UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AFFECTING POULTRY MARKETING IN CALIFORNIA J. M. TINLEY and E. C. VOORHIES BULLETIN 642 October, 1940 CONTRIBUTION FROM THE GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA CONTENTS PAGE Introduction .• 3 Development of chicken production in the United States 4 Importance 4 Trend of production 5 Regional trends of production 8 Surplus and deficit areas 12 Per-capita consumption of chickens 18 Imports and exports of poultry and eggs 21 Location and characteristics of chicken production in the United States 22 Number of farms reporting chickens 22 Location of chicken production in the United States 23 Chickens raised and eggs produced per farm in 1934 24 Size of poultry farms and flocks 25 Chickens consumed on farms or sold 31 Trend and location of chicken production in California 32 Development 32 Number of poultry farms 33 Location of chicken production in California 35 Characteristics of the chicken industry in California 39 Position of the chicken enterprise on farms 39 Mortality and culling 40 Income and expense factors 41 Poultry classification and production of poultry classes 42 Classification of chickens 42 Poultry classes in California 46 Marketing methods and channels in California 49 Methods of sale by producers 49 Operations of local buyers 51 Handlers of poultry in San Francisco 53 Handlers of poultry in Los Angeles 58 Supply factors in the San Francisco and Los Angeles markets 60 Suppty areas in California for San Francisco and Los Angeles 60 Information on poultry receipts at two markets 61 Origin of poultry supplies at San Francisco 63 Origin of poultry supplies at Los Angeles 65 Seasonal Supplies of poultry 66 t San Francisco market 67 ' Los Angeles market 72 Consumption of poultry in California 76 Price determination and price quotations 77 The San Francisco market 80 The Los Angeles market 82 Trend of chicken prices in the United States 87 Producer price data 87 Trend in chicken prices, 1910-1939 88 Trends in the California chicken prices 95 Regional trends in farm chicken prices 99 Seasonal variation in farm prices of chickens 103 Wholesale-price quotations 105 Wholesale quotations on domestic rabbits 119 Comparison of prices paid Los Angeles producers and quotations of the Federal- State Market News Service and the Los Angeles Produce Exchange 121 Comparison of quotations of the Federal-State Market News Service and the Los Angeles Produce Exchange 122 Relations between wholesale poultry quotations in California and other markets 126 New York 126 Chicago 135 Retail chicken prices 139 Cold-storage holdings of poultry 143 Appendix of tables 155 ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AFFECTING POULTRY MARKETING IN CALIFORNIA ' J. M. TINLEY 3 and E. C. VOORHIES 4 INTRODUCTION In 1935 various organizations requested the Division of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, University of California, to investi- gate poultry marketing in California, with a view to ascertaining the sources of supply of chickens marketed in the two major cities — San Francisco and Los Angeles — the trade channels for poultry, and factors influencing the supply, demand, and prices of different types and grades of poultry. The data on which this study is based were collected from the fall of 1935 through the spring and summer months of 1939. At the urgent request of turkey producers in southern California, the phase of this study dealing with turkey marketing was completed first and issued in bulletin form in August, 1937. 5 The part of the investigation reported in the present publication will be confined largely to the factors influencing chicken marketing. While California is an important chicken-producing state, the bulk of chickens raised is of the White Leghorn breed, noted as heavy layers. Comparatively small numbers of heavy meat or dual-purpose (meat and eggs) chickens are raised in the state. Poultry-meat production is thus largely a by-product of the California egg-production industry. To meet the local demand for poultry meat, large quantities of chickens are shipped into California annually from states as far east as Illinois and Indiana. California thus comes into direct competition with the large consuming centers on the Atlantic seaboard for supplies of the heavier types of chickens produced in the midwestern and southwestern states. An investigation of poultry-meat marketing in California, in order to be complete, has to include an analysis of certain phases of the poultry industry in the United States as a whole. 1 Received for publication August 31, 1939. 2 Paper No. 89, the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics. 3 Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, Associate Agricultural Econo- mist in the Experiment Station, and Agricultural Economist on the Giannini Foun- dation. * Professor of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station, and Agricultural Economist on the Giannini Foundation. 5 Tinley, J. M., and E. C. Voorhies. Economic problems affecting turkey market- ing in California. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 612:1-78. 1937. [3] University of California — Experiment Station DEVELOPMENT OF CHICKEN PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES Importance.— The 1935 Census of Agriculture 6 showed 6,812,350 farms in the United States, of which 5,832,000, or 85. G per cent, reported hav- ing chickens. Probably no other form of farming activity is so wide- spread as chicken raising. In many sections farm flocks are very small, chickens being raised mainly for home consumption, or to supply a small cash income for the family. TABLE 1 Gross Farm Income of All Farm Products, Livestock, Chickens, and Eggs by Geographic Divisions, 1937 Gross farm income Chickens and eggs as a percentage of Geographic division Crops and livestock Livestock Chickens Eggs Chickens and eggs Crops and livestock Livestock North Atlantic East north central West north central South Atlantic South central Mountain 1.000 dollars 1,079,607 1,952,274 2,099,927 1,193,259 2,071,172 584,788 1,002,133 1.000 dollars 704,849 1,392,936 1,557,366 441,457 891,840 373,370 386,505 1.000 dollars 57,802 87,815 94,058 50,309 65,058 9,978 15,567 1,000 dollars 130,926 146,181 128,933 62,262 95,682 22,856 64,656 1,000 dollars 188,728 233,996 222,991 112,571 160,740 32,654 80,223 1.031,903 per cent 17.5 12 10.6 9 4 7.8 5.6 8.0 10 3 per cent 26.8 16.8 14 3 25.5 18.0 8.7 20.8 Total or average 9,983,160 5,748,317 380,407 651,496 18.0 Source of data: United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Gross farm income and government payments, p. 1-21. June 5, 1939. (Mimeo.) In 1937 the gross farm income from all types of agriculture for the United States was 9,983 million dollars, of which 5,748 million dollars, or about 58 per cent, was from the production of livestock, including chickens (table 1). The income from chickens was about 380 million dollars and from eggs 651 million dollars, or 1,032 million dollars to- gether. This was about 10.3 per cent of the gross farm income from all agricultural products, or 18.0 per cent of the gross farm income from livestock production only. The relative importance of the chicken industry varies considerably in different parts of the United States. In the north Atlantic states, chickens and eggs accounted for approximately 17.5 per cent of the gross farm income from all farm products, in contrast to only 5.6 per cent in the mountain states and 8.0 per cent in the Pacific states. In the last named region over 20 per cent of the gross farm income for livestock only was from chickens and eggs. 6 United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Census of Agri- culture, 1935. vols. 1 and 2, 1936; vol. 3, 1937. Bul. 642 Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing Trend of Production. — According to the various censuses, numbers of chickens on farms increased from 258,871,000 in 1890 to 409,291,000 in 1925 and have since declined to 371,603,000 in 1935 (table 2). These figures can be regarded only as a very rough measure of the trend of chicken production, first, because the dates on which the various censuses were taken are not the same and, second, because in some censuses chick- ens under 3 months old were not enumerated. Thus it is difficult to de- TABLE 2 Human Population, Chickens on Farms, Chickens Eaised, and Egg Production in the United States, 1890-1935* Human popula- tion Chickens on farms Chickens raised t Dozen eggs producedt Relative numbers (1890=100) Census Human popula- tion Chickens on farms Dozen eggs produced 1890 (June 1) thousands 62,948 75,995 91,972 105,711 112,786 122,775 127,521 thousands 258,871 233,566 280,341 359,537 409,291 378,878 371,603 thousands — X 460,612 473,302 545,848 673,092 598,867 thousands 819,723 1,293,819 1,574,979 1,654,045 1,913,245 2,689,719 2,160,906 per cent 100.0 120.7 146.1 167.9 179.2 195.0 202.6 per cent 100.0 90.2 108.3 138.9 158.1 146.4 143.5 per cent 100.0 1900 (June 1)§ 156.6 1910 (April 15)§ 192.1 1920 (January 1) 201.8 1925 (January 1) 1930 (April 1)§ 233.4 328.1 1935 (January 1)§. . . 263.6 * Poultry on farms were first enumerated in the 1880 Census, which showed 102,272,000 barnyard fowls, excluding spring hatchings, and 456,911,000 dozen eggs produced during 1879. These figures have not been included in this table because of doubt as to their comparability, t Year preceding the census, t Dashes indicate data not available. § Excludes chickens under 3 months old. Sources of data: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Censuses of 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920, and 1930, and Censuses of Agriculture of 1925 and 1935. Population data for the years 1925 and 1935 were taken from: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Com- merce. Statistical Abstract for the United States. 1937: XVIII + 1-861. 1938. termine just how much of the change from one census to the next was due to an actual increase or decrease in chicken numbers on farms and how much was due to seasonal variations in chicken numbers or to exclu- sion of young chickens. A more accurate indication of the trend of chicken production would be the number of chickens raised. Unfortunately, however, such data for the year preceding the census are available only in the 1910 and sub- sequent censuses. This indicates that chickens raised increased from 460,612,000 in 1909 to 673, 092, 000 in 1929, with a decline to 598,867,000 in 1934. Production of eggs increased from 819,723,000 dozen in 1889 to 2,689,- 719,000 dozen in 1929, with a decline to 2,160,906,000 dozen in 1934. From 1890 to 1935 the human population of the United States just about doubled, whereas chicken numbers on farms increased by less than 6 University of California — Experiment Station half (43.5 per cent) . Even if allowance is made for the deficiency of the census data on chickens on farms, above referred to, it is evident that chicken production since 1890 has increased at a much less rapid rate 1 1 I | i ; I " 1 , "1 " , "■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 , n _ CVJ n * in vD r- o <£> r^ 00 O) § M C\J cm cm CM CM CM CM CM CM CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO ro CO CT> 0) o> o> a o> o> O) OA O) o> 0> o> 0> o> & o> O) 0> 0> Fig. 1. — The number of chickens on farms, United States, January 1, 1920-1940, and chickens raised and eggs produced, United States, 1920-1939. Data for 1920-1924 from: United States Department of Agriculture. Crops and Markets Sup- plement, p. 44. February, 1925. Data for 1925-1936 from: United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Farm production and disposition, chickens and eggs, 1925-1937. p. 5, 12, 30, 31. December, 1938. (Mimeo.) Data for 1937 from: United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Farm production and disposition, chickens and eggs, 1938-1939. Chickens on farms, January 1, 1938-1939. p. 3, 4, 6. March 1939. (Mimeo.) Data for 1938-1939 from: United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service. Farm production and income — chickens and eggs, 1938—1939. p. 3, 4, 6. May, 1940. (Mimeo.) than the human population. Egg production in 1934 was more than two and a half times as great as in 1889 which indicates a marked increase in output of eggs per hen. Part of this increased output of eggs per hen is probably due to improved breeding and feeding practices applied Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing « >o § ■* O «0 Tt " H H OC CC >o § UO OS i-H C c- e (M o cm os » d ~ o c C CO >C d ^ i-H CM CO i— o IS Q, ^ *s o ^ CO «3 « - " COM OlC CC CC o c CM _o OS a v> 3 a £ 'tH o c -f a .2 OS a CM cc d a> "- 1 £ -H t^ Oi O" CO § c CO "§ OS ■* rH CO S N OO ID M O oc oo o l> vc t~ CO 8 W O N ^ X CC 00 os S OO N ooto o CC oo O CO t— <— l CO t- p t^ CO y> "S 1- ■ e o c3 CO ^ e NN N • re 1- t^ O o *. lO I-H -"*! O i- CO CM 3 (N lO M ■* © "O ^ •o 3 M f "3 © CO OO © CO t^. >o ^ -£S rt CO o 2 to o "2 os i-i c CO o o cc CO o a os ih co -h H T3 O i-< i «9 Op o >-, CI ? 8 University of California — Experiment Station to all types of chickens; part, however, is probably due to the concentra- tion in certain areas upon high egg-producing types such as White Leg- horns. These are usually lighter in weight than the dual-purpose types. To the extent that the breeding of Leghorns has replaced the heavier dual-purpose birds, poultry-meat production has increased somewhat less rapidly than the census data on chickens on farms would indicate. Since 1920 the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics has issued annually estimates of chickens on farms, chickens raised, and eggs produced (fig. 1). These data indicate that while chicken numbers on farms and chickens raised have varied from year to year, there has been no marked increase or decrease of production since 1923. In contrast, egg production showed a distinct upward trend. During the four years 1920-1923, egg production per chicken raised averaged 40.9, whereas during the four years 1936-1939 the average was 50.6. This would indicate that the emphasis on high egg-producing types of chickens has continued. Regional Trends of Production. — According to the 1890 census, 132,- 702,000 chickens on farms or just over half (51.3 per cent) of all chickens in the United States were in the east and west north central states (table 3 and fig. 2). The south central states had another 57,110,000, or 22.1 per cent. The north and south Atlantic states together had 61,884,000 chickens, or nearly 24.0 per cent. The mountain and Pacific states to- gether had only 7,175,000 chickens, or only 2.7 per cent of all chickens on farms. Since 1890, while the chicken numbers on farms have increased by about half, some change has taken place in the relative importance of the different geographic divisions. In 1930 the north Atlantic, east north central, south Atlantic, and south central states had declined somewhat in relative importance. In 1890 these four divisions together had 68.8 per cent of all chickens on farms; in 1930 only 58.4 per cent. The west north central states had 31.2 per cent in 1930 as compared with 28.5 per cent in 1890. The largest relative change occurred in the mountain and Pacific states. In 1930 the mountain states had 3.3 per cent of all farm chickens as compared with only 0.6 per cent in 1890. In the Pacific states the percentage had increased from 2.1 in 1890 to 7.1 in 1930. In 1935 the position was somewhat different from that in 1930. The north Atlantic, east north central, south Atlantic, and south central states increased in relative importance. If comparisons are made be- tween 1890 and 1935, only the north Atlantic, mountain, and Pacific divisions increased their percentages of chickens on farms. The percentages of chickens raised in different geographic divisions since 1909 (table 4 and fig. 2) show much the same general tendencies Bul. 642 Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing NORTH ATLANTIC SOUTH ATLANTIC or £ 5 \b z 10 Id U 2 5 Q. <; ~~~ r© O , HO DO N »«>o o OJ Sj — 1 CM CM t-i — o « M «3 W O h OS CM 03 ■ i-l CO o -a a) . O O Oi © Oi CO CC o ^ -H CM CM ~H - © CO a 1 """ ai G CU -f »NO>HN- fi o 03 CDfOOOOOOil^-^ O ft o (j en . CO H O M N W •* £ N N -H IN o £ P, ^ OS o C2 Sr^iOCT>-H©ooo o .ctHiOTti^Heo o ^ CM CM i-l CM o ft MMCSTtiOW^'i < t- "* .oiot-^CMoooicoi- co co em*oo*iocct~ oo 03 £ 3 N * DO M N N 00 g » P) tC N - i-H ff, OS IO »U)i((NOOOCO)>- CM 05 ^UJiOMfOOOOP 03 aa ftOCOtilctNOC o a 02* t~-' oo" © cm" ~ c* co" JtonoiNniNT) l^ CO CU .22 c5 00 OO CO CM •- 00 oc 00 <*• ,0 i-H CO SO lO O CO ■* § CM S W CO OO N i- us "■ oo o S CO CO 00 CO CN »ri it lO g IC i-i »o CO i- ~H CN ■* ITS o S-NNMifONO CM Oi S>coiocot^©coc o o> * U5 IN N n ^ S os a" to io oc o o- CO co c: CO ScOOSCMCOO— ICS r^ £ «H - ■<»< » OO to 00 C! IT CM Tf CM OS a n a oi o oc co i- o 03 swccooeo^c CO S if x oo" io c O0 "* o g*»-°; CO **l o -C3 g '53 o CP ■5 "ej g a ■£ cu o> '£ — es w ° c £ 1 J3 ^3 J3 jS •£ C3 3 1 1 3 & a "3 K xi c rt jd ^a c tc CU O 3 | 3 ,7° 3 c DC 1 Ph '2 $2y Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 11 as are shown by the percentages of chickens on farms. There are, how- ever, important differences in the relative level of these two groups of percentages. In the south Atlantic and south central states the level of the percentages of chickens raised is above the level of chickens on farms. In all other divisions the reverse is the case. A more detailed picture of the relative importance of chicken pro- duction in the various geographic divisions of the United States is af- forded by an analysis of the estimates of chickens raised annually, made since 1920 by the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics (table 5). These data show clearly the pre- dominant importance of the west north central division, with the east north central and south central divisions ranking next. Chicken production increased in all divisions between 1920 and 1924. For the country as a whole there has been no marked upward or down- ward trend since the latter year, although there have been wide fluctua- tions in the year-to-year levels of production. While these data cover too short a period to permit of any very definite conclusions, production since 1924 appears to be of a cyclical nature, the cycles ranging from three to four years (table 5). This cycle bears a distinct relation to egg prices and through these to feed prices. (The value of poultry meat pro- duced is relatively less important than that of eggs produced.) If feed prices are low as compared with egg prices farmers normally will in- crease their flocks. In 1938 egg prices were relatively high in comparison with feed prices (fig. 25). Hog prices were declining through the year. The effect of this situation can be seen clearly by an examination of hatchery sales in the United States (table 17). While the volume of production in the east north central and west north central divisions has fluctuated considerably from year to year since 1924, the general level of production has not shown any pro- nounced trend, the marked decline in 1934 and 1937 being due to the severe droughts of 1934 and 1936. In the south central division the tendency has been slightly downward over the past decade and a half. No definite upward or downward trend is discernible in the data for the south Atlantic division. From 1924 until 1930 the trend continued up- wards in the chicken deficit areas — north Atlantic and western (moun- tain and Pacific divisions combined). Since the latter year there has been no distinct upward or downward movement in the north Atlantic division; the western division showed a decline until 1938. Relative changes in the annual production levels of chickens in differ- ent geographic divisions have an important bearing on the annual level of prices in various divisions. A decline in the production level in any one divison, relative to production in others, will tend to increase the 12 University of California — Experiment Station level of chicken prices in thai division, relative to prices in ol hers. These relations between production rind prices in the various geographic divi- sions will be analyzed more fully in a later section ("Regional Trends in Farm Chicken Prices," p. 99-103) . Surplus and Deficit Areas. — A comparison of the percentage of chick- ens raised in each geographic division with the percentage of the human TABLE 5 Chickens Eaised Annually by Geographic Divisions, 1920-1939 Year North Atlantic East north central West north central South Atlantic South central Western United States 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 thousands 39,700 55,300 53,200 55,300 46,200 67,900 70,000 74,300 71,400 77,600 81,500 75,900 79,500 83,500 75,100 82,500 93,200 81,000 87,700 90,600 thousands 97,300 112,700 124,100 132,700 148,800 143,400 148,600 153,600 143,900 153,800 156,300 145,700 152.600 160.300 138,900 152,400 161,900 133,700 145,400 151,000 thousands 126,700 139,400 155,000 181,500 190,000 198,000 205,300 208,000 202,000 221,400 230,300 207,100 210,300 223,200 188,363 181,700 201,300 162,300 191,000 208,300 thousands 71,500 76,600 80,300 92,200 97,300 77,900 82,200 87,200 76,900 79,200 81,300 79,500 89,400 83,900 82,000 88,000 99,200 87,200 98,200 105,400 thousands 107,400 127,300 127,200 144,700 153,400 137,500 151,800 160,800 141,800 148,100 152,600 138,800 149,000 141,300 132,300 131,600 148,600 130,900 142,600 155,900 32,100 38,400 39,200 42,500 42,600 53,900 60,300 67,000 63,900 70,800 74,900 62,400 54,700 57,900 52,600 54,300 59,900 53,000 51,300 61,700 thousands 474,700 549,700 579,000 648,900 678,300 678,700 718,300 750,400 700,000 751,100 777,000 709,400 735,500 750,100 669,300 690,600 764,100 648,300 716,200 772,900 Sources of data: 1920-1924: United States Department of Agriculture. Crops and Markets Supplement, p. 44. February, 1925. 1925-1936: United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Farm production and disposition, chickens and eggs, 1925-1937. p. 12, 14. December, 1938. (Mimeo.) 1937: United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Farm production and disposition, chickens and eggs, 1937-1938. p. 4. March, 1939. (Mimeo.) 1938-1939: United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service. Farm pro- duction and income — chickens and eggs, 1938-1939. p. 4. May, 1940. (Mimeo.) population (tables 4 and 6 and fig. 3) in each division will give a rough approximation of the relative surplus or deficit position of the various divisions (areas in which the supply of chickens is in excess of or below local consumption needs) of the United States. Such a comparison over a period will indicate the extent to which individual divisions are chang- ing their relative deficit or surplus positions. In making such a comparison certain assumptions are involved. The first is that the volume of poultry meat available for consumption in each geographic division is approximately equal to the number of chick- ens raised in each division; in other words, that the average weights of Bul. 642 Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 13 w O pq W 03 !C ^ >o UjOOt^cOCMOSiO o OS . OO O © CO CO e3 CuOcOGOOSO^HCO 1 o o CM cj 0> OS k oooocmooco>o ^ CM CM i— l i— l i— ( ft o eg ~ o 0> r ~ l P4 g t, rt 00 N ra N O lO o o u os fc N _ ^ rt ^ ft. o o CO "Socm^hoocoo ~->fCMCOCD»0O00 ONlOtOMCMNN _ IC CO »o OS SmiowNnccoo O CO (N rt rt N r-C 2C t^ 3 OS* »-" CM* CO OS CO »c lO O CM CM r* rt i-c o -*a icDiOcOOSOSCOO- «OOCMOi-H-HCO^- CM o os OS SinoOHNNIMt "5 OS _o 15 C _o "3 oc! b l'> 2 c "S 2 1 c '-a s « u a 2 _c3 j ^5 _d ^ cS 02 "1 o o "I o '3 0) A ~ ^ rC -C g tC ■g 1 1 Ct 1 - J c 1 ": P. 3ai O O 3 3 CJ CU 3 3 CU 01 s a O O OO £ £ a a d) CJ QQ o> oi 'O-rt'g "oPt-j 14 University of California — Experiment Station I PERCENT CHICKENS RAISED NORTH ATLANTIC D p 30 25 20 U 15 cr id a- 10 am % 09 '20 % 25 '30 "35 EAST NORTH CENTRAL '2 '2 5 '30 '35 SOUTH CENTRAL 30 25 20 »- Z ui 15 O a " 10 *09 *20 '25 *30 l 35 ERCENT POPULATION SOUTH ATLANTIC 30 25 K 20 2 Ul u 15 a. u °- 10 5 M 9 20 2 5 "30 x 35 30 WEST NORTH CENTRAL 25 H 20 z UJ u 15 tr Id °- 10 5 1 09 '20 '25 '30 '35 MOUNTAIN 10 o tr 5 j t i n m m '0 9 '20 '25 '30 '3 5 PACIFIC 2 10 UJ o tr u 5 Q. iTlfllMl 09 *20 '25 '30 '35 Fig. 3. — Comparison between the percentages of chickens raised and of the human population in the geographic divisions of the United. States, 1909, 1920, 1925, 1930, 1935. Data from tables 4 and 6. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 15 chickens raised throughout the United States are about equal and that the percentage of chickens consumed is in direct proportion to the num- ber of chickens raised. The second assumption is that per-capita con- sumption of chickens is about the same in all parts of the United States. A third assumption is that the turnover is the same in all sections of the country. In several divisions of the United States where chickens are raised principally for egg production, the predominant breed is likely to be the White Leghorn. The average meat weight of chickens of this breed is about one-third less than that of other breeds such as the Plymouth Rock, Rhode Island Red, Wyandotte, and Orpington. 7 In addition, the mortality among Leghorns in large commercial flocks is usually much higher than is the case in smaller flocks where chickens are allowed greater freedom and activity. A much smaller proportion of Leghorns raised is thus likely ultimately to find its way into consumption as meat than is true for heavier chicken breeds, most of which are found in fairly small flocks. Moreover, the feeding of Leghorns is designed to promote the production of eggs and not of meat. Leghorn hens thus are likely to make an inferior quality of poultry meat. Where chickens are kept for commercial egg production they are usually held for a shorter period than they are in smaller farm flocks. Unfortunately, no accurate quantitative data are available on the relative importance of different breeds of chickens in the various geo- graphic divisions of the United States. It is possible, however, to venture a few general observations based upon opinions of poultry specialists familiar with production conditions in different parts of the United States. 8 In the south Atlantic and south central states heavy breeds of chickens predominate. In the mountain and Pacific divisions (especially the lat- ter), the predominant breed is the Leghorn. In the north Atlantic states probably more than half of all the chickens raised annually are of the heavier breeds, although in some states, particularly New Jersey and parts of New York, Leghorns predominate. Until within comparatively recent years the bulk of all chickens produced in the east north central and west north central states was of the heavier breeds. However, during the past few years, with the expansion of commercialized egg production 7 The average weight of Leghorns is 4^ pounds for hens and 6 pounds for cocks. In contrast Wyandottes and Ehode Island Eeds average 6% pounds for hens and 8% for cocks; Plymouth Eocks, 7% pounds for hens and 9% pounds for cocks; Orping- tons, 8 pounds for hens and 10 pounds for cocks. (See : Jull, M. A. Poultry husbandry, p. 32. McGraw Hill, New York. 1938.) 8 Based upon statements made by W. E. Newlon, Specialist in Agricultural Exten- sion Service, University of California, and members of the Poultry Division, College of Agriculture, University of California. 16 University of California — Experiment Station in these two divisions, the proportion of Leghorns raised has increased materially. 9 The above information on the relative importance of light and heavy breeds has been partially substantiated by the reports of baby chicks produced by hatcheries. 10 By dividing the north Atlantic states into the New England and middle Atlantic divisions, baby-chick production in the New England division has run almost exclusively to the heavy breeds (1938-1940), whereas production in the middle Atlantic states has run slightly more to the light breeds. Outside of the middle Atlantic states, the mountain and the Pacific states are the only other divisions which have shown a tendency for production of light-breed baby chicks. The data shown in figure 3 indicate that the north Atlantic division was the most important deficit area; in other words, local chicken pro- duction provided only a small percentage, probably less than half, of the chickens consumed in that area. Since 1920, however, this division has tended to provide a somewhat larger percentage of its consumption needs for chickens. The Pacific division is also a deficit area although the deficit position is not nearly so marked as in the north Atlantic division. In the south Atlantic, east north central, and mountain states, the percentages of chickens raised and of population were approxi- mately equal; these divisions produced about as many chickens as were consumed. More than half the chickens produced in the west north central division from 1909 to 1934 were surplus to local consumption needs and therefore available for shipment to the deficit areas on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Small surpluses were also available in the south central division. On the basis of the broad generalizations mentioned under the as- sumptions listed on pages 12-15, it is possible to draw the conclusion that the north central states probably produce a somewhat larger percentage of the United States supply of poultry meat than the percentages of chickens raised shown in figure 3 would indicate. On the other hand, probably the mountain and western states produce a considerably smaller proportion of the total United States supply of poultry meat than the percentages of all chickens raised in these two areas would indicate. The estimates of the per-capita production (in pounds) of chickens tend to confirm the above conclusions (table 7). The north Atlantic and the western states stand out as deficit-chicken- 9 Some further light will be thrown on this subject in later sections — "Chickens Eaised and Eggs Produced per farm in 1934" (p. 24-25) and "Size of Poultry Farms and Flocks" (p. 25-31). 10 Mimeographed hatchery reports issued monthly by United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washington, D. C. Beginning in 1940 reports on hatchery operations were included in "Poultry and Egg Production" (mimeographed) issued by the United States Department Agriculture Marketing Service on the 15th of each month. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 17 production areas, whereas the west north central states are those of greatest surplus. The east north central and south central states prob- ably have only a slight surplus — if any. The south Atlantic states pro- duce a smaller total weight of chickens than is indicated by the percent- age of chickens found in this area. This apparent discrepancy has come about largely as a result of the development of the commercial-broiler TABLE 7 Per-Capita Production of Chickens in the United States by Geographic Division, 1925-1939 Year North Atlantic East north central West north central South Atlantic South central Western United States 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 pounds 7.9 7.9 8.3 7.8 8.3 8.4 8.1 8.5 8.9 7.9 8.7 10.1 8.7 10 10.3 pounds 25.1 25.5 25.5 23.4 24.7 24.3 23.2 25.0 25.8 21.9 24.2 26.0 21.2 23.0 24.2 pounds (13 55.0 55 3 46.2 49.3 56.8 59.6 pounds 16.3 17.1 18.4 15.8 16.5 16.7 16.4 18.3 16.5 16.1 17.5 20.1 17.7 18.2 19.7 pounds 25.0 27.4 28.7 24.4 25.6 25.5 23.2 24.5 22.9 21.5 21.4 23.9 21.6 21.3 22.3 pounds 16.2 17.5 18.9 17.1 18.3 19.0 15.2 13.8 14.9 12.8 13.5 15.1 13.6 11.6 14.9 pounds 22.7 23.7 24.3 22.0 23 5 23.6 21.8 22.7 22.9 19.9 20.8 23.0 21.2 21.1 22.7 Sources of data: 1925-1936: United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Farm production and disposition, chickens and eggs, 1925-1937. p. 16. December, 1938. (Mimeo.) 1937: United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Farm pro- duction and disposition, chickens and eggs, 1937-1938. p. 18. March, 1939. (Mimeo.) 1938-1939: United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service. Farm pro- duction and income, chickens and eggs, 1938-1939. p. 20. May, 1940. (Mimeo.) industry in Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia (south Atlantic divi- sion) . It is highly probable that this area has a deficit as figure 3 and the above data would indicate. Data released by the United States Department of Agriculture, Agri- cultural Marketing Service 11 indicate that the average weight of chickens sold in 1939 was 3.88 pounds. The average weights of birds sold in the various geographic divisions in 1939 were estimated to have been : Geographic division Pounds per bird East north central 4.28 West north central 4.14 North Atlantic 4.08 South central 3.53 South Atlantic 3.23 Western 3.20 11 Data from : United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service. Farm production and income, chickens and eggs, 1938-1939. p. 20. May, 1940. (Mimeo.) 18 University of California — Experiment Station Table 7 brings out rather clearly that geographically the largest pro- duction of poultry lies in the surplus-feed-producing divisions and this again emphasizes the relation between feed and the poultry industry. There is a very great difference between the Middle West, the Pacific Coast, and the areas adjacent to the great cities of the Atlantic seaboard in the extent to which feed is bought or produced by the farmer raising chickens. The producer of chickens in the Pacific and north Atlantic coast divisions buys large quantities of feed for his poultry. The farmer in the west north central states probably buys very little feed for poul- try. Production of poultry in the latter division is a mechanism for the marketing of feed crops, as is beef and pork production. Climate is also involved. In almost all places where poultry is kept on any considerable scale, egg production and egg prices are important. Since eggs are customarily held by the farmer and often also by the huckster for some days before they are delivered to the packing plant, the weather is important. In warm weather eggs deteriorate and, even if they do not go bad, they do not stand up well in storage. Lower prices are paid for eggs from the southern section of the country, and such eggs are not by choice put into storage. This gives the cooler parts of the country, the west north central and the east north central states, a very great ad- vantage in egg production. And this, together with the availability of corn and other feeds, is one of the reasons responsible for the concentra- tion of large numbers of fowl in these sections. Per-Capita Consumption of Chickens. — The data on the relative levels of per-capita consumption in the various geographic divisions of the United States are even more meager and unsatisfactory. There is ap- parently some agreement on general trends in the United States. Be- tween 1910 and 1919 there was probably a decline in the per-capita consumption of all poultry. 12 With greater urban prosperity after the World War, consumption of all poultry probably increased. Between the late twenties and the late thirties there was probably a decline in per- capita consumption of all poultry which probably was more pronounced in urban than in rural areas. Studies recently made indicate clearly that families with higher food budgets spend more for poultry than those with lower food budgets. Data released by the United States Department of Agriculture Bu- reau of Agricultural Economics 18 support the above statement relative 12 Montgomery, E. G., and C. H. Kardell. Apparent per-capita consumption of principal foodstuffs in the United States. U. S. Dept. Com. Bur. Foreign and Dom. Com., Dom. Com. Ser. 38:26. 1930. The National Resources Board. Agricultural land requirements and resources. Re- port on Land Planning. Part 3:5. 1935. 13 Stiebeling, Hazel K., and Esther F. Phipard. Diets of families of employed wage earners and clerical workers in cities. U. S. Dept. Agr. Cir. 507:1-141. 1939. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 19 to a shrinking of per-capita chicken consumption in the thirties (through 1938) . Chicken consumption in pounds per capita for the United States from 1925 through 1939 has been estimated as : 14 Pounds Pounds per capita Year per capita 22.7 1933 23.2 22.6 1934 21.3 Year 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 .24.0 ,23.0 22.6 24.5 22.2 22.5 1935 1936 1937 1938, 1939 20.6 21.9 ,21.2 20.2 22.1 Additional light can be focused on regional chicken consumption by data obtained in a cost-of-living survey made in 1918-19 by the United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, in collaboration with the National War Labor Board (table 8 ) . This survey covered white TABLE 8 Average Annual Per-Capita Consumption of Poultry in Industrial Centers by Geographic Divisions, 1918-1919 Geographic division Pounds per capita Per cent of average for United States Chickens Other poultry Chickens Other poultry North Atlantic 5.02 5.84 4.65 4.56 4.04 4.78 0.58 0.57 0.54 0.50 1.04 0.63 105 122 97 95 85 100 92 90 86 South central 79 165 United States average 100 Source of data: United States Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Yearbook 1924: 1126. 1925. families of wage earners or salaried workers in 92 cities or localities in 42 states, the cities varying in size from New York to small country towns of a few thousand population. No attempt was made in this survey to collect data on consumption of farm families nor of Negro families in cities. "Data for 1925-1936 from: United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Farm production and disposition, chickens and eggs, 1925- 1937. p. 16. December, 1938. (Mimeo.) Data for 1937-1938 from: United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Farm production and disposition, chickens and eggs, 1937- 1938. p. 18. March, 1939. (Mimeo.) Data for 1939 from: United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Mar- keting Service. Farm production and income, chickens and eggs, 1938-1939. p. 20. May, 1940. (Mimeo.) 20 University of California — Experiment Station Because the level of per-capita consumption of chickens would vary annually according to changes in population and the total volume of chicken meat marketed, the relative rather than the absolute levels of consumption in the different divisions would have more significance. The survey showed that the per-capita consumption in the western states was only about 85 per cent of the average for the United States as a whole, whereas that in the south Atlantic states was 22 per cent higher than the United States average. It is impossible to tell whether and to what extent the absolute and relative levels of per-capita consumption of chicken meat in the various geographic divisions would have been modified if the survey had covered rural as well as urban families. Even if these data can be regarded as a fairly accurate portrayal of the relative levels of per-capita consump- tion of both rural and urban families in 1918-19, a still further difficulty arises. No data are available to indicate whether the same relative levels of per-capita consumption by divisions have been maintained or to what extent the relative per-capita consumption of chicken meat in the dif- ferent divisions has been changed. Poultry dealers and poultry specialists interviewed during the course of this study stated that it was their belief that per-capita consumption of chickens is highest in the southern states and lowest in the Pacific states. None of the persons interviewed, however, would venture an estimate as to just how large the differences were. Assuming that the data collected in the 1918-19 survey were fairly representative of the relative levels of rural and urban consumption in the different geographic divisions and that the relative levels have not been greatly modified since that time, the percentage of all chicken meat consumed in the south Atlantic states is a somewhat larger percentage of the total United States consumption of chickens than the percentages of population in figure 3 would indicate. On the other hand, the per- centage of population in the western states would tend to overstate the percentage of all chicken meat consumed in this region. In spite of this, however, the ratio between percentages of all chickens raised and of population probably underemphasizes the deficit position of the western states. In other words, the percentage of chickens raised overstates the proportion of all chicken meat produced more than the percentage of population overstates the proportion of all chicken meat consumed. A more recent survey of the diets of families of employed wage earn- ers and clerical workers in different cities offers additional information on poultry consumption in different divisions. 15 The estimated annual 15 Stiebeling, Hazel K., and Esther F. Phipard. Diets of families of employed wage earners and clerical workers in cities. U. S. Dept. Agr. Cir. 507:124. 1939. