2016...February, March, and April, shipping approximately 8.0, 8.1, 9.9, and 7.67 million 25-lb....

2016ANNUAL REPORT

LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN

A season that started out promising with a strong market situation for the last weeks of October turned sharply lower in November due to very warm temperatures pushing the crop to maturity. The winter season was driven by the strong El Nino weather pattern that produced unprecedented rainfall throughout South Florida. Wide spread flooding in Dade County in early December crippled the crop and the rains continued to come. The winter “dry season” turned out to be the one of the wettest seasons ever recorded in South Florida. The strong market situation didn’t produce returns to the farms because yields fell to record lows as result of the weather pattern and disease pressure. As yields returned to more normal levels in the spring for the Palmetto-Ruskin area, the market fell to prices that returned very little if anything to the farms. The only positive thing to say about the season was that at least it didn’t freeze. The El Nino season of 2015-16 will be remembered by growers as a very tough season for growing a crop of Florida Tomatoes.

Those who use the price information from this report, should know the prices are quoted prices, reported in the USDA’s Tomato Fax Report and, are distinctly different from true collected sales prices which were much lower in most cases. The prices reported in this Annual Report and previous years’ reports reflect quoted prices by USDA not collected prices to the grower/shipper. We must keep this in mind as we review, evaluate, and utilize the data herein.

Precarious times for the Florida fresh tomato industry continue. The issues (labor, imports, over regulation, pest and disease, escalating input costs, etc.) remain. They are fluid and dangerous, any one or combination of them could cripple us. We need to continue to work together to stay competitive and improve our position, to market smarter, and cooperate better.

Thank you for your support during the 2015-2016 season. I look forward to continuing the fight next season.

Tony DiMare, ChairmanFlorida Tomato Committee2015-2016

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Crop Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Tomato Imports Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Market Share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Education and Promotion Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Research Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Regulations and Compliance Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

District Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Committee Meetings Summary . . . . . . . . . 14

Statistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTIONThe Annual Report is intended to provide an understandable summary of the Committee’s activities and an overview of the Florida fresh tomato industry’s 2015-2016 marketing season. Facts on the following pages will document fair returns on a very low yielding crop.

The season started with the same regulations that were in effect at the end of the 2014-2015 season. Total shipments for the 2015-2016 season were 28,241,866 25-lb. equivalents. This represents 8,260,288 25-lb. equivalents less than the 36,502,094 25-lb. equivalents shipped for the 2014-2015 season.

This season as compared to last season, total Mexican round shipments during Florida’s season were up approximately 17.9% compared to the previous season (2014-2015) and up 15% from the 2013-2014 season.

The average price for the 2015-2016 season was $11.27 up from $10.58 for the 2014-2015 season and up from the $9.76 for the 2013-2014 season. The total cash value of the crop was $318,348,670 compared to $386,112,811 for the 2014-2015 season and $348,013,602 for the 2013-2014 season. Average weekly prices fluctuated from a high of $26.67 to a low of $4.08, which is an increase from the previous season’s fluctuations that showed a weekly average high price of $21.15 and a low of $2.75. There were two weeks during the 2015-2016 season that had a weekly average price of less than $5.00 per 25-lb. equivalent which is less than the four weeks for the 2015-2016 season. For the 2015-2016 season, the average weekly price was over $10.00 for twenty weeks as compared to eighteen weeks in the 2014-2015 season, and in seven of those weeks, the average price was over $20.00

CROP SUMMARYOctober 2015Relatively dry conditions prevailed over most production areas during the month of October with the exception of the mid-month period of rainfall in the central part of District 4. This allowed for traditional planting schedules in SW Fla and production programs to proceed in other parts of the state. Harvesting began in District 4 with weekly average prices ranging from $14.26 TO $17.74.

November 2015Most of the month of November was unseasonably warm with rainfall patterns as much as 139% of the seasonal average. Crops were advancing very quickly due to the high temperatures for the first three weeks. Yields were also affected by the warm and humid conditions of November. Target spot was a significant problem in all production areas. The later part of the month brought a cold front with blustery conditions and to southwest Florida with very windy conditions on the southeast coast. Harvesting was under way in Districts 2, 3, and 4 with weekly average prices ranging from $5.53 to $10.04.

December 2015Early December brought further evidence of the El Nino weather pattern for the state. As the crop in Dade County approached maturity in the first week of December, a very intense rainfall patterned developed resulting in over 8 inches. Wide spread flooding occurred and very few crops avoided injury. The pattern of cool and wet of the El Nino season continued through much of South Florida. The crop as result continued to struggle with the combination of wet, cool, and disease challenged. Yields were very significantly reduced for all plantings. Weekly average prices reflected the yield reductions with average prices ranging from $9.29 to $24.28.

FIVE YEAR SHIPMENT REPORT

38,1

75,3

63

35,5

20,0

16

35,6

54,2

65

36,5

02,0

94

28,2

41,8

66

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

40,000,000

45,000,000

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FIVE YEAR SHIPMENT REPORT

1

January 2016The month brought a continuation of cool wet El Nino conditions across South Florida. Disease pressure continued and yields were reduced. The last week of the month brought the heaviest rain of the month with rainfall amounts reaching record levels in some areas. Overall rainfall in South Florida was over 300% of normal. No frost or freezes threaten the crop during this normally cold month. Weekly average prices continued to reflect the yield losses and ranged from $24.28 to $26.67.

February 2016South Florida vegetable crops were heavily impacted by the cold and wet weather conditions the past eight weeks with yields on many items off by 30 to 50 percent. Also disease was rampant increasing fungicide applications and increasing production costs dramatically. All production areas remained free of frost or freeze damage but fronts were often accompanied by heavy winds and some rain. Weekly average prices continued to reflect reductions in yield and ranged from $16.14 to $23.80.

March 2016The month of March began to turn to a more normal weather pattern with dryer conditions prevailing throughout the production areas. Crops responded to improving conditions and the prospects of improving yields was beginning to become evident. Harvesting continued in Districts 1, 2, and 3. District

4 plantings were progressing toward maturity without the stressful condition that prevailed during the earlier growing seasons. Weekly average prices continued to reflect earlier growing conditions and ranged from $14.73 to $14.94.

April 2016 The typical dry season weather pattern continued to prevail in all production areas, Harvest neared completion in Dade county and continued in Districts 2 and 3. The Palmetto-Ruskin area began the spring season in the latter half of the month. Yields began to rise and prices reflected the increased volume. Weekly average prices ranged from $5.47 to $14.01.

May 2016Spring weather in the early half of the month and summer by the end of the month. Crops were finishing in District 3 and well under way in District 4. The increasing volume after significant yield reductions for the last three months’ resulted in severe drop in prices. Weekly prices ranged from $4.08 to $5.72.

June 2016 Summer weather began to be the dominate climate pattern for the first half of June as the season ended. These rains began to impact supply as the season was coming to a close. Prices remain depressed for the last two weeks and regulated harvest ended. Average weekly prices for the first two weeks of June ranged from $6.08 to $8.00.

MARKET SHAREThe largest share of imports to the U.S. market come from Mexico and continue to be at the expense of U.S. production. Tables 10 and 13 in this report reflect the complex varying share of the market in the United States.

45%

10%

43%

2%

2014-2015

44%

10%

43%

3%

2013-2014

39%

11%

48%

2%

2015-2016

Florida Mexico Open Field Mexico Adapted Enviroment Mexico controlled Enviroment

During most of this marketing period, Florida tomatoes competed with tomatoes imported from Canada, Mexico, and various European and Caribbean Basin countries rather than with domestic tomatoes. When grade, size, quality, and maturity regulations are in effect under the Order, the minimum requirements also apply to competing imports, except greenhouse tomatoes that are exempt from the order. Total Mexican import figures for all round tomatoes this season were up from last year’s shipments. According to the Tomato Fax Report, Mexico had its largest shipments of round tomatoes, including open field, adapted environment and controlled environment, during the months of January, February, March, and April, shipping approximately 8.0, 8.1, 9.9, and

7.67 million 25-lb. equivalents respectively during those months. All round tomato crossings from Mexico during the 2015-2016 season were approximately 52,302,800 25-lb. equivalent cartons. This is 7,957,740 25-lb. equivalent cartons more than the 44,345,060 25-lb. equivalent cartons shipped during the 2014-2015 season and 6,819,600 25-lb. equivalent cartons more than the 45,483,200 25-lb. equivalent cartons shipped during the 2013-2014 season. All Mexican round tomato shipments during Florida’s season were up approximately 17.9% compared to the previous season and up 15% from the 2013-2014 season.

TOMATO IMPORTS SUMMARY

2

EDUCATION AND PROMOTION SUMMARYThe Committee engages marketing programs during each shipping season to help boost Florida tomato movement through advertising, research, and customized marketing activities as well as providing promotional resources to the industry and trade.

In the 2015-2016 season, the Committee teamed up with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) for a promotional partnership that spread across retail, foodservice, and consumer platforms. Specifically, this partnership served as the cornerstone of the Committee’s retail marketing efforts on a national and regional level. Further, the FDACS helped to push Florida Tomatoes’ message of availability, health, and usage to families throughout the southeast as part of a multi-state consumer print, online, and television campaign.

RETAILAs part of the “Fresh From Florida” partnership with the Florida Tomato Committee, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) implemented a robust marketing campaign in 2016 to promote Florida tomatoes. Beginning in February, a television campaign was launched featuring four different recipes using Florida tomatoes. The television ads ran for eight weeks on over 85 stations in ten major markets throughout the state. To support the TV advertising, a digital campaign was also implemented on geo targeted sites including Foodnetwork.com, CookingChannelTV.com and RachaelRay.com. Print ads appeared in Southern Lady and Garden & Gun magazines and on billboards throughout Florida reading, “Buy Florida Tomatoes, In Stores Now”. They were also used during this same period to reinforce the TV campaign message. Throughout the year, Blog posts and Sponsored social media posts on Facebook and Instagram were used to promote Florida tomatoes as well.

FDACS once again implemented a retail reimbursement program this year whereby retailers nationwide are compensated when featuring Florida tomatoes in store advertising. Over 30 retailers in the US and Canada ran 26,981 store ads featuring Florida tomatoes. Twenty-two in-store tomato sampling events were conducted to support the retail advertising campaign.The value of the 2015-16 Florida Tomato Marketing Campaign was $918,270.

FDACS PARTNERSHIP HIGHLIGHTS F TV Advertising Campaign in ten

major FL markets

F Outdoor Billboard in major FL markets

F Digital Campaign: Food Network, Cooking Channel and Rachael Ray

F Thirty retailers in U.S. and Canada ran 26,981 store ads featuring Florida Tomatoes

F In-Store Sampling in 22 stores during the retail advertising campaign

F Print – Southern Lady and Garden and Gun

3

FLORIDA TOMATO COMMITTEE SPONSORS CHEF JUSTIN TIMINERI DURING PMA FOODSERVICE LUNCHEON On behalf of Florida tomato growers, Florida Chef Justin Timineri engaged an active luncheon crowd during the PMA Foodservice Conference. Chef Justin prepared an incredible Florida Tomato BLT dish for audience members during his demonstration, where he talked to buyers and attendees about why they should make sure the tomatoes they order or cook with must be from Florida! His Florida tomato recipes were provided to buyers and conference attendees as part of a take-home recipe booklet.

