!


	

	"


		



#	


	 	

	





			

	

	
	

		
$
!
$%&'


	


	 (
	



()*%		

United States

Department

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

Electronic Report from the Economic Research Service

		


	
	



		

			


	
			
	

		
	 !	"!#$
%&'%
"



	(
#)

#*++)

	


,%&%


-	


.&	/0/

+,-%		.
!.
*.



)()*%		/-*&*

%			
.
(%0/12%		

.
34	.
*.

)()*

%		
 ❖ 	

		 	
	
		

%
	


5	
 

1%0+	
 

)6"&	
!' 7

5  

!18

)!%8

1
 

)9

	

	
 9



 7



7

	 :

.%)  

1
	 ;


 <

%%


5	
'




	
	


	


	




3.*54=




	






	


	
	
	




 !

"#!#$ 314


	'
	'


1	
'



	
	
7 

		


		




,%

1%
		

$99
	

	

()	
3


74>	



>	)?1%0

2	


1%0;@@
 ;:@


77:

	7



	 
()


3()*%$%))4)A 	


8


	
@
	


% 	




	
$

>#	

	)1

"
	

1



			

	
	()



*	
		




#	
	



>	
3B46

#	
	

	


)C%	6



2	1	
	



=	%0

$
	!
2	


	




)C!
%34+	


#	



	
	)!1


5C1

#	



#	
	
	

	

		1









	

	

	
	
		 	

		 ❖ 

7!
	


	
	




	

#	


		


	
	

		

	

		
	
			
	

			
	

 
	
!

Figure 1

Salinas

Valley

Huron

Imperial

Valley Yuma

Production sequence for iceberg lettuce in 

California and Arizona

Source: Paul N. Wilson, Gary D. Thompson, and Roberta L. Cook,

"Mother Nature, Business Strategy, and the fresh Produce Industry,"

Choices, First Quarter 1997, p. 21.

CA

AZ

	)

%%
	2	
	,%				


,%

1%


"	#$"%&


'	( )

*+(
	%("	,"
	

((	-(
	.	

$"	/"
(*

.
(0"(	1123

''	3,,	-%%4

!
	


'
	


<;

	





	
!

)

	
	



	

)
0

	


)	


	
	




	

!	



5	
0	


		?
	


	
	

	



#	

	
	
		 	

		 ❖ 3

	)

,	

			5''#"1%
"
'	")6/+*++)