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 21 per-capita poultry consumption reported for the above classes of work- ers by division and color of family in 1934—1936 was : North Atlantic cities, 843 white families, 16.1 pounds East south central cities, 282 white families, 11.2 pounds Pacific cities, 441 white families, 10.4 pounds Southern cities, 222 Negro families, 12.6 pounds. These data partially confirm the data obtained in the 1918-19 survey of the Department of Labor. Poultry consumption apparently is high in the north Atlantic cities and relatively low in the cities of the Pacific Coast. The data from the southern states indicate that poultry consump- tion in the cities of that division is higher than in the Pacific Coast cities. It is highly probable that in the rural areas of the southern states per- capita consumption is higher than in rural areas of the West. The latter area with its more intensive specialization has a smaller percentage of farms with chickens. Imports mid Exports of Poultry and Eggs. — The foreign trade in poultry plays a minor role. Exports of both live and dressed poultry from 1923 to 1929 never totaled 6 million pounds and since the latter year they have generally averaged less than half this amount. Imports of poultry for consumption have likewise dropped. Between 8 and 9 mil- lion pounds were imported in 1926 and in most recent years the total has been under a million pounds. Inasmuch as poultry meat is to a considerable extent a by-product of egg production, it should follow that anything which tends to lower the price of eggs, such as imports, might tend to raise the relative price of the by-product, meat. A few years prior to the beginning of the World War (1910-1913) imports of egg products, for example dried or frozen eggs and yolks, began to appear on the American market. A peak in these imports was reached in the twenties. In the five years ending in 1929 the equivalent of approximately 47,000,000 dozens of eggs were im- ported annually into the United States. Higher tariffs, disturbances such as in the Far East, reduced the annual imports to less than the equiva- lent of 19,000,000 dozen in the similar period ending in 1938. Domestic exports of egg products have never been of any considerable amount. Imports of shell eggs, while not equaling the total imports of all types of eggs (in fresh-egg equivalents) were almost half as large from 1925 through 1929. An annual average of not over 25,000,000 doz- ens of eggs (in egg equivalents) in exports in the five years ending in 1929 dropped to less than 3,000,000 in the similar period ending in 1938. While the imports of egg products have not been large in the few years ending in 1938, they were not inconsiderable in the decade of the twen- ties. In two of the years, 1920 and 1925, the imports (in egg equivalents) 22 University of California — Experiment Station were slightly less than half of the total egg production of California in 1934. While these eggs may not be coming in now (1940) because of the disturbances in the Orient or because of tariff barriers, they have come in, in the past and may come in again in the future. LOCATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF CHICKEN PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES Number of Farms Reporting Chickens. — According to the 1935 Census of Agriculture 85.6 per cent of all farms in the United States reported having chickens on hand on January 1, 1935 (table 31) . The proportion /".•^O / ' ' ' • / " • "M "i~p*'S ii^ii^Tv 0^^r' W: / ^T^r-— EF^ m Of":: V' •'• • \ h~~^H— -li-* *'• y- ,;: •• EACH DOT REPRESENTS \ - 500,000 CHICKENS RAISED \ "•'•"■ '. * .*7« » * '■'tJ-< s^jX Fig. 4. — Location of chicken production, United States, 1934. Data from table 31. of all farms reporting chickens, however, varied considerably by geo- graphic divisions and by states. In the north central, south Atlantic, and south central states over 87.0 per cent of all farms are shown to have had chickens, in contrast with only 68.9 per cent of the farms in the Pacific division. In six states — Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, Mis- souri, and Nebraska (all in the north central division) — over 90.0 per cent of the farms reported having chickens. On the other hand, less than 65.0 per cent of the farms in four states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Arizona, and California, had chickens on January 1, 1935. The number of farms in the United States reporting chickens on farms amounted to 5,833,079 as compared with 5,212,762 farms reporting as having raised chickens in 1934 and 5,579,199 reporting as having pro- Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 23 duced eggs. These data indicate that large numbers of farms do not raise their own chickens, but purchase grown chickens. This is particu- larly true of the Pacific states, where the number of farms reporting chickens raised in 1934 was only 72.1 per cent of the number reporting chickens on farms on January 1, 1935. The corresponding figure for the United States as a whole was 89.4 per cent. Location of Chicken Production in the United States. — As was stated previously (p. 8) the chicken industry of the United States is con- centrated largely in the east north central, west north central, and south TABLE 9 Ten Leading States in Chickens Eaised and Egg Production in 1934 Chickens raised State Egg production State Number Per cent of United States Dozens Per cent of United States thousands 42,393 33,401 33,294 29,473 29,034 27,747 26,721 24,745 24,578 23,598 per cent 7.1 5.6 5.6 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.6 4.1 4.1 3.9 thousands 147,422 120,976 118,284 117,779 112,217 109,541 106,785 102,576 97,167 93,195 per cent 6.8 Illinois Missouri Ohio Ohio Missouri California Pennsylvania Illinois Texas 5.6 5.5 5.4 Kansas 5.2 Texas 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.5 Wisconsin 4.3 Source of data: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Census of Agriculture, 1935. Vol. 2: XXX-XXXIII. 1936. central divisions, which together accounted for about 68.6 per cent of all chickens raised in 1934 (table 31 and fig. 4). These three divisions to- gether, however, had only 49.1 per cent of the human population. The north Atlantic and south Atlantic divisions together, with 41.5 per cent of the population, raised only 23.5 per cent of the chickens. Similarly, the western states with 9.4 per cent of the population raised only 7.9 per cent of the chickens. The first ten states in order of importance as regards chickens raised and eggs produced in 1934 are shown in table 9. With the exception of Texas and Pennsylvania, all ten largest chicken-producing states are in the north central division. These ten states together accounted for nearly 50 per cent of all chickens raised in 1934. The order with regard to egg production was somewhat different. California, New York, and Wiscon- sin, which did not figure among the ten largest chicken-producing states ranked four, nine, and ten respectively as regards egg production. The 24 University of California — Experiment Station ten leading egg-producing states accounted for 52 per cent of all eggs produced in the United States in 1934. The number of chickens raised for the United States as a whole in 1934 averaged 4.7 per capita. The variation by geographic divisions is con- siderable, ranging from 1.9 chickens per capita in the north Atlantic division to 12.4 in the west north central states. In the Pacific division the average was 3.6 chickens per capita, or about 25 per cent below the average for the country as a whole. On a state basis the variation is even ^y//^W//. / y$vV/Y/ // /£*V//A' m s0m \A3^-y K^/// x ^ 7? B \ (id j7a y//\ m \/j^W//\ l 13] K ///O/// //&£///. A m \sy^s.X>V/\£LZ>\/ T j -\ -J2 4-.4J od^KXXj///; /V/Ao&fmkl WF^/^yyyv' /un/y /y^Z/yT LEGEND - 3 □ / ///^v//y y/%y^yY//// V///1 * ' 7 v\ 3.1 - 6 V7A Lgo] V 6.1 - 9 M 9.1 & OVER □ Fig. 5. — Chickens raised per capita, United States, 1934. Data from table 31. more marked, ranging from 0.9 chickens raised per capita in Rhode Island to 18.1 in Nebraska, and 24.4 in Delaware (fig. 5). In California only 3.2 chickens per capita were raised. Chickens Raised and Eggs Produced per Farm in 1934. — The average number of chickens raised per farm reporting chickens in the United States in 1934 was 115, ranging from 65 in the south central and 79 in the south Atlantic divisions to 192 in the north Atlantic and 200 in the Pacific divisions (table 31 and fig. 6) . In only seven states — New Hamp- shire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey (in the north Atlantic division), Delaware (in the south Atlantic division) and California (in the Pacific division) — did the number raised per farm exceed 250. In three states in the south central division the number of chickens per farm averaged less than 50. For the United States as a whole the average number of eggs produced Bul. 64^ Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 25 per farm in 1934 was 387 dozen, ranging from 173 dozen in the south central division to 1,045 dozen in the Pacific division (table 31). The smallest number of eggs produced per farm, 88 dozen, was in South Caro- lina and the largest number, 1,718 dozen, in New Jersey, California com- ing second with 1,370 dozen (fig. 7). Size of Poultry Farms and Flocks. — Some further light on the charac- teristics of poultry production in the United States is obtained from a study of census data on types of farms producing chickens and size of LEGEND ^— - 75 □ 76 - 150 O 151- 225 ^ 226-300 W 301 & OVER □ Fig. 6. -Average number of chickens raised per farm, United States, 1934. Data from table 31 flocks. Ill the 1935 Census of Agriculture, data were obtained on the size of poultry flocks on farms. Tables 10, 32, and 33 clearly point to the marked differences in poultry production in different sections of the United States. In 1935 there were only 11,172 farms with flocks of over 1,000 chickens and 8,343 of these, or almost 75 per cent w r ere in either the Pacific or north Atlantic divisions (table 32). Flocks in all of the other divisions were comparatively small. The larger flocks declined in the Pacific division between 1930 and 1935 while they increased ma- terially in the north Atlantic division. Table 10 brings out even more clearly than table 32 the contrasts be- tween the chicken industry of the Pacific Coast and other sections of the country. In the Untied States over 87 per cent of the chickens in 1935 were in farm flocks of less than 400 birds (table 10). The corresponding percentages were 94, 63, and 43 for the west north central, north At- 26 University of California — Experiment Station co o CO > A S *0 §s w ,-r O £x a « CO 5 M ^ Is o Ph h 1-1 o - w ° fe CO ft s co Q 3* ° fe w o o < o p4 * 00 to os N "9 0O 1^. © OO OS us CI CO ,H 1-1 >o >-i oq to (M to OS OS CO «3 03 P-i O I 1 M U5 to t^. Ol CO tJ N N O 1^ CI IO O Ol OO N sq 10 as CO CO 02 CM r- 10 CM 3 co N O •* O) t^ »c C) t^ § O -* CM CO f^ rH 10 CO CO CO CO to ^ Tf 10 CM ,_, ^a'cS ■"*< CM <-l §1 OQ g CO O 0O NtO CM t^. t^ CO O N 0> W O "* CM 1-1 10 CO OS to 10 ■* o> t~ ■ O 10 OS y ■* ■* Tl< N CO rH CM pC'+S '-' Si ^ to to * ^ to OS OS to **l ~H Tf 00 CO O M Ol P3 f ^ •<*< _ OS O 0O CO -T< O ^ as 10 ira cm 10 O " CO t^ •>* O 00 to ,_, .H CO H ■* N Ol T ,_ ,H ^^3 g CO OS CM O tO "5 -r ,_ O o <* as y IN t)( N Ol CO to ^H t J'-E ^H i-H .-1 i-t rH 1-1 If c *< CO OO CO tO CM t^ CO «* t- to O0 CM .-H .-1 CM T-H M N OS OS c. CO TV f IS 13 to OS CI &000 A g c3 O fl ~ <*» -f P r-l CM O a u — ~ m cc T3 tC fl "S O fl P O o3 CO '" .2 o Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 27 lantic, and Pacific states, respectively. Flocks of over 1,000 chickens accounted for only 5 per cent of all the chickens on farms in the country as a whole. In the commercial sections — the Pacific and north Atlantic states — the percentages were 35 and 16, respectively, while in the west north central states the percentage was approximately 0.5. Apparently there is a greater specialization in egg than in chicken production. While about 5 per cent of the chickens raised in the United States in 1934 come from flocks of over 1,000 chickens (table 33) eggs Fig. 7. — Eggs produced per farm (in dozens), United States, 1934. Data from table 31. produced from the large flocks amount to almost 8 per cent of the total for the country (table 34). In the Pacific Coast states the larger flocks accounted for almost 38 per cent of the egg production and about 34 per cent of the chickens raised. The 1930 Census classified farms by types. Poultry farms were those on which over 40 per cent of the farm income was derived from chickens and eggs. Only 163,751 or about 3.0 per cent of the 5,372,597 farms re- porting chickens on hand on April 1, 1930, were classified as poultry farms (table 11). In the Pacific division, 14.6 per cent of all farms with chickens were classified as poultry farms ; in the north Atlantic division, 8.9 per cent, and in the south central division, only 0.8 per cent. The poultry farms, however, had 14.7 per cent of all chickens on farms in the United States; in the Pacific division, 67.1 per cent; in the north At- 28 University of California — Experiment Station « £ co r* C C O co M-S ,-, » "5 O) lO W OO O) CO * O CO CO t- t~ CO O) Oi »o O) N to OJ ® CO 00 05 CO t- S 2 m ee * ce m eo w ■ o co a> co CO O >o CO ^ CO CO CM ■>»< - OO O »o ^ g O M Ki CO d ^3 M jS + j * ^ j "S £ s a | g § | § Z W £ co m S Cm 2 3 O. co >> cu 3 CO O C cp W ^ 'ccj^ 3 co c3."£ Kg flH CD Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 20 lantic division, 33.7 per cent; and in the south central division, only 4.4 per cent. The average-sized poultry farm in the United States had 339 chickens on hand on April 1, 1930, the range being from 683 chickens in the Pa- cific division to only 214 and 218 chickens per farm in the west north central and east north central divisions, respectively. Average chicken numbers on hand on other than poultry farms for the United States as a whole was 62, ranging from only 32 in the south Atlantic states to 112 in the west north central states. The average for the mountain and Pa- cific divisions was 57 each. The 1930 Census subdivided poultry farms on the basis of area (fig. 8) . In the Pacific division 69 per cent of the poultry farms were less than 20 acres in size, about 86.5 per cent less than 50 acres. In the mountain di- vision nearly 53 per cent of the poultry farms were less than 20 acres and about 70 per cent less than 50 acres. In the other divisions the ma- jority of poultry farms were in excess of 20 acres. In the north Atlantic states, 57.2 per cent of the poultry farms were between 20 and 174 acres and only 38.8 per cent less than 20 acres. In the east north central di- vision, 75.5 per cent of the poultry farms were over 20 acres in size ; in the west north central division, 76.3 per cent ; in the south Atlantic divi- sion, 69.5 per cent; and in the south central division, 74.9 per cent. In all the divisions a small number of farms classified as poultry farms ex- ceeded 175 acres in size. It is probable that the preponderance of the poultry farms of less than 20 acres and a considerable number of the farms, 20 to 49 acres in size, were specialized farms, devoted primarily to commercial egg production. On such farms the Leghorn breed of chickens would predominate. On the other hand, poultry farms in excess of 50 acres would very likely be more diversified; poultry raising, while the most important single activity, would provide only one of several sources of farm income. A considerable proportion of the chicken flocks on the larger farms would be composed of other than Leghorn breeds. On "other" farms (farms on which less than 40 per cent of the income is from poultry) heavier breeds would tend to predominate and chicken production would largely be a side-line enterprise. While it is probable that a not inconsiderable proportion of "other" farms in the north Atlantic, mountain, and Pacific divisions would raise Leghorn chickens, it is just as likely that the large majority of flocks on "other" farms in the east north central, west north central, south Atlantic, and south central divisions (which together had about 86 per cent of all chickens on "other" farms) are composed principally of the heavier breeds of chickens. These data on types of farms and size of farms thus indirectly throw 30 University of California — Experiment Station some light on the relative importance of Leghorns on farms in the dif- ferent geographic divisions. In the mountain and Pacific divisions, where most of the poultry farms are small in size but with large flocks, the Leg- horn is the predominant breed of chicken. In the north Atlantic division, especially in some states where commercial egg production is important, a considerable proportion of the chickens is also of the Leghorn breed. NORTH ATLANTIC 30 uj20 u 10 ■ HIM. EAST NORTH CENTRAL u 20 u I WEST NORTH CENTRAL SOUTH ATLANTIC SOUTH CENTRAL 30 20 u 10 30 jJliJ ": illlm MOUNTAIN PACIFIC UNITED STATES ACRES 30 20 ■ -I I, ■inn.- I i o m °> 2 2! * T f ? fl O i tf> o o ACRES Fig. 8. — Percentages of poultry farms in the United States and its geographic divisions, 1930. Data from: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Agriculture. Type of farm, vol 3(3) :50. 1932. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 31 In the other four divisions, however, Leghorns are very likely to compose only a small part of the chickens raised. 18 Chickens Consumed on Farms or Sold. — Not all chickens raised each year are consumed as meat the same year. A large proportion of the hens is carried over into subsequent years for egg production and replaces hens carried over from previous years. A certain proportion of the lat- ter, however, dies before ready to be sold as meat. The United States De- partment of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates the mortality of mature birds on farms at the beginning of each year to TABLE 12 Chickens Kaised, Consumed on Farms, or Sold in 1938 Geographic division Raised Chickens produced Consumed on farms Sold Consumed on farms or sold Chickens sold as a percentage of chickens consumed on farms and chickens sold thousands 87,687 145,406 191,004 98,225 142,584 20,223 31,070 716,199 thousands 80,613 129,957 172,258 90,891 128,131 17,934 26,916 646,700 thousands 12,850 40,774 56,687 42,196 73,189 7,561 6,871 240,128 thousands 65,100 84,405 103,854 45,492 48,975 9,655 22,017 380,498 thousands 77,950 125,179 160,541 87,688 122,164 16,216 28,888 620,626 per cent 83.5 67.4 64.7 51.9 South central 40.1 59.5 76.2 61.3 Source of data: United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Farm production and disposition, chicken and eggs, 1937-1938. 18 p. March, 1939. (Mimeo.) be at least 12 per cent. For recent years this figure should probably be somewhat higher — especially in the commercial egg-producing sections of the country. The Bureau has prepared for several years, in addition to its annual estimates of chickens on hand and chickens raised, an esti- mate on chickens produced (table 12). The latter estimate is obtained by deducting from the estimate of chickens raised each year the esti- mated death losses (12 per cent), of the mature chickens estimated to be on hand at the beginning of each year. A considerable proportion of chickens produced annually does not enter into commercial channels for poultry meat, but is consumed on farms. According to estimates of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, 620,626,000 chickens were consumed on farms or sold in 1938 (table 12) . Of this number 240,128,000, or 38.7 per cent were consumed on farms. The proportion of chickens sold to all chickens varied considerably in the different geographic divisions. In the north Atlantic division over 16 There are indications, however, that commercialized egg production (from Leg- horns) has increased considerably since 1930 in the east north central and west north central divisions. 32 University of California — Experiment Station 83 per cent of the chickens (consumed on farms or sold) were sold. In the Pacific states the percentage was over 76. In California the percent- age was 82.7, approximating that for the north Atlantic division. In the east north central and west north central divisions about 65 per cent was sold ; in the mountain division, about 60 per cent. In the south Atlantic division approximately one half were consumed on farms and the other half sold. In the south central division larger numbers of chickens were consumed on farms than were sold. Sales of chickens amounted to only about 45 per cent (for the two divisions) of all chickens consumed on farms or sold. A not inconsiderable proportion of the chickens sold is probably consumed in the states in which they are produced. These data are significant in that they indicate that while considerable numbers of chickens are produced in the southern states, only a small aggregate quantity is available for shipment to the large consuming markets of the East and West. TREND AND LOCATION OF CHICKEN PRODUCTION IN CALIFORNIA Development. — Between 1890 and 1930 chicken numbers on California farms increased nearly five times (table 13). In the earlier year Cali- fornia had 3,504,000 chickens, or only about 1.4 per cent of all chickens on farms in the United States; in 1930 about 4.6 per cent of the total and approximately two thirds (64.9 per cent) of those in the Pacific division. In 1935, however, numbers on California farms had declined to 14,043,000 as compared with 17,467,000 in 1930. The decline for the entire United States between 1930 and 1935 was 7,275,000, so that nearly 50 per cent of the United States decrease was accounted for by the de- cline in California. In 1890 the south coast, Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, and southern California sections each had approximately one fifth (20 per cent) of the chickens in the state; just under 16 per cent were in the north coast section. In 1920, however, the north coast had about one third (33.6 per cent) and southern California about one fourth (25.8 per cent). The other four sections had declined in relative importance, the decline being greatest in the northern and eastern mountain and Sacramento Valley sections. Since 1920 another important shift has taken place in the relative importance of the sections. In 1935 southern California had 30.1 per cent of all chickens in the state as compared with only 25.8 per cent in 1920 ; the proportion in the north coast region had declined from one third (33.6 per cent) to one fourth (25.2 per cent) . The south coast, Sacramento Valley, and San Joaquin Valley had in- creased in relative importance, while the northern and eastern mountain section retained the same relative position. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 33 Number of Poultry Farms. — The total number of all types of farms in California increased from 136,409 in 1925 to 150,360 in 1935 (table 14) .In 1925, however, onJy 88,761 farms, or 65.1 per cent of all farms in the state reported chickens on farms. While the number of farms report- ing- chickens had increased to 92,774 in 1935, the percentage had declined TABLE 13 Number and Percentage Distribution of Chickens on Farms and Geographic Distribution, California, 1880-1935 Section 1890 June 1 1900* June 1 1910* Apr. 15 1920 Jan. 1 1925 Jan. 1 1930* Apr. 1 1935* Jan. 1 Thousands, i.e., 000 omitted North coast South coast Sacramento Valley . . . San Joaquin Valley. . Southern California. . Northern and eastern mountain California total. . North coast South coast Sacramento Valley . . . San Joaquin Valley . . Southern California. . Northern and eastern mountain 556 735 765 689 674 3,504 823 1,825 3,502 3,974 5,202 847 1,088 1,189 1,664 2,146 737 762 1,093 1.335 1,650 724 1,047 1,836 1,945 2,280 092 1,230 2,688 3,741 6,053 120 3,943 135 119 127 136 6,087 10,427 12,786 17,467 Percentage distribution 15.9 21.0 21.8 19.7 19.2 2.4 3,534 1,776 1,603 2,771 4,222 137 14,043 20.8 30.0 33.6 31.1 29.8 21.5 17.9 11.4 13.0 12.3 18.7 12.5 10.5 10.4 9.4 18.4 17.2 17.6 15.2 13.1 17.6 20.2 25.8 29.3 34.6 3.0 2.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 25.2 12.6 11.4 19.7 30.1 1.0 *Excludes chickens under 3 months old. Sources of data: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Censuses of 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920, and 1930, and Censuses of Agriculture of 1925 and 1935. Percentage distribution: Calculations by authors on basis of census enumeration. to 61.7. The average number of chickens per farm reporting chickens was 144 in 1925 and 207 in 1930. In 1935, however, the average per farm had declined about one fourth to 151. There are marked variations in the percentage of farms with chickens and the number of chickens per farm in the various sections of the state, an indication of the extent of specialization in California agriculture. In 1935 only three sections — north coast, San Joaquin Valley, and northern and eastern mountain — had more than 70 per cent of the farms reporting chickens. Southern California showed only 47.2 per cent of farms with chickens. In all the sections except the San Joaquin Valley, which showed an increase, the proportion of farms reporting chickens 34 University of California — Experiment Station < CO M o ^ CO o ^ tf OS O £ 18 go E ^ P. 43 Is CO OS number 330 150 106 90 194 58 lO © OS number 494 200 116 83 316 62 O CO OS g O N * OO CS -fi fc co oo co if o> ■*! e ■* "* to J c CU (4 O O U ft © £" PL, u os per cent 71.1 56.8 62.9 72.6 47.2 73.4 CO o CO OS per cent 74.3 58.2 68.6 69.1 48.4 77.8 CO CO CO CO OS per cent 79.8 63.3 69.6 68.3 53.4 79.7 CD M o a a © u o S o u co os number 10,714 11.840 15,134 30,938 21,788 2,360 CO OS o CO OS number 10,538 10,740 14,239 27,588 19,130 2,202 co 00 US CO OS number 11,339 12,813 14.556 27,616 20,131 2,306 CD oo" oo 05 s c3 "5 CO OS number 15,080 20,861 22,626 42,590 46,204 2,999 © co CO ©" O CO OS number 14,187 18,453 20,710 39,932 39,653 2,831 CO CO CO 1« CO OS number 14,219 20,248 20,922 40,456 37,671 2,892 os © CD CO ~c3 CO "o e .2 'So 09 K o o I o ,JC •3 o CO > a I c p a £ F c cc •i 3 .d E s c *-s d i CG C c "5 - c c ,C c o cc a 1 9.E 1 § 13 c C a. q a ..3 Si oO Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 35 had declined since 1925. The number of chickens per farm in 1935 (fig. 10) varied from 330 in the north coast section and 194 in southern Cali- fornia to 90 in the San Joaquin Valley and 58 in the northern and eastern mountain sections. In all sections, again excluding the San Joaquin Valley, chicken numbers per farm decreased between 1930 and 1935. The San Joaquin Valley thus showed an increase both in the number of farms and in the number of chickens on farms. EACH DOT REPRESENTS 60,000 CHICKENS SACRAMENTO \v •***• \ "/ •• \/ SAN JOAC UIN SOUTH COAST v.: # - \ SOUT CAL • # . hern Y££7; • • • • \%J. :• Fig. 9. — Chickens raised in California, 1934. Data from table 35. Location of Chicken Production in California. — The chicken industry in California is highly concentrated in a few counties surrounding San Francisco Bay and in the coastal regions of southern California. Produc- tion throughout the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys together, while important in the aggregate, is widely scattered. In 1934 five counties, surrounding or close to San Francisco Bay — Sonoma, Marin, Alameda, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz — raised nearly 33 per cent of all chickens in California (table 35 and fig. 9). Four counties in southern California — Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego — raised an- other 27 per cent. Thus nine of the fifty-eight counties in the state raised about 60 per cent of all the chickens in the state. Sonoma County alone 36 University of California — Experiment Station raised just over one fifth (21.7 per cent) and Los Angeles County an- other 15.3 per cent. In other words, these two counties raised over one third of all chickens in California in 1934. The number raised per farm varies considerably in the different coun- ties (table 35). In the mountain counties of the northern and eastern parts and in the desert areas in the eastern and southern parts of the state less than 100 chickens were raised per farm in 1934 (fig. 10) . Most LEGEND LESS THAN 99 □ 100 - 199 E3 200 - 299 300-499 500-899 900 & OVER GD Fig. 10. — Number of chickens per farm, California, 1934. Data from table 35. of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley counties showed an average of between 100 and 200 chickens raised per farm. Nearly all the counties having an average of over 200 raised per farm were located along the coast from Sonoma County south. Marin and Sonoma counties each raised an average of over 1,000 chickens per farm. Further light on this aspect of the chicken industry in California is afforded by census data on size of farm flocks of chickens and size of poultry farms. The 1935 Census of Agriculture shows that there were 70,762 farms, or 76.3 per cent of all farms in the state reporting chickens on farms, that had flocks of less than 100 chickens (table 15). However, Bul. 642 Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 37 these 70,762 farms had only 15.6 per cent of all the farm chickens. On the other hand, the 3,219 farms with flocks of over 1,000 chickens, com- prising only 3.5 per cent of all the farms in the state reporting chickens, had 45.5 per cent of all the chickens on farms. There was a distinct decrease in the number of large flocks between 1930 and 1935. The number of farms with flocks in excess of 400 de- creased from 10,869 in 1930 to 8,475 in 1935. On the other hand, the number of farms with flocks of less than 100 increased from 61,116 in TABLE 15 Size of Farm Flocks of Chickens in California, 1930 and 1935 Size of flock Farms reporting chickens on farms Chickens on farms (3 months old and over) Proportion of farms reporting Proportion of chickens on farms 1930 1935 1930 1935 1930 1935 1930 1935 number number number number per cent per cent per cent per cent Under 50 47,349 55,758 1,126,989 1,284,961 56.1 60 1 6.5 9.1 50- 99 13,767 15,004 852,748 910,465 16.3 16 2 4.9 6.5 100- 199 7,276 8,101 909,343 992,666 8.6 8 7 5.2 7.1 200- 399 5,176 5,436 1,363,479 1,391,104 6.1 5 9 7.8 .9.9 400- 699 4,120 3,610 2,083,513 1,781,182 4.9 3 9 11.9 12.7 700- 999 2,255 1,646 1,800,324 1,297,332 2.7 1 8 10.3 9.2 1,000-2,499 3,580 2,627 5,087,933 3,666,639 4.2 2 8 29.1 26.1 2,500 and over. . . 914 592 4,242,955 2,718,744 11 6 24.3 100.0 19.4 84,437 92,774 17,467,284 14,043,093 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source of data: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Chickens and eggs by size of flock, p. 4-10. 1939. 1930 to 70,762 in 1935. An increase was also shown in the number of farms having flocks of 100 to 199 and 200 to 399. Only 15,421, or 18.3 per cent of all the farms in the state reporting chickens on hand in 1930 were classified as poultry farms (table 16) . The proportion of poultry farms to all farms reporting chickens in the dif- ferent regions of the state (calculated from table 16) were : Region of state Per cent Region of state Per cent Southern California 33.1 Sacramento Valley 12.9 North coast 30.4 San Joaquin Valley 6.5 South coast 20.3 Northern and eastern mountain. . 3.5 In the southern California section about 85.0 per cent of the poultry farms were under 10 acres, in the south coast section about 72.9 per cent, and in the north coast section about 52.9 per cent. In the other sections poultry farms tended to be somewhat larger. For the state as a whole, however, about 79.5 per cent of all poultry farms were under 20 acres and 90.5 per cent under 50 acres. It is significant, moreover, that the sec- tions in which the smaller-sized farms (under 10 acres) predominated, 38 University of California — Experiment Station 7 1 £ © w CO © CM t^ CO CN ^h ^h CO CO CO w lO a m ■* C P5 ^ cc » rt N t- M C« O) t~ IN ■* CO ■* cc m -* n -2 C "eS O > 5 a a a >>*-* O ■^ S « ^ £ "5 | g I 3 § J 2, C/2 GO GO CO X o © © © © © © o o o o o o o o o o o o © © co oo t- »o co t— co O O i-l O © I- © oo >o OS OO CO t^ CM © © CO i-i © 1^ l^ 1— i— 1 OS -^ -f © r-c © CM O © co i-l OS OS OS CO CM © co i— i t- cm i— i co CM M O C5 in N H . « o ai co h ^ •^< as cm cm m oo © CM t^ CO CO CO CM _, i—i CM CM i-H N * t, i-i t» io ** -*i CM CO CM t— « •o CM i-i CM CM i-l OS OS CM i— I CO "5 © CO OS i— i ■* t— i— l -*t< CM CM CM CM i-l - © © T»« © t- ~H CM Ol C<5 CO U5 N lO •"t 1 th 1-4 in co c c3 C 2 O fc C >> .5 fe alle Vail if or eas orth coast, outh coast, acramento an Joaquin outhern Ca orthern an '3 c o 'A GO u. a. a, y. 3 O o -5 S i > c S a 3 = a „_ •5 -° Is ^ O «S"S.co co a3 S i-i £~° O . Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 39 also had the highest proportion of large-sized flocks. In other words, the large commercial poultry flocks were on relatively small specialized farms. No data are available concerning the relative importance of different breeds of chickens in the several sections of the state. It is the opinion of persons familiar with the poultry industry of the state, however, that at least 90 per cent of the chickens raised are of the White Leghorn breed. The large commercial farms run almost entirely to Leghorn hens. On many of the farms with small flocks, especially in the northern and east- ern mountain section and the San Joaquin Valley, probably somewhat larger quantities of heavy breeds of chickens are raised, but even in these sections most farm flocks consist of Leghorn chickens. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CHICKEN INDUSTRY IN CALIFORNIA" The preceding section showed (1) that only 61.7 per cent of all farms in the state had chickens on hand on January 1, 1935, and (2) that flock size varied considerably. The purpose of this section is to present addi- tional information on the importance and characteristics of chicken raising on individual farms. Position of the Chicken Enterprise on Farms. — Chickens are raised under a variety of conditions in different parts of the state, and while commercial egg production is important, large numbers of farmers keep chickens mainly to supply the family with eggs and poultry meat. The chicken flocks of the state may fall roughly into three groups : (1) small flocks kept to supply family needs; (2) commercial flocks on farms on which chicken raising is only one of several enterprises and sources of income; and (3) specialized commercial flocks which supply the only source of farm income. It is, however, difficult to determine the number of farms that would fall under each of these three headings. Undoubtedly the bulk of the 55,758 farms shown in the 1935 Census of Agriculture (table 15) as having flocks of less than 50 chickens and a considerable number of the 15,004 farms with flocks from 50 to 99 chickens would come under the first group. Some of the farms with larger flocks, however, would also be kept mainly to supply the family and farm employees with chickens. On the other hand, some eggs and chickens on the smaller farms may be sold to local dealers or to local families. On the smaller farms the chicken flock would generally be under the care of the farmer's wife or members of his family. The majority of the 13,537 farms with flocks from 100 to 399 chickens, 17 Most of the information in this section was furnished by L. W. Fluharty and A. Shultis, Specialists in Agricultural Extension and Associates on the Giannini Foundation, College of Agriculture, University of California, and is based on data compiled from enterprise-efficiency studies made over a period of years in various counties in the state. 40 University of California— Experiment Station a smaller proportion of the 3,610 farms with 400 to 699 chickens, and probably a few of the farms with larger flocks would fall under the second group. Egg production and chicken raising would engage a con- siderable part of the time of the farm operator. Income from chickens would furnish an important, and, in many cases the main source of farm income. Other farm enterprises conducted along with chicken raising would vary in the different parts of the state and from farm to farm even in individual counties. There would probably be a large number of combinations and variations of chicken raising with other enterprises. Under the third group — specialized commercial chicken farms — would come most of the farms with flocks of 700 chickens and over, as well as a considerable number of flocks with from 400 to 699 chickens. Prac- tically the full time of the farm operator and his family would be devoted to chicken raising and egg production. The chicken enterprise would provide the main source of farm income, although many of the larger- sized farms (in acreage) may have one or more supplementary enter- prises. As a general rule the specialized commercial chicken farms are small in size — probably less than 20 acres. Mortality and Culling. — Chicken mortality varies considerably in the different sections of the state and is usually found to be heaviest in con- gested chicken-raising areas and in large flocks. Enterprise-effciency records of the Agricultural Extension Service of the College of Agricul- ture, University of California, covering from 38 to 254 commercial flocks a year in different parts of the state, indicate that mortality (based upon the average annual number of hens in a flock) increased from 20.1 per cent in 1925 to 22.6 per cent in 1929 and 33.0 per cent in 1933. 18 The large increase in mortality from 1929 was due, to a considerable extent, to less care during the depression ; in the less careful selection of healthy replacement stock ; and probably also to a general slackening of feeding and other management practices. The average mortality rate was found to vary considerably in different counties and even within the same county. Since 1934, heavier culling, greater care in selection of young chicks and in feeding and other management practices, have aided in arresting and even decreasing the trend of mortality in most counties. The enterprise-efficiency studies above referred to also indicate that commercial chicken producers in the state have given increased attention to the culling of poor-laying hens from their flocks. Since 1925 the per- centage of hens culled (based on the average annual number of hens in a flock) increased from 28.7 in 1925 to 49.5 in 1934. The percentage of hens culled varied considerably from county to county and even within 18 Data from an unpublished manuscript being prepared by L. W. Fluharty, Spe- cialist in Agricultural Extension, University of California. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 41 counties. Data from enterprise-efficiency studies in several counties for the years 1935 and 1936 indicated some decrease in the rate of culling. Income and Expense Factors. — The income per hen in commercial flocks varies from year to year according to the egg price, the cost of maintaining the flock, and the prices obtained for chickens sold. During the eight years, 1927 to 1934, the average total income per hen in 1,386 19 commercial flocks included in the farm enterprise-efficiency studies above referred to averaged $3.50, of which $3.24 was obtained from eggs sold and used in the home, $0.16 from the net sale of chickens (chickens sold less chickens bought), and $0.10 from other sources (sale of manure, feed bags, etc.). The average total income varied from $4.55 per hen in 1929 to $2.32 per hen in 1933. Total expense per hen in the 1,386 flocks averaged $3.28 and is made up as follows : feed cost, $2.01 ; hired labor, $0.13 ; family labor, $0.56 ; depreciation on buildings and equipment, $0.13 ; interest on investment, $0.26 ; and miscellaneous expense, $0.19. During the period of eight years, total expense varied from $3.69 per hen in 1929 to $2.61 per hen in 1933. Feed costs alone averaged 61.2 per cent of total costs per hen. Some variation is found in feed costs in different sections, the variation de- pending upon the sources from which feeds are purchased, cost of feeds in each section, and the extent to which chickens obtain part of their feed requirements on the farm. It is estimated that specialized chicken pro- ducers purchase about 33.0 per cent more commercial feeds than do pro- ducers whose flocks are only one of several farm enterprises. Here again there would be a considerable variation depending upon the nature of the other enterprises. For example, on farms producing grain or livestock as well as chickens, less commercial feed per hen would be purchased than on farms producing deciduous or citrus fruits as other farm enter- prises. The cost of family labor was calculated at the prevailing wages for agricultural labor in the sections. This represented the amount which could have been earned had members of the family preferred to work for other farmers. Interest on investment was calculated on the prevailing rate of interest charged. Management income per hen (total income less total expense) in the 1,386 flocks averaged $0.22 during the eight years. Management income per hen ranged from $0.05 in 1934 to $0.86 in 1927. In 1931, 1932, and 1933, however, net losses per hen averaged $0.07, $0.23, and $0.29, re- spectively. Farm income per hen (management income plus the value of the op- 19 This represents a much smaller number of separate farms, because many of the flocks were included in studies made each year. The number of flocks included each year varied from 75 in 1934 to 250 in 1929. 