• 3 lbs. of Florida tomatoes cored and chopped - really ripe, full-flavor ones

• 2 red peppers, cooked in oven until blistered and starting to turn black (peel, de-seed and chop)

• 1 garlic clove, crushed• 2 cups granulated sugar• 1/4 cup fresh lemon juice• 2 tsp red pepper flakes• 1 tbsp fresh ginger• 1 tsp salt• 1/4 tsp cumin• 1 small red chili, de-seeded and

chopped fine

1. Combine all ingredients in a pan and bring to a medium high heat while constantly stirring.

2. Reduce the heat once it has boiled for a couple of minutes and simmer until mixture has a jam-like consistency (about 2.5 hours; a half-recipe cooks in 1.5 hours).

3. Remainder can be stored in glass container.

YIELD: Approximately 3 pints

TOMATO CHILI JAM

Annie Low, Okanagan College

CULINARY CONTESTThe final judging for the Fresh Florida Tomato Student Recipe Contest was held in New York City on June 22, where a panel of judges tasted and evaluated four finalists’ recipes, submitted by Canadian culinary students. Judges from Food Network productions, restaurant industry publishers, and chef consultants evaluated the dishes on their taste, appearance, and use of fresh field-grown Florida tomatoes.

The third place dish, Tomato Eggplant Stack, layered fried eggplant, mozzarella, and tomato, topped with a fresh tomato mayo. Second place was won with a Florida Tomato Iced Tea, which added roasted tomato flavor to a Bloody Mary type drink. The Tomato Chili Jam from Annie Low of Okanagan College took the top prize of $1,000. Judges agreed it was, “a really great jam with a nice balance of sweet and spicy!”

Once again the culinary students showed a diverse use of fresh tomatoes and had the chance to work with field grown tomatoes from Florida.

4

MARKET ACCESS AND PROMOTION

CANADAThe 2015-16 Market Access Program (MAP) efforts to expand the Florida Tomato Committee’s MAP Canada (trade – retail) to include secondary and tertiary food retailers across Canada paid large dividends in PY2015/16 as Canada’s food retail sector contracted considerably. Canada’s ‘Big Five’ food retailers who collectively account for >70% of Canada’s supermarket sales i.e., Loblaw Companies Limited, Sobeys Inc., Walmart Canada Corp., Metro Inc., and the Overwaitea Food Group, as well as Costco Wholesale Canada, continued to expand their operations through new build-outs, renovations and / or retail acquisitions to grow market share nationally and / or provincially. Specific to Loblaw, Sobeys and the Overwaitea Food Group, each equally continued to consolidate procurement and / or banner operations that reduced year-over-year trade – retail promotion opportunities. With proactive foresight and trade outreach that commenced two program years earlier, in a contracted marketplace, the Florida Tomato Committee’s MAP Canada targeted 42 retailers in PY2015/16. Of those retailers targeted, over three-quarters (76.2% vs. 73.9% YAGO) sourced, listed, purchased and marketed in-store Florida tomatoes this past season, with almost two-thirds (62.9% vs. 58.7% YAGO) sourcing Florida tomatoes for 16 weeks or more. When one considers that from January through April ’16 Florida tomato volumes were significantly reduced and corresponding FOBs higher (this coupled with Canada’s reduce purchasing dollar value ($0.75 USD)), it’s evident that a many Canadian retailers continue to value and view positively Florida tomatoes as a vital fresh tomato category contributor!

Competitively in 2015/16, North America’s greenhouse industry continued to expand physically i.e., acreage, production and varieties. With favorable growing conditions in BC and Ontario, greenhouse growers had record yields that resulted in higher overall quality. As a result, competition within the greenhouse industry remained intense, with large promotable volumes available from February through the end of Florida’s shipping season. To meet the growing organic needs of retailers (e.g., organic TOV sales up +39% YOY), Canada’s greenhouse industry continued to devote more and expand their production of organic tomatoes (and other greenhouse-grown products). As demand for organically-grown produce increases at store level, more supply is needed hence the greenhouse industry’s rapid response to fill the trade’s organic requirements. With Ontario’s greenhouse production growing steadily for the past half-dozen years by between five and six percent annually (150-acres each year), provincial government funded / supported promotions such as the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers’ ‘Spring into Flavor’ continue to attract and

receive strong(er) trade support and participation through enhanced in-store merchandising and display and / or weekly flyer advertising support. In Quebec with its more than 8,000 food stores and retailers of all stripes served by la belle province’s 500+ greenhouse growers, the latter is now seeking the province to lower its threshold for preferential energy tariffs to reduce greenhouse production costs (electricity usage roughly accounts for 10% of QC’s total production costs). As further background, Quebec’s greenhouse industry has seen their market share decrease at roughly the same rate as the market share has increased for growers in neighboring Ontario whose provincial government provides Ontario growers with preferential tariffs on natural gas for greenhouse heating. While the growing production and varietal capacity of North America’s greenhouse industry is daunting, from October through May, a vast majority (75%) of Canadians would reach for / would purchase a U.S. (Florida) tomato versus a Mexican-grown tomato. And from March to May when Canada’s and Mexico’s greenhouse industry are both in peak production mode and competition highest, almost two-thirds (64.3%) of the targeted retailers the FTC targeted in PY2015/16 continued to source, in-store merchandising and market, and strategically promote fresh Florida tomatoes!

Fresh tomato dollar sales during Florida’s shipping season grew YOY by +9% to almost $455 million yet overall pounds actually sold at retail YOY declined by -1%. After getting off to an incredible early season start, regrettably tighter supplies of Florida tomatoes from January through April resulted in fewer tomatoes exported to Canada this past program year. Filling much of that void particularly from March onwards when the Canadian market was awash with Mexican romas, was roma tomatoes whose YOY dollar sales surged +24% and whose category share (by volume) increased to 15.2 (from 12.6). In populous Ontario, Florida tomatoes DID realize tremendous gains in dollar and volume sales (i.e., 4064s +39% YOY dollar sales / +14% YOY volume growth). In the Maritimes, sales of 4064s increased by +324%, this past Florida tomato shipping season (despite mid-season availability challenges) continuing to build on trade gains the industry has realized dating back to MY2009/10. It’s equally a reflection of and directly correlated to the Florida tomato industry’s continued commitment to and support of the USAT MAP program in Canada.

5

Despite this season’s availability challenges, Florida tomatoes remain Canada’s foodservice sector’s #1, most preferred / most trusted / most often and specifically sourced and purchased fresh tomato type of choice, especially by heavy QSR and fast casual operators from October / November through mid-June! ember through mid-June. This past season did see some QSRs temporarily revert from Florida red rounds to Mexican romas and / or CDN / MX greenhouse beefs however, when late season Florida volumes and availability did improve, Canada’s major foodservice distributors and operators immediately returned – with confidence – to Florida for their fresh tomato needs. With health, nutrition and value three driving messaging principles Canada’s foodservice sector continues to pursue, the Florida tomato industry continues to remain well positioned to drive and grow overall foodservice sector sales moving forward. That said, North American greenhouse industry at-large, and Canadian greenhouse producers specifically – the latter continuing to receive funding support from select provincial governments to expand sector entry points by domestically leveraging ‘Buy Canada / Buy Local / Support Your Local Farmers’ marketing campaigns in this coveted sector renowned for its stable, week-over-week fresh tomato requirements and sales, cannot be overlooked or underestimated. The greenhouse industry is relentless…

With over 500 SKU permutations available to Canadian retailers and foodservice operators … and many new SKUs introduced annually … Canada’s fresh tomato category remains as competitive and as overcrowded as ever. As the first or second most important fresh produce category, a typical Canadian produce department now showcases a minimum of 20 different tomato varieties and / or pack sizes (with some retailers showcasing 35+)! With tomato varieties and pack sizes far outstripping available retail (shelf) space, retailers are continuously rationalizing (i.e., delisting and adding) tomato varieties and / or pack sizes to their mix. For Florida tomato producers and exporters, while the Canadian retail and foodservice landscape is awash in domestic and imported greenhouse tomatoes, from October through June, after TOVs, trusted and superior tasting / more flavorful Florida tomatoes ARE Canadian shopper’s second most preferred variety within the fresh tomato category! In very large numbers, Canadian shoppers are clearly looking for Florida (and U.S.) field-grown tomatoes from their preferred food retailer year-round … a compelling business reason that annually is shared with Canadian retailers to encourage them to (re)consider, newly list and / or increase the amount of shelf space devoted to Florida (U.S.) field-grown tomatoes as part of their regular fresh tomato category mix.

MY2014/15 FTC MAP CANADA PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS:

F 42 major supermarket chains and key independent retailers versus a plan of 29 retailers were targeted & approached to participate in the FTC’s MAP Canada program

F 76.2% (vs. 73.9% YAGO) of retailers approached ultimately listed, sourced and marketed fresh Florida tomatoes this past shipping season

F Of these, 61.9% (vs. 58.7% YAGO) sourced and marketed Florida tomatoes for 16 weeks or more

F In March – May when the Florida tomato industry faces its stiffest competition from Mexico AND Canadian field, shade and / or greenhouse producers, crucially more than six-in-ten (64.3% vs. 58.7% YAGO) of Canadian retailers listed, sourced, marketed and strategically promoted Florida tomatoes

F One-third (33.3% vs. 28.3% YAGO) of targeted retailers made formal qualifying submissions for FTC / FAS / USAT MAP Canada adjudication and approval

F 79 (vs. 73 YAGO) dedicated / qualifying Florida tomato ad placements were generated this past season, this the MAP Canada’s second highest ad placement ad total ever despite limited mid-season availability of Florida tomatoes coupled with tremendous spring greenhouse, shade and / or field volumes out of Mexico and Canada that was awash from mid-March onwards

• 33 (all-time record) Florida tomato ads appeared in the November – December promotional window; 12 appeared in January – February; 11 appeared in March – April; 23 appeared in May - June

F Vital to the Florida tomato industry and (again) despite more limited mid-season availability, every major Canadian foodservice distributor, wholesaler and repacker consistently sourced fresh Florida tomatoes throughout the past shipping season.

• GFS Canada / Fresh Start Foods East & West undertook a late season six-week Florida tomato foodservice promotion that moved almost 50,000 cases

F Amongst Canada’s Top 10 foodservice operators who are the heaviest users of fresh tomatoes, Florida remains their #1, most trusted, most preferred and specifically sourced fresh tomato

Although purchasing habits/preferences of tomatoes of Canadian shoppers have changed slightly since 2012, results since 2015 remain fairly stable. Tomatoes on the vine continue to be the top choice for Canadian shoppers.