"4+"
5 (6(4+"
5 	
	-		47(5

Year Production1 Imports2 Total Exports2 Total3 Per capita Current Constant

use (Pounds) dollars1 1996 dollars4

1970 4,836.5 2.3 4,838.8 250.5 4,588.3 22.4 4.75 16.22

1971 4,936.7 4.5 4,941.2 292.8 4,648.4 22.4 6.31 20.47

1972 5,047.0 1.2 5,048.2 338.3 4,710.0 22.4 5.73 17.81

1974 5,323.1 3.3 5,326.4 300.6 5,025.8 23.5 6.93 18.76

1975 5,410.8 2.2 5,413.0 329.6 5,083.4 23.5 6.71 16.62

1976 5,640.0 3.0 5,643.0 360.8 5,282.2 24.2 8.26 19.31

1977 6,043.2 3.8 6,047.0 359.5 5,687.5 25.8 6.94 15.23

1978 6,052.8 5.7 6,058.5 459.9 5,579.9 25.1 9.90 20.31

1979 6,143.9 13.0 6,156.9 480.6 5,648.5 25.1 9.20 17.46

1980 6,336.3 15.1 6,351.4 488.5 5,836.9 25.6 8.91 15.53

1981 6,268.2 11.4 6,279.6 523.9 5,728.6 24.9 10.90 17.38

1982 6,294.9 14.6 6,309.5 499.3 5,789.9 24.9 12.10 18.19

1983 5,775.5 21.4 5,796.9 519.2 5,258.6 22.4 12.30 17.77

1985 6,133.4 37.8 6,171.2 507.4 5,644.9 23.7 10.80 14.58

1986 5,829.0 20.8 5,849.8 553.6 5,279.2 21.9 12.00 15.86

1987 6,787.7 18.3 6,806.0 542.5 6,242.2 25.7 14.70 18.88

1988 7,050.5 37.4 7,087.9 431.3 6,625.4 27.0 14.70 18.27

1989 7,523.1 35.6 7,558.7 463.6 7,095.1 28.7 12.60 15.08

1990 7,320.1 17.2 7,337.3 396.9 6,940.4 27.8 11.50 13.29

1991 7,077.8 21.1 7,098.9 496.7 6,602.2 26.1 11.40 12.71

1992 7,081.0 21.2 7,102.2 476.8 6,625.4 25.9 12.50 13.61

1993 6,781.1 32.7 6,813.8 463.6 6,350.3 24.6 16.00 17.01

1994 7,005.8 20.6 7,026.4 438.8 6,587.7 25.3 13.30 13.85

1995 6,234.9 51.8 6,286.7 377.9 5,908.8 22.5 23.50 23.96

1996 6,207.2 28.3 6,235.5 417.5 5,818.1 21.9 14.70 14.70

1997 6,879.4 39.3 6,918.7 395.7 6,523.0 24.3 17.50 17.17

1998 6,340.1 22.9 6,363.0 404.7 5,958.3 22.0 16.10 15.61

1999r 7,032.1 28.9 7,061.0 390.9 6,670.1 24.4 13.30 12.71

2000 7,202.3 31.9 7,234.2 374.0 6,860.2 24.9 17.50 16.37

2001f 7,250.0 34.0 7,284.0 395.0 6,889.0 24.8 -- --

889%('	9	
	:9.	
( "(	332;

"	#%(-"("((
(
		4%5$"((
<"
(	':12;8=("(:((	
("	%

	
((	


3"	#	(	(: 		,"	":(
	 	
"
$(1=1(	"	
	:	(("	.12=8=1	>(
		<"
(	"
- 

((

?/"	


	(
((	(	
:12=8==

@ 
((	
		"(	"
-(
	$ (		:(11A9;;

"	#
1

	
%	

D



	
'D



0

	

	
#	



-

	

	

	


	

	

	'3'		

	
4		




	


	


C		



	
	






		

	
#	



		
#	'

!





'


#	B





	

	

	





8	




	

B
#	

		






		



3(&14/&+(3	4




	


*		


: )

	


E7 ;E:<






5	
5
3554

"#		




'
E79



)


'	

	


#	




? ❖ 	

		 	
	
		

Table 2

U.S. fresh romaine and leaf lettuce: supply, utilization, and price, 1985-20011

Supply (Million pounds) Utilization (Million pounds) Season average price4 ($/cwt)

Year Production2 Imports3 Total Exports3 Total Per capita Current Constant

use (Pounds) dollars 1996 dollars

1985 778.7 -- 778.7 -- 778.7 3.3 -- --

1986 571.2 -- 571.2 -- 571.2 2.4 -- --

1987 613.0 -- 613.0 -- 613.0 2.5 -- --

1988 784.2 -- 784.2 -- 784.2 3.2 -- --

1989 915.8 23.5 939.3 57.9 881.4 3.6 -- --

1990 1,061.6 12.1 1,073.7 130.6 943.1 3.8 -- --

1991 1,157.5 8.3 1,165.8 152.7 1,013.1 4.0 -- --

1992 1,388.7 5.9 1,394.6 195.0 1,199.6 4.7 20.66 22.50

1993 1,535.5 6.8 1,542.3 230.2 1,312.1 5.1 25.35 26.95

1994 1,710.0 8.9 1,718.9 223.1 1,495.8 5.7 23.92 24.91

1995 1,787.4 11.7 1,799.1 227.9 1,571.2 6.0 30.10 30.68

1996 1,775.6 16.6 1,792.2 223.4 1,568.8 5.9 23.00 23.00

1997 2,024.5 28.6 2,053.1 253.3 1,799.8 6.7 24.21 23.76

1998 2,097.4 32.0 2,129.4 282.3 1,847.1 6.8 25.36 24.60

1999r 2,421.0 28.4 2,449.4 301.3 2,148.1 7.9 20.23 19.34

2000 2,607.5 32.7 2,640.2 367.3 2,272.9 8.3 22.94 21.46

2001f 2,700.0 34.0 2,734.0 375.0 2,359.0 8.5 -- --

-- = Not available. r = Revised. f = Forecast. updated 2/27/01

1Includes romaine and leaf lettuce. Excludes head lettuce.

