statements. It was a rare thing to find a grower making use of price analysis in crop selection. Some of the larger growers were doing so but in general no use whatever appeared to be made of market returns. Some growers admitted to destroying sales notes, while others who sold to a few of the lorrymen-dealers often had not the slightest idea of the prices which produce had made and could Snot, even if they wished, use price analysis in crop selection because they had no written evidence on which to work. Growers in Wisbech and the Lea Valley, on the other hand, have little choice in cropping. The Wisbech area is for technical reasons especially well fitted to,the production of soft fruit and heavy yields are obtained. Top-fruit growers in Wisbech are, by the very nature of the crop, committed to growing it for many years. Growers in the Lea Valley are, in general, limited in their choice of crops to tomatoes and cucumbers

99 because of market demand. But the impression gained in both these areas was that within the pattern of cropping which circumstances imposed upon them growers were much concerned to obtain the best possible price for their produce. The Wisbech grower frequently knew the farm-gate price before selling and one of the notable features of the Lea Valley was the virtual non-existence of net returns by commission agents. Moreover, and this is an important point, with increasing scale of production there seemed to be a change-over from comparatively intensive crops on smaller enterprises to more extensive crops on the larger. It would, of course, be difficult to prove a case on the sort of evidence which this enquiry has obtained, but the impression is that where growers have a choice in cropping most of them do not know how to exercise that choice. A minority of growers, however, were clearly making use of recorded data on prices for a number of purposes, one of which was the selection of suitable crops. A more widespread recognition of the advantages of following the example set by these growers seems to be required.

Preparation of Produce One very strong impression remains as a result of enquiries into the kind of preparation given to produce before marketing. It is that despite the existence of 'recommended grades' vegetable growers seriously lack guidance on grading, guidance first on the grades into which they should sort their produce and secondly on the financial advantage of doing so. Admittedly, it is not possible to grow a standard article and each crop will have various sizes and qualities of produce in it. But grading standards have been accepted for tomatoes and apples, both no less variable in size and quality than most vegetables. Some growers in Bedfordshire and Cornwall were obviously grading and packing to a high standard, but one of their own devising. Others were as clearly falling short of these standards. But even where accepted standards of grading could readily be adopted by growers they have by no means always done so. Thus, the majority of the Wisbech apple growers appear to fall short of the standard set by the Ministry of Agri- culture 'recommended grades.' On the other hand, Lea Valley growers almost without exception appear to grade their tomatoes and cucumbers to those standards which the glasshouse industry has been using for many years. Consideration might perhaps be given by the appropriate authorities, first to determining the financial advantage of grading, including an examination of the economies of selling on description and the consequent advantage of less congested markets secondly, to the promotion of a measure similar to the Dominion of Canada Fruit Vegetables and Honey Act, 1935, by which the Minister prescribes grades of fruit and vegetables for internal consumption as well as for export.

100 A great many growers appeared to be unaware of the purpose under- lying the disclosure of their identity on the containers of their produce. In order to avoid unnecessary confusion in the minds of buyers and to aid the marketing agency used, clear identification by name or trade mark is essential. Such devices as coloured string and numbers allocated by commission agents are useless in informing the buyer of the identity of the producer, though they may facilitate the work of the agent. If produce has been graded and packed to reasonably high standards no grower need object to effectively labelling such produce and, indeed, in the long run should benefit by so doing.

Selling The most important method of selling in Bedfordshire, Cornwall and the Lea Valley was through commission agents, and in Wisbech to the dealer. The dealer was the second most important outlet in Bedford- shire and Cornwall, and the commission agent in Wisbech. But growers in general appeared to be unable to give any economic reasons why they had chosen a particular outlet, market or firm. Nevertheless, a minority of large growers were using price analysis in market selection and appeared •to be as fully informed as it was possible to be of conditions and prices in a number of markets. It would be unreasonable to expect that all growers should be as well informed of the state of different markets as is this minority. But if the large growers are deriving any advantage from being well informed, then there is a very good reason why the smaller growers should organise themselves into groups in order to share it. Whether outlets and markets are selected haphazardly or on the basis of some recorded price data there seems to be the need for a closer liaison between growers and commission agents. A surprisingly large number of growers appear to consign produce without sending any advice note. They thus not only make the task of the agent more difficult but also forego the protection which the Horticultural Produce (Sales on Commission) Act, 1926, gives them. The railway or road haulier's delivery note is all too frequently the only indication which the commission agent has of the identity of the sender and the quantity sent. If producers are prepared to accept net returns from commission agents and dealers, then no one need be perturbed at the continuation of the practice by some firms. Growers have stated that with net returns they know precisely the price received on the holding especially if the commission agent also pays carriage. If such growers made use of this information in price analysis for the choice of crops or markets, then there would be some justification for their tolerating or even welcoming the practice, but there is no evidence to suggest that they use it in this 4 way. Gross returns and details of selling charges cannot be withheld from growers who ask for them, so that the industry has the matter in its own hands.