6

CANADIAN’S PREFERENCE FOR U.S. FIELD-GROWN TOMATOES:

F Canadians preference for fresh tomatoes remains fairly consistent with past consumer research. Canadians most preferred type remains TOVs / cluster tomatoes (52%), reversing a four-year decline, with field-grown (round) tomatoes their second most preferred choice (41%). Red rounds YOY (slight) decline is largely attributable to red rounds being much higher priced and of more limited availability from January to April this past season. That also accounts for roma’s slightly increased preference. Cherry / grape tomatoes and greenhouse beefs are Canadians’ third and fourth most popular preference…

F Almost six-in-ten (58%) of Canadian shoppers believe that field-grown tomatoes are superior in taste and flavor versus greenhouse tomatoes, the former up significantly from last year. Field-grown tomatoes have an almost five-fold superior taste / flavor rating vs. greenhouse / hothouse-grown tomatoes

F 69% (compared to 51% YAGO) of Canadian shoppers clearly state that field-grown tomatoes are superior in taste than greenhouse / hothouse tomatoes

F Canadian shoppers continue to show an overwhelming preference for US-grown tomatoes (75% vs. 78% YAGO) vs. Mexican-grown tomatoes (25% vs. 22% YAGO) … though this figure annually continues to tighten

The Florida Tomato Committee’s MAP Canada funded program significantly expanded its targeted retailer outreach (+58%) in MY2014/15. This effort helped the Florida tomato industry to enhance its export sales potential over a broader number of Canada’s major supermarket chains and key independent retailers after almost all targeted retailers in MY2013/14 (i.e., 90%) listed and sourced fresh Florida tomatoes – this in the face of significant (and continuing) in-category competition from North American greenhouse producers and the plethora of new varieties and / or pack sizes they’re constantly introducing. In the face of nearly overwhelming greenhouse competition, Canadian retailers are actively and specifically looking for, sourcing and strategically marketing Florida tomatoes in-season, with the FTC’s MAP Canada program strongly supporting trade and consumer education, sales, marketing and promotional activities.

Trusted and known for their consistent quality, size, firmness, versatility, slice ability and value, fresh Florida tomatoes remain Canada’s foodservice sector’s #1, most preferred and purchased fresh tomato type of choice, especially by heavy QSR and fast casual operators, from October/November through mid-June. With Canada’s foodservice sector expected to see sales top $60-billion in 2015/16 led by the continued expansion of QSRs – many whom are adding new menu items inclusive of sliced tomatoes to their patron offerings – the Florida tomato industry still remains well positioned to maintain and increase its overall foodservice sector penetration and sales moving forward. That said, North American greenhouse producers at-large, and Canadian greenhouse producers specifically – the latter financially and promotionally supported by provincial ‘Buy Local’ marketing campaigns – continue to aggressively pursue entry points by leveraging ‘Buy Canada / Buy Local / Support Your Local Farmers’ positioning mantras in this coveted sector renowned for its stable, week-over-week fresh tomato requirements and sales.

7

2015-2016 RESEARCH SUMMARYDuring the 2015-2016 season, the Committee funded four University of Florida projects and one with the Center for Produce Safety at Davis, CA for food safety research.

Proposals were provided to the Research sub-committee for their review and selection for recommendation to the Committee. Printed versions of the projects were reviewed and are available upon request. The Committee approved the recommendation for funding.

The Committee supports research in areas that address issues relevant to the well being of the Florida Tomato industry. These projects are funded on an annual review and recommendation procedure to ensure that the funded projects are meaningful and relevant. The sub-Committee will continue to recommend projects to meet the current and prospective needs of the Florida tomato industry.

FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION FUNDINGFlorida Tomato Committee • 2015-2016

Title

Advanced Cucomposites against Curesistant strains of Xanthomonas perforans causing bacterial spot of tomato

Reducing reliance on neonicotinoid insecticides for Florida tomato growers

Using a natural inducer of systemic acquired resistance to increase tomato disease resistance

Genetic Improvement of Tomatoes for Florida Production

Center for Produce Safety

Contingency

Leader(s)

Mathews ParetJeff JonesGary ValladJosh FreemanSwadeshmukul Santra

Hugh Smith

Zhonglin MouJeffrey B. Jones

S.F. HuttonG.E. Vallad

TOTAL

Funded

$39,040

$41,299

$25,000

$160,000

$100,000

$34,661

$400,000

No.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

8

DISTRICT 4

DISTRICT 2

DISTRICT 3

DISTRICT 1

Wakulla

FLORIDA TOMATO COMMITTEE REGULATED AREAthat portion of the State of Florida situated East of the Suwannee River and South of the Georgia border

FLORIDA TOMATO COMMITTEE PRODUCTION AREAthe counties of Pinellas, Hillsborough, Polk, Osceola, and Brevard and all counties situated South thereof.

REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE SUMMARYRegulatory Bulletin No. 1, issued August 25, 2015, outlined the initial regulations for the 2015-2016 season. Regulations required Registered Handlers to provide pack-out figures daily; to pay assessments in a timely manner; and to be registered with the Committee in order to obtain inspection to ship tomatoes out of the regulated area. They defined the minimum and maximum diameters for all sizes and required all tomatoes packed by Registered Handlers to be in new containers of 10, 20, or 25 pounds net weight. The name and address of the Registered Handler must be printed on each container.

As in past seasons, the Agricultural Law Enforcement Uniformed Operations Section of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and representatives of the Federal-State Fruit & Vegetable Inspection Service were extremely cooperative in assisting the Florida Tomato Committee staff and the Southeast Marketing Field Office of the USDA in their enforcement efforts. Registered Handlers also assisted in the Committee’s compliance efforts by calling in tips on possible illegal activities. These tips were greatly appreciated and often proved highly effective in detecting and apprehending violators as well as preventing violations before they actually occurred.

During the 2015-2016 season, Florida Agricultural Law Enforcement intercepted 51 shipments in violation of the Marketing Order and Florida Tomato Good Agricultural Practices Regulations. Some of these interceptions involved legitimate shipments that did not have the proper inspection certificates, and, in these cases, the violators secured proper certification and were permitted to proceed to their destinations. Others had tomatoes donated to charitable institutions or destroyed. The remainder returned to the point of shipment for proper inspection.

The Committee staff continued to work with the USDA’s AMS Southeast Marketing Field Office and Compliance Section for federal investigations of serious violators and possible prosecutions. Collecting late assessments from Registered Handlers was successful again this season due to the cooperative efforts of the USDA. Strong efforts will continue next season to enforce the regulations of the Marketing Order.

9

INITIAL REGULATIONS 2015-16FLORIDA TOMATO COMMITTEE800 Trafalgar Court, Suite 300

Maitland, FL 32751

Telephone: (407) 660-1949 August 25, 2015

HANDLING REGULATIONSDuring the period October 10 through midnight June 15 of each year, unless rescinded or amended, no person shall handle any lot of tomatoes produced in the production area for shipment outside of the regulated area unless they meet the requirements of Paragraph (a) or are exempted by Paragraphs (b) or (d). Note: The Florida state rule requirements on food safety [Chapter 5G-6], are applicable to all fresh tomatoes packed in Florida and must be followed in addition to the regulations stated herein.*

(a) GRADE, SIZE, CONTAINER AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS (1) GRADE Tomatoes shall be graded and meet the requirements for U.S. No. 1, U.S. Combination or U.S. No. 2 of the

U.S. Standards for Grades of Fresh Tomatoes. When not more than 15 percent of tomatoes in any lot fail to meet the requirements of U.S. No. 1 grade and not more than one-third of this 15 percent (or 5 percent) are comprised of defects causing very serious damage, including not more than one percent of tomatoes which are soft or affected by decay, such tomatoes may be shipped and designated as at least 85% U.S. No. 1 grade.

(2) SIZE (i) All tomatoes packed by a Registered Handler shall be at least 2-9/32 inches in diameter and be sized with

proper equipment in one or more of the following ranges of diameters. Measurements of diameters shall be in accordance with the methods prescribed in §51.1859 of the U.S. Standards for Grades of Fresh Tomatoes.

Inches Size Classification Min.Diameter Max.Diameter 6x7 2- 9/32 2-19/32 6x6 2-17/32 2-29/32 5x6 2-25/32

(ii) Tomatoes of designated sizes may not be commingled and each container or lid shall be marked to indicate the designated size.

(iii) Only 6x7, 6x6 and 5x6 may be used to indicate the above listed size designations on containers of tomatoes.

(iv) To allow for variations incident to proper sizing, not more than a total of 10 percent, by count, of the tomatoes in any lot may be smaller than the specified minimum diameter or larger than the maximum diameter.

(3) CONTAINERS (i) All tomatoes packed by a Registered Handler shall be in containers of 10, 20 or 25 pounds designated net

weights and the designated net weight of the contents shall not be less than the designated net weight and shall not exceed the designated weight by more than two pounds. Section 51.1863 of the U.S. Tomato Standards shall apply to all containers.

(ii) Each container or lid shall be marked to indicate the designated net weight and must show the name and address of the Registered Handler (as defined in §966.7) in letters at least one-fourth (1/4) inch high and such containers must be packed at the Registered Handler’s facilities. The use of inverted, previously printed container lids is limited to the registered handler identified by the labels or marks that originally appeared on the lid.

(iii) The containers in which tomatoes are packed must be clean and bright in appearance without marks, stains, or other evidence of previous use.

10

(4) INSPECTION Tomatoes shall be inspected and certified pursuant to the provisions of §966.60. Each Handler who applies for inspection shall register with the Committee pursuant to §966.113. Persons not certified by the Committee as a Registered Handler shall be issued inspection certificates on shipments handled by such persons stating, “Fails to meet the requirements of Marketing Order No. 966 because the handler is not a Registered Handler.” Evidence of inspection must accompany truck shipments.

(b) SPECIAL PURPOSE SHIPMENTS The requirements of Paragraph (a) of this section shall not be applicable to shipments of tomatoes for pickling, processing, experimental purposes, relief, charity, export or other outlets recommended by the Committee and approved by the Secretary if the Handler thereof complies with the safeguard requirements of Paragraph (c) of this section. Shipments for processing are also exempt from the assessment requirements of this part.

(c) SAFEGUARDS Each Handler making special purpose shipments of tomatoes in accordance with Paragraph (b) of this section shall:

(1) Apply to the Committee and obtain a Certificate of Privilege to make such shipments.

(2) Prepare on forms furnished by the Committee a report in quadruplicate on such shipments authorized in Paragraph (b) of this section.

(3) Bill or consign each shipment directly to the designated applicable receiver.

(4) One copy of such report will be forwarded to the Committee office and two copies to the receiver for signing and returning one copy to the Committee office. Failure of the Handler or receiver to report such shipments by signing and returning the applicable report to the Committee office within ten days after shipment may be cause for cancellation of such Handler’s certificate and/or receiver’s eligibility to receive further shipments pursuant to such certificate. Upon cancellation of any such certificate, the Handler may appeal to the Committee for reconsideration.