42 University of California — Experiment Station erator's and family labor plus interest on investment) averaged $1.04, the range being from $0.44 per hen in 1933 to $1.69 per hen in 1929. This was the total amount of family income per hen provided the operator owned all his capital. This total family income represents what is left after all of the cash expenses plus depreciation have been subtracted from the total cash income. This explains why, in spite of net losses over a number of years, many farmers manage to remain in business. The net losses might indicate that the family was paid a lower-than-the- prevailing wage. In those cases where an operator borrowed some or all of his capital, interest paid on such borrowed capital would have to be deducted from farm income per hen in order to obtain net family income. These data are averages based on annual records of not more than 250 commercial poultry flocks. As a general rule poultry producers who cooperate in these studies are somewhat more efficient than the average poultry farmer. Total income, total expense, management income, and farm income per hen vary considerably from farm to farm in any one year and on the same farm from year to year. The total farm income per flock (farm income per hen times the number of hens), of course, varies in relation to total income per hen, total expense per hen, and the number of hens in each flock. In spite of these limitations, however, these enter- prise-efficiency studies do represent a fairly reliable reflection of the commercial poultry industry of the state. POULTRY CLASSIFICATION AND PRODUCTION OF POULTRY CLASSES Classification of Chickens. — The large range of terminology 20 used in designating both live and dressed poultry is confusing. Investigators point out that in dressed poultry over a hundred separate grades were found on the New York market. 21 Poultry is a composite commodity made up of a number of different classes, each of which follows in a large measure an independent course with respect to market and price. Chickens are commonly divided into light and heavy breeds (p. 15-16). The White Leghorn is the predom- inant breed in the former class, and a number of different breeds make up the latter. Oftentimes poultry in the latter classification is referred 20 For a description of tentative United States standards and grades see : United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Tentative United States standards for grades for live poultry. 2 p. Eevised April 1, 1937. (Mimeo.) United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Classification and tentative specifications for United States standards and grades for dressed chickens. 8 p. Eevised March, 1938. (Mimeo.) 21 Sprague, Gordon W., and Alexander Sturges. Economic survey of the live poultry industry in New York City. United States Department of Agriculture Misc. Pub. 283: 1-115. 1937. Benjamin, Earl W., and Howard C. Pierce. Marketing poultry products, xi+401 p. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 1937. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 43 to as colored chickens and fowl, although these latter designations are not strictly correct. A very large percentage of the White Leghorns and an increasingly large percentage of the colored breeds destined for market originate in commercial hatcheries. The season of largest hatchery sales is from Jan- uary through July (table 17) . A sizable percentage of the heavier chick- TABLE 17 Salable Chicks Hatched as a Percentage of Capacity of Incubators, United States, 1930-1939 Year January February March April May June July Average 1930 1931 per cent 9.0 4.5 6.9 5 6.1 8.9 11.6 8.0 10.2 14.5 per cent 18.0 13.8 15.7 15.2 12.9 14.7 21.3 16.8 17.2 21.1 per cent 59.9 39.6 37 7 36.1 33 3 37.6 43 3 42.6 44.0 46.6 per cent 74.2 51.7 46.5 54.3 54.9 65.6 70.7 56.9 58.1 65.7 per cent 52.5 41.4 44 4 52 4 47.8 56.2 58.7 36.6 47.5 53.4 per cent 31.8 22.1 23.1 29.0 17.7 31.0 36.8 14.4 23.5 23.4 per cent 9.0 10.8 12.8 12.3 5.5 15.5 16.3 6.9 12.9 13.9 per cent 37.7 27.3 1932 27.7 1933 30.0 1934 27.7 1935 34.4 1936 37.0 1937 26.0 1938 30.5 1939 34.1 Source of data: United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Argicultural Economics. Hatchery reports issued monthly for months January-July inclusive. (Mimeo.) ens, as well as some of the lighter ones, are hatched on farms. The farm hatching season extends from February to June, although in some years considerable hatching is done in January and July. The far greater number of the chickens destined for market in the United States are therefore hatched in the first part of the year, and this accounts for a considerable part of the seasonality in the production of certain poultry classes. However, the proportion of all chickens hatched in one month varies considerably (tables 17 and 18) from year to year and is con- trolled mainly by the producer and not by the weather, although the producer may be influenced by considerations of the weather. The earli- ness or lateness of the hatch may influence the time of marketing the young chickens (broilers, fryers, and roasters), as well as the weight per bird at the time of marketing. In a market sense, "chickens" refers to young live chickens (sometimes dressed), and includes broilers, fryers, and roasters. In producing sec- tions, the term "spring," or "springers," is common for "chickens." Broilers constitute the youngest class, fryers the next, and roasters the last class. These classes, especially with colored birds, merge into one another as the season advances. Broilers are described as "young chickens, approximately 8 to 12 weeks 44 University of California — Experiment Station old, of either sex, of marketable age but not weighing over 2.5 pounds and sufficiently soft-meated to be cooked tender by broiling."" In general, in the United States, broilers are produced on three types of farms : (1) general farms such as are found prevailing in the Middle TABLE 18 Hatchery Sales in California, 1927-1939 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov Dec. State sales in per cent of capacities of hatcheries reporting 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 19.3 42.8 54.7 41.8 13.1 4.4 3.1 3.9 7.1 5.6 5.9 15.8 33.9 50 4 22 9 13.1 6.6 3.7 4.9 7.7 7.5 5.4 19.4 33.7 45.6 32.4 17.0 8.4 7.2 10.3 13.7 11.0 7.5 25.5 39.5 52.2 38.6 20.6 5 5 2.6 4.1 6.5 6.0 4.5 11.7 22.4 37.0 26.1 11.4 4 5 4 3 4.9 8.0 8.2 6.5 11.9 20.7 27.6 17 .2 10.1 4.7 3.6 4.0 5 1 * * 10.6 20 3 26.6 21 3 11.3 6.3 4 9 4.2 4.9 3.7 1.7 7.8 18.7 31.9 20.6 8 3 4 4 3.1 4 8.1 6.6 7.5 17.0 24.8 33.0 29.3 20 4 9.1 7.2 9.9 13.2 13 4 11.2 21.4 29.7 38.5 34 8 15.6 11.5 9.8 9.3 11.9 10.7 9.9 16.9 24.8 40.1 41.5 12.5 8.6 6.5 8.0 16.5 11 11.4 20.2 25.4 33.6 24.2 17.0 12.0 10.3 10.5 13.4 10.5 10.7 17 .7 26.5 35.8 31.1 19.4 13.4 10.1 11.1 13.6 11 .3 7.7 5.6 10.1 10.8 6.5 8.4 5.1 10.3 10.3 9.6 13.0 9.7 12.0 Outside sales in per cent of capacities of hatcheries reporting 2.9 10.4 21.0 39.6 5.4 0.6 t 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 4.3 12.2 15.6 6.1 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.6 4 0.2 1.9 6.5 28.2 34.0 10 1.0 0.5 4 0.6 0.7 0.4 2.2 10.0 26.3 47.8 13.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 t 0.3 2.3 11.0 18.6 5.7 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 4 0.2 1.0 2.8 12.4 11.8 3.2 0.2 t 0.1 0.1 * * 0.4 1.0 9.4 10.7 2.5 0.4 t 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 2.2 12.7 11.8 2.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.5 4.7 11.4 17.8 4.7 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 2.4 8.4 22.6 27.2 9.2 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.3 1.1 2.7 15.6 16.1 3.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.8 2.4 1.1 0.5 3.8 14.2 12.0 2.7 0.8 0.1 0.4 1.9 0.9 0.5 2.8 4.9 13.9 15.7 5.8 0.3 0.2 0.3 1.7 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.2 t 0.3 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.3 * No reports issued, t Less than 0.05 per cent. Sources of data: United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Federal-State Market News Service. Report on hatchery sales in California. Monthly. December " West and to some extent in the north Atlantic and New England states; (2) specialized egg farms composed largely of Leghorn chickens and found largely on the Pacific Coast and in the north Atlantic states — with scattered farms in the Middle West; and (3) commercial broiler 22 United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Classification and tentative specifications for United States standards and grades for dressed chickens, p. 1-8. Eevised March, 1938. (Mimeo.) Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 45 farms such as are found in Delaware, Virginia, Maryland, Connecticut, New York, and to some extent in California. Broilers on eastern markets make their appearance mainly in June, July, August, and September. Within the past two decades the broiler industry, particularly along the east coast, has placed its product on the market during all months of the year. While the production of broilers during the late spring and summer months is an old phase of the poultry business, the raising of winter and early spring broilers on a large com- mercial scale is a relatively new development. Fryers are "young chickens approximately 14 to 20 weeks old of either sex weighing between 2V2 and 3% pounds, and sufficiently soft-meated to be cooked tender by frying." 23 They may be either of the White Leg- horn or colored breeds. The line of demarcation between broilers and fryers is determined by both age and weight and is very indistinct. On many markets the term "fryer" is not used, broilers covering chickens up to 20 weeks and weighing less than 3% pounds. Since fryers are usually hatched at the same time as broilers, the peak of production occurs in volume after that of broilers. In a study made of the receipts of dressed poultry of different classes on the New York market, 24 approximately 67 per cent of the annual amount of fryers received arrived in the four months from August through November. Fryers are produced in rela- tively small volume from January through June. Throughout the year fryer production is approximately two months later than that of broilers. Leghorn fryers are probably not offered for sale for so long a period as the colored fryers because they are not so acceptable after they pass 3 pounds in weight. The roaster is a "young chicken, approximately 5 to 9 months old, of either sex, weighing over 3% pounds, and sufficiently soft-meated to be cooked tender by roasting." 25 Only colored chickens fit into this classifi- cation. On the New York market from 15 to over 20 per cent of all the live- poultry receipts were in this classification from 1933 to 1935. 26 On ac- count of the time of hatching normally followed in the midwestern section of the country in which the bulk of the roasters are raised, there 23 United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Classification and tentative specifications for United States standards and grades for dressed chickens, p. 1-8. Eevised March, 1938. (Mimeo.) 21 Sprague, Gordon W. Average monthly wholesale prices and price relations for fresh dressed poultry at New York City. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. 31 p. 1933. (Mimeo.) 25 United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Classification and tentative specifications for United States standards and grades for dressed chickens, p. 1-8. Eevised March, 1938. (Mimeo.) 26 United States Department of Agriculture. Handbook of poultry and egg statistics. Misc. Pub. 158:34. 1937. 46 University of California — Experiment Station is little volume in production until July or August. A rapid acceleration in production occurs in September, and a peak is usually reached in the last three months of the year when from 60 to 75 per cent of the roasters are marketed. The volume of production diminishes from January to May or June. Seasonal production is fairly regular. The movement is opposite in directon to that normally exhibited by colored hens as an increasingly larger number of chickens mature. As a result, roaster pro- duction is almost negligible from April to July. In a market sense "fowl" means mature hens of any age or weight. In the great poultry-producing sections of the United States this class is by far the largest in the arrivals at the markets. Unlike broilers, fryers, and roasters, a large potential supply of hens exists in the country throughout the year, which may always be attracted to the market if prices become sufficiently favorable. The variation in receipts of hens from month to month is not so marked as with the other classes of poul- try. In January, February, and March the volume marketed is associated with the price of eggs, for there is some evidence that unusually low win- ter egg prices will cause a heavier-than-usual flow of hens to market. In the main chicken-producing sections of the country, April, May, and June are months of heavy egg production and consequently fowl mar- ketings are very likely to be low. During the summer, culling increases with resultant increase in fowl offerings. A rise in offerings often occurs in September and continues until a peak in marketing is reached in No- vember and December. Leghorn hens are placed in the fowl, or hen, class. In most markets, however, the Leghorn hen, or Leghorn fowl, is separated from those of the colored breeds. Ducks, geese, and turkeys are in a somewhat different category from the other poultry products described, since they are not by-products of an egg industry. Duck, geese, and turkey production is planned so that the products will be available in fall and early winter. With turkeys, however, and probably with ducks, the production season has been greatly expanded within recent years. In the larger markets there is a fair demand for squabs, mainly con- fined to the more expensive hotels and restaurants. The largest supply of squabs is usually from March to November. Poultry Classes in California. — While the description of the produc- tion of poultry classes in the United States holds in a very general way for most of the major poultry-producing areas, there are differences both in the relative importance of production of the different classes and in the seasonality of production in so far as California is concerned. Since the advent of the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics in poultry-price reporting at San Francisco Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 47 and Los Angeles, the terminology classification has corresponded to that already described (p. 43-46) . Probably 90 per cent of the chickens in California are White Leghorns, and these furnish much of the chicken-meat supply of the state — espe- cially in the broiler, fryer, and Leghorn-hen classifications. A 1934 esti- mate of a broiler production of between 500,000 and 1,000,000 was made for California. 27 On account of numbers shipped out of the state during certain years, 28 the latter figure is probably closer to actuality. The same source estimated the total commercial-broiler production to be 16,500,000 birds for the United States in 1934. The total number of chickens raised as estimated by the Census for the United States for the same year was 598,867,000 and for California, 18,159,412. Broiler production is a far more important part of the poultry industry of the state than it is of the nation. Probably two thirds of the national broiler crop is raised in Dela- ware, Virginia, and Maryland. In California, with its highly specialized egg production, the main source of broilers is from White Leghorn cockerels produced as by- products on commercialized egg farms. Especially, since the advent of chick sexing, many now buy only pullet chicks for flock replacement. There has been some development of farms producing cockerels and pullets as broilers in the state, although occasionally one finds them pro- duced on general farms. In certain other states where broilers are of importance, Barred and White Plymouth Hocks, Rhode Island Reds, and Wyandottes are utilized. Meat production being strictly secondary to egg production, Califor- nia poultrymen perhaps can do but little to change the seasonality of marketing operations. The majority of birds are brooded in February, March, and April (table 18) ; and since broilers are approximately 8 to 12 weeks old the largest supplies arrive on the market during the four months, April, May, June, and July, and lowered prices result. The early hatching in California permits pullets to produce in the fall when egg prices are at a peak. To produce birds for the peak-price broiler mar- ket would necessitate brooding in midsummer, which is undesirable on account of the warm summer weather. Furthermore, pullets would start producing in the spring, which is undesirable on account of low prices. For the other western states the season is approximately one month later 27 Termohlen, W. D., and J. W. Kinghorne. An economic survey of the commercial broiler industry. U. S. Dept. Agr. Agricultural Adjustment Administration. General Inform. Ser. G61:l-54. 1936. ^Eeceipts of dressed poultry at New York from California in pounds in the six years 1934-1939 have been as follows: 1934—2,235,000; 1935—5,487,000; 1936— 6,650,000; 1937—4,132,000; 1938—3,857,000; 1939—2,830,000. In some years re- ceipts at Boston have been considerable, while those at Philadelphia and Chicago have been minor. Data are not available on dressed receipts at other cities. In all probability most of the receipts have been in the broiler or fryer classifications, since they have appeared in the spring. 48 University of California — Experiment Station so that the greatest broiler production may extend at times into late July and early August. In some areas it might be possible to brood chicks for the October broiler market since the brooder house would be empty during the period July to October. Whether or not this would prove feasible would depend very largely on climatic conditions. A combination of brooding for roast- ers in the fall, broilers in the summer, and egg production in the spring might be worked out for those wishing to specialize in brooding. The peak production of Leghorn fryers in California occurs from a month to two months later than that for broilers. What proportion of California chicken production Leghorn fryers and other classes consti- tute would be a conjecture, since no data are available. A potential supply of Leghorn hens is always on hand. The normal processes of culling send numbers onto the markets. The interrelations of feed, egg, and Leghorn-hen prices determine whether a larger or smaller number will be marketed. Given low egg prices in relation to feed prices and relatively high Leghorn hen prices, a large number of hens will be marketed. Considerable interest has been shown in the possibility of the com- mercial production of colored chickens in California. While there has been some production of all classes of colored chickens and fowl, it has been minor. Questions have been raised concerning out-of -season roaster produc- tion in California. The possibilities for markets cannot be predicted safely. The Pacific Coast demand is not large. At present, roasters are not quoted on the New York market during the spring months and at times this has been the case in California markets. The market for large num- bers of roasters in the East is in the fall. The possibility of shipping out- of-season roasters east in the spring would be problematical. Not only would transportation costs be large but feed costs would probably be pro- hibitive. Spring roaster production would necessitate the use of the brooder house only during the winter months, so that the producer would have to supplement this with some other line of poultry production . While most of the fowl produced in California are of the Leghorn breed, there is a considerable sale of colored hens, especially from many farm flocks and from a number of poultry farms maintaining flocks of colored chickens. The sales of roosters, both White Leghorn and colored, in such a highly commercialized egg-producing state as California would be of minor importance. Duck and turkey production are of considerable import in California. While there is some demand for squabs within the state, the production can be and at times has been, overexpanded. Bul. C42] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 49 MARKETING METHODS AND CHANNELS IN CALIFORNIA Methods of Sale by Producers. — Chicken meat in California is largely a by-product of egg production. Although a fairly large proportion of the California farms with small flocks produce heavy breeds of chickens, either exclusively or along with Leghorn chickens, and while there are a few producers who specialize in producing heavy market birds, the total number of chickens of heavy breeds is relatively insignificant in comparison with the number of Leghorn chickens marketed. Most of the dealers interviewed in the Los Angeles market estimated that at least 90 per cent of the heavy-breed chickens sold in that market are shipped in from out of state. In the San Francisco market the proportion of heavy- breed birds obtained from within the state is probably somewhat higher than in Los Angeles. Dealers in the San Francisco Bay area estimate that at least 65 per cent of heavy-breed chickens shipped into that market are obtained from out of state. Interviews with chicken producers, hucksters (local itinerant buyers, also known as "peddlers"), and local dealers or merchants in different parts of the state indicate that there is not much variation in the selling practices of producers regardless of whether they sell Leghorns or chick- ens of the heavier breeds. A few producers, especially in the southern part of the state, sell their poultry directly to consumers, either on the farm or through stalls operated in farmers' markets. A somewhat larger proportion of farmers sell their chickens direct to local retail butchers. In the counties in close proximity to San Francisco, a large number of chicken producers sell through the Poultry Producers of Central Cali- fornia which operates several killing, grading, and packing plants in the country. The chickens so purchased are sold in the San Francisco market to retail stores, hotels, and on occasion to other wholesale dealers. In southern California the Fontana Producers Egg and Supply Com- pany sells its members' poultry direct to a local killing establishment operated by one of the large meat packers. The North Pacific Coast Poul- try Producers at Eureka handle chickens for their members. Other poul- try cooperative associations in the state do not handle their members' chickens; they confine their activities largely to handling their members' eggs and supplying them with poultry feeds. The great bulk of chickens produced in the state, both Leghorns and heavy breeds, are sold by individual producers directly to local buyers of several kinds (see section "Operations of Local Buyers"). The marketing season for chickens depends almost entirely upon prev- alent breeding practices. At one time nearly all chicks were hatched in the late fall and early winter months. The male chicks reached the broiler 50 University of California — Experiment Station stage some two to three months later so that the broiler marketing season began in February and continued until June or even July. Similarly, hens were usually culled in the late spring and summer months ; Leghorn hens thus started moving to market about June and continued until in August. During recent years, however, hatching and culling practices have undergone considerable change. The largest proportion of chicks is now hatched during the late winter and spring months. Hatching has, however, become much less seasonal, considerable quantities of chicks being produced in each month of the year (table 18). An increasing number of farmers follow the practice of culling their flocks regularly rather than waiting until the late spring and summer months. As a re- sult, while the heaviest marketing of broilers still comes in the spring and early summer months and the heaviest marketing of hens in the summer months, supplies of both broilers and hens reach the market practically all the year round. Although the main broiler- and hen-marketing seasons usually extend over several months, chicken sales by individual producers may occur only a few times a year. Individual producers do not sell small quantities of broilers and hens at regular intervals but rather tend to sell large lots at a single time. Thus a producer may sell broilers only two or three times a year and hens somewhat more frequently according to how often he culls. For example, a producer would usually sell all the hens culled in June in one lot and so on for other cullings. 29 The longer marketing sea- son occurs because all producers do not sell broilers and culled hens at the same time. This factor is important in determining the returns ob- tained by an individual producer from the sale of broilers and hens. One producer may obtain a low return on the sale of his broilers because they were ready for market at a time when prices were low, whereas another producer may have been fortunate enough to sell earlier or later in the season when prices were considerably higher. No satisfactory and practical grades exist for live poultry. The price per pound received by producers usually is based on the average weight per bird (which is an indication of the available meat on a chicken) and the general outward appearance of each bird at the time of sale. Chick- ens that have blemishes or deformities (broken wings or legs or scars) are degraded and sometimes rejected. Sick chickens are often sold to certain local buyers, for resale presumably to fox farms and dog and cat hospitals. Some producers and dealers, however, allege that in spite of city regulations prohibiting the sale of sick chickens for human con- sumption, some sick chickens find their way into the hands of cut-rate 29 This does not apply to producers who sell directly to consumers or regularly to retail butchers. Such producers would aim at maintaining a sufficient supply of broil- ers and hens all the year round to meet current needs. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 51 retail butchers. As the average weight of chickens is an important fac- tor in "rough" live grading, producers have often followed the practice of heavy feeding just before chickens are sold. This practice, however, is well known to local buyers who tend to discount the weight accord- ingly. Most producers endeavor to have their chickens in the condition demanded by the trade. Producers usually find that local buyers are more exacting in their grading of broilers and hens at the peak of the marketing seasons. Chickens, which later on in the season will be placed in the first grade, are placed in a lower grade or rejected. Prices received by producers are usually based on prices at the near- est wholesale market less the local dealer's margin (the amount which the local dealer requires to cover profits and his operating costs, includ- ing transportation to the wholesale market) . As will be shown in the next section, the producers' price does not always move at a fixed differential below the wholesale price. Operations of Local Buyers. — There are several different types of local buyers (in contrast to cooperative associations) who purchase chickens from producers. These local buyers are usually in active com- petition with each other in the areas in which they operate. All local buyers who purchase poultry from producers on any basis other than cash (coin or currency, lawful money of the United States) in full at time of delivery, have to be licensed by the Director, State Department of Agriculture. The purpose of this license is to protect producers against unfair and fraudulent practices of buyers of their products and espe- cially against nonpayment for farm products consigned to a dealer or not paid for in full in cash at the time of delivery. 30 The most important type of local poultry buyers, from the standpoint of both size and volume of business handled, are hucksters, or peddlers, who are itinerant local buyers with no fixed place of business other than the home. Each huckster operates one or more trucks and visits farmers at frequent intervals for the cash purchase of chickens. Some hucksters may operate continuously within a definite territory; others move from one area to another at frequent intervals. Dealers of this type usually grade chickens purchased from producers into one or two broad classi- fications, transport them alive in coops to the nearest large market, where the chickens are sold to a wholesale dealer or to retail slaughterhouses. Some hucksters tend to deal almost exclusively with a particular whole- sale dealer, and act largely as the local buyer for such wholesale dealer; others sell their chickens to whatever dealer in the city will give them the best price. 30 [California] Agricultural Code (revised to September 19, 1939) Division 6, Chapter 6, Sections 1261 to 1273, p. 319-31. Published by California State Depart- ment of Agriculture. 1939. 52 University of California — Experiment Station A second type of local buyer is the local agent of a city wholesale dealer. In some instances wholesale dealers maintain country buying stations from which employees contact producers in the surrounding territory. In other cases wholesale dealers send their buyers into the country direct from the city plant. Chickens purchased from producers are roughly graded and sorted in the country and shipped to the city plant of the wholesale dealer, where they are killed, dressed, and graded. A third type of local buyer is the large meat-packing concern which operates a country killing and dressing plant (of which there are several in the state). Producers may ship their poultry direct to the local plant or deliver to trucks operated from the plant. Chickens purchased by such plants are killed, dressed, and graded and shipped direct to the main packing plant in the nearest city. A fourth and less important type of local buyer is a local produce merchant or retail storekeeper. The latter is found usually in the less important poultry sections of the state. This type of local buyer may act as the local agent for a wholesale dealer in an adjacent city; he may sell locally to a huckster or may ship the poultry purchased to a whole- sale dealer in a nearby city. Producers often complain bitterly about the allegedly unscrupulous practices employed by local buyers of poultry — particularly hucksters. Such complaints are most frequent when prices received by producers are low, a conditon resulting from general supply and demand relations for poultry, over which local buyers have little or no control. Many pro- ducers interviewed, especially in southern California, referred to the fact that local buyers' margins (difference between the price in the near- est wholesale market and the price received by the producer) often varied considerably at different times of the year, being the highest usually at the peak of the marketing season (see p. 121-122). Producers also claim that local buyers lower the returns of producers by classing chickens as second grade, which later on will be accepted as first grade by the wholesaler or retailer. Complaints about variations in local buyers' margins and grading practices can in large measure be accounted for by supply and demand conditions in the wholesale markets. During the heavy broiler- and hen- marketing seasons, wholesale dealers are likely to be more exacting in their quality requirements because only sound chickens are put into storage. Furthermore, hucksters often find it difficult to obtain an outlet for the chickens which they have purchased, because many wholesale dealers have adequate supplies. Risks of price declines are also greater as the volume of marketing approaches a peak. Under such conditions hucksters would, of course, try to pass most of the market risk on to pro- Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 53 ducers and so widen their own operating margins. Later on in the season when live chickens of a certain class are scarce, certain wholesale dealers may find their supplies inadequate to meet current retail market outlets. As it is sound business practice for the wholesale dealer to maintain his regular retail contacts, he is often willing to pay local buyers a premium for chickens. The local buyer in turn may have to pay a premium to pro- ducers for chickens of the desired grade. A similar situation arises where a wholesale dealer has an outlet for extra high-quality birds. Undoubtedly there is justification for some of the complaints of pro- ducers, especially as regards the operations of hucksters. Some of the latter are of the fly-by-night type; large numbers of hucksters have no established business reputation to uphold; some are unscrupulous and irresponsible in their business dealings. Large numbers of hucksters, however, have been in business a number of years and have developed a regular producer clientele. Furthermore, competition between well-es- tablished local buyers, representing wholesale dealers and meat-packing firms, makes it unnecessary for producers to deal with hucksters of doubtful business integrity. It does not follow, however, that local buying and handling of poultry are as efficient as they could be under a different combination of circum- stances. There may be too many local buyers in relation to available sup- plies operating in a particular territory. Although few of the local buy- ers may be making satisfactory business profits, their margins may nevertheless be much higher than if a relatively smaller number were in operation. Similar conditions are found in many phases of business activity (for example, gasoline stations and grocery stores) and are the result of imperfect functioning of our economic system. Moreover, dur- ing periods of business depression, the number of hucksters and peddlers tends to increase. Only a small capital investment is required to enter the business and many persons are willing to work as long as their operations net them a living wage. Handlers of Poultry in San Francisco. 31 — The location and perma- nence of industrial and wholesale commercial centers within large cities are determined to a considerable extent by topography ; lines of commu- nication with the eastern and northern shores of the Bay are through the city. The City (and County) of San Francisco lies on a peninsula (fig. 11) , surrounded by water on the east, north, and west; its only land communications with the rest of the state being on the south. Communi- cation with the eastern and northern shores of the Bay is by means of ferry, barge, or bridge. Most of the ferries dock at the ferry slips on the 31 Much of the historical material in this section is based on information supplied by Joseph H. Mitchell of O'Brien, Spotorno, Mitchell, and Campagno Brothers, and Emanuel Campagno, of the General Poultry Company, both of which firms are located in San Francisco. 54 University of California — Experiment Station east side of the city. Furthermore, several of the main arterial highways from the south, as well as railroads, converge in the area adjacent to the ferries. The San-Francisco — Oakland Bay Bridge connecting the city with the East has its terminal a few blocks southwest of the ferries. The Golden Gate Bridge, connecting the city with the north shore, has its San Francisco terminal a considerable distance to the north and west of the ferry terminals. The highways from both bridges to the wholesale pro- c/rr or sS/4/V FRA/VC/-5CO Fig. 11. — Location of wholesale poultry dealers, general produce dealers handling poultry, and small wholesale-retail poultry dealers, San Francisco, 1936. duce district are direct and level. The topography of much of San Fran- cisco is hilly, the low-lying-level areas being also to the east of the city. This combination of natural conditions and communication lines has caused the San Francisco wholesale produce district (fruits and vege- tables as well as poultry) to be located in a relatively concentrated area adjacent to the ferries and at the terminals of the highways from the north, south, and east. The general location of the manufacturing and wholesale commercial districts, moreover, can be regarded as relatively permanent. As far back as 1850, San Francisco was an important trading center with a relatively stable, though growing, population. In 1900 its population was 343,000; in 1910 about 417,000, or 21.6 per cent greater than in 1900. In 1930 its Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 55 population had increased to 634,000, or 84.8 per cent greater than in 1900. While the size of the residential areas has been expanded, the older residential areas are more fully occupied. There has been some expansion since 1900 in the manufacturing areas, but the wholesale warehouse areas have remained practically unchanged. Up until the time of the earthquake and the fire of 1906 nearly all poultry arriving on the San Francisco market from California and other states was consigned by local buyers ( at that time mainly country store- keepers and general produce dealers) to commission merchants for sale at auction or private treaty. The chickens so sold were bought by only two or three wholesale poultry dealers and a large number of retail dealers, most of whom were located in the northeast section of San Fran- cisco bounded by Van Ness Avenue on the west and Market Street on the east and south (fig. 11) . Nearly all the buildings occupied by the commis- sion merchants, wholesale dealers, and retail dealers were destroyed by the fire of 1906. Very few of these concerns opened up again after the fire and those that did were scattered over a wide area in the city. From 1907 on, the commission merchants and retail poultry dealers decreased in importance, both in numbers and in volume of poultry han- dled. Dealers known in the trade as "jobbers" 32 took the place of the commission merchants; wholesale poultry dealers replaced the small re- tail poultry dealers. Concurrent with this change, large handlers of poultry again tended to locate in the northeast section in close proximity to the ferries. Within the past decade or so another significant change has occurred in poultry handling in San Francisco. Wholesale poultry dealers have to a considerable extent replaced the jobber-broker by establishing direct buying contacts in country districts in California and in other states. In 1927 the Poultry Producers of Central California also undertook to han- dle poultry on behalf of its members. The large meat-packing concerns also operate dressed-poultry departments, most of their supplies being obtained from their own country killing plants. In 1936, while there were still a few operators of the jobber-broker type, the great bulk of the poultry arriving at the market was handled by some seven wholesale poultry dealers, two meat-packing concerns, and the Poultry Producers of Central California. 33 Smaller quantities of poultry were handled by 32 These "jobbers" were in reality both brokers and jobbers. Chickens consigned to them in carload lots were sold in smaller lots both to wholesale dealers and to retail dealers. 33 Up until 1935 the Poultry Producers of Central California did most of its killing and dressing of poultry in its San Francisco plant. In 1936, however, killing and dressing were done at country plants, the freshly killed, graded, and packed chickens being shipped to San Francisco. The killing plant in San Francisco is still used oc- casionally for live poultry consigned directly to the association at San Francisco and for heavy chickens bought by the association in San Francisco. 56 University of California — Experiment Station several general produce dealers, whose main business is the sale of fruits and vegetables. One large jobber-broker handled considerable quantities of heavy chickens, shipped in from midwest ern states." With the excep- tion of one large meat packer, all the bulk handlers of dressed and live poultry were concentrated within a few city blocks east of Sansome Street and north of Market Street — within an area covering only about a half a square mile (fig. 11 ) . The wholesale poultry dealers obtain the bulk of their supplies of live chickens from hucksters or from their own buying stations or agents in the country districts of California and other states. Most of these con- cerns also purchase considerable quantities of dressed poultry (mostly roasters and heavy hens) direct from country buyers in midwestern states; a few of them, however, purchase their heavy chickens, of out-of- state origin, from the large jobber-brokerage firm referred to above (p. 55). On occasion one wholesale dealer with excess supplies may sell to other wholesale dealers whose supplies are at the time inadequate to meet their market outlets. Live poultry received by wholesale dealers is usually battery-fed for several days before killing. The time of feeding varies considerably and depends upon the age and condition of chickens when they are received at the plant, and the point of origin (whether California or out of state) . Each wholesale dealer has his own feeding formulas for different types of chickens. Killing and dressing methods appear to be fairly well stand- ardized, although in 1936 one firm was operating a device whereby fea- thers were removed by a waxing process. After killing, chickens are displayed in racks for inspection by customers. The bulk handlers of poultry (wholesale poultry dealers, the two meat packers, and the cooperative associations) in turn sell their dressed poul- try to (1) retail butchers of whom there were between 1,500 and 1,800 in 1936; (2) hotels and restaurants; (3) various public and semipublic institutions, such as hospitals, veterans' homes, the army and navy; (4) steamship companies; and (5) occasionally direct to consumers who take delivery at the plant. A considerable, though indeterminate, quantity of the poultry handled by these bulk operators is shipped to buyers (mainly public institutions) located outside of San Francisco; some is exported, mostly to Hawaii, and some is ultimately consumed outside of California (for example, the poultry purchased by steamship companies). This 3i There were in addition the California Turkey Growers Cooperative Association handling turkeys only and a jobber handling mainly turkeys for the Northwest Tur- key Growers Association but also chickens and dairy products on behalf of coopera- tive associations in various states in the mountain division of the United States. (See : Tinley, J. M., and E. C. Voorhies. Economic problems affecting turkey marketing in California. