Economic and Marketing Information                                                                                                                                                                                          FOR INDIANA  FARMERS
August  31,   1960
Prepared by the Agricultural Staff of Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana        
Can Marketing Orders Benefit Indiana Farmers?
by GORHAM W. HUSSEY and HUGH L. MOORE, Department of Agricultural Economics
Milk Marketing;
Federal Orders
Now in Indiana
Today, five federal milk marketing orders operate, in whole or
in part, in Indiana. They regulate
the prices paid by milk handlers
to producers for milk sold in a
described geographic area called
the marketing area. Marketing
areas vary in size among markets
but generally include one or more
metropolitan areas and often surrounding counties.
These five federal order markets and the portion of their marketing areas in Indiana are: O
Chicago, whose marketing area includes three townships in Lake
County, 0 South Bend, whose
marketing area comprises La-
Porte, St. Joseph and Elkhart
Counties, © Ft. Wayne, whose
marketing area is Ft. Wayne, ©
Louisville, whose marketing area
includes Harrison, Floyd and
Clark Counties in Indiana, and ©
Ohio Valley, whose marketing
area includes the Indiana counties
of Posey, Gibson, Pike, Dubois,
Vanderburgh, Warrick, Spencer,
Crawford and Perry.
Milk is also shipped from Indiana farms to six out-of-state
regulated markets. These markets
are Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton-
Springfield, Detroit, Toledo and
North Central Ohio. Table 2 shows
the number of Indiana producers
shipping to federal order markets.
Continued on Page 3, Column  1.
OINCE marketing orders and
agreements began, farmers
have periodically examined them
as a method to raise their income.
For selected commodities and
areas these programs have benefited farmers; for other commodities
and areas they have not. Presently, the only marketing orders operating in Indiana are five federal
marketing orders for milk. Indiana
statutes now do not permit state
marketing orders. This article examines the potential effectiveness
that marketing orders and agreements might have in marketing
Indiana fruits and vegetables and
discusses the major provisions of
the five federal milk marketing
orders.
Marketing orders and agreements are programs organized by
producers, government and sometimes handlers to regulate the
marketing of various farm commodities. They may operate under
Continued on Page 2, Column  1.
FINAL NOTICE!
Attached to this issue of
Economic and Marketing is a
red subscription card for the
convenience of those who neglected to send in the yellow
card from the July 30 issue.
Please disregard this red card
if you have already sent in
the yellow one. Those who
fail to return either the red
card or the yellow one will be
dropped from the mailing list
as soon as it has been revised.
Fruit and Vegetable
Marketing Orders;
Indiana Possibilities
Table 1 summarizes recent Indiana production and value to
growers. Only watermelons with
23-24 percent and fresh tomatoes
with 10-11 percent of their respective late summer crops represent
sizable "chunks" of the nation's
fresh supply. In processing crops,
mint and tomatoes represent
shares of less than 20 percent in
each case. In no case is Indiana
the principal source of annual supply of any crop.
Timeliness of harvest in relation
to total market supplies and location may suggest possibilities for
a watermelon marketing order.
Despite producing less than 25
percent of the late summer crop,
Indiana probably accounts for a
much greater share during peak
harvest weeks in midwestern markets. Concentration of production
in southwestern Indiana also favors feasibility of an order's acceptance and operation. Probable
features of such an order may include quality regulations and market promotion.
There are definite limitations to
the potential for such an order.
During periods when Indiana is
only a minor supplier to markets,
regulating Indiana's crop alone
would not assist much in orderly
marketing or in raising growers'
prices. Secondly is the problem of
Continued on Page 2, Column 3.