(5) Make shipments only to those who have qualified with the Committee as approved receivers. (Note: this regulation is authorized and defined through section 966.124, cited below) §966.124 Approved receiver.

(a) Any person who desires to acquire, as an approved receiver, tomatoes for special purpose shipment shall file an application with the Committee on this form, which shall contain, but not be limited to the following information:

(1) Name, address, contact person, telephone number, and e-mail address of applicant; (2) Purpose of shipment; (3) Physical address of where manufacturing or other specified purpose is to occur; (4) Whether or not the receiver packs, repacks or sells fresh tomatoes; (5) A statement that the tomatoes obtained exempt from the fresh tomato regulations will not be resold

or transferred for resale, directly or indirectly, but will be used only for the purpose specified in the corresponding certificate of privilege;

(6) A statement agreeing to undergo random inspection by the Committee; (7) A statement agreeing to submit such reports as is required by the Committee.

(b) The Committee, or its duly authorized agents, shall give prompt consideration to each application for an approved receiver and shall determine whether the application is approved or disapproved and notify the applicant accordingly.

(c) The Committee, or its duly authorized agents, may rescind a person’s approved receiver status upon proof satisfactory that such a receiver has handled tomatoes contrary to the provisions established under the

11

Certificate of Privilege. Such action rescinding approved receiver status shall apply to and not exceed a reasonable period of time as determined by the Committee or its duly authorized agents. Any person who has been denied as an approved receiver or who has had their approved receiver status rescinded, may appeal to the Committee for reconsideration. Such an appeal shall be made in writing.

(d) EXEMPTIONS (1) For Types. The following types of tomatoes are exempt from these regulations: Elongated types commonly referred

to as pear-shaped or paste tomatoes and including but not limited to San Marzano, Red Top and Roma varieties; cerasiform type tomatoes commonly referred to as cherry tomatoes; hydroponic tomatoes; and greenhouse tomatoes. Specialty packed red ripe tomatoes, yellow-meated tomatoes, and single and two-layer place-packed tomatoes are exempt from the container net weight requirements specified in Paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, and the requirement that each container or lid shall be marked to indicate the designated net weight as specified in Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, but must meet all other requirements. Producer field-packed tomatoes must meet all of the requirements of this section except: The requirement that all containers must be packed at Registered Handler facilities as specified in Paragraph (a)(3)(ii); the requirement that such tomatoes designated as size 6x6 must meet the maximum diameter requirement specified in Paragraph (a)(2)(i) and the labeling requirement specified in Paragraph (a)(2)(iii): Provided, that “6x6 and larger” is used to indicate the listed size designation on containers.

(2) For Minimum Quantity. For purposes of these regulations each person subject thereto may handle up to but not to exceed 50 pounds of tomatoes per day without regard to the requirements of these regulations, but this exemption shall not apply to any shipment or any portion thereof of over 50 pounds of tomatoes.

(3) For Special Packed Tomatoes. Tomatoes resorted, regraded and repacked by a Handler who has been designated as a “Certified Tomato Repacker” by the Committee are exempt from the tomato grade classifications of Paragraph (a)(1), except that the tomatoes must grade U.S. No. 2 or better; the size classifications of Paragraph (a)(2), except that the tomatoes shall be at least 2-9/32 inches in diameter; and the container weight requirements of Paragraph (a)(3), if such tomatoes comply with the inspection requirements of Paragraph (a)(4).

(4) For Varieties. Upon recommendation of the Committee, the Secretary from the provisions of Paragraph (a)(2), Size, may exempt varieties of tomatoes that are elongated or otherwise misshapen due to adverse growing conditions.

(5) For UglyRipe™ and Vintage Ripes™ tomatoes. UglyRipe™ and Vintage Ripes™ tomatoes must meet all the requirements of this section: Provided, that UglyRipe™ and Vintage Ripes™ tomatoes shall be graded and at least meet the requirements specified for U.S. No. 2 under the U.S. Standards for Grades of Fresh Tomatoes, except they are exempt from the requirements that they be reasonably well formed and not more than slightly rough, and Provided, Further that the UglyRipe™ and Vintage Ripes™ tomatoes meet the requirements of the Identity Preservation Program, Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA.

(e) REPORT OF PACKOUTS Each Registered Handler shall, at the end of each day during which handling activities have been conducted, or the

following morning as the Committee may prescribe, provide to the Committee or its designated agent a complete and accurate accounting of the number of containers of tomatoes packed that day. The report shall include an accounting of the grade, size, maturity and net weight of the containers packed in each such category. The total packout report shall be provided to the Committee or its authorized agent in a timely fashion that allows the Committee to compile a daily, industry-wide packout report. Failure of a Registered Handler to provide such packout data to the Committee or its authorized agent may result in cancellation of the Registered Handler’s certificate.

(f) ASSESSMENTS Handlers shall pay assessments as provided in §966.42. Assessment will be based on inspection certificates supplied to

the Committee by the Federal-State Inspection Service. Failure of a Registered Handler to pay assessments in a timely manner, as defined by the Committee, may result in cancellation of the Registered Handler’s certificate pursuant to §966.113, thus making that Handler ineligible to ship tomatoes outside of the regulated area. The assessment rate for the 2015-16 season is $.03 per 25LB-equivalent.

12

(g) DEFINITIONS Hydroponic tomatoes means tomatoes grown in solution without soil; greenhouse tomatoes means tomatoes grown

indoors; specialty packed red ripe tomatoes means tomatoes which at the time of inspection are #5 or #6 color (according to color classification requirements in the U.S. tomato standards) with their calyx ends and stems attached and cell packed in a single layer container; and producer field-packed tomatoes means tomatoes which at the time of inspection are #3 color or higher (according to color classification requirements in the U.S. tomato standards), that are picked and place packed in new containers in the field by a producer as defined in §966.150 and transferred to a registered handler’s facilities for final preparation for market (Note: The Florida state rule requirements on food safety [Chapter 5G-6], are applicable to all fresh tomatoes packed in Florida and must be followed in addition to the regulations stated herein*). A Certified Tomato Repacker is a repacker of tomatoes in the regulated area who has the facilities for handling, regrading, resorting, and repacking tomatoes into consumer sized packages and has been certified as such by the Committee. Processing as used in §§966.120 and 966.323 means the manufacture of any tomato product which has been converted into juice, or preserved by any commercial process, including canning, dehydrating, drying, and the addition of chemical substances. Further, all processing procedures must result in a product that does not require refrigeration until opened. Pickling as used in §§966.120 and 966.323 means to preserve tomatoes in a brine or vinegar solution. U.S. tomato standards means the revised United States Standards for Fresh Tomatoes (7 CFR 51.1855 through 51.1877), effective October 1, 1991, as amended, or variations thereof specified in this section. Other terms in this section shall have the same meaning as when used in Marketing Agreement No. 125, as amended, and this part, and the U.S. tomato standards.

* For further information on Florida state food safety regulations on packing fresh tomatoes contact the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services at (863) 291-5820.

FLORIDA TOMATO COMMITTEE

13

Two meetings of the Committee membership were held this season. These meetings occurred on August 25, 2015 and September 10, 2015. Additionally, district nomination meetings were held on 29th and 31st of March 2016. A brief description of the actions taken at the Committee meetings follow:

On August 25, 2015, a meeting was held at the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, Maitland, Florida. Ms. Doris Jamieson, USDA, AMS, presented the Secretary of Agriculture’s selection order for the 2015-2016 season with new Committee Members and Alternates selected as follows:

COMMITTEE MEETINGS SUMMARY

DISTRICT 1 Kern Carpenter, Secretary Michael Borek Homestead 33031 Princeton 33092

Tony DiMare, Chairman Paul J. DiMare Ruskin 33575-0967 Homestead 33090

DISTRICT 2 Mark Mecca Bob Spence Lake Worth 33467 Mulberry 33860

David Neill Patrick B. Engle Ft. Pierce, FL 34954 Ft. Pierce, FL 34954

DISTRICT 3 Jon Esformes Billy L. Heller Palmetto 34220 Palmetto 34220

Mike W. Sullivan, Treasurer Christian Leleu Naples 34110 Naples 34110

Toby Purse Kent Shoemaker Immokalee 34143 Immokalee 34143

Robin Levine-Provent Bruce Provent Immokalee 34142 Immokalee 34142

DISTRICT 4 James Grainger Brian Turner Palmetto 34220 Palmetto 34221

Bob Spencer D.C. McClure Palmetto 34220 Palmetto 34220

John Harllee IV Mike Hunsader Palmetto 34220 Bradenton 34211 Frank Diehl, Vice Chairman Doug Diehl Wimauma 33598 Wimauma 33598

FLORIDA TOMATO COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND ALTERNATES 2015-2016 SEASON

The Committee voted unanimously to elect the following officers: Tony DiMare; Chairman, Frank Diehl; Vice Chairman, Kern Carpenter; Secretary, Mike Sullivan; Treasurer, and to hire Reggie Brown as Manager.

Tony DiMare moved to ratify the action of officers, members, and staff for the 2013-2014 season.

Reggie Brown presented the 2014-2015 Budget with comparison to the 2013-2014 expenditures. He further explained that with an assessment rate of .03¢ and an estimated crop of 35 million 25-lb. equivalents the estimated revenue will be $1,312,500.

14

The following MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT between the Florida Tomato Committee, Florida Tomato Exchange and Florida Tomato Growers Exchange was explained and approved for submission to the USDA.

“MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT” BETWEENFLORIDA TOMATO COMMITTEE AND FLORIDA TOMATO EXCHANGE AND FLORIDA TOMATO GROWERS EXCHANGE

The Florida Tomato Committee (Committee), established under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (Act), and Marketing Agreement No. 125 and Marketing Order No. 966, Tomatoes Grown in Florida (Order), hereby enters into a MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT with the Florida Tomato Exchange (FTE) and the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange (FTGE), both non-profit agricultural cooperative associations formed under Florida Statutes, Chapter 619 F.S. in 1974.

It is recognized that the Committee, the FTE and the FTGE have been established to assist in the continuation and development of the Florida tomato industry, and that each must perform different, but complementary aspects of that task. The sharing of staff, facilities, equipment, and expenses is an efficient way to accomplish each organization’s goals.

The purpose of this MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT is to establish a framework to enable the Committee and the Exchanges to utilize the Committee’s staff, facilities, and equipment without compromising, interfering, or altering in any manner, the responsibilities required of each party. FTE and FTGE agree to pay FTC for specific administrative support and use of equipment (identified herein) by FTC staff and hereby mutually agree to the following:

The primary responsibility for management of the Florida Tomato marketing order will rest with the Chairman of the Committee or his designated agent. The Chairman may delegate certain responsibilities to the Manager or to members of the FTC staff. The Exchanges agree to pay the Committee $40,000 for management and related services.

All employees shall be deemed to be employees of the Committee whenever they perform Committee business or handle confidential reports filed with the Committee. Such employees shall comply with all Federal Marketing Order provisions and applicable Federal statutes with respect to official actions made on behalf of the Committee.