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 612:1-78. 1937.) Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 57 wide dispersion of poultry from San Francisco makes it impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy the per-capita consumption of poultry meat in the city. The wholesale poultry dealers also sell consid- erable quantities of live poultry (and some dressed poultry) to some twenty small wholesale-retail butchers or slaughterers located in various parts of San Francisco. The buying practices of the various customers of the bulk handlers of poultry differ considerably. Many restaurant owners and owners of re- tail stores visit the killing plants and select live chickens which are then killed for them. Others who visit the plants make their selection from freshly killed chickens displayed on racks. On the other hand, large num- bers of retail stores, restaurants, and hotels phone in their orders for types and grades of chickens, or orders are placed through the salesmen employed by the various bulk handlers of poultry. The purchasing agents for some of the public institutions visit the various bulk handlers and place orders for chickens of different classes and grades. Many of the public agencies, however, call upon the various members of the poultry trade for sealed bids on specified quantities, classes, and grades of poul- try. Before acceptance and final settlement for the poultry so purchased, the poultry is usually inspected by the purchasing agent, or by a local official of the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agri- cultural Economics. At one time there were a large number of retail handlers of live poul- try (p. 55) . A few of these still survive. In 1930 there were twenty whole- sale-retail butchers or slaughterers widely scattered in San Francisco (fig. 11 ) , although the number varies somewhat from year to year. These have been able to survive because they cater to a special consumer de- mand. They serve the Jewish trade and persons who prefer to select their own chickens and have them freshly killed. Some of these concerns han- dle live poultry exclusively, whereas others are operated in conjunction with a retail grocery store or retail butcher shop. They vary considerably in regard to volume of poultry handled, source of their supplies, and types of customers served. While most of these concerns handle from 25 to 50 coops of chickens weekly, a few handle as many as 100 coops. 35 Nearly all of them also han- dle other types of poultry (such as turkeys, ducks, geese, and squabs) and rabbits; one of the larger of these concerns, in addition, sells large quan- tities of dressed poultry. A few of these concerns sell exclusively to re- tail consumers, whereas others also sell wholesale to nearby stores and restaurants or even to public institutions. Most of these small wholesale- 33 The number of chickens per coop varies from 20 to 40, the number depending upon the average size and weights of birds — broilers, Leghorn, and colored hens. 58 University of California — Experiment Station retail butchers obtain their supplies from the wholesale poultry dealers in downtown San Francisco; a few, however, obtain their supplies, in whole or in part, from hucksters or direct from producers in the country. The national characteristics, experience, and standing of persons op- erating in a wholesale market have an important influence on the general tone of that market and of the supply territory. If there is a rapid turn- over of wholesale dealers and if questionable business practices are prev- alent, similar conditions are apt to be found in the surrounding country districts. Much of the dissatisfaction of producers with local marketing conditions can thus be traced to conditions in the adjacent wholesale market. The fact that such a relation may exist warrants some analysis of the personnel engaged in the wholesale poultry trade in San Francisco. Before 1906 nearly all the commission houses were operated by per- sons of American, French, Irish, or Jewish extraction. While a few of the pioneer operators are still in business, most of the wholesale poultry firms now are operated by persons of Italian nationality. Although the names and corporate standing of several of the firms have undergone change from time to time, many of the managers, owners, or part owners of these firms have been connected with the poultry business in San Francisco for twenty and in some instances for over thirty years. While there were a few complaints regarding questionable business practices, the majority of the retailers, hucksters, and others who were interviewed in the course of this study stated that their dealings with most of the wholesale dealers were entirely satisfactory. They attribute much of this to the high standards of business ethics maintained by the old and ex- perienced operators. Handlers of Poultry in Los Angeles. — The Los Angeles poultry mar- ket differs from that in San Francisco in several important respects. In the first place Los Angeles is located on fairly level land with adequate transportation facilities from all sides. The City of Los Angeles, along with several other important cities in the County, covers a very wide territory. All of these cities are surrounded with rich agricultural lands, large numbers of the farms (especially poultry farms) being within the limits of the various cities. In contrast with San Francisco, the City of Los Angeles has grown tremendously since 1900. In that year Los Angeles was a comparatively small city with a population of only 102,000. By 1910 its population had increased threefold to 319,198 and again nearly doubled between 1910 and 1920. In 1930 its population was more than double that of 1920 and more than twelve times that of 1900. (Population of Los Angeles County is estimated to have increased from 2,208,492 in 1930 to 2,785,000 in 1939.) Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 59 Because of these two factors — the general topography of Los Angeles and its rapid growth — the manufacturing and wholesale districts are less clearly denned and cover a much wider area than in San Francisco. Moreover, the personnel, both firms and individual persons, engaged in the poultry meat trade has undergone considerable change and has been less stable than in San Francisco. Very few of the wholesale poultry firms have been in operation for more than ten or fifteen years. The turnover of firms and individuals engaged in the wholesale poultry business has been fairly rapid. For this reason many of the firms have not established direct buying contacts with local dealers in other states. Los Angeles, moreover, receives a much larger proportion of the poultry meat con- sumed from out of state than does San Francisco. As a consequence the poultry broker plays a much more important role in Los Angeles than in San Francisco. In 1936 there were five brokerage firms handling large quantities of dressed poultry a year on a consignment basis and five handling small quantities. In addition one firm shipped in live poultry, purchased by it in other states, for sale to wholesale poultry dealers in Los Angeles. There were (1936) in Los Angeles nine wholesale dealers in dressed poultry (including five meat-packing concerns) and five wholesale deal- ers 36 operating killing and dressing plants (fig. 12). Dressed-poultry dealers obtain their supplies of dressed poultry from country plants in California or in other states. These fourteen dealers in dressed and live poultry are located in the produce and wholesale district of Los Angeles, but are far more widely separated than in San Francisco. In addition, there is a large number of smaller wholesale-retail dealers or slaughterers scattered all over Los Angeles. In 1936 there were over 100 of these con- cerns, in which there is a rapid turnover both in number and in location. Wholesale-retail dealers obtain the bulk of their supplies directly from hucksters or producers and only small quantities from the estab- lished wholesale dealers in contrast to San Francisco where the twenty- odd wholesale-retail poultry dealers obtain most of their supplies from the wholesale poultry dealers. The volume and nature of the business of these small wholesale-retail dealers vary considerably. They handle from about 400 to 2,500 pounds of all types of poultry (such as chickens, turkeys, ducks) and rabbits a week. Some of these operators cater almost entirely to the retail trade, whereas others sell a considerable volume of poultry wholesale, mainly to restaurants. A number of these dealers handle only high-grade poultry for a select Jewish trade. Many of them, however, handle low-quality chickens and other poultry on a cut-rate 38 In addition another wholesale dealer with a killing plant in Pasadena sold large quantities of poultry to hotels, stores, and restaurants in Los Angeles. 60 University of California — Experiment Station basis. A considerable number of nationalities were represented in the wholesale-retail dealers, nearly all of whom were contacted during the course of this investigation. It was impossible to obtain any exact data on the proportion of all poultry sold in Los Angeles which was handled by these small wholesale- retail dealers. Most of the latter kept records only of income and expenses Fig. 12. — Location of wholesale poultry dealers, brokers, and wholesale-retail poultry dealers in Los Angeles, 1936. and hazarded only rough guesses as to their weekly volume of business, which, moreover, varied considerably at different times of the year. Of- ficials of the Health Department (Meat Inspection Section) of the City of Los Angeles estimated that these small wholesale-retail dealers handled from 25 to 35 per cent of all poultry sold in that city. It is also probable that a considerable volume of poultry is purchased by consumers in Los Angeles from poultry producers located within the city limits or in the surrounding country. SUPPLY FACTORS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO AND LOS ANGELES MARKETS Supply Areas in California for San Francisco and Los Angeles. — Chick- ens produced in the various counties are available first for local con- sumption needs, and second, for shipment to a nearby wholesale market. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 61 Surplus production to local consumption needs in these various coun- ties tends to move to either of the two main California wholesale market- ing centers — San Francisco 37 and Los Angeles. The supply area of the San Francisco market would include all the counties in the north coast and Sacramento Valley sections; all the counties in the south coast sec- tion except San Luis Obispo County; all the counties in the northern and eastern mountain section except Mono and Inyo counties; and San Joa- quin, Calaveras, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced, Mariposa, and Madera counties in the San Joaquin Valley. The Los Angeles supply area would include all the counties in southern California; San Luis Obispo County TABLE 19 The San Francisco and Los Angeles Supply Areas for Chickens, 1934 Human population Chickens raised Supply area Number Per cent of total for state Number Per cent of total for state Chickens per capita San Francisco 2,528,180 3,623,890 6,151,280 41.1 58.9 100.0 10,796,867 7,362,544 18,159,412 59.5 40.5 100.0 4.3 2.0 2.9 Source of data: Calculated by the authors from table 35. in the south coast section ; Mono and Inyo counties in the northern and eastern mountain section ; and Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and Kern counties in the San Joaquin Valley. The San Francisco supply area with 41.1 per cent of the human popu- lation of the state had 59.5 per cent of all chickens raised in 1934, or about 4.3 chickens per capita as is shown in table 19. On the other hand, the Los Angeles area with 58.9 per cent of the population had only 40.5 per cent of the chickens raised, or about 2.0 chickens per capita. The San Francisco market probably had access to a somewhat greater proportion of heavy breeds of chickens, produced in the northern and eastern moun- tain and valley sections of the state than was the case for Los Angeles. The great bulk of chickens available to both markets from within the state, however, consisted of Leghorn broilers and hens. Information on Poultry Receipts at Two Markets. — The only agency in the state undertaking to assemble data on daily poultry receipts 38 at the San Francisco and Los Angeles markets is the Federal-State Market 37 The Oakland market is closely related to that of San Francisco. Possibly it would be more nearly correct to refer to the San-Francisco — Oakland market. 38 These data are also summarized by months in mimeographed reports issued by the Federal-State Market News Service at the end of each calendar year. 62 University of California — Experiment Station" News Service. This information, with that for prices (p. 79) , is obtained from the various dealers and transportation agencies in each market who cooperate by reporting daily receipts. The data on receipts of poultry have been much more complete for San Francisco than for Los Angeles. The Federal-State Market News Service has published the following information on poultry receipts at San Francisco : 1. Live Poultry: a) Cars received daily; data available since 1925; reports intermittent and in- complete prior to 1925. b) Coops of live poultry received daily by freight (reported regularly only since 1927), and by truck and boat (reported regularly only since 1929). 2. Dressed Poultry : Pounds of dressed poultry received daily. (No distinction made regarding means of transportation.) Although a few of the small wholesale-retail dealers in San Francisco handling an unimportant volume in the aggregate do not report arrivals of live poultry purchased within the state, the data published afford a reasonably complete and accurate record of dressed and live poultry. Several factors combine to make such a complete coverage of receipts possible. First, the principal handlers of poultry are located in a com- paratively small area of the city. Second, most of the main transportation systems converge in this area. Finally, the principal handlers of poultry and the various transportation agencies cooperate fully in supplying in- formation on poultry arrivals. Data on poultry receipts unfortunately are for all grades and types of poultry (such as chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys) . No attempt has been made as yet to segregate receipts by types. While all types of poultry are to some extent competitive one with the other, more detailed information on receipts by types would be of con- siderable value to the trade. In the Los Angeles market the Federal-State Market News Service reports regularly only receipts of dressed poultry. Occasional reports on arrivals of carloads of live poultry are made. Because of the scattered nature of the Los Angeles poultry market, it has been found impractical to obtain data on live poultry receipts by truck. All the live poultry ar- riving in Los Angeles by railroad is received in poultry cars operated by the Palace Live Poultry Car Company of Los Angeles. While the company cooperates with the Federal-State Market News Service, the latter agency does not publish data on car receipts of live poultry, be- cause such information is of little value without information on truck receipts. All persons connected with the Los Angeles poultry market, who were interviewed during the course of this study, stressed the need for more accurate information on receipts. In 1935 the City Council of Los Angeles considered an ordinance Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 63 which would establish, under the direction of the Board of Health Com- missioners, one or more poultry-inspection stations in the city. All poul- try, dressed and live, arriving in the city would have to be inspected and passed at these stations. The ordinance failed to pass. If some such agency is established in the future, it would facilitate the collection of reliable data on volume of live and dressed poultry received daily. If more accurate data were available in the San Francisco and Los Angeles markets on receipts of live and dressed poultry by types there would be a possibility of arriving at a fairly accurate estimate of the total weight of poultry received annually. A car of live poultry varies from a minimum of 14,000 pounds live weight to a maximum of 17,000 pounds. 39 In the winter months the average live weight of chickens per car varies between 16,000 and 16,500 pounds; in the summer between 14,000 and 14,500 pounds/ The weight of a coop of chickens varies ac- cording to the type of chickens shipped. The average weight of a coop of broilers varies from 75 to 80 pounds; of Leghorn hens and roasters from 100 to 105 pounds; and of colored hens from 125 to 130 pounds. Origin of Poultry Supplies at San Francisco. — Receipts of cars of live poultry at San Francisco decreased from 293 in 1925 to only 98 in 1932, a decrease of 66.6 per cent (table 36). In 1933, as a result of a consider- able reduction in railroad rates from eastern states in July of that year, receipts increased to 209 cars; in 1934 to 260 cars. In the following four years, however, receipts of cars of live poultry again declined precipit- ously, only 60 cars being received in 1937, 71 in 1938, and 52 in 1939. Coops of chickens arriving at San Francisco by express or freight de- clined steadily from 16,195 in 1927 and 17,989 in 1929 to only 1,404 in 1939. Receipts by boat showed a similar decline from 6,821 coops in 1929 to 20 in 1939. Receipts by truck, however, increased from 85,944 coops in 1929 to 184,347 coops in 1939. Combined receipts of coops (freight, boat, and truck) increased from 110,754 in 1929 to 185,771 coops in 1939. In the latter year coops by truck amounted to 99.2 per cent of all coops received as compared with 77.6 per cent in 1929. In marked contrast to the decline in cars of live poultry, receipts of dressed poultry increased steadily from 4,966,000 pounds in 1922 and 5,615,000 in 1925 to 16,842,000 pounds in 1936. Since the latter year, declines have been registered, 12,396,000 pounds being reported for 1939 (table 37). The major proportion of live poultry receipts by cars originates in the west north central states, and especially in Nebraska (table 36 and fig. 39 Prior to 1935 the maximum weight permitted by the railroads was 18,000 pounds per car live weight. i0 Live poultry would be mainly chickens. Turkeys, ducks, and geese are usually shipped in dressed form. 66 University of California — Experiment Station in 1925 to 13,717,000 in 1939. Since 1936 the rise has been in contrast to the San Francisco market where there has been a decrease in receipts. There are some interesting differences in poultry receipts in the Los Angeles and San Francisco markets (figs. 13 and 14) . Between 1925 and 1932 receipts of cars of live poultry in Los Angeles exceeded those in San Francisco every year except 1928 and 1929. Since 1933, however, car receipts of live poultry in San Francisco exceeded those in Los Angeles with the exception of 1937, 1938, and 1939. On the other hand, dressed poultry receipts in San Francisco since 1925 have consistently exceeded those in Los Angeles until 1939. Moreover, the upward trend in dressed poultry receipts in San Francisco was increasing more rapidly than in Los Angeles. In 1925 dressed poultry receipts in San Francisco amounted to 5,615,000 pounds as compared with 4,801,000 in Los Angeles. In 1938 receipts in San Francisco were 12,839,000 pounds ; those in Los Angeles 9,892,000 pounds; whereas in 1939 the corresponding data were 12,396,- 000 pounds and 13,717,000 pounds, respectively. SEASONAL SUPPLIES OF POULTRY Production practices followed in the supply areas will largely determine the time of marketing, which varies considerably between different sec- tions of the country. That these practices may change has already been pointed out, 41 Storage holdings of poultry have a decided effect on sea- sonal supplies of all classes of poultry. (On account of the influence of such holdings on price, the discussion will be found on page 143.) Sea- sonal marketings of all poultry and classes within the poultry group are perhaps not so regular as is the case with certain agricultural products. The reasons can be found in a combination of factors under which poul- try is produced and sold. The arrivals of both live and dressed poultry on the main markets of the country are usually at the year's low in February, March, and April. From the latter month through July there occurs a gradual rise in re- ceipts which is accelerated in August. This upward movement usually culminates in November, although in some years December receipts are as high as those in November. A decided drop occurs for January. In the last four months of the year between 50 and 60 per cent of the year's total live and dressed poultry receipts are received on the large markets of the Middle West and north Atlantic Coast. In order to have some measure of the variation in monthly receipts and the sources of seasonal supplies at San Francisco and Los Angeles, 41 Under the section "Marketing Methods and Channels in California" (p. 49-60) it was indicated that hatching, and hence broiler sales, were much less seasonal than formerly and that emphasis on regularly culling low producers out of flocks was making available a more even supply of hens on the market throughout the year. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 67 an analysis was made of the available data covering monthly receipts at these two markets for the years 1933-1939. In making computations, the five years 1935-1939 have been used in order to avoid using data of both drought years, 1934 and 1936. 8 an Francisco Market. — Carlot receipts of live poultry at San Fran- cisco, which averaged 90 cars annually during the years 1935-1939 (table 40), came entirely from outside of the state with approximately 64 per cent originating in the east and west north central states, 32 per cent 15 < O 5 EAST AND WEST NORTH CENTRAL t mil 10 WEST SOUTH CENTRAL JFMAMJJASOND J F M A M J JASOND ALL DIVISIONS MOUNTAIN a < O 5 I Im^m. tlllll 20 15 CO o I .1 lie Firm J F M A M J JASOND JFMAMJJASOND Fig. 15. — Average monthly carloads of live poultry received at San Francisco by divisions of origin, 1935-1939. Data from table 40. from the mountain states, and 4 per cent from the west south central states (table 41) . Monthly carload receipts of live poultry from all states (fig. 15) are heaviest in the fall and winter months, with 59 per cent of the entire year's supply coming during the period from September through January. Although shipments from the east and west north central states have averaged twice as many carloads annually from 1935 to 1939 as those from the mountain states, the monthly movement from each division follows much the same seasonal change, with lows for each division generally occurring in June followed by an increase to peak shipments in November (January for the mountain states). Of the car- loads of live poultry originating in the west south central states, almost all have been received during the three-month period from February through April. Receipts from the east and west north central states constitute the bulk 68 University of California — Experiment Station of live poultry supplies received in carloads at San Francisco, varying from an average low of 30 per cent of the total in February to a high of 87 per cent in June (table 41) . The relative importance of supplies from the mountain states is greatest in February when they make up 50 per cent of the receipts. Shipments received at San Francisco from the west LEGEND BOAT RECEIPTS I I EXPRESS RECEIPTS RECEIPTS M J J MONTHS Fig. 16. — Average monthly receipts of coops of live poultry at San Francisco, 1935-1939, by boat, express, and truck. Data from table 40. south central region are relatively small and in only 2 months — Feb- ruary and April — do they average as much as 20 per cent of the total (table 41). Live poultry arriving on the San Francisco market in coops is reported by the Federal-State Market News Service. These receipts, coming almost wholly from within the state, constitute the bulk of the live poultry supply (table 40). From 1935 through 1939 coop receipts averaged nearly 157,000 annually, with the heavy movement coming on the market in late spring and early summer (fig. 16) . May and June are the months of heaviest receipts, with over a fifth (21 per cent) of the annual arrivals reported during this two-month period (table 41); the four winter months, November, December, January, and February, constitute the seasonal low point and represent slightly over a fourth (28 per cent) of Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 69 the yearly arrivals. This peak period in late spring and early summer of seasonally large coop receipts corresponds fairly closely to the period when, for production areas within the state, culling is receiving emphasis and broilers are usually ready for marketing. It is in sharp contrast with the seasonal movement of live poultry receipts shipped in carloads from supply areas outside the state. Almost 98 per cent of the average annual coop receipts are brought in by truck (table 41) ; only 2 per cent are express shipments; and the remainder (0.3 per cent) are by boat. The relative importance of truck shipments varies only slightly from month to month. In April and in May truck receipts of coops make up 98.3 per cent of the supply ; in No- vember they decline to 96.4 per cent. On the other hand, in April and in May express receipts constitute only 1.4 per cent of supply, increasing in importance up to November, when 3.5 per cent arrive by express. Receipts of dressed poultry at San Francisco averaged 14,243,000 pounds annually during the period 1935-1939 (table 40). A large part of this supply was received during the four months from November through February (fig. 17). Arrivals in these four months totaled 64 per cent of the average annual supply of dressed poultry, with November and December accounting for 40.1 per cent (table 42 and fig. 18). Re- ceipts in July, the low month for the year, averaged only 2.6 per cent compared with December, when 21.8 per cent of the year's receipts are received. Dressed-poultry receipts include turkey shipments which are not sep- arated from other poultry in the available data on market receipts. Tur- keys are generally received dressed, and do not make up a significant portion of live poultry, which is mainly chickens. The period of heavy dressed-poultry receipts corresponds closely to the time of large sea- sonal marketings of turkeys. Receipts from both the Pacific and moun- tain divisions are relatively heavy (table 42 and fig. 17) in November and December and for the Pacific states they continue large in January and February. Available data indicate the importance of these divisions as supply areas for turkeys marketed in San Francisco and Los Angeles. 42 The Pacific states furnish the bulk of the supply of dressed poultry arriving on the San Francisco market. In the five years 1935-1939, 79.6 per cent of the average annual receipts came from this division with California alone supplying 55.0 per cent of the total (table 42). The relative importance of California as a source of supply was greatest in February when 73.2 per cent of the receipts originated within the state. In this same month 86.8 per cent of the supply on the San Francisco 42 Tinley, J. M., and E. C. Voorhies. Economic problems affecting turkey marketing in California. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 612:16-22. 1937. 70 University of California — Experiment Station EA ST AND WEST NORTH CENTRAL MOUNTAIN ») (0 4 00 z z iO O 200 D Q. O I «*- (- O CO tf>400 Q Q Z Z tf) O200 D Q. O X h- O liiiiiiiillll L, M ,,,.iiili JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND v) co WEST SOUTH CENTRAL o Q z Z < o200 co O D 0. gu. I- o 3000 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 co Z 1600 o a 1600 Ll ° 1400 Q Z < 1200 CO 1000 800 600 400 200 PACIFIC JFMAMJJASOND ALL DIVISIONS 3200 I JFMAMJJASOND it 3000 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 cO § 1800 O °" 1600 <0 1400 Q Z < 1200 CO ° 1000 600 600 400 200 Iy| JFMAMJJASOND Fig. 17. — Average monthly receipts of dressed poultry at San Francisco by divisions of origin, 1935-1939. Data from table 40. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 71 market came from the three Pacific states. July was the low month for the Pacific states ; September was the low point for California, only 32.7 per cent of the receipts coming from this state during that month. The east and west north central states and the mountain states are less im- portant than the Pacific states as sources of supply, furnishing 12.6 per j j MONTHS Fig. 18. — Average monthly receipts of live and dressed poultry at San Francisco expressed as percentages of average annual receipts of each respective type, 1935-1939. Data from tables 41 and 42. cent and 7.2 per cent, respectively, of the average annual market receipts. Nevertheless, during certain months significant proportions of the sup- ply originate in these divisions. In midsummer and early fall these states account for 37 to 43 per cent of the total receipts. The west south central states furnish only 0.5 per cent of the average annual San Francisco receipts, but the bulk of the supplies from this division arrive from April through September, the months of lowest average receipts. 72 University of California — Experiment Station Although the available data on receipts of live poultry are not reported in pounds and hence do not permit an accurate appraisal of the volume received live as compared to dressed poultry, rough estimates based on the weights of coops and carloads reported on page 63 would indicate the approximate importance of the various types of shipments. A rela- tively greater proportion of the average annual receipts in coops arrive during the late spring and summer months (fig. 16), whereas shipments of dressed poultry are relatively low during this period and higher in 10 EAST AND WEST NORTH CENTRAL JFMAMJJASOND WEST SOUTH CENTRAL 10 ■ ■■lllllll \Ujulli~ J FMAMJJASOND M0UNTA1 N ALL DIVISIONS a. < a. < . 1. Illlll ■■...lllllll JFMAMJJASOND n Fig. 19. — Average monthly receipts of cars of live poultry at Los Angeles by divisions of origin, 1935-1939. Data from table 43 the fall and winter months when coop receipts are relatively less im- portant. These two types of shipments constitute the bulk of the supply of poultry arriving on the San Francisco market. Los Angeles Market. — Carloads of live poultry received at Los Angeles have averaged 84.2 cars during the five-year period 1935-1939. The monthly distribution of these cars throughout the year has shown a sea- sonal tendency toward increased receipts the last half of the year, al- though there is considerable variation from month to month (tables 43 and 44 and fig. 19) . Receipts during the last six months of the year com- prise 59.7 per cent of the average annual total cars of live poultry ar- riving on the market. September, the high month, accounts for 11.9 per cent of the annual receipts, as contrasted with February when the cars received amount to only 5.0 per cent of the year's total (table 44). The east and west north central states contribute the largest share of the carload receipts of live poultry, averaging 42.0 per cent during the Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 73 period 1935-1939. The mountain states and the west south central states follow in the order named, originating 34.9 per cent and 22.6 per cent, respectively. Late in the year the principal source of supply is the east and west north central states when the seasonal shipments from these areas reach their peak. During the four months July through October receipts from these north central states constitute approximately 58 per cent of the live poultry reported as arriving in carloads. Seasonal ship- ments from the mountain states are also heaviest during the last half of the year with November the peak month ; in that month over half (58.3 per cent) of the live carlot receipts on the market come from the moun- tain states (fig. 19). Supplies from the west south central region are an important factor only during the early part of the year. In February 42.9 per cent of the usual monthly arrivals come from these states ; in March they furnish 81.1 per cent ; in April, 71.0 per cent ; and in May, 57.7 per cent. The seasonal movement of dressed-poultry receipts reported on the Los Angeles market is characterized by extremely heavy arrivals during November and December (fig. 20). These two months alone account for 57.6 per cent of the average annual receipts during the period 1935-1939. Arrivals during the year vary from a monthly low of 2.8 per cent of the average annual supply in July to a high of 34.1 per cent in December (table 45 and fig. 21). These extremely large receipts in November and December are typical of the shipments from both the Pacific and moun- tain states and to a lesser extent the east and west north central states. Dressed receipts from the mountain states in the last two months of the year make up 60.4 per cent of the year's total from that area at Los An- geles ; the Pacific states send 69.1 per cent of their total shipments during those two months ; and the north central states 37.8 per cent. Shipments from California make up a substantial proportion of those arriving from Pacific Coast states (table 43). The seasonal variation in these dressed- poultry receipts originating in California shows a similar tendency toward heavy shipments in November and December when they amount to 59.6 per cent of the annual receipts from the state. It is impossible to indicate the relative importance of turkey shipments in the total receipts at the market for the available data do not separate the poultry by classes. It should be recognized, however, that there is a heavy seasonal movement of dressed turkeys which takes place in November and December to meet the Thanksgiving and Christmas demand for this type of poultry and that this factor contributes significantly to the heavy market receipts of dressed poultry reported for the last two months of the year. The importance of the different divisions as sources of supply for dressed poultry on the Los Angeles market varies with different seasons 74 University of California — Experiment Station mountain EAST AND WEST NORTH CENTRAL 8 00 JFMAMJJASONO EAST AND WEST SOUTH CENTRAL <0 to 400 O o zz < =200 (O o O iu. »- o 2400 2200 2000 1800 <0 1600 Q z g 1400 0. - JFMAMJJASONO PACIF IC 1200 <0 Q 1000 z < (0 800 600 400 200 nn llJjt JFMAMJJASONO 800 I* JFMAMJJASOND ALL DIVISIONS 3400 3200 3000 2800 2600 2400 2200 O Z2000 O °"l 800 u. o (0 I 600 Q Z < 1400 Z) x 1200 l- 1000 800 600 400 200 I I in mm mm J FMAMJJ ASOND Fig. 20. — Average monthly receipts of dressed poultry at Los Angeles by divisions of origin, 1935-1939. Data from table 43. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 75 of the year. The Pacific states, which furnished 53.6 per cent of the an- nual supply during the period 1935-1939, contributed the largest share of any area during all months of the year except August, September, and October. During the first 7 months of the year the portion of any month's supply from the Pacific states varied from 38.9 per cent to 51.1. After July the movement from this area declined in relative importance to a 40 35 30 25 O 20 I 5 I / D RESSED-^ / / LI VE-. • J V 1 1 1 / 1 1 N M J J MONTHS Fig. 21. — Monthly receipts of live (cars) and dressed poultry at Los Angeles expressed as percentages of average receipts of each re- spective type, 1935-1939. Data from tables 44 and 45. low of 21.6 per cent in October, recovering by November to 60.6 per cent and 66.8 per cent in December. During this decline in relative signifi- cance of shipments from the Pacific states in the early fall months, the east and west north central states increased in importance as a source of supply. In September and October these north central states orig- inated 49.5 per cent and 59.3 per cent of the receipts arriving in those respective months. For the five-year period, however, the north central division furnished 22.6 per cent of the annual receipts of dressed poul- try. The mountain states were relatively more important as a source of supply in the late fall and winter months when they furnished from 15.3 to 24.8 per cent of the receipts. The important period for the east and 76 University of California — Experiment Station west south central states was in spring and summer with a peak in March when 19.2 per cent of the month's supply came from this division, al- though for the average year only 5.8 per cent of the receipts came from this south central division. Throughout the year California was an im- portant contributor to receipts of dressed poultry at Los Angeles, orig- inating on the average 34.0 per cent of the supply. In every month of the year except November and December California furnished over half of the receipts reported from the Pacific states and from May through October nearly all the supply from this division came from within the state. CONSUMPTION OF POULTRY IN CALIFORNIA Studies of poultry consumption have revealed that race or nationality and income are important influences affecting the buying habits of poul- try consumers. 43 Discussions with members of the poultry trade indicated TABLE 20 Population of Los Angeles and San Francisco Classified According to Eace or Nationality, 1930 Classification Los Angeles San Francisco Number Per cent Number Per cent Total 1,238,048 618,028 455,556 329,330 39,564 86,662 38,894 125,570 616 3,009 21,081 97,116 3,748 100.0 49.9 36.8 26.6 3.3 6.9 3.1 10.2 0.1 0.2 1.7 7.9 0.3 634,394 235,298 359,671 244,386 72,375 42,910 3,803 35,622 151 16,303 6,250 7,922 4,996 100.0 White: 37.1 Foreign born and native white of foreign or 56.7 38.5 11.4 6.8 0.6 5.6 O.Of 2.6 1.0 1.2 0.8 * Classified according to country of birth of father, except when father is native and mother foreign born, and then according to country of birth of mother. t Negligible. Source of data: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population, vol. 3 (l):260-66. 1932. that these factors were regarded as important in the Los Angeles and San Francisco markets. On these markets the trade pointed out that 43 See the section on "Consumption of Poultry in New York City" in : Economic Survey of the Live Poultry Industry in New York City. U. S. Dept. Agr. Misc. Pub. 283:58-71.1937. Stiebeling, Hazel K., and Esther F. Phipard. Diets of families of employed wage earners and clerical workers in cities. U. S. Dept. Agr. Cir. 507:1-141. 1939. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 77 persons of Negro extraction and members of the Jewish faith were the largest per-capita consumers of poultry. The Jewish holidays always call for an increase in poultry consumption. Mexicans also are relatively heavy users of poultry along with consumers who originated in the Med- iterranean countries. Persons of Nordic extraction seem to prefer other types of meat for their big meals and celebrations. Population figures for these two markets are given in table 20 where they are classified on the basis of race or national origin. This table shows that the groups which are reported to be heavy per-capita consumers of poultry make up a significant although not a major portion of the total population. The proportion of persons of Jewish faith and hence their relative importance as an influence upon poultry consumption are not revealed by such a population classification. Data collected in 1926 by the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census, which classify church membership into the different denominations, indicate that in Los Angeles out of 326,446 persons reported in 1926 as church members," 20.0 per cent were members of Jewish congregations, and in San Francisco out of 229,073 persons reported as church members, 15.3 per cent were members of Jewish congregations. "While these data do not classify the entire population of the two cities, it might be inferred that persons of the Jewish faith make up a substantial portion of the population and that as heavy users of poultry, they would exercise con- siderable influence on total and per-capita consumption in these markets. PRICE DETERMINATION AND PRICE QUOTATIONS Practically all chickens produced annually and not consumed on farms are destined sooner or later for human consumption. The individual farmer usually has some, though a limited, choice of where and when to sell. In this he is influenced to a considerable extent by prevailing prices being paid in local or central markets for the type of poultry he has for disposal. Producers are thus vitally interested in the accuracy and re- liability of information currently available relative to farm, wholesale, and retail prices. From a practical standpoint, prevailing prices in wholesale markets are of particular importance. Dealers in large wholesale markets usually have more up-to-date and comprehensive information relative to avail- able and potential supplies and on present or potential demand, not only in their own wholesale market, but also in wholesale markets in other parts of the country. The wholesale markets do not have a rigid supply territory. Although supplies of poultry from the counties adjacent to 44 United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Census of re- ligious bodies, vol. 2:1-1469. 