2Source: USDA, NASS for 1992-2001 and ERS estimates for 1985-91 based on State-supplied data and USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service shipments. 3Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Includes romaine and other leaf lettuce.

4Leaf and romaine crop value divided by leaf and romaine production. Constant dollar prices were calculated using the GDP implicit price deflator, 1996=100.

Source: USDA, ERS.

:()*% 	


	

	


	






'	


5


#	


	
'

5



	
	



(&1



)

	







	



5

	










	


5:;;<
	

	E<



55
 5; 

 ;E:
2



	



>

1




:


>
	#	

374





7<
: 


)

	

	



324;


9
		



	9;:

 
 :>






&
	7		

"
		




	
.)	



	
	


	



		


-	


D;1F%0	


	
	
		 	

		 ❖ @

 )	


/
	





	

Figure 2

U.S. sales of fresh-cut salad in mainstream supermarkets

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Million dollars

Top two firms Next eight firms Private label All others

Source: Information Resources, Inc. 

Figure 2

U.S. sales of fresh-cut salad in mainstream supermarkets

"	#/:(	
"	
/

	



	5	#	

		
	





	$

	



	
	





	


?

 





 







.;


	
'


7 






	



	






			






	);


'
	

'
	

	






		




3:410





	



>	

0











		




	


2

	
	


	


		

	




	



		




E799E99

B ❖ 	

		 	
	
		

Product mix of interviewed firms

Commodity

Five firms

Bagged salad/fresh-cut

* = Product mix of four firms not disclosed.

Source: USDA, ERS, Produce Marketing Study interviews, 1999-2000.

Value-added

Figure 3

 Six

firms

*

*

*

C$"(>::":
(

	

"	#$"	+)	(-("(		
11183;;;

Figure 3

Product mix of interviewed firms
3
:4%	'



	


0




	



	

)	



	?	


;


	

	










'	



	
*

	



	
'

B	
	
'




	
#	

	
	



	
	
	

&	


	
	


		
	

!	


B
0	
	



	






		


-
8 

	;


	

	: 


<9
3 4%	

'



	




'

)9


	
 



	
 


3

;4)	0	




		


	D


6







)
'


 


		


	
	


	
		



	'
	

384%	





	
		
3;


4		
3:


@;
4	

;
;:


::
$	

	


 


	
	

	&	






0

C	

'




0
G	


	






	2


	
	

	
	
		 	

		 ❖ A

Table 3

Size distribution of interviewed firms

Sales, 1999 Number Types of

($ Millions) of firms products sold

Over 200 4 Mostly fresh-cut, some 

value-added and commodity

Over 100 to 200 6 Fresh-cut, value-added,

and commodity

100 or less 5 Mostly commodity, some

value-added and fresh-cut

Source: USDA, ERS, Produce Marketing Study interviews, 1999-2000.

;!
	
3



	
4
	


3

	
4

8-

	

	
,

)	
	
)	C	


%
-
1-


1
2 ❖ 	

		 	
	
		

59

22

8

4 4 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Retailers Foodservice Wholesalers Mass merchandisers Brokers Exporters

Percent of sales

Figure 4

Share of lettuce sales by market channel, 1999

(Median, minimum, and maximum, 10 firms reporting)

Source: USDA, ERS, Produce Marketing Study Interviews, 1999-2000.

