The Exhibitor (1953)

EXTRA PROFITS EP-3 The Profit Margin Is No Accident By Oliver E. Nelson, Jr. Associate Geneticist, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind. In 1913, a United States Department of Agriculture bulletin on popcorn made the statement that “If the popcorn is in first class condition, and the heat properly applied, one pint of unpopped corn should give 15 to 20 pints of popped corn.” This means in our terminology that the corn of that time had an expansion of between 15 and 20. In the 1951 test of commercial hybrids at Purdue, the best hybrid had an expansion of 35.8, and average expan¬ sion for all the hybrids in the test was 33.6. The same publication shows that in 1909 there were 11,340 acres of popcorn grown, while in 1950 143,000 acres were grown, an increase of greater than twelvefold. It seems likely that the greatest factor in this enormous increase in production is the increase in popcorn quality which was mentioned above. The expansion of a sample of popcorn is a simple measure of its overall quality. The higher a variety expands, the lighter, flakier, and crisper is the popped product. We don’t want to dwell on the obvious connection between the increase in quality of popcorn and its ever greater acceptance by the consumer. What is important is the point that better popcorn doesn’t (like Topsy) just happen. It is the result of large-scale and laborious plant breed¬ ing projects carefully planned and pre¬ cisely followed. Since the production of popcorn today is almost entirely composed of the hybrids, a brief discussion of popcorn improvement by the hybrid method might be desirable. The raw material for the production of hybrids are the old open-pollinated varie¬ ties of popcorn such as Hulless, South American, White Rice, Supergold, etc. A hybrid by definition is simply the off¬ spring of two plants of different varieties, and a hybrid could be made by crossing plants from any two of the varieties mentioned above. This simple procedure cannot be followed for two reasons: first, the hybrid between two varieties would not be the same from one year’s produc¬ tion to the next year’s production since open-pollination varieties are extremely variable, and, secondly, we desire to con¬ centrate in a single line the best char¬ acteristics of yield, expansion, and agro¬ nomic factors that are scattered through¬ out the variety. Since this is so, it is necessary to start a process called inbreeding in the different open-pollinated varieties. Here, under con¬ trolled pollination conditions, the best plants are self-pollinated (the silks of one plant pollinated by pollen from its own tassel) for six to seven generations. It is typical of the inbreeding process that as it progresses, the plants become weaker and less vigorous until some lines cannot be propagated. Also, inbreeding uncov¬ ers many gross abnormalities and unde¬ sirable features that must be discarded. We can, however, at the same time select for the more valuable characters that we would like our inbreds to display. Many lines fall by the wayside during the inbreeding process. Those that come through are now genetically uniform and in a given line every plant will transmit exactly the same factors to its hybrids as will any other plant. The whole story is not told, though, simply with the production of an inbred line. An inbred’s final and most important test is how it behaves in crosses and whether or not it is a potent parent. There¬ fore, after it has been obtained, an inbred is crossed with many other inbreds which are known to be good as parents. These new experimental hybrids are grown the following season, and measured for yield and expansion. On the behavior of these test crosses depends whether or not the new inbred is to be retained. Many an inbred that looks good as an inbred flunks this final test, it just cannot pass along its good characteristics to its offspring. The converse can be true, inbreds that don’t look so good may make excellent parents. It should be emphasized that because of the many disqualifications that an inbred may face during the inbreeding and testing process, the hybrid method of plant breeding looks and is inefficient in terms of new and useful inbreds produced compared with the num¬ ber of lines started through the mill. It is not unusual to find that of 1000 lines started, only one may prove to be a valuable addition to our stock of inbreds. But the results of the crosses of the few C. J. Cretors, left, head, C. Cretors and Com¬ pany, popcorn machine manufacturer, and H. E. Chrisman, right, Cretors Corporation, national sales organization for Cretors popcorn machines, are seen recently at the national sales offices, Popcorn Building, Nashville, Tenn., where plans were made for the promotion of the company's current new drive-in model popcorn machine. good inbreds are so spectacular as to make the method very worthwhile. The popcorn improvement program at Purdue started when Doctor A. M. Brun¬ son, U. S. Department of Agriculture, came to the Department of Botany and Plant Pathology from Kansas State Col¬ lege. Doctor Brunson had been interested in popcorn for many years, and had developed the open-pollinated variety, Supergold, by selection methods. When the hybrid method of corn breeding be¬ came prevalent, he began a large-scale inbreeding program in the Supergold and South American varieties. These inbred lines were brought along when Doctor Brunson came to Purdue, and they formed the basis for the Purdue hybrids. These hybrids were Purdue 1, 3, 20, 22, 31, 32, and 38, and, when released they found an enthusiastic acceptance from the trade. The best measure of their popularity is the fact that even now, 10 years after their release, Purdue 32 is, by all odds, the most important hybrid commercially. It was these hybrids with their large yields and good quality which first opened the eyes of the trade to the fact that the ( Continued on page EP8) EXTRA PROFITS Vol. 7, No. 12 February 11, 1953 EXTRA PROFITS appears every fourth Wednesday as o regular special feature department of EXHIBITOR, and is devoted exclusively to the design, construction, maintenance, management, and exploitation of the¬ atre vending equipment, vendable items, and other profit producing adjuncts for efficient theatre opera¬ tion. For further information, address EXHIBITOR, published weekly by Jay Emanuel Publications, Inc. Publishing office: 246-48 North Clarion Street, Phila¬ delphia 7, Pennsylvania. New York OfRce: 1600 Broadway, New York 19. West Coast Representative: Paul Manning, 8113V2 West Fourth Street, Los Angeles 48, California. Advisory boards— Composed of executives and heads of the conces¬ sions and vending departments of theatre circuits: Leslie R. Schwartz, Andrews, Inc., New York; Bayard M. Grant, Durwood Theatres, Kansas City; C. Dale Fox, Fox Wisconsin Amusement Corporation, Milwaukee; Frank C. Bickerstaff, Georgia Theatre Com¬ pany, Atlanta; William O'Donnell, Interstate Theatres, Dallas; Raymond Willie, Interstate Theatres, Dallas; Harold F. Chester, Theatre Cooperative Candy Com¬ pany, Salt Lake City; Miss Marie Frye, Tri-State The¬ atre Corporation, Des Moines; Louise Bramblett, WilKin Theatre Supply, Inc., Atlanta; Van Myers, Wometco Theatres. Miami, Fla.; J. J. Fitzgibbons, Jr.. Theatre Confections, Limited, Toronto, Canada, Leon Levenson, American Theatres Corporation, Boston. Composed of manufacturers, concessionaires, and other leaders in the candy, popcorn, and allied fields: A. F. Rathbun, Fred W. Amend Company, Chicago; Harold Sharp, The Coca-Cola Company, New York; Marvin Spitz, American Royal Candies, Inc., Los Angeles; Vincent O'Brien, Armstrong Pop¬ corn Company, Lake View, la.; Charles G. Manley, Manley, Inc., Kansas City; W. B. Riley. Brock Candy Company, Chattanooga, Tenn.; Joseph Blumenihal, Blumenthal Brothers. Philadelphia; l. M. Shaw, Smith Brothers, Inc., Poughkeepsie, N. Y.; C. M. Said, M«Phail Chocolate Company, Oswego, N. Y. February 11, 1953 EXHIBITOR