1926. (Church members are defined variously by dif- ferent sects or denominations.) 78 University of California — Experiment Station San Francisco usually gravitate to that wholesale market (because of low transportation costs) and supplies in the counties adjacent to Los Angeles gravitate to Los Angeles, there are many areas in the state from which poultry may move to either market. The factors determining the direction of flow would be the relative prices in the two wholesale mar- kets and relative transportation costs. Similarly poultry produced in Texas, Nebraska, and numerous other states to the east of California may move to the Chicago and New York markets as well as to the California markets. Transportation costs, whether truck or railroad, between different parts of the country tend to remain fairly uniform from day to day, month to month, and even year to year. Prices of poultry in the various wholesale markets, however, tend to be in a continuous state of fluctuation, the prices depending upon changes in demand and supply conditions in each market. Local buyers of poultry on the edge or overlapping portions of the supply areas of different wholesale markets are continuously on the alert as to which of several markets they will ship poultry purchased from producers. Poul- try from these areas thus tend to move in different directions according to the relative prices prevailing in different wholesale markets. This factor of supply and demand tends to keep prices in the various wholesale poultry markets closely in line with each other. A marked in- crease in poultry prices in New York is very likely to be followed within a few days by a similar increase in the San Francisco and Los Angeles markets. It is possible, however, for prices in individual wholesale mar- kets to depart appreciably from the normal relation of prices in other wholesale markets, prices depending again purely upon local supply and demand conditions. Such a departure, however, is not likely to be long continued without affecting the flow of supplies to or from such markets. Another factor in recent years that has probably kept poultry prices in various sections of the country in line has been the role played by the chain stores in the marketing of poultry and in influencing prices. Some of the chains do an enormous business in poultry, especially in the East and Midwest. Special organizations within these chains have been formed at times to handle the poultry side of their business. Similarly, the en- trance of such organizations as the Poultry Producers of Central Cali- fornia into the wholesale poultry business has undoubtedly had some effect in the smoothing out of prices between certain areas. Not only are the prices between wholesale markets kept in line by the movement of supplies from overlapping production areas, but the whole- sale prices also bear a close concurrent relation to prices received by pro- ducers and those paid by retailers and consumers. Local buyers tend to base the prices they pay producers upon the current prices in the whole- Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 79 sale market or markets to which they normally ship. The prices received by producers are usually less than those in the wholesale market by the customary margin taken by the local buyer to cover his expenses of operation. Although the margins of local buyers may vary somewhat from time to time and as between buyers, the variation is not likely to be great. Retail prices (or prices paid by consumers) generally exceed the cur- rent prices in the wholesale market by the customary margins required by retail stores and butchers to cover their costs of operation and profits. These margins probably show a greater degree of variation from time to time and as between retail dealers. Variations of margins as between retail stores and butchers are probably closely related to differences in services given consumer customers. Dealers who sell on a cash-and-carry basis usually operate on lower margins than those who sell on credit and deliver to the homes of consumers. Furthermore, individual retail stores may have to lower or widen their margins temporarily on individual supplies according to the volume of supplies on hand. If consideration is given to these facts, however, it is found that prices paid by consumers tend to fluctuate in rather narrow limits above current wholesale prices. In view of these close interrelations (between wholesale markets and between wholesale prices and those received by producers and paid by consumers) producers, dealers, and consumers are vitally interested in the extent to which current wholesale price quotations actually reflect the prices at which poultry is being sold at wholesale. In nearly every important wholesale market for poultry products there is one agency or more that undertake to gather and publish current price quotations which are intended to reflect as accurately as possible the prevailing representative prices at which poultry is being sold. Wholesale dealers who have local agents or buyers usually notify them daily of the prices at which poultry is being sold and the prices these agents can pay for different grades and classes of poultry. Several news- papers and trade papers also undertake such a service on a daily or weekly basis. Within recent years, however, two types of agencies have come to assume a dominant position in the issue of quotations. The first of these agencies is the Federal-State Market News Service, a public agency financed jointly by the United States Department of Agriculture and the California State Department of Agriculture. This agency maintains offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles to report on prices and movement (where feasible) of a large range of farm products. Minor offices may be, and usually are, established seasonally in different local production areas to report on movements and conditions of certain types of farm products. The San Francisco and Los Angeles offices of the 80 University of California — Experiment Station Federal-State Market News Service each includes a section primarily concerned with poultry and dairy products. The main functions of the officials of this section are to gather and publish data on prices and move- ment on poultry (and dairy products) and to provide a standard grad- ing service for government agencies and such other groups who may re- quire it. A second agency which in some markets (for example Los Angeles) is of considerable importance in currently reporting poultry prices is a local produce exchange, usually incorporated, in which all or most of the important wholesale operators have membership. The operations of such a produce exchange differ in many important respects from that of the Federal-State Market News Service. Because of marked differences in the effectiveness and type of market information available in the San Francisco and Los Angeles wholesale poultry markets, price-quotation services in the two markets will be analyzed separately. The San Francisco Market. — In the San Francisco market there is no organized produce exchange for trading in poultry-meat products. The service of determining and publishing current prices is undertaken by the San Francisco office of the Federal-State Market News Service. Data on poultry supplies arriving in San Francisco, together with prices paid and received by wholesale dealers for various grades and classes of poul- try, are gathered daily by officials of the Federal-State Market News Service. This is assembled in a mimeographed report issued daily, which is available free to all persons or agencies desiring it. The data in these reports are also used by the daily newspapers and radio stations and by various trade and farmers' periodicals in their daily and weekly market reports. Included in the daily mimeographed reports are three groups of prices: (1) buying prices (live), f.o.b. San Francisco, these being the prices paid by wholesale dealers to producers (in reality local buyers) for live poultry delivered in lots of one coop or more to the plant of whole- frale dealers in San Francisco; (2) prices to retailers, local dressed, these being the prices at which wholesale dealers sell locally killed poultry to retailers in lots of one box or more ; and (3) prices to retailers, fresh box- packed, these being the prices at which wholesale dealers sell dressed poultry (poultry killed and dressed at country plants in California and other states) to retailers in lots of one box or more. The prices quoted, unless otherwise stated, are on prime (or first) quality poultry. Prices per pound are quoted on the following classifications of poultry: 45 (1) Leghorn broilers (separate prices for broilers weighing under 1% pounds, 1% to 1% pounds, and over 1% up to 2*4 pounds) ; (2) Leghorn 45 Classifications of Friday, June 9, 1939. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 81 fryers (over 2^ pounds in weight) ; (3) colored chickens, under 3V4 pounds (fryers), 3*4 to 4 pounds (roasters), over 4 pounds (roasters) ; (4) Leghorn hens (under 3% pounds and 3% pounds and up) ; (5) colored hens under 5 pounds and colored hens over 5 pounds; (6) Leg- horn roosters; (7) colored roosters; (8) young ducks over 5 pounds; (9) squabs (all sizes) ; (10) pigeons (price per dozen) ; (11) domestic rabbits under 5 pounds; (12) young torn turkeys under 18 pounds and young toms over 18 pounds; (14) young hens. Comparative figures by classifications are also given f or-the Los Angeles market. The daily report also contains information on the number of coops of live poultry and pounds of dressed poultry that arrived in the market during the preceding day, together with a summary comparison on a weekly and current year (to date) basis with similar periods for the preceding year. Information is also given on the movement of dressed poultry into and out of cold storage for the previous date, the volume of poultry in storage on the date of the report, together with the volume in storage on the same week day of the previous year. Then follows a short qualitative analysis of the tone of the San Francisco and Los An- geles markets for different classifications of poultry. Officials of the Fed oral-State Market News service visit dealers daily and obtain from them information on the prices paid and received by them for different grades and classes of poultry. Such verbal informa- tion is frequently checked by information obtained from hucksters as to prices received by them from wholesale dealers ; and from retailers as to prices paid by them to wholesalers. Most dealers also make available to the market reporter purchase and sales invoices. In addition to the information on prices, all important handlers of poultry report daily to the office of the Federal-State Market News Service their receipts of poultry and in many instances also poultry in transit. This information is supplemented by reports from the various railroads of receipts of poultry by rail. The information so obtained is summarized by the market reporters on their return to the office and immediately mimeographed and dispatched to the list of persons requesting the information. The prices quoted (either as single or a range of prices) represent as nearly as possible the weighted average of prices paid and received by wholesale dealers on the market. It is important to stress the fact that the quotations are based on actual sales and not on dealers' estimates of current market values. The current and continuous information thus collected enables the well-trained market reporters of the Federal-State Market News Service to obtain a fairly accurate idea, not only of prices actually being paid and received by dealers, but also of the general tone of the market, that 82 University of California — Experiment Station is, whether trading is good or poor and whether prices are showing a tendency to increase or decrease. Interviews with wholesale dealers, retailers, and producers indicate that the work of the Federal-State Market News Service is greatly ap- preciated and widely used. Dealers appear to place much confidence in the reliability of the daily reports and in turn reciprocate willingly in supplying accurate information on their trading operations. Producers, hucksters, and retailers in turn have a reliable method of determining whether the prices they are paying or receiving are in line with current market conditions. It should not be inferred that producers are always satisfied with the prices they receive. There are frequent complaints that the margins of the wholesale dealers or of hucksters are too wide or that the general level of prices is too low. More frequently, however, complaints of pro- ducers are directed at the grading and weighing practices of hucksters. No doubt individual country buyers often adopt what are commonly called "tricks of the trade" in order to obtain poultry at as low a cost to themselves as possible. Most producers, however, recognize that low prices may merely be a reflection of general supply and demand situa- tions, conditions over which producers, hucksters, and dealers have little direct control. Producers, however, do have the assurance that the prices quoted by the Federal-State Market News Service are as near an ac- curate reflection as possible of prices actually being paid and received. The Los Angeles Market. — In marked contrast with conditions in San Francisco, there appears to have been a considerable degree of dissatis- faction among producers and retailers in southern California with the price-determining services in that market. Two separate and independent agencies undertake to determine live- poultry prices in southern California. The less widely used service is the Los Angeles office of the Federal-State Market News Service, which operates in much the same way as in San Francisco, but under several severe disadvantages : 1. Trading is scattered over a much wider area than in San Francisco. This makes it extremely difficult for officials to make personal daily con- tacts with wholesale and retail dealers, especially since the Los Angeles office appears to be undermanned. 2. The wide dispersion of the trading area and the large number of retail slaughterhouses, which cannot be contacted daily, has made it im- possible, up to the present time, to develop satisfactory machinery for assembling data on current receipts of live poultry. Data on receipts by rail are obtained daily from transportation agencies but no data are available on local and out-of-state truck receipts. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 83 3. The local newspapers have not undertaken to publish the daily quo- tations of the Federal-State Market News Service. The quotations of the Produce Exchange of Los Angeles are published. Both producers and retailers obtain their information on current prices mainly from local newspapers. 4. The high degree of cooperation between dealers and the Federal- State Market News Service that is found in San Francisco does not exist to nearly the same extent in Los Angeles. This is partly due to the scat- tered nature of the market, partly to the more rapid turnover of dealers in Los Angeles, and partly to the fact that dealers themselves belong to an organization which performs the service of price determination. As a result of these conditions, the reports of the Federal-State Market News Service are not widely used in Los Angeles. The chief source of market-news information is the Produce Exchange of Los Angeles. This agency is organized to conduct trading in dairy and poultry products in Los Angeles. Practically all brokers, packers, wholesale deal- ers, and producer cooperative associations handling dairy products, poultry, and eggs in and around Los Angeles are members of the Produce Exchange. In 1935 the Produce Exchange had some forty-nine full mem- bers and thirty-one associate members. Officials of the Produce Exchange gather and display daily in a prominent position all pertinent market information, both local and nationwide, about the products on which the trading is conducted. To this end the Produce Exchange is in daily telegraphic communication with other important wholesale markets in the nation. Every day, excluding Saturday, Sunday, and holidays, the Produce Exchange is opened for trading at 4 :00 p.m. Bids, offers, and sales are made by members on various grades and types of dairy and poultry products. The price recorded for the last bid, offer, or sale for each grade and product becomes the official Produce Exchange quotation for that day. Only a very small part of the manufactured dairy products and eggs handled in Los Angeles is sold over the Produce Exchange. No trading is conducted in dressed poultry. Dealers and brokers handling dressed poultry, who were interviewed during the course of this study, stated that in negotiating purchases and sales of dressed poultry, they were guided partly by the dressed-poultry quotations in the New York market and partly by live-poultry quotations in the Los Angeles market. Because of the difficulty of handling live poultry on the Produce Ex- change and because of the absence of standard grades for live poultry, no actual sales of live poultry are made on the Produce Exchange. The prices quoted for live poultry are merely a reflection of those which 84 University of California — Experiment Station dealers consider are and could be paid concurrently to producers (ac- tually to hucksters) f.o.b. Los Angeles. These prices are changed from time to time by the method of bids and offers whenever the opinion of dealers indicates that supply and demand conditions warrant a change. In reality, therefore, the prices as determined by the Produce Exchange do not reflect the prices at which purchases of live poultry are being made, but merely represent a crystallization of the opinions of dealers on current market values. Of the eighty-odd members of the Produce Exchange only eighteen regular members and ten associate members handled poultry in 1936. Several of these handlers of poultry do not deal in live poultry or handle it only occasionally as brokers. Such members do not regularly partici- pate in the determination of live-poultry quotations. In actual practice the determination of current values of live poultry by the method of bids and offers is undertaken by not more than ten members of the Produce Exchange, practically all of whom are wholesale dealers. Thus, neither producers nor retailers, including retail slaughterhouses, are repre- sented in the determination of market values. Another weakness of the method of determining market values by the Produce Exchange is the fact that the quotation is used not only as a basis of purchase of live poultry from producers but also as a basis of sale to the retail trade. Wholesale dealers, of course, negotiate each sale separately, and there is often some variation in the prices at which sales of similar grades of poultry are made on the same day. Nevertheless, the Produce Exchange quotation is regarded as the foundation upon which current daily sales are based. In the determination of the Produce Exchange quotations, dealers are thus prone to consider not only what they are willing and able to pay producers or hucksters for poultry, but also the prices at which poultry can be moved into the retail trade. Thus, at certain times the Produce Exchange quotations will probably reflect more closely the current market value of sales to the retail trade, rather than the prices paid to producers f.o.b. Los Angeles. Retailers in their purchases of various types and grades of poultry from wholesale dealers reflect rather rapidly the reactions of consumers to prices and quantities of poultry offered. Retailers have found that consumers who are regular purchasers of poultry react unfavorably to very wide variations in price at different seasons of the year. If prices fall too low at the period of flush production, consumers' resistance to higher prices is experienced later. Consequently, retailers are anxious to keep prices to consumers as uniform as possible or to oppose wide seasonal fluctuations of price. In order to meet these reactions of retail- ers, the wholesale dealer attempts to prevent his prices to retailers from Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 85 falling to too low a level during periods of plentiful supply and from rising too high in periods of short supply. During periods of heavy supply, dealers are willing as a rule to buy only limited quantities of poultry at the current market quotation. The heavier supplies offered are taken only at prices below the current market quotation. Part of the poultry purchased at such times is moved directly to the retail trade ; part is put into storage. On the other hand, during periods of low fresh supplies, the current needs of retailers are met largely out of accummulated storage stocks and partly out of current purchases from producers. During such times, dealers who have in- sufficient poultry of certain grades in storage to meet their retail outlets may frequently have to pay the market quotation or higher for live poultry. Comparisons of prices received by producers with current Pro- duce Exchange quotations indicate that producer prices often vary from as much as 4 cents below the quotation during the period of heavy supply to as much as 2 cents above the quotation at periods of low supply. In other words, prices received by producers for different classes of poultry tend to show a much greater seasonal variation than do the Produce Exchange quotations for similar classes. These quotations cannot, there- fore, be regarded as a very accurate reflection of the prices received by producers at certain times of the year. Considerable criticism was voiced by producers and operators of re- tail slaughterhouses about the Produce Exchange quotations. Some of the criticisms were that the quotations were often assertedly manipu- lated to the disadvantage of producers, and others that the quotations do not serve as an accurate reflection of current market values. None of the producers who asserted that the Produce Exchange quotations were subject to manipulation were able to produce any concrete evidence. Some of the illustrations advanced by a few producers and retail slaugh- terers may have been evidence of manipulation; on the other hand, numerous other factors may have been responsible for the discrepancies between the Produce Exchange quotations and the prices received by producers or paid by retail slaughterers. A few producers seemed in- clined to believe that the low level of prices was due to both manipulation and general supply and demand conditions. It is, however, an extremely difficult matter to obtain evidence of and prove manipulation. The Pro- duce Exchange quotations, after all, represent merely the collective views of distributors on market values and, owing to the lack of reliable data on current receipts of live poultry, it is entirely possible that dealers may frequently make errors in judgment. Furthermore, dealers do not pub- lish their reasons for making changes in the prices quoted. It should be pointed out in this connection, however, that the small number of per- 86 University of California — Experiment Station sons participating in "making" the prices for poultry on the Produce Exchange makes occasional manipulation possible, regardless of whether or not manipulation actually occurs. Quite apart from the possibility of manipulation, the Produce Ex- change quotations on live poultry do not serve, from the producers' view- point, as a very satisfactory and reliable reflection of current prices paid to producers f.o.b. Los Angeles. Quotations based on a few dealers' opinions of current market value can never be as reliable as quotations based on actual sales, especially if dealers' opinions are also influenced by resale values of poultry. Furthermore, quotations based entirely upon opinions of only one element in the trade will always be open to suspicion, no matter how closely they reflect actual market values. The absence of reliable data on production of poultry both in California and in the United States as a whole, together with the even less reliable data on current receipts of poultry in Los Angeles, still further complicates the situation from both the producers' and the distributors' viewpoints. One of the cardinal requirements for a reliable system of price determination is adequate, accurate, and up-to-date knowledge of supply and demand conditions. Looked at from any angle, the conditions under which current market quotations are determined in Los Angeles are extremely unsatisfactory. Several changes would seem to offer promise of improvement : 1. It would be better if the quotations of the Produce Exchange of Los Angeles were so altered as to dissociate resale values from prices paid to producers. This could be accomplished by issuing two sets of quotations, the first to reflect prices paid to producers f.o.b. Los Angeles, and the second to reflect prices to retailers. 2. More satisfactory still would be an expansion and wider use of the facilities of the Federal-State Market News Service. An increase in the personnel of the Los Angeles office would be necessary in order to insure wider coverage of the market, especially closer contact with the retail slaughterhouses which are such an important group in that poultry- marketing center. For such an expanded service, or even for the present service rendered by the Federal-State Market News Service to prove of any value, the daily quotations must be published in the local news- papers. 3. Finally, it would seem necessary that some agency, such as the Federal-State Market News Service or the city and county health-in- spection services, undertake to develop machinery for collecting ac- curate data on current receipts of dressed and live poultry. This could be done if one or more inspection stations were established at which trucks hauling poultry into the Los Angeles market would have to report. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 87 TREND OF CHICKEN PRICES IN THE UNITED STATES Numerous complex factors influence prices of individual commodities at any given time and over a period. The factors determining price levels on any particular day, in any week, month, or year, usually are different from those that determine the long-time trend in prices. As an aid in understanding the relation of some factors to price, price interrelations are analyzed from several different angles. Over a long period the most important factors that would appear to influence the general trend of chicken prices are (1) the trend of chicken production in relation to the population trend, (2) changes in buying power and consumption habits of people, and (3) changes in the general price level. Involved in (1) are the changes that have occurred in the relative volumes of both chicken eggs and chickens produced. Prices of other foods influence chicken prices, although it might be difficult to offer statistical proof covering any considerable period. Sup- plies of other meats, and more particularly those of other poultry meat, have a decided effect on chicken prices. The problem of substitution is coming increasingly to the foreground in the case of almost all foods. The family purchasing a turkey does not buy a chicken destined for the same meal. But, when supplies of lamb are plentiful and prices are low, the housewife may purchase lamb in preference to chicken — especially if the price of the latter is relatively high. Of considerable influence in the consumption of poultry on the California market are the supplies of rabbits. Chicken prices are undoubtedly influenced by feed prices largely through egg prices. A favorable relation between egg and feed prices makes for an increase in the number of chickens that are intended pri- marily for egg production. This feed-price relation influences both the short- and long-time production of chickens. Within the year, chicken prices are influenced markedly as the result of the chicken's biological nature. The seasonal production of different poultry classes and the resultant cold-storage movements have a pro- nounced effect on seasonal price changes. Producer Price Data. — Confusion arises as a result of the number of quotations and prices on poultry published and upon their significance. Since 1909 the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics has issued a "price paid producers" for chickens on one day in each month (at present the fifteenth) . This represents an average price reported by producers in all sections of the country for many and varied grades, breeds, sizes — and perhaps for many other fac- tors. This price is published as an average not only for the country as 88 University of California — Experiment Station a whole but also for each major geographic division and for every state. These averages are of general interest. They offer indications of price trends and enable poultrymen to compare chicken prices with general prices and with those of competing products. In California the producer price represents the average price paid for chickens kept mainly for egg production, but it is highly probable that there are included in the average some prices received for chickens primarily intended for meat purposes. On the other hand, in a state such as Nebraska — or in many of the midwestern states — farm prices repre- sent an average of prices paid producers for birds intended both for meat and for egg production. In making up the California average, prices on Leghorns, Plymouth Rocks, and other breeds are used; these individual prices may have been paid in San Diego, Los Angeles, Ala- meda, Sacramento, or in any of the other counties. The individual poul- tryman cannot use these data (table 46 and 47) as a basis (or lack of basis) for a comparison with prices received by him. Within the industry the short-time price trend of a specific class of chicken may be upward while at the same time that of another class may be in the opposite direction. Trend in Chicken Prices, 1910-1939. — In the section "Trend of Pro- duction," it was indicated (p. 5-8) that chicken numbers on farms in the United States had increased more slowly than the human popula- tion over a period of forty-five years. From 1890 to 1935 the human population doubled, whereas chicken numbers increased only by 43.5 per cent. Between these same years, there was a marked decline in turkey production and duck and geese numbers declined. A study of available price data indicates that chicken prices have in- creased materially since 1890. Unfortunately, earlier censuses (prior to 1890) did not give sufficient data to allow for comparisons of prices received for chickens. Since 1909 data described in section ''Producer Price Data" (p. 87-88) have been available. From 1909 to 1939 there have been several violent fluctuations in general conditions associated with the World War and the economic depression which began in 1929. These economic disturbances were accompanied by marked fluctuations in prices of large numbers of com- modities, including chickens. The major part of the effect of these fluctu- ations on chicken farm prices was removed by dividing the weighted average of the twelve monthly prices reported by the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics by the corresponding indexes of wholesale prices prepared by the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics. These adjusted prices are shown in table 21, together with certain other pertinent data. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 89 A comparison between the unadjusted and adjusted price data is shown in figure 22. Average annual farm prices of chickens in the United States remained relatively stable from 1910 through 1915, but increased rapidly from 11.6 cents a pound in 1915 to 24.3 cents in 1920 (tabl^ 46). After the latter year, prices declined to 18.3 cents in 1923, but rose to 22.8 cents in 1929. A rapid decline set in between 1929 and 1933, dropping to 9.5 2b 24 22 §20 D o a ^-AVERAGE PRICES / y\ V^ r- S sS~ / V ADJU. PR 5TED CES V h y i i , ! i , » Fig. 22. — Average and adjusted farm prices of chickens in the United States, 1910-1939. Data from table 21. cents in the latter year. A fairly rapid rise to 14.9 cents in 1935 was followed by a somewhat slower increase in price to 15.9 cents in 1937. Since the latter year, prices have declined. Average farm chicken prices, adjusted for changes in the wholesale commodity index, indicate a fairly stable price condition in the United States from 1910 to 1914 (fig. 22). From the latter year until 1917, prices of general commodities advanced more rapidly than those of chickens (fig. 23). From 1917 to 1929 there was a steady upward trend in the adjusted chicken price. For example, chicken prices increased more rapidly than general commodity prices. Between 1929 and 1933, adjusted chicken prices declined, the decline being marked in 1932 and 1933. For the five years 1935^1939, adjusted chicken prices were mate- rially higher than they were before the World War. When considering the adjusted chicken prices in California, trends similar to those in the entire country are evident, except that in the period 1935-1939 Cali- fornia chicken prices were in almost the same relative position as com- pared with general commodity prices as they were before the War period. 90 University of California — Experiment Station r/3 w i-i o H £ r/j w H «< H C/J A B & OS P CO C7J ►« tH pq 1 -4 o t-H OS P W 5 ta w Ph u ^ w M PM 3 ^H m a l*H 6 o W M Q w Q H ta 1 o H a OQ o A W h H o s p E5 w H H 5 O 3 o s 3 o <1 U U Q fc <1 r/) W H «H H OD H H fe P V a OOOM •a j pcfl eg 00(0*M1CHC-lfO»-cO«-I^©-«J* V ~< "5 CD<005»000»0©IM»-H<— l Ol N OJOlOJOOlOWOOONHH t~ ce "C 03 03 0) 'Si pOQ *^ Is oomooioooHKieooooorii 00©05©05i-(COOO©CNl"*o OOOOOHU3C60MN© CO oo co co $ .2 to a be i eS -* 42 § od 00100MlO«3MOOrt^NN CO © (DintDOOOOOlflMOCDNO i-H (M CO CO •a 3 w 11° oajooHos^MMOsMOiai CO CO © CO iOT»l^t(lOl0003>0©OSt^lO tN CN ^«a 1 ^^ 03 <8 ■as pec - v. P.^ CO 42 S ^ ^oioootoiicstD^nHiji CO 00 OOrtrtrHPJttlrHtO^OOO 00 00 § a u £ O '-HCt~000>©»-leN»!OO)N00cot^»ooooo-«»»^Hioeci U)NN^OC!*'0')lOWlO00N» 00©0«OlOeO0000«0'»*(NCC>0500COC<»0 t-~cot^Oi©co-*»<©oooeo->s<-*feo»-i 36.6 31.6 27.6 29.1 32.5 26.7 20.1 17.5 17.4 18.9 25.1 22.9 23.7 23.6 21.4 30 4 28.8 25.0 28.1 29.8 23.7 17.6 14.2 13.8 17.1 23.4 21.8 21.3 20.3 17. 5J (OtD'OltONnOlOM^NNOOOOO NMNININNNrtrtrtHHHHH ooi-iOiooo^ooooiceoo>ooc»0'*i O3>-(O»-HO^HO3i-l^tOe*5 HNNNNHlHH rt rt rt rH rt 1H a a- c C5 a o c a a a c<- « K c- a « a c<- oc c^ o e'- er 3 ft >><5 * a 3 I O M .2 £ C o -5" s ® s «« 2 ©S to ^+3 • -«-, o CO Olr,-! gfifl ^ TO * Sift wot; ft*=< o .2 ^ as ft zi v a> W>ft$ ^ gigAJ <£ Mco'CQ Qg2-2~ a) I 3 o> si 13 •s'S .TJ5 p£S-^ C d 5 C3T3 a 3 "3 • ••— r -n w 4) 'o'o • O O 92 University of California — Experiment Station Further light on the change in the long-time trend of chicken prices can be obtained by contrasting relative changes in prices since the pre- War period with those of all farm products and chicken eggs. During the "War period the relative increase in farm chicken prices was approxi- mately the same as that for all farm products. From the peak of prices Fig. 23. — Eelative farm prices of chickens, of all farm products, and of wholesale prices of all commodities, 1910- 1939. (1910-1914=100.) Data from table 21. in 1919, the prices of all farm products dropped over 40 per cent in one year, while chicken prices declined less than 18 per cent (1920 to 1921). The decline in chicken prices, unlike those of all farm products, tended to continue downward until 1923, so that 1922 and 1923 prices were lower than those in 1921. However, the percentage decline in chicken prices between 1920 and 1923 was less than 25 per cent. While there was some recovery in farm-products prices from 1921 to 1925, a downward trend set in after the latter year. Chicken prices, after reaching a low point in 1923 began to climb, so that in 1929 they topped those of the pre- War period by over 90 per cent. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 93 In the entire 1921-1929 period, however, prices received by chicken producers averaged over 75 per cent more than those prevailing from 1910 through 1914. General farm-products prices averaged only about 40 per cent higher. It would appear that chicken prices were on a per- manently higher level in the post-War period, as compared with the pre-War period. The relatively high level of prices maintained for both chickens and turkeys reflects the marked decrease in the production of poultry meat generally in relation to the trend of population. Between 1929 and 1933 chicken prices declined over 50 per cent — about the same rate of decline for all farm products between 1929 and 1932. Even with this precipitous decline, chicken prices in 1932 and 1933 were more favorable than general farm-products prices. The recovery in chicken prices between 1933 and 1937 was not so great as that of other farm-products prices. In 1938, however, the decline in farm-products prices which had set in during the fall of the previous year was not in evidence in chicken prices. This latter situation was caused by the small number of chickens from the farm in the first part of 1938. In 1939, however, there was both an actual and relative decrease in chicken prices. Relative prices of chickens and eggs were in fairly close agreement from 1910 until 1920 (fig. 24). Beginning in 1921 and continuing through 1939, chicken prices have been relatively higher than those of eggs. One of the reasons for this change has been the more rapid increase of egg supplies when compared with trend in chicken numbers (table 1 and fig. 1). Efficiency of egg production has been emphasized, and one of the practical results has been a divergence in egg- and chicken-supply trends. This emphasis has not been wrongly placed, since the main busi- ness of most poultrymen is egg production. There is nothing unique to the poultry business in this situation. There are many illustrations of similar main and by-products relations in agriculture ; for example, lamb and wool, cotton and cottonseed, milk and meat, etc. If the ratio of chicken production to the human population is maintained during the next few years on about the same level as existed between 1921 and 1929, it is reasonable to suppose that the relatively more favorable position of chicken prices in comparison with those of eggs will continue unless un- foreseen events should bring about a greatly increased production of broilers and fryers. It would appear that attention will continue to be directed toward increased efficiency in egg production. This would indi- cate a more slowly increasing chicken production and a continuance of the more favorable price position of chickens as compared with eggs. One difficulty blurring the future is the human-population trend. If the outlook were for a continually increasing population, forage-animal numbers in the United States would probably decrease, and those ani- 94 University of California — Experiment Station mals consuming cereals for forage and easily kept in confinement would probably increase. Under such circumstances, chicken numbers would probably increase. That the population of the United States will soon reach a peak is predicted by many of the students of population prob- lems. With a declining population, chicken numbers would probably not increase. 240 220 200 180 ,_ 160 z w 140 U 220 200 180 160 2 140 i±j u g '20 100 u 120 -4- ioo i^pC**:? 