Figure 4

Share of lettuce sales by market channel, 1999 

(Median, minimum, and maximum, 10 firms reporting)

"	#$"	+)	(-("(		
11183;;;

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Retailers Foodservice Wholesalers Brokers Mass merchandisers Exporters

Percent of sales

1994 1999

Figure 5

Median share of lettuce sales by market channel, 1994 and 1999

(Seven firms reporting)

Source: USDA, ERS, Produce Marketing Study Interviews, 1999-2000.

Figure 5

Median share of lettuce sales by market channel, 1994 and 1999 

(Seven firms reporting)

"	#$"	+)	(-("(		
11183;;;




	
>





&+(

	


















	



%	


#	
	


	

3
 4

%
< 
	


	%



	

!



	


	

	
		

"		




	
% 



		






	





	
*

'!


$



99



	

	

3
 4)











	
	
	


	

$
	





		


"
	











	


C		







	




5	
(&1









	


&+(


	
	
		 	

		 ❖ =

59

33

0 3 2 1 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Retailers Foodservice Mass 

merchandisers

Wholesalers Exporters Brokers

Percent of sales

Source: USDA, ERS, Produce Marketing Study Interviews, 1999-2000.

Figure 6

Share of bagged salad and value-added sales by market channel, 1999

(Median, minimum, and maximum, four firms reporting)

Figure 6

Share of bagged salad and value-added sales by market channel, 1999 

(Median, minimum, and maximum, four firms reporting)

Source: USDA, ERS, Produce Marketing Study interviews, 1999-2000.

<




	
		

	


%


5
	



	
	5	




	






	



		





	
	





)	





	
	


1


		

	
% 	

	

D:8

	



)




	'
	


)	HI


3
4



'



	
13	



()*%A!$)4'





	E 


	




	E% 



'

)


	
	


A



	

&
	



6	

'


	

		

% 	


	

	



D

		







6	





		




1


'
#	


'
	

5
	




"

1 ❖ 	

		 	
	
		

Table 4

Average percent of sales to each marketing channel by sales mechanism type, 19991

Type of sales mechanism (Percent2)

Shipper type and marketing channel Daily sales Advance pricing Annual contracts Multi-year contracts

Lettuce/commodity shippers3

Grocery retailers 56 34 10 0

Mass merchandisers 0 0 100 0

Produce wholesalers and distributors 94 6 0 0

Foodservice buyers 36 48 16 0

Brokers n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Bagged salad/value-added shippers4

Grocery retailers 7 0 64 29

Mass merchandisers 0 0 100 0

Foodservice buyers 0 33 62 5

n.a. = Not available.

1Results are based on a limited number of observations and must be interpreted with caution.

2Average of percentages reported by each firm; figures are not weighted by total firm sales.

3The number of firms reporting about lettuce sales ranges from four to eight, depending on the number of marketing channels used by each firm.

4The number reporting on value-added sales ranges from two to four, depending on the number of marketing channels used by each firm. Clearly, contracts are

an important sales mechanism for bagged salads in all marketing channels. However, due to the small number of firms responding, the percentages for daily

sales and advanced pricing may not represent general industry practices.

Source: USDA, ERS, Produce Marketing Study interviews, 1999-2000.
		




	

		
	7	

#	

	




	


	'




	
	


	



	





		



	

#	#	



	


!	
	%,%
		
-	

)		
	


	
@ 3)	4


		


@ 2

		

	
	


	
		
#	

	
%



	'
	<


	'






#		
B







	




	

% 



E

	1

	

	



% 
'


!




#	



3
;4?





	



	5


	'
	



		
	

	
'



E9999E79999

	

E;99999	


	E7

#	


		


59


1


#	


 	



!


	
;


$


	








&





)






	

	



)

0


	
	




7:

%
	



	




	






	
	




	
)

	



	




	!
	