All funds of the Committee and the Exchanges shall be maintained separately, in individual bank accounts and separate books and records of each shall be maintained. The Exchanges records are proprietary information of the Exchanges and are kept confidential without the express, written consent in advance of the Chairman of the Exchange in question.

Marketing order committee members, staff, and management, in their official capacities, are prohibited from taking any action specifically designed to influence legislation, including any attempt to influence public opinion concerning legislation. Committee members, staff, and management, in their official capacities, may not communicate with any official of a State or Federal Legislative body for the purpose of attempting to influence legislation. Committee members, staff, and management, in their official capacities, are also prohibited from attempting to influence state or federal government actions or policies or those of foreign governments, except as specifically authorized under the marketing order or expressly approved by the Secretary. It is understood by all parties to this MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT that no marketing order funds may be used for the purpose of lobbying.

This Management Agreement is effective on the date each party listed below has signed and it shall remain in effect for one year or until a new MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT is signed. This MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT may be amended, repealed, or revised at any time by mutual consent of all parties concerned or may be terminated by any party giving 60 days written notice thereof to the other parties or immediately by mutual consent of all parties.

_______________________________________________________________ ________________________________Chairperson DateFLORIDA TOMATO COMMITTEE

_______________________________________________________________ ________________________________President DateFLORIDA TOMATO EXCHANGE

_______________________________________________________________ ________________________________President DateFLORIDA TOMATO GROWERS EXCHANGE

Acknowledged:

_______________________________________________________________ ________________________________Regional Manager DateSOUTHEAST MARKETING FIELD OFFICEMARKETING ORDER ADMINISTRATION BRANCHAGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE, USDA

15

Mike Sullivan moved that the MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT be approved as written. Seconded by Bob Spencer. Carried unanimously.

Reggie Brown presented the proposed 2015-2016 Compliance Plan, Marketing Policy, and Initial Regulations. In an executive session, the Committee provided direction to Manager on Skip Jonas’ Retirement package and the severance package for Samantha Daves with unanimous approval. The Manager reviewed the events for the Annual Tomato Conference in Naples on September 8-11, 2015.

On September 10, 2015 the Committee met at The Ritz Carlton, Naples, Florida. Reggie Brown presented the Secretary of Agriculture’s 2015-2016 selection order. He also presented an overview of Committee operations and budget.

Tony DiMare discussed the sub-Committee recommendations.

The 2014-2015 FTC Annual Report was approved.

Jackie Moalli, from FDACS- Division of Marketing, gave a presentation about “Fresh From Florida Marketing Outreach on behalf of Florida’s Agricultural Industry.”

Dr. Jackie Burns, Dean of Research, IFAS, presented the IFAS Research Report.

Reggie Brown formally thanked the sponsors for their generous support of the Annual Tomato Conference. He also announced the location of Skip Jonas’ retirement luncheon.

On March 29 and March 31, 2016, nomination meetings were held in each of the four districts to select members and alternates to serve on the Florida Tomato Committee during the 2016-2017 season. The list of those nominations was forwarded to Secretary of Agriculture for his consideration in appointing the 2016-2017 Committee.

STATISTICS

Each Federal-State Inspection Supervisor reported the details of the tomatoes packed the previous day under the inspection of his crew in terms of grade, size, maturity, and container weights. The information was compiled in the Committee office and remained confidential. The totals were not disseminated to Registered Handlers this season.

During the season, USDA’s Fruit and Vegetable Market News Service obtained F.O.B. price information for grade and size of tomatoes for the daily TOMATO FAX REPORT. The TOMATO FAX REPORT does not report field pack or packinghouse pink F.O.B. prices. For the purposes of this report and to reflect common practices in the market, packinghouse pinks were assigned a price one dollar down from mature green prices while field packs were assigned the same price as mature greens. In most cases, these reported prices and sales figures are inflated since the common practice of price adjustments after sales on declining markets are not reported to the Committee office and the information is not available by any other means.

Committee staff compiled a summary of total daily pack-outs from inspection certificates and prices from the TOMATO FAX REPORT. This provided the Committee with a detailed analysis of Florida shipments in terms of volume, price per unit, and total dollars returned for each grade and size of green and color packed tomatoes. Import tomato figures were derived from the Market News Service TOMATO FAX REPORT and online data available at USDA’s Foreign Agriculture Service web site and the International Trade Commission web site.

The tables in this report reflect summaries of the raw data collected above. The annual summary of the shipments was compiled and is reproduced in the statistical section of this report as Table One. The total volume in this table is the total of the weekly shipments, and the sales dollars are the total of the weekly returns. The average prices shown were calculated to the nearest cent; therefore, the volume times calculated prices will not necessarily result in the exact sales dollars in the table. Tables Two, Three, Four, and Five provide the same information for each district. Tables Six, Seven, Eight, and Nine present weekly shipments with the exceptions of June 13, 14, and 15, which is remaining individual days of the season and indicated with an asterisk as such. Table Ten shows a five-year comparison of annual 25-lb. equivalents of field tomatoes shipped from Florida and Mexico.

Tables Eleven and Twelve show five-year and six-year historical information on shipments by district and totals. Table Thirteen compares Florida shipments to Mexican imports (In Table Thirteen, June data is for June 1 through June 15 only and is indicated with a double asterisk.) Table Fourteen compares the season’s weekly average prices to packouts. Tables Fifteen, Sixteen, and Seventeen compare weekly average prices and packouts for this season and the previous season.

Appreciation is hereby expressed to the Florida Agricultural Statistics Service; Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; Federal-State Inspection Service; U.S. Market News Service; Foreign Agriculture Service and the many others who have assisted in developing the statistical information, which is so vital to the administration of the Florida Tomato Marketing Agreement and Order.

16

TABLE ONE2015-2016 ANNUAL SUMMARY

ANALYSIS OF SHIPMENTS AND SALESSTATE

GREENS 25-LB. EQUIVALENTS PINKS 25-LB. EQUIVALENTS

% of % of % of % ofGrade Total Avg. Total Sales Total Avg. Total Salesand Size Containers Shipped Price Sales Dollars Containers Shipped Price Sales Dollars