80 60 CALIFORNIA CHICKEN L^A / \ \ A *w' J 1 iggs-*-^ \ ,N-~- \ L __i__ __i___ N. S / 1 | O 5 o> 5 2 CO 2* o CVJ it 2* CO o SI 5 8 CO o Fig. 24. — Relative farm prices of chickens and eggs in the United States and Calif ornia, 1910-1939. (1910-1914 = 100.) Data from table 21. Farm prices of both chickens and turkeys declined more rapidly than those of farm products during the years 1929-30 to 1933-34. This can be explained partly by the fact that among urban people both turkeys and chickens are considered to be luxury products. A decline in general purchasing power is usually reflected by a far more rapid decline in the prices of products that fall in the luxury class than in those of staple foods. By the same token a general improvement in purchasing power among urban people will cause chicken prices to increase more rapidly Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 95 than those of staple foods. This was the case between 1933 and 1937 (fig. 37). Another important factor that may influence the general trend and level of chicken prices is a change in the habits of the American people with regard to chicken consumption. While no known statistical evidence is available, it is highly probable that there has been some tendency for chickens to be consumed more regularly the year around. There is every evidence of a growing year-round use of turkeys, especially in hotels, restaurants, and resorts. The heavier chickens more normally come onto the market during the five months beginning in October. The great de- velopment in specialized egg production and the production of lighter broilers and fryers has undoubtedly made for larger supplies of chicken meat in the late spring and summer months. The production of "hot- house" broilers during the winter period has augmented the supplies of poultry at the time of the year when poultry prices have started to rise. The increase in broiler supplies over a considerable period is partly shown by the downward trend in broiler prices — in evidence since 1921. 46 The consumption habits of the American people for chickens are changing in another important respect. In the past few decades the average size of the American family has declined. With this decline has developed the demand for lighter birds — broilers and fryers. Another factor which has contributed to this increased consumption of lighter birds has been an increasing tendency for urban residents to dine out in restaurants and hotels. These smaller birds are well adapted for the restaurant and hotel trade because they can be served conveniently as a half-chicken. They also fulfill the luxury requirements which many con- sumers demand when dining out. 47 If "out-of -season" broiler production should become general in many of the present poultry sections of the United States, a given number of chickens in the future will represent a smaller total volume of chicken meat than in the past. Trends in the California Chicken Prices. — Chicken prices tend to con- form to a fairly definite geographic pattern. Highest prices (based upon prices to producers — table 48) are found in deficit areas in the densely populated north Atlantic states and in California. California chicken prices have generally averaged from a fifth to two fifths higher than the average for the country as a whole. During the thirty years (1910-1939) for which producer prices are available, they have averaged 4.432 cents more per pound — 36.5 per cent greater. California producer prices have followed those of the United States fairly consistently since 1910, with 46 Termohlen, W. D., and J. W. Kinghorne. An economic survey of the commercial broiler industry. U. S. Dept. Agr. Agricultural Adjustment Administration General Inform. Ser. G 61:1-54. 1936. 47 Badabaugh, J. H. Broilers the year round. The Agricultural Situation 23(7) :21- 22. 1939. 96 University of California — Experiment Station certain exceptions. From 1915 to 1918 chicken prices in the nation rose far more rapidly than in California. From 1919 until 1925 the two sets of relative prices were in fairly close agreement. During 1926-1929 chicken prices throughout the country were on a relatively higher level than in California. The decline during the four years 1929 to 1933 was relatively greater in the country as a whole than in California. The recovery between 1933 and 1937 was noticeably less in California, but this is probably accounted for by the decrease in chicken numbers in the Midwest occasioned by the droughts of 1934 and 1936. In 1938 and 1939 California chicken prices declined relatively less than those in the entire country. Since the World War, chicken prices have been relatively favorable as compared with the prices of most farm products in California. During the ten years beginning in 1920 farm prices averaged over 70 per cent higher than the five-year pre- War average price. Even during the five years beginning in 1930, chicken prices held to relatively higher levels than most other farm products. Egg prices showed an advance of only about 20 per cent in 1920-1929 as compared with 1910-1914. In the ten years 1930-1939 chickens were almost 20 per cent higher in California than they were before the War ; eggs were almost an equal per cent lower. On account of this condition an index of chicken and egg prices combined has been relatively unfavor- able as compared with an index made up of some 24 California agricul- tural products. 48 Relative prices of eggs and chickens were fairly close in California from 1910 until 1917 (fig. 24) . In 1918 relative prices began to show the same tendency evident throughout the country three years later. The diffierential between chicken and egg prices within the state has been larger than in the country as a whole over the past two decades. While some of the divergency is the result of the continued emphasis upon the efficiency of egg production, a change occurred during the first two dec- ades of the present century which profoundly weighed in the California egg-chicken price relation. Shipments of eggs from other states and im- ports of eggs had their beginnings in the 1850's, whereas out-of-state shipments are comparatively recent. No record of outgoing shipments is available prior to 1920, when 920 cars of eggs were shipped. Evidently between 1912 and 1920 out-shipments began to gather momentum. In the winter of 1911-12 the agricultural press 49 stated : "The state is having 48 Peterson, G. M. Index numbers of farm prices in California. Contribution of the Giannini Foundation of the University of California, monthly issues. (Mimeo.) (This publication has been discontinued.) 49 An account of the shipments prior to 1926 will be found in: Voorhies,, Edwin C. The California poultry industry: a statistical study. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 413:67-73. 1926. (Out of print.) Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 97 a new experience in egg shipments. During the week 4 cars of eggs have been exported to the frozen East." Some 42 carloads were shipped during that winter. California has been on an out-of -state-shipment basis since the second decade of the present century. Differentials between producer prices of eggs in the country as a whole and those in California have shown a tendency to decrease since the 1910-1914 period. The trend in the chicken price differential has been downward since the 1920-1924 period. The smaller chicken price differ- ential for the five years 1935-1939 (table 22) is accounted for partly by the 1936 drought. The emphasis upon the quality as well as on the efficiency of egg pro- duction throughout the United States has also had an effect on the trends of relative producer prices of eggs and chickens in California. Other TABLE 22 Producer Price Differentials Between the United States and California for Chickens and Eggs, 1910-1939* Period Chicken price differentials* Egg price differentials* 1910-1914 cents per pound 3.62 3.96 6.10 4.98 4.12 2.56 cents per dozen 7.86 1915-1919 7.30 1920-1924 5.70 1925-1929 3.06 1930-1934 2.84 1935-1939 2.48 * In every case the California price is higher. Source of data: Calculations by authors based upon table 21. areas have undoubtedly been placed in a better position to compete with quality eggs originating in California. Increases have come about in the production of fall and winter eggs in other states. All of these influences and perhaps others have operated toward declining out-of-state egg ship- ments in the past decade (1928-1938) . The peak of out-of-state egg ship- ments was reached in 1928 when 2,238 cars were reported as having been shipped beyond the California borders. The largest cost item in California chicken and egg production is feed. In a study made for the United States as a whole it has been shown 50 that during 1910-1914, 1 pound of chicken would buy 8.9 pounds of poultry feed, and during 1920-1934 it would buy an average of 12.8 pounds — an increase of almost 44 per cent. For several years prices paid by poultrymen for feed have been ob- 50 United States Department of Agriculture Economics Handbook. Poultry and poultry products. 21 p. Sept., 1935. (Mimeo.) 98 University of California — Experiment Station tamed by the authors from the Poultry Producers of Central Cali- fornia and have been used in computing an egg-feed price ratio for cen- tral California. During 1910-1914 100 pounds of poultry feed would purchase 7.05 dozen eggs, whereas for 1920-1939 the number of dozen was 7.64 (fig. 25). Stated in terms of the feed that 1 dozen eggs would 1910 1912 1914 1918 1922 1924 1926 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 D NUMBER OF DOZEN EGGS (J •!>• l/i 0> -^J 0t> / i \ ^> ~T~ ■^^T, ^i> n i o < \ m z I -n m 1 1 \ o 73 > ) / / / / / H O ( / J ( m 1 / v 9 I I 1 1 \ o > 1 5 \ 1 °*""«»» ^ > ] ( 'x NUMBER OF POUNDS OF CHICKEN Fig. 25. — Egg-feed ratio and chicken-feed ratio, central California, 1910-1939. (Number of pounds of chickens and number of dozens of eggs equal in value to 100 pounds of feed.) Data computed by authors from table 21 and from feed prices furnished by the Poultry Pro- ducers of Central California. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 99 purchase, the number of pounds of feed decreased from 14.2 to 13.1 pounds between the periods above mentioned, or a decrease of 8.7 per cent. The opposite tendency was shown in California by chicken prices. If these same periods are compared, 1 pound of chicken would purchase one third (33 per cent) more feed in the latter period than in the first. Using the same periods as were utilized in making comparisons for the United States, chicken prices in terms of feed were relatively more favor- able for the country as a whole than for California. It must not be supposed that all factors have been working in the direction of maintaining a relatively high chicken price in California. The growth of turkey production in the western states and the extended period of turkey-meat consumption have been among the factors work- ing in the opposite direction. 51 Regional Trends in Farm Chicken Prices. — Chicken numbers are among the most important factors influencing chicken prices. While the number of chickens raised in the United States had increased between 1909 and 1934 (table 4) the proportion raised in the mountain and Pa- cific divisions had increased even more rapidly. The United States De- partment of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates on the number of chickens raised annually indicate that between the periods 1920-1923 and 1936-1939 the number of chickens raised in the United States increased by over a fourth (28.8 per cent) ; the number raised in the western states gained by almost one half (48.4 per cent). In the decade 1910-1920, eggs were first shipped from California to the East in quantity. It is highly probable that eastern shipments from other now important egg-producing states — Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, etc. — began at a somewhat later period. This increase in egg production was accompanied by an increase in the number of chickens raised. In the western states outside of California the local human population was not sufficiently numerous to absorb the increased supplies of chickens raised. Another factor of prime importance in affecting chicken prices has been the proportionately increased supplies of turkeys in the western states. 52 Farm prices of agricultural products tend to conform to a fairly def- inite geographic pattern. The highest farm prices are usually found in deficit areas — that is, areas which produce a small part or even none of the farm products consumed in those areas. For most agricultural prod- ucts the highest farm prices are found in the densely populated north Atlantic states. On the other hand, the lowest prices are found in those surplus areas which are located farthest from the consuming centers. 61 Tinley, J. M., and E. C. Voorhies. Economic problems affecting turkey marketing in California. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 612:9, 41-42. 1937. 52 Tinley, J. M., and E. C. Voorhies. Economic problems affecting turkey marketing in California. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 612:42-47. 1937. 100 University of California — Experiment Station Prices gradually decrease the farther surplus areas are from the consum- ing centers to which their goods are shipped, because of increasing trans- portation and handling charges. 53 The pattern varies for different agri- cultural products according to the location of the surplus areas in rela- tion to the deficit areas. Previous to 1920 the highest farm prices for chickens were found in the Atlantic Coast states (north Atlantic and south Atlantic divisions) and the western states (Pacific and mountain divisions), and the lowest LEGEND CENTS PER POUND 9.0 I 0.0 I o.l I 2.0 I 2.1 I 4.0 I 4.1 16.0 16.1 OVER Fig. 26.- — Geographic distribution of farm prices of chickens, 1912-1914. Data from table 48. prices in the Mississippi Valley states (west north central, east north central, and south central divisions). In the period 1912-1914 the states of Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas had average farm chicken prices of from 9.4 cents to 10.0 cents a pound (table 48 and fig. 26). Only slightly higher prices prevailed in the other Mississippi Valley states north of the tier of Gulf states. Higher prices radiated out in an easterly and westerly direction. The average farm price in California was 14.8 cents or 0.1 cent higher than in New York State. After 1920 the western states showed a greater increase in the number of chickens raised than did any other section of the country. Because of this greatly accelerated production, farm prices of chickens in the 53 Changes in transportation rates, zoning, and differences between local and through rates may modify this general principle but will not invalidate it. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 101 western states tended to gain less rapidly than those in any other section of the country. The center of low prices by 1937-1939 had definitely moved westward (fig. 27). In the last-named period, chicken prices in the Great Plains states were still lower than in any other section of the country. The lowest chicken prices in the United States were found in Minnesota, Kansas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas. The effect of the increase in production in the western states can be seen by contrasting the average level of prices in the various divisions Fig. 27. -Geographic distribution of farm prices of chickens, 1936-1939. Data from table 48. for the three years 1937-1939 with those in 1912-1914. Farm prices of chickens in the United States averaged 24.8 per cent higher in 1937-1939 than in 1912-1914. "While the average level of prices had increased in every major division of the United States the increases in the mountain and Pacific divisions were far less, 5.7 and 14.1 per cent, respectively (table 48). Since chickens and turkeys compete with each other, attention should be called to the regional trends in turkey farm prices. Between the two periods (November and December farm prices) mentioned above, tur- key farm prices increased in the United States as a whole by 16.4 per cent. In the mountain and Pacific divisions, however, prices in 1937- 1939 were 4.6 and 5.5 per cent lower, respectively. Producer chicken prices in New York and California have shown a high degree of correlation. Over the past twenty-nine years the average 102 University of California — Experiment Station annual difference in the producer price between the two states has been almost negligible (table 49 and fig. 28) . During the last part of this pe- riod New York prices have had a tendency to be a fraction of a cent above those in California. Nebraska, Texas, and Idaho have shipped appreci- able quantities of poultry to California in recent years. Up until 1929 chicken prices in Nebraska and Texas were on about the same relative 1920 1925 1930 Fig. 28. — Average farm prices of chickens in California, New York, Nebraska, and Idaho, 1910-1939. Data from table 49. level as in California (1910-1914=100). From 1929 to 1933 prices dropped to a greater extent than in California. Some of this decline in producer prices might be attributable to the failure of such fixed charges as handling, transportation, etc., to change in a downward direction as rapidly as price. From 1935 to 1937 chicken-price recovery was more rapid in these states — owing to the improved economic situation and to a temporary shortage of chickens which arose as a result of the 1934 and 1936 drought. Idaho chicken prices never rose to the same extent as did those in the other states listed in table 49 and they have been on relatively lower levels ever since. Idaho was affected by being at a greater distance from Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 103 the center of chicken consumption than the other states. Growth in chicken numbers has been rapid. Idaho reported for the 1935 Census of Agriculture the largest number of chickens raised per capita among the western states. Most of the growth has been in the Leghorn breed. An- other contributing factor in the Idaho price situation has been the growth of the turkey industry in the mountain states. 64 If egg production expands in the mountain or Pacific Coast states relative to an increase in production elsewhere, it would indicate that a relatively lower farm chicken price might prevail in both areas. SEASONAL VARIATION IN FARM PRICES OF CHICKENS Seasonal movements of prices of farm products often differ as between the farm and wholesale markets. In the case of chickens this is due to several factors. In the first place, the seaso'nal variation in the prices of individual classifications and grades of chickens varies; for example, the low price of Leghorn broilers in the California markets occurs in June or July, that of colored roasters normally in November, whereas the low farm price for all chickens in California usually is recorded for August. Second, geographic differences with varying climatic conditions make for a lack of uniformity. Chicken prices in the United States reach a low point in December (p. 104), whereas in California bottom prices are usually in August. Third, most chickens pass out of the hands of pro- ducers soon after they are ready for market. From then on they are car- ried by dealers or cooperative associations and fed into the retail markets. This section will be devoted to a consideration of seasonal variations of chicken prices received by farmers. In the next section consideration will be given to seasonal variation of prices in the wholesale market. The normal seasonal movements of prices of individual farm products are influenced by several factors, the most important of which are : (1) Seasonal variations in production and marketing; (2) seasonal changes in consumption habits; (3) storage holdings at different times of the year; (4) accuracy of knowledge of potential supply at the beginning of and during the marketing period. The area of greatest production is in the Mississippi Valley, and this production primarily influences the seasonality of chicken prices. In this area poultry raising is highly seasonal in character since chickens and other classes of poultry are normally hatched and reared during the spring and summer. Poultry receipts on the main markets of the United States are gen- erally lowest in March, April, and May — the period of heaviest egg pro- 54 Tinley, J. M., and E. C. Voorhies. Economic problems affecting turkey market- ing in California. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 612:1-78. 1937. 104 University of California — Experiment Station duction. A slight rise in poultry receipts generally occurs during June and July, but the surplus poultry available for sale is usually not large until after August. From then until November or December receipts rise rapidly — a considerable part of the increase being caused by the highly seasonal receipts of turkeys. Farm prices of chickens show a seasonal trend opposite to that of poultry receipts. Higher prices are generally realized between April and August. A slump in price usually comes about between late summer and early winter. The decline in farm chicken prices during the fall is due not only to increased receipts but also to changes in sizes and decreases in quality. After the holiday season, recovery usually sets in, culminating in highest prices in the spring months. While seasonal variation in receipts is pronounced, that in price is slight, although fairly regular. Normally highest monthly prices are approximately 15 per cent above those of the low month. On many farms in the Midwest where the bulk of the poultry is pro- duced, many hens and even pullets are marketed in September, October, and November because they are molting and while not laying they must be fed. Again the disposal of chickens at this time of the year depends, among other factors, on the prices of chickens, eggs, and feed. In some years if egg prices are relatively high and feed low farmers tend to keep the hens through the early part of the egg-laying season. Calculations of the average seasonal variation in prices paid for chickens in the United States and California over the past few years show the following: 55 Month United States California January 96 100 February 98 99 March 100 100 April 103 101 May 105 101 June 105 100 July 103 98 August 102 95 September 101 102 October 99 101 November 95 103 December 93 100 Seasonal variations in producer prices is even less pronounced in California than in the nation. In the most recent years June, July, and August have been reported as the months of slightly lower prices — probably on account of the large amount of culling of Leghorn hens during these months. The seasonal variation of the several classes of 55 Computations by authors from tables 46 and 47. (Average month = 100.) Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 105 poultry in the state tends to even out the general chicken-price differ- ences throughout the year. As compared with many other agricultural products, poultry prices show less seasonality. A combination of factors affect the conditions un- der which poultry is produced and sold. In farm flocks, the hatching season generally extends from February through June, although in some years the season is extended into July and January. In California the five months January to May are the months of largest hatchings (table 18). The proportion of all chickens hatched at any one period differs from year to year, and hatching is controlled by the producer and not by the weather, although the producer may be influenced by considera- tions of the weather. The earliness or lateness of the hatch may, and often does, influence the time of marketing the young chickens as well as the weight per bird at that time. The relation between feed and egg prices has a material influence on the size of the hatch. In addition, feed prices exert an influence on the marketing of chickens within the year. As in the case of various classes of livestock, chickens may be disposed of at different weights during the year. High feed prices relative to those for colored fryers would un- doubtedly cause the producer to retain fewer birds to be marketed as roasters at a later date. Lack of feed and high prices for the same would cause many farmers to dispose of hens. This latter situation was clearly the case in 1936 when the drought in the Middle West caused farmers to market their hens. The increase in marketings can be seen in the re- turns from storage holdings of fowl (table 63) . Tables 17 and 18 give indications of month-to-month and year-to-year differences in hatchings between California and the rest of the country. Data for the entire country have been available for only the first seven months of each year, hence comparisons cannot be made for the last five months of the year. WHOLESALE-PRICE QUOTATIONS Almost all of the price material used in this publication relates to live poultry because price data are available. While the dressed-poultry trade is larger in volume, differences and changes in classifications and an actual lack of price data make it almost impossible to analyze dressed- poultry prices. The method of arriving at quotations was described on pages 79-82. In many classifications a range, usually of 1 or 2 cents, is quoted (table 21). Calculations in this publication are based on the average of the high and low of the range. As a result of a number of obstacles, exact classification and grading have not been uniform and frequent changes 106 University of California — Experiment Station have occurred. Chickens do not lend themselves to such an exact classi- fication as do many agricultural products, for example, wheat or eggs. Considerable confusion exists among poultrymen concerning grading as well as class. Difficulties are encountered in presenting a comparable series of prices for many classes since the product is not uniform within the class. Fur- thermore, one class often shades into another, as for example, broilers TABLE 23 Net Prices Paid Producers for No. 1 Quality Poultry (Live) and Game (Live) at Los Angeles, Friday, May 10, 1940 Class and weight Paying price Class and weight Paying price Leghorn broilers cents per pound 14-15 14-15 15-16 15-16 15-16 17M-18 19-20 20-22 12-13 12-13 Colored hens cents per pound 18-18H 17-18 5- 6 7- 8 Leghorn fryers Young ducks 14-16 Colored chickens Squabs All sizes 23-24 Pigeons _* Leghorn hens Domestic rabbits 11-12 * Dash indicates data not available. Source of data: Federal-State Market News Service. Daily Poultry and Game Report. Los Angeles Office, May 10, 1940. (Mimeo.) into fryers. The great variation in wholesale prices of different classes of poultry for one day (May 10, 1940) is shown in table 23. Leghorn Broilers. — Leghorn-broiler wholesale quotations for Los Angeles and San Francisco have been published in certain of the agricul- tural journals of the state since the World War. Up to 1934 two quota- tions were usually issued: one for birds under 1.5 pounds in weight; the second for those above 1.5 pounds. In 1934, quotations for three weight classifications appeared for San Francisco (in pounds per dozen birds)— 12-18; 19-21; 22-24. In 1922 the Federal-State Market News Service began issuing job- bers' prices on broilers and other classes of poultry, and these have been continued up to the present (July, 1940). In November, 1928, at San Francisco, and in Los Angeles in October, 1931, wholesale or "paying Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 107 prices to producers" were first issued (tables 50, 51). These represent the "net prices paid producers for live poultry delivered. They apply to purchases by dealers and operators of dressing plants in lots of one coop or more. Unless otherwise stated, prices are on prime quality." 56 Quota- tions were established at first on birds weighing from 12 to 21 pounds and from 22 to 24 pounds per dozen. This arbitrary division has been TABLE 24 Average Annual Farm Prices of Chickens in California and Producer Prices for Lightweight Broilers Received at Los Angeles, California, 1920-1939 Year Farm price Broiler (light weight) price Differential in favor of broilers 1920 cents per pound 29 3 27.3 25.5 24.0 24.3 26.1 26.2 24.7 26.0 27.1 23.8 20.1 15.5 13.7 14 3 17.7 17.5 18.2 18.1 16.3 cents per pound 32.8 36.4 31.6 33 3 32 1 29.0 28.3 26.5 30.8 25.0 24.2 21.7 16.0 12.9 15.8 17.7 18.0 19.8 17.2 16.6 cents per pound +3.5 1921 +9.1 1922 +6.1 1923 +9.3 1924 +7.8 1925 +2.9 1926 +2.1 1927 +1.8 1928 +4.8 1929 -2.1 1930 +0.4 1931 +1.6 1932 +0.5 1933 -0.8 1934 +15 1935 0.0 1936 +0.5 1937.... +1.6 1938 -0.9 1939 +0.3 Sources of data: Farm price from table 47. 1920-June, 1939, broiler (lightweight) price from Pacific Rural Press, weekly prices averaged by authors. July 1939-December 1939 from Southern Pacific Rural Press, fortnightly prices averaged by authors. changed frequently — some 38 changes having been made from Decem- ber, 1928, through June, 1939, at San Francisco. In March, 1934, three broiler classifications were quoted for the first time at both San Fran- cisco and Los Angeles: (1) under iy 2 pounds, (2) from 1% to 1% pounds, and (3) from 1% to 2*4 pounds. In comparison with California producer chicken prices (table 21), wholesale prices of Leghorn broilers gave evidence of a downward trend between 1920 and 1929 (table 24). From 1920 to 1924 the average farm 58 From : Federal-State Market News Service. Daily poultry and game report. San Francisco, May 25, 1937. (Mimeo.) United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Tentative United States standards for grades of live poultry. 2 p. Revised April 1, 1932. (Mimeo.) 108 University of California — Experiment Station price for chickens was 26.1 cents a pound. Using the wholesale quota- tions of the agricultural press for the same period, the average price of light broilers was 33.2 cents a pound. For the next five years ] 925-1929 the average chicken price was 26.0 cents — almost identical with that for the previous five years. The wholesale price of light broilers had dropped to 27.9 cents. While these comparisons are between producer and whole- sale prices they do serve to bring out the changing relation between broiler prices and those of chickens in general in the state. Since 1929, data are available on wholesale prices of the various poul- try classes in California. No marked trend in broiler prices as compared with those of other classes is at all evident — whether the Federal-State Market News Service quotations or the agricultural-press quotations are used. The same general change in price relation between broilers and other poultry classes seems to be apparent on the east coast. In the early twenties broiler prices in New York City during certain periods were at least twice as high as fowl prices. In 1935 and 1936 broiler prices were only slightly higher than fowl prices — partly owing to the large increase in commercial broiler production. It would appear to be very doubtful that broilers will again have a high differential over other classes of poultry. A partial explanation of the decline in Leghorn broiler prices in Cali- fornia from 1920 to 1929 can be found in the increase in the number of chickens raised in the western states (table 5). From 1920 through 1930 there was a continuous rise in numbers until in the latter year output was over twice that in the former. This increase was largely in White Leghorns; and since a very large percentage of these were sold as broilers and fryers, the explanation given above appears to be plausible. The last year of any considerable price differential between farm prices of chickens and broiler prices was 1928. In 1929, with an increase of over 10 per cent in the number of chickens raised, the broiler price fell below that of the general farm price of chickens for the first time. The increase in chickens raised in the western states was apparently stopped in 1931. Since 1929 the differentials between the two sets of prices have been slight. Until sexing of chickens became feasible it was but natural that large numbers of broilers be raised. Being a by-product in this state of egg production, they have been raised in areas fairly close to centers of con- sumption and this in itself is of decided advantage. On account of the increase in disease larger replacements have probably been necessary, and this would have tended to increase the number of broilers raised. Seasonal Variation in Broiler Prices. — The seasonal variation in Leg- horn broiler prices is greater than that in prices of most other chicken Btjl. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 109 classes. On both the Los Angeles and San Francisco markets lowest prices for small Leghorn broilers have come in April, May, and June while those for large Leghorn broilers have occurred a month later. Prices gen- erally rise from the latter month until September or October, after which a slight recession occurs in November or December. In these latter months a secondary crop of broilers is marketed. From December a rise usually occurs until January or February ; prices then move downward during April and afterwards until the low point is reached in May or June (table 25). Medium-sized and large broilers show the same general sea- TABLE 25 Indexes of Seasonal Variation in Paying Prices of Seven Classifications of Live Poultry in San Francisco (Average for year = 100) Month Leghorn fryers Colored fryers Small Leghorn broilers Large Leghorn broilers Leghorn hens Colored hens Colored roasters January 99 103 108 102 90 81 86 101 115 107 107 101 100 97 102 105 106 102 98 98 100 98 99 95 108 108 98 82 76 78 88 108 121 119 111 103 99 104 105 94 82 77 83 104 121 120 113 98 101 98 105 104 104 96 90 93 101 101 108 99 97 95 101 106 104 98 98 99 102 102 101 97 98 February 100 March 105 April 111 May 110 June 108 July 105 August 98 September 94 90 November December 91 90 Source of data: Calculations by authors based upon data in tables 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, and 56. sonal variation as small broilers, with some minor differences. The sea- sonal low and high price of the smaller broilers usually is earlier than that of the heavier birds (fig. 29). There has been a tendency over the last few years for broiler prices to flatten out over the year even though there is still a decided price season- ality. Lower prices have prevailed in February, March, and April and in November and December. During the eleven complete years for which quotations are available at San Francisco this change has been notice- able. From 1929 through 1933 prices during the peak month were from 66 to over 100 per cent higher than during the low month of the year, whereas from 1935 through 1939 this differential varied from 38 to 74 per cent. This tendency has been noticeable at New York over an even longer period. At times the extreme differentiation between the highs and the lows during the course of a year has been greater in New York than on the west coast. From all indications, however, extreme seasonal price variations will not occur in the future as they have in the past. 110 University of California — Experiment Station The explanation for the changed price seasonality in California is the trend toward earlier brooding which has brought broilers to market earlier. Fall hatching, which has been gaining since the World "War, has had an effect on the November and December markets. The earlier Fig. 29. — Indexes of seasonal variation of paying prices in San Francisco for small and large Leghorn broilers, Leghorn fryers, and colored fryers. Da ta from table 25. brooding also has had the effect of allowing California broilers to be placed on the eastern markets in February. Leghorn-broiler prices apparently have averaged higher in San Fran- cisco than in Los Angeles from 1932 to 1939. The greatest differential in price has been in the smaller classification. The price differential is dif- ferent during the various months of the year — April, May, June, and July showing the smallest differentials. The price differential between Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 111 the two cities in the light-weight broilers for these four months has been 1.2 cents as compared with an average differential of 2.4 cents for the remaining eight months (1932-1939) . Indications point to a lesser price differential between the larger broilers in the two cities than with the lighter weights. On the Los Angeles market the average annual price of large Leghorn broilers has been from 0.2 to 1.0 cent a pound higher than that of the small broilers (table 51). This differential is usually somewhat greater from April through June. In these months the differential has reached 2.9 cents a pound higher for the larger broilers. Conditions on the San Francisco market have been slightly different. In six of the years from 1933 to 1939 the annual average for the smaller broilers has been higher (table 50). In a review of past quotations this apparently came about since 1932. While this is true of the average annual^ prices it is not the case in all of the heaviest production months. In April and May the prices of the larger broilers usually exceed those of the smaller birds. Since 1932 and through 1939 the smaller broilers have usually been higher-priced in June, and in July they have always averaged higher. Leghorn Fryers. — On the two principal California markets both Leg- horn and colored fryers are usually quoted (tables 52 and 53). The dividing line between large Leghorn broilers and Leghorn fryers is apt to be somewhat indistinct. Instead of 2% pounds being the dividing weight between Leghorn fryers and broilers, the Federal-State Market News Service has set 2% pounds. Over any considerable number of past years it is difficult to obtain comparable prices. From such information as is available (agricultural press), it would appear that from 1920 to 1939 Leghorn fryers have not declined in price in California so rapidly as light Leghorn broilers. Leg- horn fryers apparently have commanded a higher price in San Francisco than in Los Angeles, although there have been exceptions in certain months. This has been particularly evident in months of larger produc- tion (April through August) . At times a higher quotation has prevailed for a period at Los Angeles (June, 1932; August, 1933; April, 1935; June, 1937 ; May, 1939) , although the average annual quotation has been from 1.8 to 3.8 cents a pound lower in the 1932-1939 period. Seasonal Variation in Leghorn-Fryer Prices. — The average (un- weighted) quotations of Leghorn fryers at Los Angeles and San Fran- cisco have been lower than those on large Leghorn broilers. When comparing the prices during the months of maximum production, differ- ences of a fraction of a cent usually occur — at times the large broilers commanding the higher price, at other times the fryers. In the month 112 University of California — Experiment Station of high prices (September), fryers usually average from 0.5 cent to 4.0 cents a pound lower in price than larger broilers. The question of whether to sell Leghorns as broilers or as fryers depends not alone on price but on potential supplies, feed costs, storage holdings, and a number of other items. While the seasonal price movement of Leghorn fryers is fairly regular (tables 25 and 52) , the variation is more pronounced for broilers. In the eight years 1932-1939 the price differential between the high and low months for small broilers at Los Angeles has averaged 6.1 cents and that for Leghorn fryers 1.4 cents. The low point lags behind that of broilers — although it usually occurs in June. From the latter month prices usually rise to a high point in September. After slipping some- what to the end of the year, they rise again, culminating in a March high point which, during some years, has been higher than the September price. A decline sets in ending with the June low. Leghorn fryers compete with colored fryers, and probably the failure of fryer prices to rise simultaneously with those of Leghorn broilers to as high a September or October peak comes about because of the rela- tively larger number of colored fryers marketed in the fall. The pro- ducer chicken price throughout the country drops in the latter part of the year and this in turn reacts on both colored and Leghorn fryers. Colored Fryers. — There are differences between Leghorn and colored fryers in price, seasonal price variation, storage holdings, etc. Average annual colored-fryer quotations have been higher than those for Leg- horns at both Los Angeles and San Francisco, the differential at Los Angeles usually being slightly higher. Changes in the weight classification of colored fryers have rendered exact comparisons over a period of time somewhat difficult. A quotation for colored birds from 2% to 3 pounds in weight usually has been pub- lished and a second one for those between 3 and 3% pounds. The heavier colored fryers generally have commanded slightly higher prices. In January, 1939, a new classification, "colored chickens," was published by the Federal-State Market News Service (table 23) and colored fryers and roasters were included. The weight of the colored fryer was set at "under 3% pounds" and only one quotation was issued. Annual quotations at Los Angeles averaged from 0.3 to 1.4 cents a pound higher than at San Francisco from 1932 to 1937 (table 53). In 1938 and 1939 quotations in the latter city were 0.2 and 0.5 cent higher, respectively. The smaller differentials occur from July to November. No exact data are available as to the reason for the higher Los Angeles quo- tation. One supporting reason may be the presence of large numbers of persons originally from the Middle "West in the Los Angeles area. These are no doubt more favorably disposed toward colored chickens. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 113 From 1920 through 1938 a comparison of producer prices for all classes of chickens in the United States and wholesale colored fryer prices in California indicates a high degree of correlation. Colored- fryer prices apparently are geared to the general chicken prices in the United States. Although California poultrymen are especially inter- ested in the Leghorn breed, they are indirectly concerned with other breeds on account of the influence exerted on Leghorn prices. Since 1929 the price relation between the two classes of fryers — Leghorn and colored — has apparently shown little change. Seasonal Variation in Colored-Fryer Prices. — Seasonal price for col- ored fryers varies from that prevailing for Leghorns, being influenced more largely by production conditions in the Midwest. Higher prices most usually prevail from January through June. Influenced no doubt by the production of Leghorn broilers and fryers and by an increasing production of other colored birds, the price usually starts to decline in June, ushering in the period of lower prices through December. Storage holdings indicate that the into-storage movement usually begins in Au- gust and continues through the remainder of the year. Enlarged supplies are accompanied by lowered prices during the last part of the year. Colored Boasters. — Data on colored-roaster prices as published by the agricultural press since 1923 indicate a fairly close correlation be- tween these and the producer price for chickens. Quotations have been issued by the Federal-State Market News Service (table 54) on two weights, but very little difference is to be noted between them. From 1929 through 1939, prices at San Francisco have averaged annually from 1.1 to 3.6 cents a pound higher than colored-fryer prices — the average being 2.43 cents. Even though the gain of weight per head may be ap- proximately constant, the rate of gain is inversely proportional to the age and weight of the birds. Given constant feed prices, the cost of pro- ducing a pound of gain on a roaster would be greater than the cost on a fryer. In the years of very low prices, 1932 and 1933, colored-fryer prices weakened to a greater extent than those of colored roasters, owing no doubt to the desire of many producers to unload poultry as soon as possible. Comparisons between Los Angeles and San Francisco roaster prices indicate that the quotations in San Francisco have varied from 0.3 to 1.2 cents higher annually. The San Francisco differential disappears in December and in six of the eight Decembers (1932-1939) the Los An- geles price has been the higher. Seasonal Variation in Colored-Roaster Prices. — Since the bulk of the California roaster supply originates in the midwestern states where the spring months of March, April, and May account for the larger number 114 University of California — Experiment Station of chicks hatched, October, November, and December are months of larger roaster supplies. Seasonal price variation is fairly regular on the California markets as a result of this seasonal production. The price variation has a general correspondence to that in general chicken prices in the United States. Highest prices occur at the time when larger hatch- ings come about — March, April, and May (fig. 30). The higher prices Fig. 30 — Indexes of seasonal variation of paying prices in San Francisco for Leghorn hens, colored roasters, and colored hens. Data from table 25. therefore are obtained for birds brooded in November and December. Peak colored-fryer prices usually are obtained from birds of the same brooding although the high prices for the fryers are reached a month or two earlier. After May a price decline sets in and usually continues until the lows are reached. January sees an upward price movement — generally reaching a peak in April. Leghorn Hens. — Quotation on only one weight was published by the Federal-State Market News Service up to September 28, 1936. Since Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 115 the latter date two quotations have been issued on (a) Leghorn hens under 3% pounds and (6) Leghorn hens over 3% pounds. The quota- tions in table 55 since the above-mentioned date are an average of the two wholesale prices. Wholesale prices have followed farm prices for the state rather closely and this would be expected since the number of Leghorn hens marketed was large among the chickens marketed. Wholesale Leghorn-hen prices like those of farm chickens remained relatively favorable from 1920 through 1929. The drop to the lower level of prices in 1932 and 1933 was not so severe as that experienced by other classes of poultry. One ex- planation may be that people turned to the purchase of lower-priced chickens. The more likely explanation is that from 1931 through 1934 chickens raised decreased in the western states while they increased else- where. In 1934 and 1935 the Leghorn-hen-price rise was relatively the same as that for other chicken classes. In the five years 1935-1939, in- clusive, Leghorn-hen prices were on the same relative level as colored- hen prices. For eight years, 1932-1939, San Francisco wholesale quotations have averaged annually from 0.3 to 2.0 cents a pound over those at Los An- geles. The greatest differential has occurred in the low-price months, which indicates that the prices in the southern California area have been more severely depressed at that time.. Seasonal Variation in Leghorn-Hen Prices. — From March through May prices usually remain relatively high (fig. 30). Thereafter, in June they begin to decline until the year's lows are reached in July and Au- gust. In the past, few laying birds have been sold in the spring months when laying is at a peak. Seasonality of price is not so pronounced as is that of broilers or fryers. Hens marketed in the spring months are materially influenced in price by the supplies of younger birds of the Leghorn breed marketed. A slight increase usually holds from Septem- ber through November followed by a slight December drop and a more abrupt decline in February, which has been at times as much as 3 or 4 cents. This drop is undoubtedly caused by an increase in White-Leghorn- hens offerings. Some poultrymen, especially when egg prices are favor- able, force some of the flock for egg production in high-price periods in the fall and early winter, and sell the hens after the season of high egg prices. Furthermore, these birds are usually heavier during February than during the summer. This practice has at times been recommended by the Agricultural Extension Service of the University of California. Over the past two decades there has been a tendency to lessen the price variations during the year. In the latter months of the year poultry prices in the country as a whole are lower, and this in turn prevents 116 University of California — Experiment Station Leghorn-hen prices from rising relatively higher. In the eight years 1932-1939 the average difference between the low and high monthly quotations on the California markets during each year has been ap- proximately 2.5 cents. It is not the intention to point out the most advantageous time for sell- ing Leghorn hens, since other considerations perhaps do and will deter- mine the most profitable marketing time. The most efficient job of culling cannot be done in early spring. If this were done it would necessitate another culling in the fall. However, there might be little loss from this practice and the gain in the market price per bird and saving in floor space might be worth consideration. Colored Hens. — The Federal-State Market News Service has issued quotations on colored hens at both California markets for birds under and over 5 pounds (table 56). The price trend in California since 1920 has been strikingly similar to that for the chicken prices in the country as a whole; and there is a high degree of correlation between the chicken prices in the country as a whole and in California. The various classi- fications of chickens, with the possible exception of broilers and fryers, follow the ups and downs of general chicken prices rather closely. Cali- fornia colored-roaster and hen prices follow trends for the country, since the bulk of the colored poultry sold originates outside of the state. There apparently are fewer fluctuations in the colored-hen prices on this ac- count. Colored hens have averaged from 2.8 to 7.5 cents higher a pound than Leghorn hens on the two California markets since 1929. From available data indications are that from 1923 through 1926 the differential between the two hen classifications was fairly regular. In the next five years, 1927-1931 the differential widened considerably. One of the probable factors influencing this tendency was the increase in the number of Leghorn chickens in California. In the years of very low chicken prices, 1932-1934, the differential narrowed appreciably. A return to a higher differential came about in 1935 and 1936 and this continued through 1939. The droughts of 1934 and 1936 in the Middle West undoubtedly had some influence in bringing about these higher differentials as did the upward trend in industrial activity. These facts point to the necessity of analyzing poultry prices over a considerable period before conclusions are made. Poultry numbers can be increased or decreased more rapidly than those of other livestock classes and price relations are apt to change more rapidly. When quotations were first published at San Francisco, lighter- weight colored hens were in greater demand than heavier weights. This difference in wholesale prices almost disappeared by 1935, but during 1936 it again reappeared and continued through 1938. In 1939 differ- Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 117 ences appeared only in March, April, and May. In Los Angeles, the heavier bird usually has commanded the higher wholesale price. In both cities the heavier weights are in greater demand during the last months of the year. In comparing Los Angeles and San Francisco prices, there has been but little difference except in 1938 when Los Angeles prices were over a cent higher (table 56). Over the period 1932-1937 the heavier hens in Los Angeles commanded a half cent premium over quotations issued in San Francisco, while exactly the reverse situation was the case with the lighter- weight hens. Seasonal Variation in Colored-Hen Prices. — Seasonality in colored- hen quotations usually is not pronounced. In some years January, February, and March prices have weakened appreciably. Numbers mar- keted are probably partly associated with the egg-price outlook. If the egg-price situation appears to be favorable hens are very likely to be withheld from market. In the country as a whole March, April, and May are heavy egg-production months, and hen marketings are likely to be small. A price decline usually starts in June and extends into July. In the latter month the California price is likely to be somewhat de- pressed by Leghorn-hen marketings. August, September, and October are normally months of slightly higher prices although a price decline often starts in September continuing through December. The quality, however, is probably not so high in the latter part of the year as it is in the earlier months. Unlike broilers, fryers, and roasters, a large potential supply of col- ored hens exists in the nation throughout the entire year. Supplies are not therefore highly seasonal — nor do the prices evidence pronounced uniformity in movement. Sufficiently favorable prices may attract sup- plies to market at any season. Boosters. — At both California markets Leghorn- and colored-rooster quotations (tables 57 and 58) have been issued regularly. The latter birds usually command from 0.5 to 3.0 cents more a pound than the former. San Francisco Leghorn-rooster prices averaged approximately 0.5 cent more than those in Los Angeles in the 1932-1936 period, but in 1937 and 1938 prices in the latter city averaged higher. In 1939 San Francisco prices were again higher ; colored roosters generally have com- manded a premium of a cent or less as compared with Leghorn roosters. Changes in rooster classifications have been infrequent. For the years in which quotations have been issued there has not been a distinct sea- sonal price variation. Ducks. — Los Angeles quotations have been issued regularly since Oc- tober, 1931, and those at San Francisco have been continuous only since 118 University of California — Experiment Station September, 1933 (table 59). The lack of a continuous series of quota- tions prevents a clear picture of price trends. Quotations of the Los Angeles Produce Exchange are available since 1923. Indications point to a downward trend in Los Angeles duck prices from 1926 through 1929. The drop during the depression years does not seem to have been any more pronounced than with chickens. Los Angeles quotations have been slightly higher than those at San Francisco, especially during the higher-price season. Los Angeles summer prices often dip under those at San Francisco. The higher summer temperatures at the former city account in some measure for the lower prices because duck is preferred during cooler seasons. San Francisco is in the larger duck-producing area, and this in part probably accounts for some of the price difference between the two cities. Price variation has a fairly regular pattern throughout the year, higher prices usually being reached in December prior to the holidays. For the first five months of the year prices hold fairly steady, although a considerable break in price often occurs in May. The pronounced break more often appears in June, and prices continue downward until a low is reached in August. A gradual climb then begins, culminating in a December high. Squabs, Pigeons, and Other Classes of Poultry. — In the larger mar- kets a limited demand arises for squabs, mainly from the more expensive hotels and restaurants. California squabs are often shipped east. On the two major California markets, the five months beginning in May are those of lower prices since this is the larger production period. Begin- ning in September a price upswing begins which usually continues to December. Higher levels are held until March or April when the decline begins, culminating in the seasonal lows in June, July, and August. Squab demand, being somewhat limited, makes at times for wide fluc- tuations in prices (table 60). The average quotation for April, 1932, at Los Angeles was 28.5 cents a pound, while in May the average had de- creased to 21.4 cents. Quotations in San Francisco in some months vary markedly from those in the southern California city, for example, No- vember, 1938, quotations at Los Angeles averaged 24.5 cents a pound, while at San Francisco the average was 28.8 cents. Caution should be exercised in making for any considerable increase in supplies. Pigeon quotations have been published by the Federal-State Market News Service for several years at San Francisco (table 61). Owing to the infrequent changes, little can be obtained by an examination of the quotations even over a period. Pigeon prices appear not to have re- sponded to price increases which have come about with other classes of poultry since 1933. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 119 Quotations on geese and other classes of poultry have not been issued by the Federal-State Market News Service at either Los Angeles or San Francisco. The agricultural press of the state has, since 1920, published prices on geese somewhat intermittently. Indications are that goose prices from 1920 through 1929 did not remain on the same relatively high levels as did other poultry classes. The greatest demand occurs in December when certain nationalities favor goose for the Christmas table. That the supply at times has been plentiful, even at the Christmas sea- son, is evidenced by the drop during December in one or two years of the record. Demand is small and caution might well be exercised before em- barking on a venture with geese — or other poultry not commonly used. WHOLESALE QUOTATIONS ON DOMESTIC RABBITS By all types of classification from strictly zoological down to utilitarian agriculture, rabbit is not a form of poultry. The justification for includ- ing a short discussion of rabbit quotations in this bulletin is that there are so many instances where rabbit meat is classified with poultry owing to its similar market status. Yet there is so much difference between rabbits and poultry from a structural and physiological standpoint that one would be better justified in using the hog as an animal more strictly comparable with poultry. In a study 57 of the diets of employed wage earners and clerical workers, returns indicated that the per-capita consumption for Pacific Coast cities was 10.4 pounds of poultry and 1.9 pounds of rabbit and other game; for north Atlantic cities, 16.1 pounds and less than 0.1 pound; for east south central cities, 9.0 pounds and 0.4 pound; and for southern cities (Negro families) 12.3 pounds and 0.3 pound. On the Los Angeles market the competition between the rabbit and poultry industries is especially keen. In 1938 approximately 1,600,000 pounds of rabbit meat was consumed in the Los Angeles market alone. 58 One rabbit classification has been quoted regularly at both California markets (table 62). While there is a lack of continuity in the quotations, which makes it difficult to detect trends over long periods, prices published in the agri- cultural press of the state point to a decline in rabbit prices beginning in 1926 or 1927. This downward trend was partly the result of the greatly increased production in the state. The movement became more pro- nounced with the depression years and at times in 1932, 1933, and 1934 quotations were less than 40 per cent of what they had been in 1925. 67 Stiebeling, Hazel K., and Esther F. Phipard. Diets of families of employed wage earners and clerical workers in cities. U. S. Dept. Agr. Cir. 507:1-141. 1939. 58 Butterfield, H. M., and W. E. Lloyd. Eabbit raising. California Agr. Ext. Cir. 9:3. Revised 1940. 120 University of California — Experiment Station <\J O CO lO ^t AJ O CM C\J QNOOd «3d S1N3D Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 121 With the recovery of poultry prices from 1933 to 1937 rabbit prices ad- vanced relatively more since the low prices of 1933-1934 than general chicken prices in the state. In the past there have been evidences of a fairly distinct seasonal va- riation, June and July covering the period of lowest prices. From the latter month there is usually a gradual rise until the peak is reached — usually in November, although in past years it has sometimes come in October or December. There is a slight weakening in January, and in May prices start to slide toward the June and July lows. Domestic-rabbit prices are usually a fraction of a cent higher in San Francisco than in Los Angeles during the months of higher prices ; the reverse has been the case during the season of lowest prices. The aver- age annual differential between the two cities for the eight years 1932- 1939 was less than 0.02 cent a pound in favor of Los Angeles. Apparently the degree of correlation is not high between rabbit prices and those of a specific class of poultry. In general Leghorn-fryer and rabbit prices are most closely related (fig. 31). The low months of Leg- horn-fryer prices at both Los Angeles and San Francisco are usually the same as those of low rabbit prices. COMPARISON OF PRICES PAID LOS ANGELES PRODUCERS AND QUOTATIONS OF THE FEDERAL-STATE MARKET NEWS SERVICE AND THE LOS ANGELES PRODUCE EXCHANGE Considerable dissatisfaction has been voiced by poultrymen concerning quotations of the reporting agencies in Los Angeles (p. 85). Several producers furnished prices which they had received for Leghorn broilers and hens, and colored fryers, hens, and roasters. The largest number of prices furnished by producers were for Leghorn broilers and colored fryers and these fell largely between February, 1934, through Novem- ber, 1935. Considerable difficulty was experienced in obtaining prices that might be compared because so few poultrymen possessed records for any considerable time. Furthermore, most poultrymen sell chickens com- paratively few times during the year, and whether the poultry grades are prime or otherwise is not known definitely. In comparing such producer prices with the Federal-State Market News Service and the Los Angeles Produce Exchange quotations, a fairly close correspondence is shown. In the 83 weeks for which producer prices for Leghorn broilers were obtained, they fell within the range of prices quoted by the Federal-State Market News Service in 35 of the weeks and within those quoted by the Los Angeles Produce Exchange during 24 of the weeks. Prices received were actually above the range of the quoted prices of the Federal-State Market News Service during 122 University of California — Experiment Station 45 of the weeks and below during 17. The corresponding data for the Los Angeles Produce Exchange were 41 and 21 weeks. In some weeks producer prices fell both below and above the quotation range, prices being reported for more than one day of the week. Since the Market News Service and Produce Exchange quotations are f .o.b. Los Angeles, producer prices would normally be somewhat lower. A noticeable tendency was for poultrymen to receive the higher - than-quoted prices for broilers in the six months of seasonally higher prices prevailing from September through February. Lower-tHan- quoted prices were more prevalent from March through August — the months of seasonally low prices. This latter tendency was slightly more noticeable when comparisons were made with the Produce Exchange quotations. Producer prices for colored fryers were closely correlated with both sets of quotations issued by the reporting agencies. Poultrymen fur- nished prices which they had received in 77 different weeks. In 33 of these the producer price fell within the quotation range of the Federal- State Market News Service, in 38 weeks the producer price was below the range quoted by the Market News Service and in 6 it was above. The corresponding data in comparison with the Los Angeles Produce Exchange were 22, 49, and 6. The producer price of colored fryers was seldom more than 2 cents outside the quotation range of either of the reporting agencies. Indications point to the Market News Service quo- tations as being somewhat more in line with producer prices of colored fryers than was the case with the Produce Exchange quotation. Producer roaster prices were obtainable from poultry raisers for only occasional days during 13 weeks. In every case they fell either within or above the ranges quoted by both agencies. Producer prices were obtainable for Leghorn hens during 16 weeks. Paying prices in 7 of these weeks were within the Federal-State Market News Service quotation range ; in 3 they were higher and in 6 lower. The corresponding data for the Exchange were 6, 3, and 7. Colored-hen prices paid producers were obtained for 13 weeks. Producer prices were within the range quoted 5 of the weeks, and higher than the Market News Serv- ice range 8 of the weeks ; and in comparison with the Exchange they were within the range in only 1 week, above during 7, and below during 8. COMPARISON OF QUOTATIONS OF THE FEDERAL-STATE MARKET NEWS SERVICE AND THE LOS ANGELES PRODUCE EXCHANGE From 1932 through ]939 the quotations at the Federal-State Market News Service at Los Angeles and those of the Los Angeles Produce Ex- change have been compared for several poultry classifications. An effort Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 123 has been made to ascertain points of similarity and differences between them. Direct comparisons between the two sets of quotations on Leghorn broilers are less accurate because of some differences in the grades or weights of broilers quoted. The Federal-State Market News Service quotation is for no. 1 broilers, whereas the Produce Exchange price TABLE 26 Amount and Number of Changes in Poultry Quotations Issued by Federal- State Market News Service (Los Angeles) (I)* and Los Angeles Produce Exchange (II)*, 1932-1939 Number of changes Amount of change in cents per pound Leghorn broilers Leghorn fryers Colored fryers Leghorn hens Colored hens I* II* I* II* I* II* I* II* I* II* 0.25 23 115 9 88 3 18 1 18 2 3 125 63 5 1 1 2 51 3 43 13 1 12 1 43 24 7 1 1 91 86 1 13 19 1 3 1 80 47 4 2 14 121 6 87 2 13 8 140 25 2 19 85 8 68 7 1 6 0.50 0.75 1.00 99 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 20 2.50 3.00 4.00 5.00 Total 280 195 126 75 215 135 251 167 194 121 * I refers to Federal-State Market News Service changes; II refers to Los Angeles Produce Exchange changes. Source of data: Computations by authors on the basis of quotations published by the Federal-State Market News Service (Los Angeles) and the Los Angeles Produce Exchange. covers all broilers within the weights specified. The quality range in the former quotation is therefore smaller than that in the latter. The comparisons made below are for Leghorn broilers of slightly dif- ferent weights. The quotations of the Federal-State Market News Service used were for larger broilers for different periods from : January 1, 1932, to June 14, 1933, weights quoted were 18-24 pounds per dozen; June 15, 1933, to March 27, 1934, weights were 19-24 pounds; March 23, 1934, to January 7, 1938, weights were 22-24 pounds; January 10, 1938, to De- cember 31, 1938, weights were 21-24 pounds; and January 1, 1939, to December 31, 1939, weights were 21-27 pounds. The Los Angeles Prod- uce Exchange quotations compared were for the larger-sized broiler class for different periods from : January 1, 1932, to April 25, 1939, 124 University of California — Experiment Station weights were 18-27 pounds per dozen; April 26, 1939, to December 31, 1939, weights were 21-27 pounds. For the years under consideration the averages of the two quoting agencies for Leghorn broilers show a close agreement, annual differences of 0.1 to 0.8 cent being in favor of the Federal-State Market News Serv- ice quotation. The average of the range of the latter agency's quotation has been used. The Produce Exchange issued one price quotation daily. If the lows of the range of the Market News Service had been used, there would have been little difference or none between the annual aver- ages of the two sets of quotations. If the four months of low prices — usually April, May, June, and July — are selected, the Produce Ex- change quotations show to a greater disadvantage. Market News Service quotations averaged from 0.4 to 1.4 cents higher during these months, and in the two or three months of peak quotations they have averaged from 0.1 cent lower to 0.8 cent higher. This situation might easily be ex- plained by quality differences (see p. 85) . Price changes in the Market News Service quotations have been more frequent, and in general, have been smaller than those of the Produce Exchange (table 26). During the eight years 195 changes were made in Leghorn-broiler quotations by the latter agency averaging 1.41 cents. Changes of 1.0 and 2.0 cents were most frequent although the range was from 1.0 to 5.0 cents. In the same period the Market News Service quota- tions changed 280 times, changes averaging 0.86 cent, those of 0.5, 1.0, and 0.25 cent in the order named being the most common. The range was from 0.25 cent to 3.0 cents. Conditions surrounding a comparison of Leghorn-fryer quotations are similar to those enumerated with broiler comparisons. The weight of the bird quoted by the Federal-State Market News Service was generally "over 2 pounds," whereas that for the Exchange was for weights of 2% to 3 pounds. There is close agreement between average annual prices, the Exchange quotations for the eight years ranging from 0.1 to 0.8 cent lower. In 1934 the Exchange quotation would have been higher had it been compared with the low of the Market News Service quotation range. Differentials between the two quotations were far larger in June (the low-price month) than in September, the month of seasonal high quota- tions. In the first month differentials for the eight years averaged 0.8 cent ; in the second month less than 0.6 cent. It is emphasized, as in the case of broilers, that quality differences might account for this situation. Quotation changes on Leghorn fryers made by the Federal-State Mar- ket News Service at Los Angeles totaled 126 during the period under consideration (table 26) . The average change was 0.95 cent. Those of the Produce Exchange were varied only 75 times during the same period, Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 125 the average change being 1.55 cents. The most frequent changes in the Market News Service quotations have been 0.5 and 1.0 cent while most changes in the Exchange quotations have been 1.0 and 2.0 cents. On colored fryers the Los Angeles Produce Exchange annual quota- tions have averaged from 0.0 to 0.9 cent lower than those of the Federal- State Market News Service. The weights of the birds quoted upon for the period under study have varied : Produce Exchange, between limits of 2^4 and 3% pounds; Federal-State Market News Service, up to limits of 3, 3V4, and Sy 2 pounds. Generally over these eight years differen- tials between these two sets of quotations have been far greater in the three months from April through June, whereas for October and Novem- ber differentials practically disappear. No doubt the seasonal variation in the price of Leghorn broilers and fryers in the California markets affects these varying differentials in colored-fryer quotations (fig. 29). In the late spring, Leghorns are marketed in quantity and it is probable that colored fryers originating in the state are also marketed in largest numbers. Highest prices for the Leghorn broilers and fryers prevail in the period when the differentials between the two sets of quotations dis- appear. It is highly probable that the demand for birds of these weights at that time makes those responsible for the Produce Exchange less criti- cal of grade. The study of changes in the quotations issued by the two agencies shows up in a fashion similar to those already discussed. In the eight years the Produce Exchange quotation changed 135 times with an aver- age change of 1.45 cents. This simple average is misleading, as the changes listed indicate. Market News Service quotations changed 215 times with an average change of 0.94 cent. Both agencies have published comparable quotations, but in view of the fact that so few roasters are produced in the state comparisons are omitted for this classification. Produce Exchange quotations have been published for Leghorn hens weighing from 3% to 4 pounds except for May 24, 1939, to June 15, 1939, when weights were 3 to 4 pounds. The Federal-State Market News Serv- ice quotations were for all sizes of Leghorn hens until October, 1936, when a quotation was issued for two weights, 3% pounds and up, and under 3% pounds. The quotations for 3% pounds and up, have been used since that date. A comparison between the Produce Exchange quotation mentioned above and that for "all weights" issued by the Market News Service shows that the annual average of the latter quota- tion has topped the former by from 0.1 to 0.8 cent. In 1937, 1938, and 1939 Exchange quotations ran almost identical with those of the Market News Service for Leghorn hens under 3^ pounds. No pronounced sea- 126 University of California — Experiment Station sonal differentials can be detected in the quotations for the eight years studied. While changes were made no more frequently in the Produce Ex- change quotations on Leghorns, they were smaller than in the case of either broilers or fryers. In the years under consideration 167 changes were made averaging 1.17 cents. The changes were 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0 cents (table 26). The Market News Service quotation was changed 251 times with an average of 0.77 cent, the most common changes being 0.5, 1.0, and 0.25 cent. Produce Exchange quotations on colored hens, 4 pounds and up, topped those of the Market News Service on birds 5 pounds and up in all save one of the seven years studied. A close correspondence is found with the annual average of the Produce Exchange from 0.0 to 0.6 cent higher. In the colored-hen class the quotations of both agencies prob- ably were largely on birds shipped into the state, and it is highly prob- able that the same birds were quoted upon. That the quotations of the two agencies were different even though the annual averages varied but little can be realized when comparing amounts and number of colored- hen-quotation changes (table 26). The Federal-State Market News Service quotations seem to average somewhat higher than those of the Produce Exchange on all classes of poultry studied save colored hens. There is a tendency for prices of the latter agency to be somewhat lower during low-price periods. These differences may perhaps be partly explained by differences in quality. There can be but little doubt that the Market News Service quotations are changed more frequently and with less abruptness. RELATIONS BETWEEN WHOLESALE POULTRY QUOTATIONS IN CALIFORNIA AND OTHER MARKETS New York. — New York is the center of the area of great poultry con- sumption in the United States. A large proportion of the price contracts in cities east of the Rockies are based upon New York quotations. Ben- jamin and Pierce 59 state : "These [New York prices] have a direct influ- ence on the trading for probably 80 per cent of the poultry moving in the wholesale trade channels of the United States." Most of the poultry un- loads originate in areas at a considerable distance. In some years Cali- fornia has furnished an appreciable amount of dressed poultry to that metropolis. In 1936, 1937, 1938, and 1939 the unloads at New York from California were 6,650,000, 4,132,000, 3,856,000, and 2,830,000 pounds, respectively. The bulk of the receipts arrive in four months beginning in February. The territory contiguous to New York is primarily an egg- 69 Benjamin, Earl W., and Howard C. Pierce. Marketing poultry products, p. i-xi, 1-401. J. Wiley and Sons, New York. 1937. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 127 producing section comparable to the areas near Los Angeles and San Francisco. The bulk of the colored chickens originate in the Mississippi Valley. In making price comparisons between Los Angeles or San Francisco and New York, two sets of wholesale quotations have been used — those of the Urner-Barry Company published (daily quotations) in the American Creamery and Poultry Produce Review (since January, 1940, quotations appear in American Poultry and Egg Review) and those printed in the daily Producers' Price Current. These sets of quotations have checked closely. The wholesale prices issued by the Federal-State Market News Service at Los Angeles and San Francisco have been used for the Cali- fornia markets. The annual average Leghorn-broiler quotations over the ten years 1930-1939 have been approximately the same at New York and San Francisco but wide variations occur in monthly quotations (fig. 32). The New York price has averaged higher for three separate years but in four years California prices have been higher. While trends in prices present a certain pattern, nevertheless, single years may vary widely from it. This is especially true with broilers that can be produced within a very short period. The 1937 situation illustrates this latter point. From 1930 through 1939 the San Francisco price of Leghorn broilers in March, April, May, and June has averaged nearly 4 cents lower than that in New York. This season is one of surplus Leghorn broilers and fryers in California. In 1937, however, the New York price topped the San Francisco price in only two months — April and December. The follow- ing monthly averages for the 1930-1939 period show the relation between wholesale broiler prices in New York City and in San Francisco and from this can be discerned the general differences in the seasonal move- ment of broiler prices. Month January February March April May June July August September 24.7 October 24.1 November 22.2 December 20.6 Differential between San Francisco New York San Francisco and price, in cents price, in cents New York price, in per pound per pound cents per pound 22.5 20.8 - 1.7 23.3 21.6 - 1.7 20.7 23.9 + 3.2 17.1 21.7 + 4.6 15.8 19.8 + 4.0 15.9 18.2 + 2.3 18.0 17.6 - 0.4 22.0 18.8 - 3.2 128 University of California — Experiment Station r n ■ !' i 1 1 1 !> z ro O) i Oi CO CO i— 1 ^ J. _ CM <£ ? O O oa r- - 3 ro PI en c3 — u ft tr o to >- Ui S ° UJ t£ Z O. z o UJ o UJ V) ui Z CD < i' r- z z < UJ to u. Z u. < " Q <£ Z' < g * 1936 ork and Sai New York. ^ r \ ~ 1935 3 at New Y °rice Ourrent < X ^ >* a: = 1934 iorn broiler a Producers 1 < ) o u o 7 ^5 1933 ices of Legl le 50 and froi < ^Vl -^ *» z < 3 '> 1932 e paying pr Data from tab v» o o % ro 0) '. — CM CO -*c =: -""^ >■ <*!TI. **> 0) ru en 1- ui £ 2 uj tr Z Q. z o UJ UJ z S1N30-S3DN3U3JJIQ QNOOd H3d S1N30 Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 133 ber. New York December prices sometimes equal those in San Francisco, but more often the higher price in New York is not reached until Jan- uary. 1 1 ' O *j i it z < # u a / ^ z ^ - < jV/ i i 1 i // < a£T r* > ^^ «*** ,--' * » 1 r o o < o I u o u to u z < K Ll z ^ ^ ^^^■^ 3' « s-" i Ph O l\l ^ it o S1N3D -S3DN3«3JJIQ c8 03 > >■> . o 7 OS CO o o QNOOd d3d SJLN30 area in the United States. Most of the unloads of live poultry and the bulk of the dressed poultry in the seaboard cities of the middle and north Atlantic states originate in the upper Mississippi Valley states. Unfortunately price comparisons between Chicago and California 136 University of California — Experiment Station markets are difficult to make, largely on account of the absence of quota- tions for similar chicken classifications. Fowl prices have been quoted in Chicago for a period of years and these have been compared with San Francisco colored-hen prices in figure 35. A high degree of correlation is evident. The average annual differential of San Francisco over Chicago for the ten years 1929-1938 has been 3.7 cents a pound ; with a range of 2.8 cents in 1936 to 4.7 cents in 1930. The lower Chicago price would be expected because the city is close to the center of the chicken production in the United States. Seasonal variation in fowl prices is far more pronounced at Chicago than at San Francisco as the following comparison for the ten years 1929-1938 shows : Differential between San Francisco Chicago San Francisco and Month price, in cents price, in cents Chicago prices, in per pound per pound cents per pound January 22.0 19.0 -3.0 February 20.9 18.8 -2.1 March 22.1 20.1 -2.0 April 22.8 20.3 -2.5 May 22.5 June 21.3 17.3 -4.0 July 21.0 17.4 -3.6 August 21.6 18.2 -3.4 September 22.6 18.7 -3.9 October 22.3 17.2 -5.1 November 22.0 16.1 -5.9 December 20.8 16.1 -4.7 The May price for Chicago is available for nine of the ten years ; the average price for these nine years was 17.7 cents. April prices on the average at Chicago have been approximately 25 per cent higher than the low prices which normally come in November and December. While the high San Francisco price generally comes in April, it has averaged only about 10 per cent more than the December price. The greater differential in favor of prices on the west coast occurs in the seven months beginning with June. This would be expected since the latter period is that of great supply in the Midwest. Wholesale quotations on "springers" are available at Chicago. In live- poultry terminology, particularly in the central west, this term refers to what are commonly called "spring chickens," or "roasting chickens." "Springers," or "springs" as they are often called, may be of either sex and are the next larger classification in weight above frying chickens. In California on the other hand, the three sizes of chickens are known as "broilers," "fryers," and "roasters." Most of the broilers and fryers in the state are Leghorns, and roasters are colored birds. Comparisons be- Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 137 Tf O f oeoccoo«o«5U50505cO'-ioe«5'— it— co II ooooe.ec^H^H^Hcoc © 2 o > ft < 5 :i <§eOC<»eO»-llO»OCOOOC30»0'0»OCOOO»-IOO^H U CO a © © •5s © ft M II 0©OOrtt-0©OS<0«©cor-OOt"-f-aO«OT*i 5 © > ft ftgN1l«W»HN^NU)*OHNn*»OOf) n © © M 5 © ft^WNMOl^MOlONOOIOtlOMffiMOOOW 5S«01H{0N00M 03 a © £© © o. P4 o o IT © C^ (T> © OS t- TfiiOOUJOlHOON i-HiOCO"5C ft 00 © 3 CO '8 P oo bO bfl 0J is© ■+-> o "oS ft o V ©o>c&»oe-t ft < 9i^>(!Ci3rtl8Hffl00H01^OO*0)N»NU5O SiJ'CW^NOOeNOOOfOlHiOHOOON^lO 00 R 0) © -t-s o O) ft P3 V ©e*ao»-i^r^eo©©osaoi-iooo»o>eoeoeN>-i II 000)HMNO)rt»ffi a 8.gM0000!O©NrtNNO00^ONNO>NNN >23^H*-iooooor-^H>*oi«©iooo©oooo!-<<©e c _S 3 —"3.5 3 S s?S- g 2 -^ i 1.1 «£« -Si? « o-g a o o pq o . Sua o'CC C a o. ft_--H r^'cs'S .2 s.g S-s-s tZ'-Sw '-5.23.2 .2 «-8 I'P C3 03 ^ "o^o ° 2 g g »- S; ta fflpqPQ +s .u -u fl s S O) d) 0) aaa fci o o 'S ° ° 3 e3 c3 n $ s 01 U I- J3 3 3 PQ II 33 all v* to 2* TO r\ r\ &&& g-S-S" PQQ ^QQ J8J S|| rttirt ts _g J ffiffiCQ ..qqCOCC o> S o> .