	


	


	% 
	

	





6
		


	
&	








'


	


	


	



	
	
		 	

		 ❖ ;

@% 			

	
	
	

'	




)
0
	
	



	

	
	%



	



	






%





	


"

	


$

	
	


% 

	
3

%1$554
A








"	
	

'
5




#	
	



$#	

)
	


	

	
	

#		

	
	

		







B



	
	

	


	





#	

%
#	
'


	
	



		
	



 ❖ 	

		 	
	
		

Table 5 

Types of fees reported by interviewed lettuce and bagged salad shippers in 19991

Share of firms Share of Share of Share lost

Share of firms with a fee requests where requests when request

Fee type providing fee2 request3 fee was new4 complied with5 not complied with6

Percent

Lettuce/commodity shippers7

Slotting fees 0 43 100 0 100

Pay-to-stay fees 0 0 0 0 0

Volume discounts 57 71 0 80 0

Advertising allowances 43 43 0 100 0

Other rebates 71 71 20 100 0

Free-product discounts 43 43 0 100 0

Buy-back unsold products or failure fees 43 43 0 100 0

E-commerce fees 14 29 100 50 0

Retail capital improvements 0 29 0 0 0

Bagged salad/value-added shippers8

Slotting fees 67 100 100 67 50

Pay-to-stay fees 67 100 100 67 50

Volume discounts 67 67 0 100 0

Advertising allowances 83 83 0 100 0

Other rebates 83 83 0 100 0

Free-product discounts 67 67 0 100 0

Buy-back unsold products or failure fees 0 33 0 0 0

E-commerce fees 0 0 0 0 0

Retail capital improvements 50 50 0 100 0

1Fees to grocery retail and mass merchandise customers only. Results are based on a limited number of observations and must be interpreted with caution.

2Shippers were asked if they provided a type of fee to any of their retail accounts. Thus, these results indicate the share of firms paying fees to at least one retail

account.

3Includes fees requested, whether complied with or not, and fees offered by shippers to at least one account.

4The type of fee was new since 1994.

5Includes retailer-requested and self- and competitor-initiated fees for at least one account.

6Firms reporting at least one account lost when they did not comply with at least one fee request.

7Seven firms reporting.

8Six firms reporting.

#	5

'


		



	

		
#	

B
	




	

	


	
	
6

'
	





	
	

1






	


	
0
	% 

	
	


	2




	'





	

		,%		
4				

	



		












2

	





	

6
#	


		



		


	




%

	

)




		





% 




	



	
)


	






F	

	



	
6	




	

>	F


6

	



	




6

	

	A 
	




	

	


!	

	


	
>	


3
;4)	

	

3	4


	
	





'	C	


	






	

D
	



	
5

	9
7;



)


	
3


4
	

	

	


)
)




6
		



	






)

	

	#	




)
	




	
/




	2

	
'



#	

5


A







	


>	







	
	





	
%

	



	


!	




2D





	
	


'
D		

'

	


		




	



	



		
%%	7	

%	







>	&


	
	
		 	

		 ❖ 3
	





%






	
!




 @



%


	E799	




.*53

4


.










	


		



		

1



	

	


	

5



9 

	

'	'



	


	



	

	7	

+	




#	3
84







	
.*5



	)


	



#	
&	
#	

	

? ❖ 	

		 	
	
		

9 % 

	



#	

Table 6

Types of services reported by interviewed lettuce and bagged salad shippers in 19991

Share of firms Share of Share of Share lost

Share of firms with a service requests where requests when request

Service type providing service2 request3 service was new4 complied with5 not complied with6

Percent

Lettuce/commodity shippers7

Third-party food safety certification 86 100 14 86 0

Electronic data interchange (EDI) 71 86 100 83 0

Private labels 57 57 75 100 0

Automatic inventory replenishment program 43 43 100 100 0

Category management services 14 14 100 100 0

Returnable containers 71 86 100 83 0

Special packs 57 57 50 100 0

Special merchandising displays 14 14 0 100 0

Bagged salad/value-added shippers8

Third-party food safety certification 80 80 50 100 0

Electronic data interchange (EDI) 100 100 100 100 0

Private labels 60 80 25 75 0

Automatic inventory replenishment program 100 100 100 100 0

Category management services 80 80 100 100 0

Returnable containers 20 40 100 50 0

Special packs 20 20 100 100 0

Special merchandising displays 20 20 0 100 0

1Services to grocery retail and mass merchandise customers only. Results are based on a limited number of observations and must be interpreted with caution.