85% U.S. 1 OR BETTER

5 X 6/Larger 6,584,044 23.31 $12.13 25.10 $79,890,083.00 52,194 0.18 $16.41 0.27 $856,269.96

6 X 6 4,788,123 16.95 $12.21 18.37 $58,476,415.00 19,778 0.07 $14.38 0.09 $284,456.00

6 X 7 2,839,898 10.06 $12.17 10.86 $34,574,359.00 5,539 0.02 $14.04 0.02 $77,746.00

TOTAL 14,212,065 50.32 $12.17 54.32 $172,940,857.00 77,511 0.27 $15.72 0.38 $1,218,471.96

U.S. COMBINATION

5 X 6/Larger 2,863,558 10.14 $9.93 8.93 $28,429,748.00 1,249,282 4.42 $8.85 3.47 $11,052,982.00

6 X 6 2,035,316 7.21 $10.79 6.90 $21,957,680.00 347,197 1.23 $10.31 1.12 $3,577,952.20

6 X 7 1,294,932 4.59 $10.50 4.27 $13,601,266.00 93,653 0.33 $11.02 0.32 $1,032,314.00

TOTAL 6,193,806 21.93 $10.33 20.10 $63,988,694.00 1,690,132 5.98 $9.27 4.92 $15,663,248.20

U.S. TWO

5 X 6/Larger 1,524,817 5.40 $9.83 4.71 $14,991,303.00 1,679,037 5.95 $10.04 5.30 $16,860,217.20

6 X 6 1,228,406 4.35 $11.22 4.33 $13,782,785.60 395,698 1.40 $12.28 1.53 $4,859,217.60

6 X 7 1,112,386 3.94 $11.32 3.96 $12,593,526.00 128,009 0.45 $11.33 0.46 $1,450,349.40

TOTAL 3,865,608 13.69 $10.70 12.99 $41,367,614.60 2,202,743 7.80 $10.52 7.28 $23,169,784.20

TOTALS

5 X 6 Larger 10,972,419 38.85 $11.24 38.73 $123,311,134.00 2,980,513 10.55 $9.65 9.04 $28,769,469.16

6 X 6 8,051,845 28.51 $11.70 29.60 $94,216,880.60 762,673 2.70 $11.44 2.74 $8,721,625.80

6 X 7 5,247,216 18.58 $11.58 19.09 $60,769,151.00 227,201 0.80 $11.27 0.80 $2,560,409.40

TOTAL 24,271,479 85.94 $11.47 87.42 $278,297,165.60 3,970,386 14.06 $10.09 12.58 $40,051,504.36

TOTAL SALES $318,348,669.96

TOTAL 25-LB. EQUIVALENTS 28,241,866

AVERAGE PRICE PER 25-LB. EQUIVALENTS $11.27

17

TABLE TWO2015-2016 ANNUAL SUMMARY

ANALYSIS OF SHIPMENTS AND SALESDISTRICT 1




5 X 6/Larger 367,073 27.76 $18.69 30.48 $6,860,423.00 630 0.05 $0.00 0.05 $10,710.00

6 X 6 382,659 28.94 $17.58 29.89 $6,727,261.00 0 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00

6 X 7 253,623 19.18 $16.57 18.67 $4,201,462.00 0 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00

TOTAL 1,003,355 75.88 $17.73 79.04 $17,789,146.00 630 0.05 0.00 0.05 $10,710.00

U.S. COMBINATION

5 X 6/Larger 4,679 0.35 $16.74 0.35 $78,325.00 82,415 6.23 $14.32 5.24 $1,179,905.00

6 X 6 284 0.02 $24.00 0.03 $6,816.00 39,445 2.98 $14.43 2.53 $569,142.00

6 X 7 0 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 $0.00 25,235 1.91 $13.14 1.47 $331,658.00

TOTAL 4,963 0.38 $17.16 0.38 $85,141.00 147,095 11.12 $13.14 9.25 $2,080,705.00

U.S. TWO

5 X 6/Larger 57,471 4.35 $15.97 4.08 $918,030.00 22,024 1.67 $15.51 1.52 $341,669.00

6 X 6 44,321 3.35 $15.18 2.99 $672,960.00 7,077 0.54 $15.99 0.50 $113,136.00

6 X 7 32,248 2.44 $13.85 1.98 $446,525.00 3,104 0.23 $15.39 0.21 $47,770.00

TOTAL 134,040 10.14 $15.20 9.05 $2,037,515.00 32,205 2.44 $15.61 2.23 $502,575.00

TOTALS

5 X 6 Larger 429,223 32.46 $18.30 34.91 $7,856,778.00 105,069 7.95 $14.58 6.81 $1,532,284.00

6 X 6 427,264 37.40 $17.34 32.91 $7,407,037.00 46,522 3.52 $14.67 3.03 $682,278.00

6 X 7 285,871 21.62 $16.26 20.65 $4,647,987.00 28,339 2.14 $13.39 1.69 $379,428.00

TOTAL 1,142,358 86.39 $17.43 88.47 $19,911,802.00 179,930 13.61 $14.42 11.53 $2,593,990.00

TOTAL SALES $22,505,792.00



18

TABLE THREE2015-2016 ANNUAL SUMMARY





5 X 6/Larger 176,366 24.03 $14.96 25.08 $2,638,521.00 49,837 6.79 $16.45 7.79 $819,642.96

6 X 6 143,930 19.61 $14.69 20.10 $2,113,980.00 19,305 2.63 $14.21 2.61 $274,311.00

6 X 7 24,779 3.38 $13.37 3.15 $331,395.00 5,402 0.74 $13.79 0.71 $74,519.00

TOTAL 345,075 47.01 $14.73 48.33 $5,083,896.00 74,544 10.15 $15.67 11.11 $1,168,472.96

U.S. COMBINATION

5 X 6/Larger 70,614 9.62 $14.25 9.57 $1,006,378.00 21,239 2.89 $15.71 3.17 $333,759.00

6 X 6 50,242 6.84 $13.57 6.48 $681,567.00 25,263 3.44 $15.13 3.63 $382,236.80

6 X 7 52,618 7.17 $12.76 6.38 $671,642.00 18,256 2.49 $11.54 2.00 $210,717.00

TOTAL 173,474 23.63 $13.60 22.43 $2,359,587.00 64,758 8.82 $11.54 8.81 $926,712.80

U.S. TWO

5 X 6/Larger 38,863 5.29 $12.29 4.54 $477,597.00 10,641 1.45 $15.47 #REF! $164,564.00

6 X 6 14,608 1.99 $11.56 1.61 $168,906.00 7,040 0.96 $16.41 1.10 $115,524.00

6 X 7 5,078 0.69 $10.72 0.52 $54,457.00 6 0.00 $20.00 0.00 $120.00

TOTAL 58,549 7.98 $11.97 6.66 $700,960.00 17,687 2.41 $15.84 2.66 $280,208.00

TOTALS

5 X 6 Larger 285,843 38.94 $14.42 39.19 $4,122,496.00 81,717 11.13 $16.13 12.53 $1,317,965.96

6 X 6 208,780 28.44 $14.20 28.18 $2,964,453.00 51,608 7.03 $14.96 7.34 $772,071.80

6 X 7 82,475 11.24 $12.82 10.05 $1,057,494.00 23,664 3.22 $12.06 2.71 $285,356.00

TOTAL 577,098 78.61 $14.11 77.42 $8,144,443.00 156,989 21.39 $15.13 22.58 $2,375,393.76

TOTAL SALES $10,519,836.76

TOTAL 25-LB. EQUIVALENTS 734,087


19

TABLE FOUR2015-2016 ANNUAL SUMMARY





5 X 6/Larger 2,086,637 20.68 $13.94 22.84 $29,081,872.00 538 0.01 $15.00 0.01 $8,070.00

6 X 6 1,663,232 16.48 $13.60 17.76 $22,612,718.00 0 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 $0.00

6 X 7 1,328,704 13.17 $13.24 13.81 $17,591,977.00 0 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 $0.00

TOTAL 5,078,573 50.32 $13.64 54.41 $69,286,567.00 538 0.01 $15.00 0.01 $8,070.00

U.S. COMBINATION

5 X 6/Larger 680,648 6.74 $11.62 6.21 $7,907,202.00 26,554 0.26 $8.22 0.17 $218,308.00

6 X 6 593,750 5.88 $11.14 5.20 $6,617,222.00 5,656 0.06 $8.52 0.04 $48,179.00

6 X 7 596,654 5.91 $10.41 4.88 $6,212,800.00 2,602 0.03 $10.27 0.02 $26,734.00

TOTAL 1,871,052 18.54 $11.08 16.28 $20,737,224.00 34,812 0.34 $10.27 0.23 $293,221.00

U.S. TWO

5 X 6/Larger 419,072 4.15 $12.41 4.08 $5,199,141.00 1,249,265 12.38 $10.64 10.44 $13,292,092.80

6 X 6 449,142 4.45 $13.43 4.74 $6,032,760.60 298,821 2.96 $12.96 3.04 $3,873,458.60

6 X 7 588,600 5.83 $12.64 5.84 $7,441,826.00 102,430 1.01 $11.50 0.93 $1,178,158.40

OTAL 1,456,813 14.43 $12.82 14.66 $18,673,727.60 1,650,516 16.35 $11.11 14.41 $18,343,709.80

TOTALS

5 X 6 Larger 3,186,357 31.57 $13.24 33.13 $42,188,215.00 1,276,357 12.65 $10.59 10.62 $13,518,470.80

6 X 6 2,706,124 26.81 $13.03 27.69 $35,262,700.60 304,477 3.02 $12.88 3.08 $3,921,637.60

6 X 7 2,513,958 24.91 $12.43 24.54 $31,246,603.00 105,032 1.04 $11.47 0.95 $1,204,892.40

TOTAL 8,406,438 83.30 $12.93 85.36 $108,697,518.60 1,685,866 16.70 $11.06 14.64 $18,645,000.80

TOTAL SALES $127,342,519.40



20

TABLE FIVE2015-2016 ANNUAL SUMMARY

ANALYSIS OF SHIPMENTS AND SALES DISTRICT 4




5 X 6/Larger 3,953,968 24.60 $10.45 26.12 $41,309,267.00 1,189 0.01 0.00 0.01 $17,847.00

6 X 6 2,598,302 16.17 $10.40 17.09 $27,022,456.00 473 0.00 0.00 0.01 $10,145.00

6 X 7 1,232,792 7.67 $10.22 7.97 $12,596,513.00 137 0.00 0.00 0.00 $3,227.00

TOTAL 7,785,062 48.44 $10.40 51.18 $80,928,236.00 1,799 0.01 0.00 0.02 $31,219.00

U.S. COMBINATION

5 X 6/Larger 2,107,617 13.11 $9.22 12.29 $19,437,843.00 1,107,720 6.89 $8.41 5.89 $9,321,010.00

6 X 6 1,391,040 8.66 $10.53 9.27 $14,652,075.00 272,942 1.70 $9.45 1.63 $2,578,394.40

6 X 7 645,660 4.02 $10.40 4.25 $6,716,824.00 46,378 0.29 $9.99 0.29 $463,205.00

TOTAL 4,144,317 25.79 $9.85 25.81 $40,806,742.00 1,427,040 8.88 $9.99 7.82 $12,362,609.40

U.S. TWO

5 X 6/Larger 1,009,411 6.28 $8.32 5.31 $8,396,535.00 392,199 2.44 $7.81 1.94 $3,061,891.40

6 X 6 720,335 4.48 $9.59 4.37 $6,908,159.00 82,418 0.51 $9.19 0.48 $757,099.00

6 X 7 486,460 3.03 $9.56 2.94 $4,650,718.00 22,389 0.14 $10.02 0.14 $224,301.00

TOTAL 2,216,206 13.79 $9.00 12.62 $19,955,412.00 497,006 3.09 $8.14 2.56 $4,043,291.40

TOTALS

5 X 6 Larger 7,070,996 44.00 $9.78 43.73 $69,143,645.00 1,501,107 9.34 $8.26 7.84 $12,400,748.40

6 X 6 4,709,677 29.30 $10.32 30.72 $48,582,690.00 355,833 2.21 $9.40 2.12 $3,345,638.40

6 X 7 2,364,912 14.72 $10.13 15.15 $23,964,055.00 68,904 0.43 $10.02 0.44 $690,733.00

TOTAL 14,145,585 88.02 $10.02 89.61 $141,690,390.00 1,925,844 11.98 $8.54 10.39 $16,437,119.80

TOTAL SALES $158,127,509.80



21

TA

BLE

SIX

2015

-20

16 P

AC

KA

GE

S, A

VE

RA

GE

F.O

.B. P

RIC

ES

AN

D T

OT

AL

SA

LES

BY

WE

EK

S

G

reen

s P

inks

A

ll M

atur

itie

s D

ate

A

vg.

To

tal S

ales

Avg

. T

ota

l Sal

es

A

vg.

To

tal S

ales

W/E

P

acka

ges

F

.O.B

. Pri

ce

(Do

llars

) P

acka

ges

F

.O.B

. Pri

ce

(Do

llars

) P

acka

ges

F

.O.B

. Pri

ce

(Do

llars

) O

ct. 2

5 9

2,24

3 $

17.9

7 $

1,657

,475

.00

11

,334

$

17.9

5 $

203,

40

8.0

0

103,

577

$17

.97

$1,8

60

,88

3.0

0

No

v. 0

1 4

21,6

52

$14

.26

$

6,0

13,2

23.0

0

58,9

81

$14

.22

$8

38,9

90

.80

4

80

,633

$

14.2

6

$6

,852

,213

.80

No

v. 0

8

86

1,40

6

$10

.12

$8

,719

,34

7.0

0

104

,224

$

9.3

8

$9

77,7

55.6

4

96

5,6

30

$10

.04

$

9,6

97,

102.

64

No

v. 1

5 9

65,

267

$7.

13

$6

,88

3,0

79.0

0

133,

876

$

5.8

6

$78

4,5

92.

12

1,09

9,14

3 $

6.9

8

$7,

66

7,6

71.12

No

v. 2

2 1,1

79,9

96

$

6.2

1 $

7,32

7,20

3.0

0

185,

347

$5.

26

$9

74,3

65.

00

1,3

65,

343

$6

.08

$

8,3

01,5

68

.00

No

v. 2

9

1,29

5,56

9

$5.

66

$

7,33

4,2

23.0

0

173,

878

$

4.5

5 $

791,1

91.2

0

1,46

9,4

47

$5.

53

$8

,125,

414

.20

Dec

. 06

1,2

34,3

37

$9

.39

$

11,5

89

,30

7.0

0

139

,29

8

$8

.43

$1,1

74,7

02.

44

1,3

73,6

35

$9

.29

$

12,7

64

,00

9.4

4

Dec

. 13

89

4,5

27

$15

.67

$14

,016

,129

.00

19

0,5

91

$14

.43

$2,

750

,157.

60

1,0

85,

118

$

15.4

5 $

16,7

66

,28

6.6

0

Dec

. 20

55

0,2

76

$19

.17

$10

,551

,196

.00

11

9,7

06

$

17.15

$

2,0

53,11

5.52

6

69

,98

2 $

18.8

1 $

12,6

04

,311

.52

Dec

. 27

532,

44

1 $

24.6

7 $

13,13

2,72

5.0

0

95,

577

$22

.15

$2,

116

,89

6.8

0

628

,018

$

24.2

8

$15

,24

9,6

21.8

0

Jan.

3, 1

6

555,

031

$

24.6

3 $

13,6

70,0

86

.00

8

2,71

4

$22

.95

$1,8

98

,04

0.6

0

637

,74

5 $

24.4

1 $

15,5

68

,126

.60

Jan.