101 Growers in the Wisbech area very frequently adopt the practice of selling 'firm' to commission agents. It is well to remember that this puts the risks of marketing on to the distributor and that whoever takes the risks reaps the rewards of doing so. Top-fruit growers in the area seem disinclined to sell on commission. It may be that before commission selling could be successfully adopted some improvement in the standards of grading would be necessary to bring general practice into line with the Ministry of Agriculture recommended grades. The use of returnable empties seems to be general in all areas except the Lea Valley and even here returnable empties are in general use for cucumbers. No evidence was obtained which on balance favoured the container, but that part of the study which was concerned with Birmingham market has shown that the merits of non-returnables are not perhaps fully appreciated. The possibilities of lower commission charges, absence of a hiring charge for the returnable, lower transport costs for the journey to market (a returnable bushel box frequently weighs one quarter of the weight of the contents), absence of transport costs from market to grower, all these are factors to be set against the initial cost. In addition, the facilities which the non-returnable offers for branding, the freedom of choice of outlet which it gives the grower and the greater attractiveness of the non-returnable to the retail buyer have to be taken into account.

Marketing Costs Three attempts were made to obtain data on marketing costs. First, all growers were asked to provide details of these costs during the course of the interview; secondly, many growers were asked to provide commission agents' sales notes for inspection and thirdly, all growers were asked specifically by letter to provide data on the value of produce sold in the last financial year and the costs incurred in selling it. The second attempt was the most successful, but even this provided only a limited amount of evidence, and the first and third can be regarded as virtual failures. In view of the widespread criticism of the marketing system on the grounds of cost, it is somewhat surprising that no information on costs was forthcoming except from a very small minority of producers. This minority, however, was able to produce data which were most reliable, though perhaps not of general application.

Transport Except for Cornwall, growers in all areas studied appeared to make great use of road transport and it is becoming increasingly used even by growers in Cornwall. The rail transport of produce from Cornwall seems to have some most undesirable features, such as relatively high cost, the system of so-called 'nominated days' and the inordinately long time that produce takes in transit. Road haulage does not suffer from these drawbacks, but its provision on a scale commensurate with the needs of

102 the area in winter and spring would hardly be justified for many growers by the use which would be made of it in summer and autumn. One of the disquieting features of the situation in Cornwall and Bedfordshire is that growers are themselves as a body making no attempt to organise the transport of produce in order to get such economies as may be obtained from, say; bulk handling and lower haulage rates. Where any initiative has been shown it has come from the distributive trade. Two firms of commission agents, for instance, have branches in the Penzance area from which produce is sent in bulk at the cheapest possible rate to the national markets. It seems most surprising that growers in the area have not made some attempt to take a hand in the matter by having an organisation of their own. It is all the more surprising when it is remembered that such an organisation could perform for growers a number of other marketing functions as well such, for instance, as the grading and packing of cauliflower along the lines adopted in Brittany. The importance which some growers attach to efficient and speedy transport is evident when it is stated that some growers in Cornwall provide their own road transport to markets which may be 300 or more miles away, that some growers in Bedfordshire who use rail transport to Northern markets go to the length of buying produce from other growers in order to be able to make up full truck loads and obtain cheaper rates, and that some of the large-scale growers in the Lea Valley have their own co-operative bulking organisation for rail transport to the more distant markets. Closer attention to these developments might with advantage be paid by other growers in these and other areas. For instance, in Bedfordshire and Wisbech there are a number of county council small holdings estates each with up to 80 or more tenants. All tenants send their produce to market individually, yet the circumstances are so much in favour of joint action. If any general conclusions are of value, then three such conclusions have been drawn from the study. They are as follows. First, that more attention could be paid to the grading of outdoor fruit and vegetables. Secondly, that growers should take steps to become more widely informed as to prices and conditions in different markets. Thirdly, that growers should stand more aloof from the distributive trade and themselves perform those functions (especially the provision of empties and transport) which the distributors are tending to perform for them.

103 BRADLEY & SON LTD. THE CROWN PRESS. CAXTON ST • READING