2Shippers were asked if they provided a type of service to any of their retail accounts. Thus, these results indicate the share of firms providing services to at least

one retail account.

3Includes services requested, whether complied with or not, and services offered by shippers to at least one account.

4The type of service was new since 1994.

5Includes retailer-requested and self- and competitor-initiated services for at least one account.

6Firms reporting at least one account lost when they did not comply with at least one service request.

7Seven firms reporting.

8Five firms reporting.

Source: USDA, ERS, Produce Marketing Study Interviews, 1999-2000.






!	



#		




	
% 


	



6	

)


		


		


6


#	



6



'





	

	

	% 





.*5
	



	

%	.*5


#	% 
		


	.*5
	


7999

	



	.*5A


	


% 
	





	


	
 
D


5


	

>







	



	
5
		





6'





		




	



	
#	



)	
	



	

	



	
	


5
	



	


A 
	5




	

!		

	



(&1



%

(&1


		%1$

55	
	


	
"


&+(




	

	

	


		


			


2	


 





!





	

	
			

	0
5




	


	
.

	



	

		
)

#	





6	

	



A

#	B
	



	


		
		


% 



	6




	





#		
%


		


	

>
/

	


	



87%7
	%

'&%



''	
		

*		




	





	





#	







		

.


	
 

 

	
	
		 	

		 ❖ @

	

	




	
	

0	

	


	
)

		


		

'
;
	
	




	

	
#	




#	
	


)



	



	)'



	


	


	




		



	


	 /	




	








 

	
)	


>


6


	
	


#		




'!

>


	


	

#	
	






/9


	
'.


	


)






	

	



/	


			

3	04




)






 



	
3

4

	#	
	


	
)
	

			


2	
	'

		
	% 



	?

%&% 





0

	




		




'





	



%

6


		

	
F
0



)









	&&

)





	
% 
0


	
	


	
	

	



" *

	







	
)

	

0


	
	




%
%


!'



	
'	


5


	



<;

	



	


!


	!









D	






D



	
	






)	



	?	





B ❖ 	

		 	
	
		
'B
0

	
	

	










		


1
	
.*5




	



	
	


	


5




0'


		














)


	'

	








	


	






)



	


	



	#	

	%	
	
	

	
	3B4

	
	


	


1#	

	

		
		


		5



	
		



	0




6
#	

	


F

	

	

.		

	





	











	


	

	




)
	

5	






	 )

	

	
	


	



 !




#	



	







		



		


	
		


3	

4/





	

		314

)

		

	




% 




		





	


	



	
!

	

	
	


>	


)		


	
2



'

	






)
	)


	
.*5



	+	



#	


&	
#	

	





	
	
		 	

		 ❖ A
	,		
	

1+
13
4!

*
1*+-1

2!J&,	"

,-)	0
	

	




 !"#!#$

%.<;()*%		

.

)J	799;7

21	
H)	
*)	


%
AI!")!,)

%7 7999%%7


H.6"I!

")!,)!@7999*;

)	!H)%
!

$&	
I'
( 

93<4? 8 :

-*&	$BH!

*")I

'
)

* 

7 34? 8: @

()*%		$%		

))


 #

+,,-.,/)" 8
J	

()*%		$%		

))
+,,,	 0C

73994J	7999

B&	$-*
+

1H!$	"	)

&	
5	I%G	

<@77 7;

2 ❖ 	

		 	
	
		

()*%		3()*%4







'

'		3$



4&
#	
	3"	


4	

()*%K%-. 137974<7978993**4



()*%*
61:78BB"	 5


%)BB*1797;9 9
37974<79;8 3**4()*% #		




	 -+,


()

	

	
	3%		
	/<8<4+	
	D()7+	
D(

)D!:C
D() )
D()D!5-*552

1555()*%		.

)5C2*7:;+ 7