10

8

47,

580

$

24.4

9

$20

,753

,415

.00

12

7,9

41

$23

.65

$3,

026

,332

.48

9

75,5

21

$24

.38

$

23,7

79,7

47.

48

Jan.

17

49

4,2

68

$

25.5

7 $

12,6

38,0

64

.00

10

2,15

2 $

24.3

6

$2,

48

8,0

80

.44

59

6,4

20

$25

.36

$

15,12

6,14

4.4

4

Jan.

24

4

24,0

62

$26

.57

$11

,26

9,2

64

.00

6

3,6

28

$25

.32

$1,6

11,0

47.

00

4

87,

69

0

$26

.41

$12

,88

0,3

11.0

0

Jan.

31

44

3,0

82

$26

.85

$11

,89

6,6

22.0

0

37,7

04

$

24.5

2 $

924

,38

2.9

2 4

80

,78

6

$26

.67

$12

,821

,00

4.9

2

Feb

. 07

394

,824

$

24.0

3 $

9,4

87,

623

.00

4

0,17

9

$21

.56

$

86

6,4

10.8

8

435

,00

3 $

23.8

0

$10

,354

,033

.88

Feb

. 14

31

9,6

59

$17

.15

$5,

48

1,79

7.0

0

68

,99

4

$13

.34

$

920

,633

.76

38

8,6

53

$16

.47

$6

,40

2,4

30.7

6

Feb

. 21

304

,626

$

16.5

2 $

5,0

31,0

12.0

0

43,

029

$

13.5

1 $

581,4

83.

80

34

7,6

55

$16

.14

$5,

612

,49

5.8

0

Feb

. 28

33

5,23

3 $

16.6

3 $

5,57

4,7

40

.00

4

9,6

78

$13

.95

$6

92,

90

2.76

38

4,9

11

$16

.28

$

6,2

67,

64

2.76

Mar

. 06

53

2,17

9

$15

.12

$8

,04

4,8

43.

20

77,3

50

$13

.73

$1,0

62,

056

.08

6

09

,530

$

14.9

4

$9

,106

,89

9.2

8

Mar

. 13

596

,670

$

14.9

3 $

8,9

10,5

95.

00

11

0,10

6

$13

.66

$

1,50

3,54

4.3

6

706

,776

$

14.7

3 $

10,4

14,13

9.3

6

Mar

. 20

4

53,5

67

$15

.05

$6

,825

,450

.00

16

0,9

80

$

14.2

9

$2,

300

,70

9.9

6

614

,54

7 $

14.8

5 $

9,12

6,15

9.9

6

Mar

. 27

387,

474

$

14.9

5 $

5,79

0,9

59.0

0

128

,48

9

$13

.57

$1,7

42,

973

.20

51

5,9

63

$14

.60

$

7,53

3,9

32.2

0

Ap

r. 0

3 51

9,5

62

$14

.25

$7,

40

6,2

90

.00

9

4,0

69

$

12.6

8

$1,1

92,

552.

20

613

,631

$

14.0

1 $

8,5

98

,84

2.20

Ap

r. 1

0

771,2

58

$9

.60

$

7,4

02,

413

.40

10

5,50

9

$8

.11

$8

56,0

41.5

2 8

76,7

67

$9

.42

$8

,258

,454

.92

Ap

r. 1

7 73

8,2

77

$7.

20

$5,

318

,728

.00

11

6,5

14

$5.

71

$6

65,

64

8.6

0

854

,79

1 $

7.0

0

$5,

98

4,3

76.6

0

Ap

r. 2

4

1,16

6,8

28

$6

.96

$

8,12

3,0

66

.00

18

4,0

74

$5.

75

$1,0

57,8

42.

76

1,350

,90

2 $

6.8

0

$9

,180

,90

8.7

6

May

01

1,44

9,2

17

$5.

62

$8

,139

,44

0.0

0

148

,970

$

4.0

1 $

597,

019

.20

1,5

98

,187

$5.

47

$8

,736

,459

.20

May

08

1,3

66

,720

$

5.0

5 $

6,9

04

,04

4.0

0

340

,26

8

$2.

82

$9

58,9

16.8

0

1,70

6,9

88

$

4.6

1 $

7,8

62,

96

0.8

0

May

15

1,511

,833

$

4.3

0

$6

,49

6,3

44

.00

18

7,4

11

$2.

29

$4

28,3

20.0

0

1,69

9,2

44

$

4.0

8

$6

,924

,66

4.0

0

May

22

1,159

,174

$

5.78

$

6,6

95,

714

.00

21

1,628

$

4.13

$

874

,89

8.6

0

1,370

,80

2 $

5.52

$

7,57

0,6

12.6

0

May

29

9

04

,60

2 $

6.0

7 $

5,4

91,5

32.0

0

178

,06

8

$3.

94

$

701,3

40

.72

1,08

2,6

70

$5.

72

$6

,192,

872

.72

Jun

5 4

75,8

92

$6

.43

$3,

059

,89

1.00

72

,654

$

3.79

$

275,

670

.00

54

8,5

46

$

6.0

8

$3,

335,

561.0

0

Jun

12

92,

106

$

7.18

$

66

0,9

37.0

0

18,7

99

$

5.78

$

108

,615

.00

11

0,9

05

$6

.94

$

769

,552

.00

Jun

13*

41

$9

.49

$

389

.00

2,

88

1 $

8.0

0

$23

,04

8.0

0

2,9

22

$8

.02

$23

,437

.00

Jun

14*

0

#D

IV/0

! $

0.0

0

2,9

86

$

7.18

$

21,4

36.8

0

2,9

86

$

7.18

$

21,4

36.8

0

Jun

15*

0

#D

IV/0

! $

0.0

0

798

$

8.0

0

$6

,38

0.8

0

798

$

8.0

0

$6

,38

0.8

0

TO

TA

LS

24,2

71,4

79

11.4

66

015

73

$278

,29

7,16

5.6

0

3,9

70,3

86

$10

.09

$4

0,0

51,5

04

.36

28

,24

1,86

6

11.2

7222

509

$3

18,3

48,

66

9.9

6

22

TABLE SEVEN2015-2016

WEEKLY SHIPMENTS OF GREENS BY SIZE25-LB. EQUIVALENTS

DATE 5 X 6 6 X 6 6 X 7 TOTALS

Oct. 11, 15 0 0 0 0

Oct. 18 0 0 0 0

Oct. 25 50,103 30,103 12,037 92,243

Nov. 01 190,106 147,669 83,877 421,652

Nov. 08 396,871 300,791 163,744 861,406

Nov. 15 410,430 349,470 205,367 965,267

Nov. 22 490,527 412,539 276,930 1,179,996

Nov. 29 502,337 473,303 319,929 1,295,569

Dec. 06 609,277 421,933 203,127 1,234,337

Dec. 13 475,928 277,463 141,136 894,527

Dec. 20 224,782 192,965 132,529 550,276

Dec. 27 141,240 200,365 190,836 532,441

Jan. 3, 16 127,373 191,687 235,971 555,031

Jan. 10 272,931 302,193 272,456 847,580

Jan. 17 188,992 168,855 136,421 494,268

Jan. 24 158,912 153,441 111,709 424,062

Jan. 31 206,765 157,407 78,910 443,082

Feb. 07 225,994 115,695 53,135 394,824

Feb. 14 161,726 102,341 55,592 319,659

Feb. 21 134,097 97,132 73,397 304,626

Feb. 28 96,772 123,666 114,795 335,233

Mar. 06 145,612 188,478 198,089 532,179

Mar. 13 236,078 182,086 178,506 596,670

Mar. 20 146,794 150,009 156,764 453,567

Mar. 27 126,173 132,431 128,870 387,474

Apr. 03 178,973 182,427 158,162 519,562

Apr. 10 317,074 259,086 195,099 771,258

Apr. 17 290,762 239,374 208,141 738,277

Apr. 24 579,221 364,603 223,004 1,166,828

May 01 895,931 376,867 176,419 1,449,217

May 08 783,803 387,517 195,400 1,366,720

May 15 839,766 458,106 213,961 1,511,833

May 22 654,422 362,710 142,042 1,159,174

May 29 498,193 307,635 98,774 904,602

Jun 5 189,926 199,631 86,335 475,892

Jun 12 24,498 41,856 25,752 92,106

Jun 13* 30 11 0 41

Jun 14* 0 0 0 0

Jun 15* 0 0 0 0

TOTALS 10,972,419 8,051,845 5,247,216 24,271,479

21

TABLE EIGHT2015-2016

WEEKLY SHIPMENTS OF PINKS BY SIZE25-LB. EQUIVALENTS

DATE 5 X 6 6 X 6 6 X 7 TOTALS

Oct. 11, 15 0 0 0 0

Oct. 18 0 0 0 0

Oct. 25 9,586 1,597 151 11,334

Nov. 01 47,744 9,917 1,320 58,981

Nov. 08 87,077 14,996 2,151 104,224

Nov. 15 98,840 30,763 4,273 133,876

Nov. 22 153,078 26,411 5,857 185,347

Nov. 29 139,921 30,359 3,598 173,878

Dec. 06 99,831 32,026 7,441 139,298

Dec. 13 135,544 45,549 9,498 190,591

Dec. 20 85,388 27,204 7,114 119,706

Dec. 27 71,017 21,207 3,354 95,577

Jan. 3, 16 51,445 25,239 6,030 82,714

Jan. 10 67,576 43,610 16,755 127,941

Jan. 17 61,469 26,741 13,942 102,152

Jan. 24 42,797 12,597 8,235 63,628

Jan. 31 24,315 8,495 4,894 37,704

Feb. 07 32,071 6,332 1,776 40,179

Feb. 14 55,424 11,866 1,704 68,994

Feb. 21 32,801 7,759 2,470 43,029

Feb. 28 36,178 10,300 3,200 49,678

Mar. 06 47,304 19,671 10,375 77,350

Mar. 13 64,758 30,097 15,251 110,106

Mar. 20 103,981 37,869 19,130 160,980

Mar. 27 81,179 34,168 13,141 128,489

Apr. 03 55,276 25,663 13,130 94,069

Apr. 10 71,691 23,437 10,381 105,509

Apr. 17 84,941 20,866 10,707 116,514

Apr. 24 138,959 35,464 9,651 184,074

May 01 123,611 20,632 4,727 148,970

May 08 300,882 34,762 4,624 340,268

May 15 166,765 18,348 2,298 187,411

May 22 180,464 27,153 4,010 211,628

May 29 151,918 23,244 2,906 178,068

Jun 5 61,940 10,083 631 72,654

Jun 12 11,988 5,337 1,474 18,799

Jun 13* 1,604 1,157 120 2,881

Jun 14* 562 1,632 792 2,986

Jun 15* 588 120 90 798

TOTALS 2,980,513 762,673 227,201 3,970,386

22

TABLE NINE2015-2016

WEEKLY SHIPMENTS OF 25-LB. EQUIVALENTS AND PERCENTAGES BY DISTRICTALL MATURITIES

DATE W/E DISTRICT NO. 1 DISTRICT NO. 2 DISTRICT NO. 3 DISTRICT NO. 4 TOTALS

Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount %

Oct. 11, 15 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0

Oct. 18 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0

Oct. 25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 103,572 100.00 103,572

Nov. 01 0 0.00 7,913 1.65 31,002 6.45 441,718 91.90 480,633

Nov. 08 0 0.00 7,438 0.77 267,648 27.72 690,544 71.51 965,630

Nov. 15 0 0.00 16,283 1.48 324,372 29.51 758,498 69.01 1,099,153

Nov. 22 32,585 2.39 16,771 1.23 390,420 28.60 925,567 67.79 1,365,343

Nov. 29 34,334 2.34 21,442 1.46 572,984 38.99 840,687 57.21 1,469,447

Dec. 06 53,080 3.86 23,921 1.74 374,597 27.27 922,046 67.12 1,373,644

Dec. 13 81,384 7.50 36,368 3.35 298,569 27.51 668,797 61.63 1,085,118

Dec. 20 35,746 5.34 20,695 3.09 245,936 36.71 367,605 54.87 669,982

Dec. 27 36,392 5.79 13,963 2.22 255,297 40.65 322,367 51.33 628,019

Jan. 3, 16 45,368 7.11 20,312 3.18 330,735 51.86 241,330 37.84 637,745

Jan. 10 119,214 12.22 28,503 2.92 439,347 45.04 388,457 39.82 975,521

Jan. 17 60,339 10.12 21,377 3.58 352,949 59.18 161,756 27.12 596,421

Jan. 24 35,549 7.29 19,178 3.93 264,796 54.30 168,167 34.48 487,690

Jan. 31 37,698 7.84 12,919 2.69 255,326 53.11 174,843 36.37 480,786

Feb. 07 39,208 9.01 15,055 3.46 250,621 57.61 130,120 29.91 435,004

Feb. 14 45,008 11.58 21,956 5.65 197,648 50.85 124,040 31.92 388,652

Feb. 21 32,770 9.43 26,413 7.60 201,118 57.85 87,355 25.13 347,656

Feb. 28 72,560 18.85 20,995 5.45 183,722 47.73 107,634 27.96 384,911

Mar. 06 71,399 11.71 45,902 7.53 332,554 54.56 159,674 26.20 609,529

Mar. 13 84,666 11.98 38,845 5.50 371,413 52.55 211,853 29.97 706,777

Mar. 20 87,675 14.27 48,553 7.90 314,543 51.18 163,777 26.65 614,548

Mar. 27 73,780 14.30 33,295 6.45 233,883 45.33 175,005 33.92 515,963

Apr. 03 85,381 13.91 25,056 4.08 280,398 45.69 222,796 36.31 613,631

Apr. 10 106,644 12.47 48,607 5.69 404,543 47.31 295,206 34.53 855,000

Apr. 17 35,444 4.15 33,259 3.89 431,258 50.45 354,830 41.51 854,791

Apr. 24 9,916 0.73 30,413 2.25 540,288 39.99 770,285 57.02 1,350,902

May 01 1,905 0.12 15,676 0.98 470,663 29.45 1,109,942 69.45 1,598,186

May 08 3,811 0.22 5,054 0.30 487,004 28.53 1,211,119 70.95 1,706,988

May 15 432 0.03 5,647 0.33 445,327 26.21 1,247,838 73.43 1,699,244

May 22 0 0.00 206 0.02 248,126 18.10 1,122,470 81.88 1,370,802

May 29 0 0.00 30,108 2.78 229,451 21.19 823,113 76.03 1,082,672

Jun 5 0 0.00 18,970 3.46 62,422 11.38 467,154 85.16 548,546

Jun 12 0 0.00 3,004 2.71 1,907 1.72 105,994 95.57 110,905

Jun 13* 0 0.00 0 0.00 934 31.96 1,988 68.04 2,922

Jun 14* 0 0.00 0 0.00 503 16.85 2,482 83.15 2,985

Jun 15* 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 798 100.00 798

TOTAL 1,322,288 4.69 734,097 2.60 10,092,304 35.76 16,071,427 56.95 28,220,116

23

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-2016Mexico 13,520,000 15,097,600 45,463,200 44,345,060 52,302,800

Florida 38,175,363 35,520,319 35,654,265 36,502,094 28,241,866

13,520

,000

15,097

,600

45,463

,200

44,345

,060

52,302

,800

38,175

,363

35,520

,319

35,654

,265

36,502

,094

28,241

,866

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

25-LBEq

uivalents

Table(10)FiveYearComparison

TABLE TENFIVE YEAR COMPARISON

*Due to changes in reporting descriptions, Mexican numbers include all round tomato categories for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016

DISTRICT1 DISTRICT2 DISTRICT3 DISTRICT4 ALLDISTS.2011-12 2,832,732 7.42% 1,065,850 2.79% 12,588,647 32.98% 21,688,134 56.81% 38,175,363

2012-13 3,146,789 8.86% 1,147,267 3.23% 12,611,956 35.51% 18,614,004 52.40% 35,520,016

2013-14 2,185,267 6.13% 1,120,198 3.14% 13,188,505 36.99% 19,160,295 53.74% 35,654,265

2014-15 2,342,928 6.42% 889,557 2.44% 11,999,915 32.87% 21269693.6 58.27% 36,502,094

2015-16 1,322,288 4.70% 734,087 2.60% 10,092,304 35.86% 16,071,429 57.10% 28,141,866

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

40,000,000

45,000,000

25-L

BEq

uiva

lent

s

Table(11)FiveYearHistoryofPackoutsbyDistrictandTotal

TABLE ELEVENFIVE YEAR HISTORY OF SHIPMENTS BY DISTRICT AND TOTAL

24

TABLE TWELVEHISTORICAL DATA

TOTAL SHIPMENTS OF 25-LB. EQUIVALENTS AND VALUE BY DISTRICTS

ALL MATURITIES

Districts Season Total Value Average Price Shipments Per 25-LB. Equivalent

One 2010-11 2,436,840 $44,268,481.00 $18.17

2011-12 2,832,732 $19,790,356.00 $6.99

2012-13 3,146,789 $30,272,144.00 $9.62

2013-14 2,185,267 $22,332,077.00 $10.22

2014-15 2,342,928 $25,139,816.00 $10.73

2015-16 1,322,288 $22,505,792.00 $17.02

Two 2010-11 467,902 $7,472,592.00 $15.97

2011-12 1,065,850 $7,174,599.00 $6.73

2012-13 1,147,267 $12,132,710.00 $10.58

2013-14 1,120,198 $11,498,552.00 $10.26

2014-15 889,557 $9,500,977.00 $10.68

2015-16 734,087 $10,519,837.00 $14.33

Three 2010-11 12,405,936 $155,685,710.00 $12.55

2011-12 12,588,647 $77,529,908.00 $6.16

2012-13 12,611,956 $124,434,228.00 $9.87

2013-14 13,188,505 $127,779,035.00 $9.69

2014-15 11,999,915 $127,023,966.00 $10.59

2015-16 10,092,504 $127,342,519.00 $12.62

Four 2010-11 20,789,959 $223,400,788.00 $10.75

2011-12 21,688,134 $148,165,597.00 $6.83

2012-13 18,614,004 $211,046,225.00 $11.34

2013-14 19,160,295 $186,402,938.00 $9.73

2014-15 21,269,694 $224,448,052.40 $10.55

2015-16 16,071,429 $158,127,510.00 $9.84

All 2010-11 36,100,637 $430,827,571.00 $11.93

2011-12 38,175,363 $252,660,460.00 $6.62

2012-13 35,520,016 $377,885,319.00 $10.64

2013-14 35,654,265 $348,012,602.00 $9.76

2014-15 36,502,094 $386,112,811.40 $10.58

2015-16 28,241,866 $318,348,670.00 $11.27

25

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun**FLRounds 264,000 4,035,200 5,256,000 6,153,600 3,568,000 5,456,000 5,532,800 6,857,600 934,400

FLRoma 84,800 806,400 798,400 988,800 769,600 1,038,400 1,081,600 1,059,200 206,400

FLCherry 56,000 196,800 147,200 244,800 193,600 286,400 259,200 204,800 8,000

FLGrape 203,200 606,400 496,000 675,200 448,000 803,200 856,000 824,000 80,000

FLTotal 608,000 5,644,800 6,697,600 8,062,400 4,979,200 7,584,000 7,729,600 8,945,600 1,228,800

MXRounds 3,638,400 3,800,000 5,096,000 7,379,200 6,934,400 7,732,800 6,475,200 4,200,000 1,782,400

MXRoma 2,227,200 2,185,600 3,436,800 5,172,800 4,409,600 4,451,200 4,788,800 4,172,800 2,176,000

MXCherry 100,800 128,000 225,600 323,200 340,800 200,000 123,200 129,600 51,200

MXGrape 179,200 278,400 553,600 689,600 761,600 644,800 409,600 492,800 144,000

MXTotal 6,145,600 6,392,000 9,312,000 13,564,800 12,446,400 13,028,800 11,796,800 8,995,200 4,153,600

TotalMX+FL 6,753,600 12,036,800 16,009,600 21,627,200 17,425,600 20,612,800 19,526,400 17,940,800 5,382,400

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

25-LBS

Equ

ivalen

tsTitle

Table(13)2015-2016ComparisonofFloridaandMexicanImports

TABLE THIRTEEN2015-2016 COMPARISON OF FLORIDA AND MEXICAN IMPORTS

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

Oct.11,15

Oct.18

Oct.25

Nov.01

Nov.08

Nov.15

Nov.22

Nov.29

Dec.06

Dec.13

Dec.20

Dec.27

Jan.3,16

Jan.10

Jan.17

Jan.24

Jan.31

Feb.07

Feb.14

Feb.21

Feb.28

Mar.06

Mar.13

Mar.20

Mar.27

Apr.03

Ap

r.10

Ap

r.17

Ap

r.24

May01

May08

May15

May22

May29

Jun5

Jun12

Jun13

*

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

Table(14)Price/PackoutComparison2015-2016

TotalShipments Price

TABLE FOURTEENPRICE/PACKOUT COMPARISON 2015-2016

26

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

Table(15)WeeklyAveragePriceComparison2014-2015vs.2015-2016

Price2014-2015 Price2015-2016

TABLE FIFTEENWEEKLY AVERAGE PRICE COMPARISON 2014-2015 VS. 2015-2016

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Table(16)WeeklyAveragePackoutComparison2014-15vs.2015-16

2014-15 2015-16

TABLE SIXTEENWEEKLY AVERAGE PACKOUT COMPARISON 2014-2015 VS. 2015-2016

27

2016...February, March, and April, shipping approximately 8.0, 8.1, 9.9, and 7.67 million 25-lb....

Documents

Transcript of 2016...February, March, and April, shipping approximately 8.0, 8.1, 9.9, and 7.67 million 25-lb....