£ « 'S'S'3 S'S'S'S aaa^aaa S22§222 'd •:®cocot~o3cooo£- r=i ■*-> T3 Rj ID 00 m 03 a> eg OQ ^ CT> p o ^ S a, *h a O 9 m ^ Pi 01 CO S h o ^ T* P a> R pi 03 ft gj a o o e8 Ph c3 03 w o o O) X en 0J r\J be rn fl rd O ^ 03 bJD r\j ccj rn fH o +-> OS fd ID o rvj U saNnod jo SNoi~niw •i-i 148 University of California — Experiment Station allowed to be so greatly depleted as those of either fryers or roasters. June or July is usually the low point in holdings, and beginning in the latter month broilers are placed in the coolers (fig. 41) . This into-storage movement largely continues into September, although the peak holdings are usually reported on January 1. In some years the peak is reached 200 180 120 100 Fig. 40. — Indexes of seasonal variation of cold-storage holdings of broilers, fryers, roasters, and fowl in the United States. Data from table 29. a month earlier. It becomes necessary to use frozen broilers from Novem- ber or December until May. Usually the out-of -storage movement is small in volume until March, and in this and the two following months, April and May, the bulk of the holdings moves. Since broilers are usually from 8 to 12 weeks old when marketed, and since production can and does take place out of season in or near the more densely populated areas of largest poultry consumption, the idea ^^p tn UJ < h- (/■) Q Ld h- z D c u j I < Q c - CO a » ,-1 W §5 OQ 0) — a o 02 fH bo CO oS o 0' — 03 T3 o v 1^ OJ 1 Oi 1—1 T* bfi £ Ph SQNnOd JO sdNvsnom 150 University of California — Experiment Station has been expressed that the "hothouse" broiler would do away with the necessity for frozen broilers. This situation has not come about, as figure 41 shows. From 1926-1927 until 1932-1933 there was a slight downward trend in broiler holdings in the United States, but since the latter period there has not been a pronounced upward or downward trend. This latter 180 160 140 120 O 100 60 60 20 - ^\; OASTERS N \ \ \ \ /^— BRO LERS ^"V v\ x \ y^-FF tYERS ^--- y' i 7 \ \ \ \ 's ^FOWLS y / \ \ s \ / / \__ V - f / - 1 1 i 1 1 Fig. 42. — Indexes of seasonal variation of cold-storage holdings of broilers, fryers, roasters, and fowl in the Pacific section. Data from table 30. situation, of course, was complicated by the droughts in 1934 and 1936, which caused somewhat abnormal shipments of many poultry classes to markets. The Pacific section presents a somewhat different seasonal storage pat- tern for broilers. Surplus Leghorn-broiler production on commercial egg-producing farms of the West usually starts in early spring and stor- age holdings begin to accumulate in April or May (fig. 42). Holdings are usually at the lowest point of the year on May 1, although those on April 1, and even March 1, have been in this position during some years. Then in May and June usually come the largest increases to cooler sup- plies, and by September 1 holdings are usually at a peak (August 1 Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 151 and October 1 have at times been the dates of peak holdings). During the late fall and early winter, supplies are drawn upon rather slowly, withdrawals usually being heavy during the first three months of the year. Peaks and valleys in holdings usually occur in the Pacific section from one to three months before the upper and lower maximums in the coun- try as a whole (fig. 42). At the peak of high holdings in the Pacific sec- tion, supplies for such markets as New York are not readily available and in many years prices are not quoted, but on account of the accu- mulating supplies of other classes of poultry, broiler prices tend to be lower in the last half than in the first half of the year ; for example, in New York. Not only is the pattern of seasonal variations in broiler holdings dif- ferent in the Pacific Coast states from that in the remainder of the coun- try but also actual variation in storage supplies has been relatively greater in the Pacific Coast states (fig. 42). The droughts of 1934 and 1936 made for somewhat abnormal variations in storage holdings in those years for the country at large. Fryer holdings are not separated into those of the Leghorn and colored breeds in storage-holdings reports. All birds, regardless of breed, are included in the fryer classification. Holdings are at a low point from 6 to 8 weeks later than those of broilers. In the past few years this point has been reached in the summer for the United States as a whole — usually in August (table 63). On account of seasonally low prices the largest additions to stocks of colored fryers are made in October and November. Peak holdings are almost invariably reached about Janu- ary 1. Withdrawals usually start in considerable volume in February and continue through May. In the Pacific section fryer holdings present a somewhat different pattern (fig. 42) . The combination of the Leghorn breed and efforts for early hatching brings larger and earlier production than in other sec- tions. Heaviest into-storage movements usually occur in May and June. Peak holdings usually are reached about September 1. At times, largely owing to fall broiler production, the peak comes in November, December, or even January. Poultry raising being more of a year-round business in California than in the midwestern or some of the eastern states, holdings do not evidence so great a seasonal variation (fig. 42). Since 1926 the trend in storage holdings of fryers in the entire country and the Pacific section has been upward. The in-and-out-of -storage movements of roasters are highly regular. With a high fall poultry production and relatively low prices, supplies accumulate shortly after the low point in storage is reached in Septem- 152 University of California — Experiment Station ber. The into-storage movement is in full swing from October through December. Another factor making for a rapid increase of total holdings is the marketing at this period of large turkey supplies, turkey partly taking the place of chicken in consumption. Roasters are not usually removed in considerable volume until after February 1, and in the months of relatively high prices, March through May. Removals are rela- tively small in July and August. The Pacific section, in contrast to the remainder of the country, gives evidence of far less seasonality in roaster holdings. Since most of these birds are produced in the Midwest, the great bulk of holdings is re- ported from east of the Rockies, the western section of the country play- ing a very minor role. The peaks and valleys in storage holdings for the Pacific section correspond with those of the nation. Fowls usually accumulate during the fall and early winter, and by January holdings are at a peak. The largest out-of -storage movements take place from February through April. In some years the low point is reached by June. In several recent years summer and early fall sup- plies have fluctuated considerably and the low point in storage was not reached until October 1. They show clearly the irregularity in the seasonal cold-storage movement (as compared with other classes of chickens). There are always potential supplies on hand, and holdings are largely influenced by considerations that are somewhat different from those which bear upon holdings of other classes. Egg and feed prices, as well as poultry prices, play a decided role in determining sup- plies of fowls in the coolers. With the 1934 drought in the Middle West, large numbers were marketed and a considerable number of these were placed in storage. In 1935 eggs were commanding a relatively high price (tables 21 and 27) and one result was that chickens were retained on farms. In the following year (1936) large numbers of fowls were again stored as the result of the 1936 drought, lower egg prices, and a chicken price which held relatively better than egg prices. In addition, feed prices were high. All of these factors caused farmers to market fowls in larger numbers, and the greatest number of fowls in the history of holdings found their way into the coolers. On the Pacific Coast the differential between the high and low hold- ings of fowl is not so great as in the other poultry classes. The largest supplies are usually found in January, and the low point is most often reached in June. This is by no means regular. Storage facilities on the Pacific Coast probably are used to hold supplies over short periods, since the hen production is not so seasonal as the production of other types of poultry. Duck holdings were first reported separately in July, 1932. Since then Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 153 the seasonal in-and-out movements have been rather regular. A low point in supplies has occurred on May 1 from 1933 through 1939 (April 1 in 1937). Accumulations tend to be accelerated in the relatively warm months of June, July, and August — with the largest in-movements in July. Peak holdings are consistently found on approximately October 1 — three months before the peak of all poultry holdings. Supplies of other poultry classes are being sent into storage in volume at this time — with the exception of turkeys. The out-of-storage movement is usually heaviest during the first three months of the year. Holdings in the Pacific section are small, usually following the seasonality pattern for the nation. APPENDIX OF TABLES Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 157 05 , c QOOONN! " at JCOOsO-^cMi-l^cM ca !D»HNOONO)NiH^l ,0 O 00 OO N MO d NlO K lOOOONOOOOrtO ^ CO i-l i-H CM rtNNCO NtOMOU) lO ■«*! lO lO "O tDiOHrtlO NOCCOOO) OJCDfflOH CD 0 ■* t» OS OS OS OO •* CO lO CO CM CO O t- © •*(NM>0 »■ rtOOOOffid __, (MtH^H lO * ■<*• 00 OS >i0 UO iCMOOOMrt T-4MCM -Hi is os*cooo-*ir— ooo© OS t— OS * OS I CO t- OS * ■* ~* > CO lO CO CM lO * > CO <— I * lO ■* i— I lONOMWHlfl t-KMCM i-l-H 132 OOOOOOMTfONlO OOOCOCOC IflrtHHOOOW i-H WCOOMtOHO OS > i— I ■* OS U5 •* t— ' I tO * »0 *C *0 OO •■ ItOWOCM OO OO CO OO CO CO ■* CO CO i— ■*£*-< lo'coco NOOrtoin ccohoni J; OO * CO CO CO CO OO CM OS COCO I— CO OS t^ * CO l— OO * O >-l N CO OS N CO ■* co in oo co co co oo CM CM CO ,- It-H s+j ri a> a,^^ o © © © ^- SO = .2 CO/— N ^SS^ -•"■ ,rn co -, o-2:S 2 $ 158 University of California — Experiment Station y- 1 >0 t- CO i— I t- -rf< < iflOOtDlDMOt co"^co^coc CM ■*> cn CO ^H C •<*" <-h ■ (MrH(N ICOOOON- co co co m ■<*< ' ■fNtOOOOOOiOO rti -* co co •>* co co cm ^HNUJONOCS (D N CO m CO N r- o i CO -^ CO ^< rt CO O) I i-lOOOOOCOCOCM-* CN CO N CN CO IN OS CO CN CO lO Q M t^ OC CO COCO^OlOCOOO. CO CJ O "H CO «3 "O i- 1 CDOSt^TtNOOCOCD«5 H © co" CO co" T»* OS O* •*f CM <— ICOU5!0 0)N NOOCD^OfflNH OOCOCONCONMOO CCMO"OlOHOOH ^OSCOCO^OlrtlO rt<0 k -h c3 c3 ■ ■B % §.s£oo 2 - cu cjj ^i; •— ' »- o-^ cv 02 U5 CO O) CO QO Oi U5 Ol COOOOOCCNOhO lO«0-^"5COCNlCCO >0 05- 0O CM i Oit- 1 CMCN \i OCOCi^HCOOOCOTjl CO 00 f-1 ■»!<' cm" oo" co' cm* 0)OCOMO«5' O5O5COt^C0'-IO5lO ocO'-'toiooitoca t— CO i— ' CO ■«»< t- t— lO t-osr-ot-cjiaor- CO -3< CO <— I00003CM CO CO i— I lO CM rl 7-1 r-lCO-HOOCNCO^CO CONCOWOOOrHO) IflTtKNO^COiO So^-oSr^ Eh r~- oscm coo© "3 CO ■** •S 5 § "3 :Sg£ -g S^ou 13 opp eg Bxjl. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 159 TABLE 32 Farms Eeporting Chickens on April 1, 1930, and January 1, 1935, Grouped by Sizes of Flock* and Geographic Divisions Size of flock* North Atlantic East north central West north central South Atlantic 1930 1935 1930 1935 1930 1935 1930 1935 Under 50 191,118 103,109 62,360 29,051 10,093 3,058 2,420 281 222,018 94,977 60,303 31,627 11,856 3,485 3,589 523 276,888 293,247 238,693 63,448 7.211 1,117 588 49 343,215 301,056 238,082 66,503 7,895 1,149 708 66 209,282 278,168 363,691 158,587 14,274 1,059 406 24 324,251 305,016 302,799 108,784 9,458 859 333 26 735,034 117,187 39,839 11,317 3,145 826 722 117 782,977 50- 99 156,579 100- 199 46,786 200- 399 12,541 400- 699 2,977 700- 999 761 1,000-2,499 719 93 Total 401,490 428,378 881,241 958,674 1,025,491 1,051,526 908,187 1,003,433 Size of flock* South Central Mountain Pacific United States 1930 1935 1930 1935 1930 1935 1930 1935 Under 50 1,328,737 317,986 116,616 25,636 3,383 649 388 40 1,474,195 365,595 118,778 21,353 2,298 403 272 42 100,999 48,266 22,530 6,928 1,940 552 487 59 127,801 45,777 19,478 5,935 1,755 482 497 73 106,577 31,119 16,024 10,824 7,361 3,454 4,606 1,027 131,862 33,928 17,067 10,428 6,188 2,630 3,540 691 2,948,635 1,189,082 859,753 305,791 47,407 10,715 9,617 1,597 3,406,319 50- 99 1,302,928 100- 199 803,293 200- 399 257,171 400- 699 42,427 700- 999 9,769 1,000-2,499 9,658 1,514 Total 1,793,435 1,982,936 181,761 201,798 180,992 206,334 5,372,597 5,833,079 * Size of flock based on numbers of chickens 3 months old or over on hand on census dates. Source of data: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Chickens and eggs by size of flock, p. 4-10. 1939. 160 University of California — Experiment Station g M o o CO _H CO Ph cc Pm T3 co CO CO CO CM CM CO 00 O OS •^ CO CN CN CN i-H OS CN OS OO O OO NN WONiO °sg CO CO lO CN CO -H CN »-H '3 03 Ph If co os OS •<* 00 CN CO OO CO 00 ■*< CO OS OS 00 O CO O0 © CN OS o> lO i-l OS CO CO CO CN -* •"*! CN CM t^ t^ i-< CO OS i-H i* ,-( ~H CN i-H C o **< CO os OS Tt< »0 lO CN O CN CN i-H o ^ ■<* CN CN 0O H N W "> N OS CN OS O os co «« l-H CO "* CO CO rt IN ^ CN CN O CO t>- CO «« i-H CN .-H South central CO OS -* r- ■<*< Tf OS »— < Tf< "^ CO O 00 OO •** CN «o «*< T-i o o o OS CM OS »C 00 o XJ O S (O ffl M O OO CO "* CN io co »-i o o o o CO OS co os © CO OS l-H CN l-H OS CO t^ CN T»< CN CN CO CO i-H CN © OS C T3 io o c hi a> > OS OS OS OS OS O OS OS OS OS Os ,__, l-H CO CO OS Tt< T3 i i i i 7 «* o o o o © © © © © © © © H N i( N O «5 t-T CN S T5 P oo O O g d 03 O o ^ ..« «« O so eg d ^_r3 2 ° o * - S Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 161 P w CO Tj< rl o ■* ci _ o ■* Tt< o t~ o to 00 1^ M Ui CM OS "* •"! ire - 1 CI o CO CO CM co o t- Co OS CM ■* CM "- ~ CO OS Ttl CO . 00 _l -f o CO -=t< en Ph CO CM CM «o co o OS CO CO t- CO i-l 00 to f-^ f o ■*f «5 CM i-< CO "5 ^ CO o o t»- _ CO ">* fl O CO ,_, 00 en 00 ~f r~ CO 3 § to CM CO CM CM CM CM CO CO o o o o "" £ ■* eo »o CO CO US CO ^ Ui CO o o CI CO _l _, i-i o §1 CO CO CM M- IO CD oo co o ■* CM CO W o o ^H CD OS Ui ,_, rt © ~ CO lO 1-H CO CO PH CO »o CM i-H O »-i CI to CO -f 1 r^ CO Ui pfl+3 ,_l o °s *3 os CO l>- co o o U3 o Ui oo O CM m CO OS r^ # ■* c o= o T3 : c3 : OS : > GO A CO CO CO CO %v flS o ^ s? o o o o o o CO o S§ O fl O IO fc & rt CM o o> 0> C ,0 T3 162 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 35 Human Population, Chickens Kaised, and Egg Production by Counties, California, 1934 F ■■■'■■.„ Human population Chickens raised Eggs produced Region of State Farms report- ing Chickens Chick- ens per farm Chick- ens per capita Farms report- ing Number of dozens Eggs per farm Del Norte Humboldt Trinity number 5,290 46,980 3,900 24,270 8,610 65,150 24,310 45,250 number 174 1,010 268 1,116 578 3,054 681 327 number 8,867 98,634 15,130 162,182 54,505 3,937,231 200,726 479,848 number 51 98 56 145 94 1,289 295 1,467 688 number 1.7 2.1 3.9 6.7 6.3 60.4 8.3 10.6 22.2 number 187 1,505 290 1,346 613 4,637 880 587 thousands 45 884 70 1,098 294 24,776 1,300 2,952 dozens 241 587 241 Mendocino 816 480 5,343 1,477 5,029 North coast total. 223,760 7,208 4,957,123 10,045 31,419 3,128 San Francisco 655,460 479,840 88,130 87,700 157,390 43,390 10,770 67,620 31,720 51 825 387 848 2,435 748 448 710 1,018 48,615 479,972 63,406 126,059 563,581 433,122 86,215 195,397 338,638 918 582 164 149 231 579 192 275 333 313 0.1 1.0 0.7 1.4 3.6 10.0 8.0 2.9 10.7 1.4 51 1,768 427 1,310 3,315 1,246 637 1,175 1,393 64 4,225 342 982 2,698 2,303 695 1,422 1,584 1,255 2,390 San Mateo Contra Costa Santa Clara Santa Cruz San Benito 801 750 814 1,848 1,091 1,210 San Luis Obispo . . 1,137 South coast total . 1,622.020 7,470 2,335,005 11,322 14,315 1,264 16,260 15,120 11,580 38,160 13,970 10,960 16,650 14,190 27,350 154,560 25,790 41,400 10,560 9,650 829 917 968 1,175 408 588 79,054 216,382 145,957 141,130 33,684 80.342 95 236 151 120 83 137 136 119 150 395 145 176 75 93 183 4.9 14.3 12.6 3.7 2.4 7.3 7.2 2.7 4.4 4.9 4.4 957 1,306 1,084 1,772 509 606 1,056 376 1,049 2,549 931 458 1,040 699 944 249 372 977 212 632 4,889 638 923 205 136 479 Tehama 796 645 Butte 533 Yuba.... 489 614 Sutter 882 120.073 925 319 797 1,905 783 804 521 263 38,115 119,594 753,259 113,594 141,591 39,243 24,362 564 602 Sacramento Yolo 1,918 685 3.4 1,045 3.7 566 2.5 270 883 El Dorado 362 504 Sacramento Valley total 5.0 406,200 11,159 2,046,380 14,076 12,374 879 Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 163 Table 35 — {Concluded) Human Population, Chickens Raised, and Egg Production by Counties, California, 1934 Human population Chickens raised ■ Eggs produced Region of state Farms report- ing Chickens Chick- ens per farm Chick- ens per capita Farms report- ing Number of dozens Eggs per farm San Joaquin number 109,010 6,520 60,910 9,270 39,570 4,220 16,630 148,700 78,490 26,040 88,590 number 3,024 391 3,030 200 2,612 179 1,046 4,963 3,148 1,331 1,479 number 451,183 31,561 658,181 18,562 326,603 11,811 139,581 553,247 561,675 140,129 190,722 number 149 81 217 93 125 66 133 111 178 105 129 144 number 4.1 4.8 10.8 2.0 8.3 2.8 8.4 3.7 7.2 5.4 2.2 5.2 number 3,948 468 4,255 304 3,042 222 1.261 6,796 4,524 1,703 1,739 thousands 3,130 205 4,690 90 2,259 83 722 4,237 4,522 881 1,029 dozens 793 438 Stanislaus Tuolumne 1,102 296 743 374 573 623 Tulare 1,000 Kings 517 Kern 592 San Joaquin Valley total 587,950 21,403 3,083,255 28,262 21,848 773 Santa Barbara. . . . 73,200 61,380 2,424,450 150,210 120,850 95,830 245,830 69,260 534 610 5,246 2,131 1,191 2,071 2,194 958 122,789 126,041 2,773,155 995,958 189,257 492,591 710,600 157,009 230 207 529 467 159 238 324 164 373 1.7 2.1 6.6 1.6 5.1 2.9 2.3 1.7 817 890 6,881 2,609 1,822 2,993 2,781 1,263 697 825 18,374 6,964 1,265 3,562 4,357 655 853 927 Los Angeles San Bernardino.. . 2,670 2,669 694 1,190 San Diego 1,567 519 Southern Cali- fornia total 3,241,010 14,935 5,567,400 20,056 36,699 1,830 29,840 7,510 12,660 8,440 2,970 370 2,010 6,540 777 495 303 139 54 7 38 114 65,190 41,998 37,388 11,299 3,119 522 1,891 8,842 84 85 123 81 58 75 50 78 88 283 2.2 5.6 3.0 1.3 1.0 1.4 0.9 1.4 2.4 2.9 917 537 349 148 55 9 48 134 471 210 303 59 15 6 8 52 514 Modoc 391 868 399 273 667 Mono 167 388 Northern and eastern moun- tain total 70,340 1,927 170,249 2,197 1,124 512 State total 6,151,280 64,102 18,159,412 85,958 117,779 1,370 Sources of data: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Census of Agriculture, 1935. 2:949-51. 1936. Population data from estimates by: California Taxpayers' Association. The Tax Digest. 14 (3):106. 1936. Calculations on chickens and eggs per farm and chickens per capita by authors. 164 University of California — Experiment Station OCMrH CO CO 1 CO CO otoooo a> OOO O >o CM CM CM CO CM CO CO CO •* cm" CO oooocoo CO 0)0000)0 -f 000 O OOO 1 ° O CT> 02 CM ■* C7Jcor- COrn' CO CO 10 CM HiOOOOOO CM OO CM rH CM t-^ ONH; t^ C35 OS CO CM CM OtfSNOn^ 1 Hooooeo ic OOtC OOO 1 O 1 1 CM CM Tf t— O =D rH o •* i-H CM OoooOrnO e» "*< ■<*< 00 OOO OS noo «~ | • H CO CO CO in ft ! ft u MOM CM 1 O CO CO O O (M OhOOMO ©rH^H CM OrHC NOCN O "5 ft 00 CO CO O O0 c3 a> U OMNNOOC o> *-"h©o>oo t^ OOO ICrHr- t^ CO « t^ Ol"OiH CO -ti CO rH O CO CM O O (35 O rH O o coco O O CM O rH OOrH TfrHCM t^ OS ^ i— l CO 1 "O 1 OO OOrH CO CM* CO rH OS CM 00 10 oooiono CM rH ■* CM O CO O O Ohio CO CO CM CM ^ TH 1 CT> OS 00 r-"io"co rH 00 0" ONONCOO rH O O rH t^ O cr. OOrH CO >o OOrH _ _ rH CO '~ l ' rtCOCOO'f rH CM OiCOOMO 00 OOO rH CJ HMO CO CM CM CO ^ UO oo OS CM 1 1 1 1 CM ONWMlOO CO O *0 Oh O 'O OOlO lO OOO CM otal: East north central and west north central divisions. . . c .2 "35 c .2 '3 > cS i 13 P a! Cf a 1 s i c c c cS c 8 — X bi c £ g '53 D C H 3 ■rlS 'c e '5 "5 - E c OrH is "S 43 (D O « - c "£ c IS i c c 9 | t Z < 13 O a 7 a. In r* I 8 a TM H -3 «3 £ J >>E-< •23 £H ,IJ!P- H H & ? S H U IS a '/- £ s z is r» C h £ C u s w h PC Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 165 o o ^ 03 n3 & .-a w o 55 2 0>Ot-hOCMO r^CM CO CM CO -* CO H 0O o ■OS O^HWCOO US O OS US ■* b- ■OS US ©Oco© CO i-l l>. US I CO CM -«ti CO © USrt ^H OO o-*" 1 CO Ttl CM oo CD US CO OS T-HOOOCOCMCO-^OOS* N rt a> tJI O CD 115 ■*}< »-< CM r-l CM Ir-- CO OS CO rtHNNCeO CO oo coo CO rtfO o CI ©OCM© CM OO (M OS COCCt ■* i-l CM l^- CO OS 00 o O oo o oo CO ,~ CM O O CM i-l US O USO O ^E CO MNONININ g o, _ _ rt ^ us o Cm" CO OSi-H CO"* O I CO co co us i— 1 1-- i—i i-l t- CMi-H 1 CO ©©CO© OS CO OS OS t^CM CO US CO t^ © CM CO CM 00 >o O os CM"* us CM" CO OS TfOOOCMOCOCOCOOO CM fflrtloOCNCN CM CM 00 CM <*< ~h O O OS t— o ^* US CM CM O0 CM CO I- os©us© 1 -^ US CO CO us USt- Tl< CO ©i-l CONM Tf 1-T CO CO co" I— US © OS CM CO 2 o©asr^i* © t- ©CM CM CO OS t— CM ^»< -*f CO^H 1^ CO O oooo O CO CO CO us as t^ usi-T CM oo" ©CO oo © ©" CO OS OOOOOCMOCOOOCO US CM CM CM us os cm CO OOWOhO OOt-I O CO OS o©©o O CO 00 i-H CO COOO US CO CM us" t-h" 05 000-HOOO Tf r)< OS CO us OHNN* O -* US t^ os o o ©©©© O CO COI>- 1 CO ©COCO © ■f CM US CM CO ^H 1 us" as cm os co' cm os cMO»Ot^t^Ot^OOO US CNiO'* OS ^H CM CM OO oncNce^o I us -* O i— I CM 00 ©rlCM | CO ©© oo© T»H US oo OJ CD CO US OS US 00 NOON CO co OS co^* CO CO CM CO CM OS COOCMCOCOCOCOOOO OS lONCMOOCO o CM oo OO-HUSOO 00 CO CO CMCM^H CO CO OOf--<*< CM CM N-US© © os co as tcp cm cm" CM CO cc co ©00 CO CO us CM os t^OOOOCMOOOOOO "tfl •"»< US CM 1-4 CO *H us OS Ocoooooo CO -f US CM co •* us oooo — 00 -^ 00 © CO CO t^ •>* CM CM 3 co' ©US CO us" OS CO t— kO CM US >* l~ Oco COOOO CO i-l US COi-H CM OS OJ CO ©©Tj«r* CM CM CO OOitl OS NrHCO 1-H -^ CO CO OS CO" CO CM OS IOOOOSOOOOOO US •>*< CM CO CO oooousoo CM i-l CO OS co ©©©© o oooo as !>• t-co rt CM CO US CO CO OS t^^M t- COOS tj<" us" CM CM OS CMOCOCOOCMCMOOO o cm os win oo CM 00 O* Ot^OO US •o ©©CM© CM n. © os os oo if CO CM ^H CO CO CM 00 co CM CO US O CM OS o g 'S M P. o3 fits a "c p Cv e h- 8 1— c 1 1 2 2 c a C e c eg p X 1 (X s 1 1 E 3 .3 si S"3 [1 D V !i 3 & H c z c c c i cc p $ 1 a Z x ^ b 1 ) d o 1 c '3 o "cl O H a a e < 1 cr - = C X Cv I o !s > '-3 8 O CD O H a c u c u 9 c p c b 1 is a .o "m "> '-V: o fS 'S PL, "cl I "c3 EO u CO S3 c < -d'g ■=> o a § PJ CU CD OS c 03 ■ST V IN J (U 166 University of California — Experiment Station W OS os CO as e e K c c c eo 0: c CS O c G CN CM « os co oo CO OS OOt^OOOtoo CM eo O l-l O CO O eo eo O O CN O CM O CM CM OS CO OS OOCMOOCNCOO •<»< os eo co cm eo O to to O O O rH CO CO CO OS OOCOOOOCDO OS eo h eo - O OS OS O O to to CO OS OOtOOsO-<*oo OS CO OO O '-I O CM >-H CM CN CO CM O O CD CO CO os OOCOOOCMOSO ■** r* H CO CO CO CO y-i -*t< O CO O to to -I" a co OS OOi-hOO«Oi-hO CO l- CO O O OO O eo O OS OS O O to CO OS 0000(MOCOOO»-I 10 os —< O O tO t-H CO ~* t-- »-t CO t» O O os tO CM co OOOOOO^CNj-I to CM K) IO i< lO O OS CM CM tO 00 O CN 00 OOO CM OS cs OOOcoOcDOOO i-i co OS OO »-i O »-l O O CO "W CM CM >* 3 00 os i-tOO*cHO-"l<^HO CM ■<* -* -h CO CM 00 (M to 00 CO to CO CO OS »M M< CM CS N M N f O CM co eo O co eo co CD os eo CM co co CM OS i-H©COCOi-H05100 to CO cm \ T - c ! £ ; * ! g il 4 c 1 c c X 8 O O 1 J 5 P b C ! 1 e c '> X p "1 c 1 B E » O 8 5 c c |5 '> ~ c GC "5 H 8 'e c "a c c e e c 1 c C [a "> T tt '1 1, c X t 6 Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 167 w o fc ^ < Pn Eh n3 J « O g Q ^ S H 72 W 72 H tf A fa O 72 Eh Ch H O « rt IN i-HO OtO'tOOWM! i cm o O r^cxi CM CM CM OO HNOlNOOMOO oaicmooHoo OlOOrHOJN HMHININ rH -* OS* ©fflOO CO CM I-. NOONOOhOO co •* co t^ co HCD HO lOOINOOOOH ^H CO CO t^ CO O^MOONOM G O 03 - ^ infill :5kS8zzS HMlNOrtOOOO COO CM »-l O00C0OOCM>0O IU5XONINO •*ooocoo>-*o •* CM OS i-l COCO CM CM CM ■* CM CO-* Oi O I CO* "* OO >C OS CO CO t-- Oi i— I ■* COi-iC\lCO"*COCT>CM CXI <-l Ttl CO CO COtOOOONlOO OO O 0-H05 Mi-lOO i-l fc-9 o O O OS OS rH ^ tNl co co co t-- t-OJO t- OlOO-H OS IflCOH COrt K5HH 00 CO t- OSOO OS CO O CO •* -* O * «-H fflOlO r-1 ill 03 S^ r£] 03 2 £ 168 University of California — Experiment Station co 'ea ft a § § co SO PH >o CO CM ec CI o o CO OS lO t- CO OS r-l no CM o •c c. CO CM 1 s H CM OS CO 00 CO a CO CO r o O g O CN •"-ft' CD O V K c e> c ~ CO* c3 CO a «= OO O M W N rt 18 ■* 115 N * M CO -f "O CM ft '53 O pq ft B o> CO o a or. lO O cs CO CM CS| ^H CM CM CM CM c CI CO CO e*i W CO r^ CM OS --ft lO CO © © o CO CM © o --ft 2 CM O CO CM i-H CO OO CM OO CO © kO a co os o> O O "3 M 115 CO O itS -ft OS 3 o >J © o os i- m o o *" « o e c CM u s "0 3 O ft 1 CO CD X) co 2 CM o -* ■* 2 S "* «5 ^ * w o o OS ,_, o © 3 ^ ^ ~ os 5 _ft 2 ■*-* § o 00 CO CM ■** © © © © o © cr «* '3 CO- 01 Mg © O i-i © © d © © o © © CO _u JO Is £ o o ■* ■*©■«*< o © CO 00 OO -ft 00 ccS o O c$ § -* o i- co -— i cm" CO IN 1-1 0>.i CO O j o a © o © W5 © © © c o © O^'ra CM ,_, CO -^■3 $ co co -u >g a «3^ O CO 00 « CM i-H CC O CJ © O0 co >> 3 o a O c3 00 © n a c © CO g S 00 O t- »o -* ■* Tfl CC c a o >c CM © T3 S~ i-i o a •-< CO s _, CO * o CO W3 c> "e o- os O ■* H H T)! CC a OO © OS o goc »■" © 1-1 a co i> t^ -*i CO © CN O CO CC o CO '3 CO cc U5 IB T|l N « M -* CO 03 Ph ** CM c 5 rt o > fc- c- P c 09 t-l > ■ c- p S- g 1 1 1 i t-5 > > 5 < a I 'i .a c o I c 1- 1 c a p 3 PM - 3 u « fl ^ 3 s. <4-, 0> 0> 1 « °^.§ Bul. 642 Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 169 9 £ Eh Eh Qui ^ w w D K I* Ej o « i °? o o o o o o o o o o o 5&.2-C & £ O ooooooooooo ooooooooooo o „+>£ - a o H > All coop ship- ments a£ "» 10000*M*COHOlO«3 C0l>.O5OO030000t>-t^t^ o o o 8.2-3 3 £ 0> 2 a - 3 a o ja Is o *1£ OOtOOHCOMSNNMK) o PQ o !*! a) Wa a£ 2 »C«0OO00> 3 «Dt^0iOO050000t--CCi^ o .fi H a OOOOOOOOOOC o £3'£ 3 fe s e T3 03 AgS OOOOOOOOOOC o 2 * 3 a _ -S »"S «3 +J H| O-HCOt-OOOOOOC 00 a.s2 O^Ht-OOOOOOOOC cq ^ » •~.5a M « s _ O05^Ht^C005C0»-HCD U-. _ -u ..^,3 c« ass OOCO(ONHM»^OOM CO OCOCOOlCOCOCOb^i-Ht^t^ Tfl MCOOCDCOiOCDONtOO «0 o3 o a o 1 CO 3J"5 P! »1 K TtlOOil-tCOi-HO-^OS^H" - •^COTfllCCOt^OtMOCOT- o o o 3 =2 PI CO +J ^ ^ 3-g ICCDCOOOOOOOOOC co b-io^HOOooooc o o ^s| CN H P3 rt , ative nths each o is a^ J2 (0<*HMHOON01tOi- o § CD O KB _< r*l +2 — +->-3 £ *1S i-H0500lOU505CO'-lOOO»- o rQ c3 fl 0> *- "3 W«5*gg Nl«T|lll)*100MNWCN i e a b I § > c3 > >> ^2 O t- 9 P eS >- 3 (- ■g 1 1 > •- > or < "I 1 c E a c a c 1 -S 3 -313 170 University of California — Experiment Station CO d £ O O O O —i o to ^:s to O OOOOOOO | O CO fc2 OOOOOOO c O _> »H ft 73 a "8 (f co s -1— >1 rd_0 h. 8 to CO u !. ° to CO O CO ~H OS CO •** CO >o ►2 3 "£ 1-H O CM CM 1-H r-t O y P. o to a d 0 N O IO N (C bo CM d d-S o co 1 O 03 v. ^ to co 00 CO 10 00 - S^ -3 T3 •va CD ^•dTS K to co to OS t- OS CO OO H M * O N H OO M f O) M ^tl * •X oc CO CM O d 83 HHHNN8IN i- o ft •« s £ to CM CM i-l O W N ^ «o t>- «o 10 to * eo co ra ■* US «0 > a J T3 o to »c to tf & OO OS eo O r-l O •^i 00 10 CO CO t "5 CO Tf< to * 00 10 « «* cc OS CO t- N OO N lO lO W to oc oc t^ § s — . O to •— 1 00 eo »0 CO O CO ^ O CO CO 00 ^l to ""* O co lO 15 ■* N N * 10 « d CN _o -a > (-. CO t! Jo lo O O OOOOOOO O o o'S jg'P to to° a O O 10 >o CM O 1 S o co ft 1 0) s 0. OO CO CO CM CO CO 1H OO t^ CO 00 ~H O O O "o S d s to 00 OS O M M OO tO N lO N CN r~ CO d-d O 83 to T * 1 "5 •* ^< •* CO O OS ~ o s -a to ,__ «0 CO OO oc CM OS CO 7-1 t~ !>. t-H 00 15 Tf to •* N O ■-C c c3 p, ^ Ih O ft Ts'S s _s to O" to ■«* cc t^ 00 O r-- t^ ■<*< O l« tO to H H N •* c> tx> > & c- rt 13 d > 8 C > S 1 ■ 1 > n <- a X £ a s 0D a c t C a £ c S 1 a c 83 ^o f£l Bul. 642 Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 171 _ o <4 -86 2 o a flj o o> ^ ^ s | ill! OM'*(NNO^*0'*(Di«i **N(OK5lONNOOOO>N OOOOOOOCOOOO(M oooooooooooo O00O-*OO-«*o 00 00 CO CO O OO (D N n 1< 1(5 M O) O OO CO CM © Oi t^ 1^- OS O •** Ifl <* OO H IO O OCO s a 3 a, o o « 3 «< M O fc P -° X! J B S -1 » 2 S ai ^ . ft 2 -3 8 >»*7 a a >> U Q, B «2T .o .§o> ^2Q •• CO CO 73 g > oQ3 ^_ « 172 University of California — Experiment Station « ft } "3 o £ "o 03 (3 O S3 > >> ,0 <0 o o a | 1 Ji n OJ c _ o s o S o *- 2 ooooooooooo §8§§§§§§88§ o o o s '3 ft o ooooot~oooi>. doddoo«ooci« o 03 -U h< Oi»-lOt^OTt , CO V CO p. 19.0 13,5 22.6 30.8 32.0 54.1 54.1 66.0 57.1 39.6 51.4 O .9 1 CD £ o 03 .2* o 03 (-1 *S 03 "S o a >> > 8 3 a !-5 03 CD o "3 o H February March April May June July August September... October November.. . December . . . Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 173 Ph o> T3 _ O 2*2g SOOOOOOOOOOOO ooooooooooooo , oooooooooooo ■» O 00 CM CM "©'©©' © © O O © O rH © © © © © o «3 io oj CM ~ £ CT, £ <# CI 05 >o CO OO • • . lOMl3XON UJ'fCiO^iriMNNCOOO "fi >> g O g g M "£ .2 > O 8 TS o 2 -S-3' 174 University of California — Experiment Station pq « ■"♦ 8 ao CO t~ •& Hi CO OS y- iMOlNO'CMOONOlllONn^H 1 »« O o»030©©»-i»oo30'-ir^oocoi>.cior^020<0'«»( 5 II *"* 5 So £2 . O-Ico *»N»!0l|l01!0^C0HTtlM00ft«Ol00l)^IX) ■2 s ~ 00>-l»-li— ICO«0»-ICO-*OOOOOC300i>-HO»-lC v 300lO § A w 6 NOOWN«!Ol«^OteClNtOffllOllO«MrtMei Q •2 g o 0J©i-H©^HC0r~N0>»H0iU5C5 Sr h i-iT-ii- I-* ^ c o 00-»f'-H'0050t»005<£>C<«t^OC«OTt-l«-lC0l^-H(M(M00h-.t^000»OO3»-lOcO^f< fc S R ,_I^H,_,,_|,_|.-l»-li-l»-4 >> R g 05t^T»<00 s ^s N i-ii-icoco-I^H^H> 2 >>* ©i-tost^-oousot^oooe^i-ieoot^t^io^oo ri a " § N i-i^H»H-coooc-.' ft Ot— I'-lCO'-HCCI-^O'COOCqOOSOS'-ceO'— iOco»-i«o *< S R rHrtt-l>-l»-(T-l»-IC-l'-lCliT»ta>oOTt-Ii-ioO'-<>oc^a30oooo5-H I — i © e-j © »o & R !-lT-I^H > -| 1 -lrti-l(Moo5«5i— iTfH(i)N»nioiooiHe©wN «3 rt § R oooTHOi-Hr»• O H CO ©/ *» i— lOr-HTjlcDuOUOCO ^ owe m rt O T-H IC CD US O) N « l« CO UO CO H N M to * O) » » O ■* O id U5 ijl CO «# oi m< OS co O CM CN a> © co to PS to *# C<5 « ^ ■* «} tC N CO OS OS CM CO CO CO en — iie-d -2coi2 o ^3^ fa etj w oj _Jg ^ M tz t-,-a t- C o3 q 03 *S ^S £ 03 *h 03 O »0 CO . a . a CD O CD O 5050 3 OS ■2 ats CD<+h CD<*-, gogo fa atjC 03 CD 03 CD 0) C 8 K M 03^ 03 co'Socvzj fa "NflraS ^3 «*- os os 02 oj CD OrtHHH P-l V os os os os 176 University of California — Experiment Station Eh « 8| Ob Cb ,_ CO lO os OS CO ^ ^ CM <~\ -* «o j,. -f •c CO © "0 OS OS CI r- OS 1 - Ob II c ■^ T3 © Alt- MO) •5 © CI r^ CO CO CM ,-H CO ICO CO co tn © CO rH CM Tt< © -. CO *H » S ^ ~r ir-i CO rsi W © os r- its "* -T' co CD ^ CO r^ 3 © C4 CO t. ei O-leo OS CM >o <* CM CO eo 00 © © © © © •O CM Of •# CO TJ< Ob O Q -V ~r r~ CM r^ r~ CO §3 *f CO CO us CO CO CM OS § A*" CM CI C4 co CM CM •^ > eo CO CM © CO CO' CM <* © © © © ^^ CM CO t^ ^ CO CM ^ CO o ^3 -f iC r„ r. ■ o CO r^ CO » § 0. eN CM CO CO c-q CM CM »• tf 00 CO CM *i © CM t» t-- CO © © © © © © CJ © "O Oi co t^ o o O «»s^ -f _H r . CO CO CD § a o CM C-i co CM CM C~4 CM 04 CM CM eg CM C-4 CM ll- rt O >o © p- C4 o © © © © © CM ^^ CO t^ CO CO co © ■2 g -* eo s r- on © CO ■o CO ■* r- CO ■f CD CO C-4 ,_! § a « CO M co o CO t» CO 00 © © © © © © © © M CO •CO CM CO © 3 * S -* ~v >o CO 1 - CO •»f CD ^1 • n r^ > O CO o o 3 U3 «* -r "* IC CO 00 CO ^! CO CO- >o T CO lO r^ .n CO ,_, >-a CO CM CM CM CM cj o rH co CM CM IQ CO © >o 00 © © © CO CO *H © ■f >o Ob »o ■*2 «* ■* its -t< ■* r-- 4 C-l C-4 CI C4 >> o> © ■*f co >* U> r- © © CM © © co © CM © «* CO CO § so CO in. CO ,., CM CO CO CM CM CI CM CM CM CM CM C-4 CM S~ u .# CM t^ © CO CO CM >o © •* © © © CO © © l> >o CO Oi eo < S^U5 >o -"1* t~ >o CO OS -H O Ob l>- -r CM CO c-1 r^. ,_, |a rt CO CO C-4 C-4 CM CM CM C-4 CM u t. u &1„ CM -* CO © ■«*< CM r- o © r^ © o © © ^H CM ._ Tf eo t^. o § * § "* CO rO _ OS so -« r ^ s §, rt CM CO CM CM CJ CM CM CM CM CM CM -* © l~ t^ O © n oo co CO IQ CO CD 1 S.^ ^t "* co >o lO "* h- <# oo Ob OS f~- CM ■HH in CO 1* ^, CM CM CM 04 C-4 CM o •*+< lO In. © Ob © r- CM -n 4 ^o co CO CM CM <>4 O) C-4 C-4 CM CM u § !* o ^ cm •f •o CO I«- 00 © ^ CM X ■* co' OS oa OS OS OS os Ob Ob a> OS OS OS OS OS OS Oi OS CJb OS Ob O>Or-<00O^H •*COMNNN«)lO OC0"5OW5OOO Oi-H00«0 *-*M«OlOOOH COWMNCONOIOO cj©co»oeoeooo aoo>oonoo hlCM!DO>NO)N CO CO CO CO CO CO CO OS OS Oi OS OS os OS .. ~° 03 » 8S c 2 c 3 f- CS •-8 *r ^ b e o .. fV 1 .-a Sj* - S^ CO H S =3 178 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 48 Comparison of the Average Farm Prices of Chickens by States, 1912-1914 and 1937-1939 State and geographic division Average price 1912-1914 1937-1939 Actual gain or loss from 1912-1914 to 1937-1939 Percentage gain or loss from 1912-1914 to 1937-1939. North Atlantic division. Maine. New Hampshire Vermont Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut New York New Jersey Pennsylvania East north central division Ohio Indiana Illinois Michigan Wisconsin West north central division . Minnesota Iowa Missouri North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Kansas South Atlantic division. Delaware Maryland Virginia West Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Florida South central division . Kentucky Tennessee Alabama Mississippi Arkansas Louisiana Oklahoma Texas Mountain division. Montana Idaho Wyoming Colorado New Mexico Arizona Utah Nevada cents per pound 15.6 14.5 15.6 13.0 17.0 17.8 17.4 14.7 17.1 13.6 11.5 12.0 11.3 11.3 11.5 11.3 10.1 10.0 10 4 10 7 10 3 9.4 9.9 9.8 Pacific division Washington. ., Oregon California. . . . United States. 13.8 14.4 15.1 13.8 12.5 11.9 13.2 13.6 15.9 11 .3 11.1 11.1 12.5 12.3 10.2 13.4 9.6 10.0 14.1 14.0 11.6 12.7 12.6 13.2 15.8 12.3 20.6 13.5 13.1 12.5 14.8 11.7 cents per pound 18.5 17.4 17.7 17.4 18.5 19.5 19.6 18.1 20.8 18.0 15.2 16.1 14.8 14.6 15.9 14.4 12.3 12.1 13.5 13 11.2 12.2 12.4 11.8 17.0 18.6 18.4 16.8 15.4 15.7 16.9 15.9 18.2 13.4 14.1 13.5 14.9 15.1 13.1 14.6 13.1 13.7 19.7 12.3 17.9 15.4 14.1 14.5 17.6 14.6 cents per pound +2.9 +2.9 +2.1 +4.4 +15 +1.7 +2.2 +3.4 +3.7 +4.4 +3 7 +4.1 +3.5 +3.3 +4.4 +3.1 +2.2 +2.1 +3.1 +2.3 +0.9 +2.8 +2.5 +2.0 +3.2 +4.2 +3.3 +3.0 +2.9 +3.8 +3.7 +2.3 +2.3 +2.1 +3.0 +2.4 +1.2 +1.9 +2.0 +2.1 +2.1 +21 +0.8 +1.1 +19 +1.0 +2.0 +2.8 +2 9 per cent +18 6 +20.0 +13.5 +33.8 + 8.8 + 9.6 +12.6 +23.1 +21.6 +32.4 +32.2 +34.2 +31.0 +29.2 +38.3 +27.4 +21.8 +21.0 +29.8 +21.5 + 8.7 +29.8 +25.3 +20.4 +23.2 +29.2 +21.9 +21.7 +23.2 +31.9 +28.0 +16.9 +14.5 +18.6 +27.0 +21.6 + 9.6 +15.4 +19.6 +15.7 +21.9 +21.0 + 5.7 + 7.9 +12.9 +15.0 + 4.0 + 3.8 +24.7 -13.1 +14.1 + 7.6 +16.0 +18.9 +24.8 Sources of data: 1912-1914: United States Department of Agriculture. Prices of farm products received by pro- ducers. Statis. Bui. nos. 14, 15, 16, and 17. 1927. 1937-1939: United States Department of Agriculture. Crops and Markets, monthly issues. Aver- age prices received by farmers for farm products. Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 179 .2 '8 u o h o g-3 2L CO .si g'S ki s o ,4 13 ^"tt Hffl«3OOOOC0OHON»'O00lr^000300t^CDC0»0>«'0'0-*Tf< C3 cd !£ ^ (Nt0O»O!0t0OM»C0>HMfflON'H00a)0i00C<|l0Nt000iOC0'<1OffliO^I>OiO'**®C»»001«NOiNNNNWN(e(DiO'*t0 O ft CD S5 X "tt OHrtrt^NlflmONOOCSlOCOfflOTtlNIMTtllOrtNINrtOOlONlO cgO»-iOOOOOi-i- & S^^COCOaOeOU^MOt^OTOUacNCN^CiOOeNiOCN^H^OOCNieqOiOasuseO | , *<00 0)0)0)0)ON^ilON*(<5NNN'*^i^iiOMON(eNOOO'HO a> cd'C ? 'B 42 ^C^CNIrt^^^C0»Ct^t--t^OO»«CNC35t^OOCNICNl(?OfOCN u § CD CD CD A 2^t^^^^^^O^CV3COO>'*TtO^Oc>i^a3<^o^c»f^r^coi^05c»o0^oooc^cx)05irococNcOrt |» ~ N CD CD *H > ft < R K -*rHNON'*(OCDNffi(NOOOONrtCONOOlOlO'*CiOooo50rtON!00!'-imcococot^NONc»oio«i05t^o>mcO'*cort CD cd'C > ft Rg(DTj<(NHl000tOC0»O>ooo>ooa>rtinooo(NN(0>oco-JDOiNcoo5iocoo)NooKimmNo ft cd CD 43 o IS ft ?JocNicot^.efl^^HioeNi^oseNicoooi-Heoeoeoco^HO«Nic33coo«Nt*t^o»i>- I'-HOCOaOOO'H^COOlNOJNNaDNOONOOCncOCOrHOOINNCNlNrH II ^ HrtHHrtHNNHHrtH-HHrtHHrtHH ^ _ rt _ ^ rt CD cd'C > ft S.gCOO)THOOT-ll>NCONTflC<|lOCna>NiHCD«OO^^CO>OCOlOCOt^CCiOCOOOTt. g OTH.^rt^»H^i^0«)'*00 ft Ag«>©cNr^»o^eNeot^eNi'*«D'«<©eo'-HcN»Oi^HeNioeot~t»«> CD"C CDX! ^ c8 Sti s3 S3 °5 C3 3 ft CI ft a CD J7 to CD 42 « CD CD Jh -3 •so 0) 02^ CO -43 Oli a O CT3 g ..13 .% 3 J-^^ XCN > 180 University of California — Experiment Station o o w l-H O to < to w CQ £ fcrj © 2 ° 1 co CN CJJ CI o a 00 OS CO o CN -f CN CN o CT. cn oe •»* CO UO •**< CO cm MOOHlOONlONOlO OOOOOOOsOCOi-Ht-iOOCO NHrtHNMNNHH 1 * 1 §3 COCOOOt^COl-HlOl-HOSCO CO CM i— ICOOCOi— I CO OS OS 1 N 1 CO CO COCOOCOtJ(cO»OCOcMOO oo*cdnoi*hnoo> CCNNHINIMNNNil i z co ^!OIOHMI«!D10000 OOOS^OO^Hi-ii-iOOOi-h COCMcNi-lCNCNCNCNcNcM 1 « CM NMNHINHHNNIN 1 « CN OSOOT»0 00 CM OO co co r^- os co cn W * N N K< ^ OO lO 00 00 CO Tl CO 20 6 19.1 23.0 17.5 20.9 CO oo 21.0 24.7 20.7 19.2 22.0 co ©' 20.5 23.6 21.9 19.7 18.7 co oo c a- co C7 co cr CO co a co cr cr Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 181 1 in a a- pi oc i— o- 20.8 21.1 20.6 19.8 18 lO 19.8 23.4 19.8 23.0 19.4 co OS 18.1 25.0 20.2 28.1 19.2 OS N M O (O N Oi i-H © t-i O i-H li OO IS O) >c O * » o> to OCOOO»C0000505 MillNINHHNNCqHH »mO>B5K)00-CDO-«*100(NOt^ I cocoTfi-ieoosoot^u'ioio* NNN«HHHH«Nrt HSl8iOIO^*HOOO« I tO«OONW*lONdt>ilfl « N H H r- li-Hi-li-HCNl-li-l COOOOCOt— OC<0 I NUJOOOONNHOMNrt'oi COeO-C^t^C. I n^WIJCrtONHOOOON COCNe<5»-li-l r\ 05 Sh +J S a) c« ■§■2 J J =3 2 J d £ o 8> -^ ? 8P . B- ^1 oo d g Sg^ ~ a £ . «^-* Oj3 -. i ogoo %~ 2 - £ & >> O -2 fa ft S^ 3 ++ - «»o 'dog g s s * 182 University of California — Experiment Station >-3 w o £ «i ^ 03 •£ o &o 1-5 "o Fj £ ■< < 1 16.2 13.5 16.1 18.4 18.2 20.5 17.8 16.9 IO o ■* t» N i/J h n ■* ooeoOOMNNH © - CO o * lO ID OO 1(5 CO CD CO ■**< CO © O © CO CO l^ OO OO CO UO r^ O OS O O CO OS CO i-H CO i-H r-l CO 1 **. CO CI co o »o 1 ~ on Oi CM >-H CO OS rH o -* CO OS 1 oo" CO o OS i>- os -^ kO CO t^ GO OS O CO CO CO CO CO CO ^ OS OS OS OS OS os OS 1 © t- oc « a OS Offl^ONiOfNO OSCOCOt^i-IOOOI^CD OSCO»O>tfl©C0Tt 1 NUSOOOINOONffl o pi d CO CO CO O CO — DC O CO o O - t» fl- ee a 3 V? c Q ^ c ft M 3 S 3 ft i* PQ > ft § CD O 7 , ft . ^2 O - ft oo-§ c 5 o S Q j§.s c 22 O ra to fe 2 ^ «2 CO g c3co o -2 M-£ ..15 .5 9 w is hJ o > fe • —| <1 pi Ul p <~> o hI ft CQ ft S en kn OlOOO(MlOOeO«5 t--«liOOOi(3CO ©«o©oa>»o©i»© OO ■* i- I lO CT> "5 © »0 "Cf 18.0 15.6 11.0 15.0 18.8 15.5 22.5 15 4 14.8 1 SNiONiflHiOKJ 15.9 12.5 15 17 15.4 20.1 15.6 14.2 1 ecnti«5^0)"OM CO©CMO>eNlU5©>— 1 1 Tfommiooiioii 1 TfTti^CfflOlXJMlO •oo-^cocooosooo 1 lOlOtDNOOOiWOffl eOO><3>»0«500©©0 1 r^^iot^oooicof^co COlO©lO»C©CO»-ICO 1 CDiOWNOON»CD» H— -<*lTttl^l^iOCO»0©CO 1 ClOMtOCCONtDlO CC o CM O ec cr cr a M o <0" cr * O * e'- er O cr 1 N M O O CO Tf OO Ifl (M .co©cNl(N|co-*fiiO©t^ CNCNCN>-l^H>-li-ieNlCNli-l 1 CMt^t^OO-*i>«t-C»t^T|« 21.0 19.8 13.5 11.7 14.4 15.9 16.2 17.5 16.3 15.3 M^ffiCOTfOOHOOOOOON I^cMr^.OO©COCOa> COc», ad ,£1 a) r, y > c3 rX O ". en (1 CO c3 ,_, 13 >, m c C3 * nd a ,fl a ". CO 5 <-* '- fl ,d T3 o O 9 u Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 185 at rd r-i bn rn o> g £ % CD > y. < — i < T3 CO 2 O o vA Ph w Sh ft P m M d l-H 0> U s ^~^ M O -l o U ti o u* r/j w u M Ph CD fe ^ <1 Ph w CD -1 M W > «} OOMNiOU5MO> I ONO^OMOJN NHNNNNHrt lO CM CO CM CO CM tH i ONlOO)COO>MOON (NrtHHNHINHH OOOOOMtDOWM aar--^ooi-ioo->*iooir- i-KOOtotoiOTtia) I © CO 00 CM O0 CM OO »0 lO IM O) 00 !D OO ffi tO I ONt^OOOtOXlO OOW •*»OOOOOU5 0>(0 NHHNHNrtH ^rtOOCRO^QOifll I "JIHHOHmffiOOl CMCNCMCMCMCMrHrH. 00CONNNN(ONN I rtOtDrtCO'^'HrtOO CMCMCMCNCNlCMCMcMrH OOONNtOOJTf •*>- 1 I OIOWONWOhh CMrHCMCMCMcMCMCMCM 0>CO'0'OOM(0<0'* I NtOINOINriOiMrt ■KOJOlO^OJOOMM I 0)00«WMHONO rHrHrHCMCMCMCMrHCM OS OS OS O OS OS OS OS Cv O". Oi-lOOtDOOMMNrtlOTji I oooujooinosHOMOJOo XJNOOI OSCDOll ^l^rHOOCOOCO MON(OOU30*<(DOJ'00lO I MtOOOOlONOOMOSKS WOiNOOlOMWaittOOtD COCMCMrHrHrHCMrHCMrHrH oow cocoes OONtDOfl . . rH CO 00 CO ©' HNNNNHHN ONOOCS«DOININW*OOCO I MINHOlOOiONHmOHO) COWCCrtHNNNNNNH HOOOONOlNHlOOiOJNO COrHrHOOCO-rJ>o >> C2 3 l-Kr, °> o3 P co o fl 13 _, o 5oo p -.£co o cfi o o o "3 -si? 3 CO &r9 t% ^ fl 00 CO S ^co C i > o » .. m ~8 o co _ M -O 03 ^ co 03 > co CO cS CO ft O -^CO £?*> cp 03OT3 3»C C (H 03 3 o3T3 ^3 -2 O „, 3 03 o<2 s CO 3 coSO *B\* S-2 > 2ftO CO ■-M TJ 3 ,1 fc •2&1 CO •• 2^ T3 ^ 3 S|| d CO 0*3 O <»- —"tin °S T3 3 ^ ?0 CO £> *3& h m O CO o ° s»5 J2 .2 2 - 03 p^ » 03 >J2 « ShS-* St3 ^ c £ 3 oo- "ol O 3 o'S-o . "C co fl 03^ ° o o •s51 .2 -- h 43 co hO III 5<^§ 'o8 CI O | ~0 rico.2 S^fP J3 i45 a ° -J * 03 co ccJ2 S o?2 -a CO ** S o ^" P c S£-2 rfl OJrfl O c 03 3 £ n" SrQ 2 o 03 >> J2 03 3T.V, 1 03 S O •-00 CJ CQ -a .S > fl (h °o ad "ci T3 O co . 13 (/J 03 P <1 6(3 h 8 S <1-Hco o c S3 c^ 186 University of California — Experiment Station m CUD s £ © rt w H QQ «4 O tf Q o ij o O cd o fa 03 NHM(N«WNH 05t^-<*0000 1-ll-lT-ieMCNHHCMTHl-l IN^OOOM WNOtOOCOO Tjt o lO Tt< CO I if^OlNrH^ » CO rH(0(lJH!00(NHtOO)( COCMCMCMi-lCM(MCMCMi-li NOOOU5I COCOCM CM , • CM CO>0>CO COCOCOCMC5cN|CM(MCS|i— li-cCNl OOCSNeOitOiiHMOiOtN I OOCOlOCOCSlcO^fCOlOCM-^O COCOCO> 3 u p O fe » ,0 03 03 2 1**" °* J fifto 8 8 rt 3 w I >> ^ . ^ .Q o5 5 s P M ej C'S .2 a •• d it? m o .a "cj P »C»oe*o eoc^^Ht—ooooo OSOO»*NNfDOOT)l COt--000--Ii-H NNlDflllOOlNOMH* -*f.c^ CqC<|i— It— I t-H »-l t-» 1-1 r-l T-l *— I •*GNMOINlO»JI^!OW fflOOHO>MNMMIN'*il IMMnNrtHlOlOMO"* OiOJOtr>r-ecoc9<*(B10 (MrHr-lT-HrHr-lT-lT-lTHTHT-l oocof^ooc^oicqcosor^-** lONOTfiliMMOOlOtOffi* e«lC4i-Hl-ti-li-Hi-Hi-Hi-lT-lTHv-l fflOOOlOlOM^MNHHO (MCSI»-Hf-lT-li-l»H»-l»H»Hi-lr-l © O Tf CO CO *- I «5 CO ?D CO i— 100 (DlOOlK5»WN00!D!C00T)l OOOMMOOMHIOO^OOIO CNCM<-l<-Ht-li-HT-H*-lT-li-Hi-li-l OOHNOMTfHOeNe tlfflO)©T»o OS Ifl ^ OS CM !-H os -t o OC CO CO U5^ii90t|(NOO<0 1 HNCOOilCOONHifllMOO NOO^ONNHOOOOfflrt 1 OCO^fC35>OlOOO^H^HOO OOCNeNi-lT-l^HCSjCNICNCNIi-l NMlCitl^lOTfNlOlOOl 1 0«5eOOC>»OcO»-<©OO^HOO MNNHHHNINHNH 31.5 28.5 24.6 19.8 16.9 15.6 23.1 22.6 19.8 22.8 20.6 17.9 OONOONOiOOlOOlOetD I HOllOOHOONMHNHN CN©OOOOCOOCOI^.|>.t^T* I HCS>tOlO(00(NO)Hp. 00 1-H oo-«j O CD < Q § jS ■ u — ' 3 o cc Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 189 CO ojo N 0) 1 £ in C5 .5 A O w 1-1 o <1 Ph H m *H W Q, En ^ If o W 1 t^-COCDOiOiCTiOOO OOOO«5OOO»0 0000"5000>C Ocococooos'— iOoo oooo»cooo»o OOCOC0005>-H©00 ©OOiO©0©»0 1 «OCOOOOOiO»0 1 COCOCOOOiOiC&OO 000»C»OOOkO I COCDCOOOOiOiOO 1 OOOCO"5000~ C0C0C0OO050S0C 1 OiOOCOiOOIr-iC OSOCOt^-OOiOO* o oo 1 »0000>000«fl C»«OeOO©C&'-iCf to 00 1 oooo«ooot- ©COCDOOOi^HO" 00 1 oooo>cooo«o OCOCOCOOO-hOOO a CI ec a ec o ex o IT CC a ec ec a K a ac a cr o c ■t a- 1 w cr «c OC oc c oc OC a © O cn cc ©O«50»0i»r~i00© NCXiefflNNOlOOOO c 1 ec 0©0©iOO>»OiOO© NoooeNHOoodo 1 « OOO»-i>000i0«0OO C-OJOOOOO c 1 j oooo«oioio«ooo CN»00CDt^l>.C0O00OO is OOOOCO»0»C«500 eqodoNcaidoooo c 1 ; O0000>0>0»000 MKKDNOOOOOOClC) Is 0-*0000»0>fl>«00 oo>o a 1 OC OCNIOOO«OOkO>000 Ot^ OC 1 5 lOootDOTtiocncMOTt* CMC^t^t^cOOi-iOOOOOO Is O>-IOiCO00i-i»0«0OO MNtONOOOHOiddo 1 g OOO>OO00O»0«3OO »Mi»cs(SNNa>oodd is OOOCOOiO^uSiCOO eOCNOOCOCOt^CNOSOOOO cr a a pi Cr c « a a CN o ec K a -•* e'- er ec O ec cr a oc cr a- cc O C O o 6 TJ « +3 J3 ^3 o Ctf Q « 3 190 University of California — Experiment Station o tH Cj rH 00 CI C5 rH o u 73 U fc <1 K h £ <| C3Q o rti OS iH H CO Oi ^^ 1-1 •+J «j bit W ►J o w £ 00 O & 0> > LO <1 w 73 rd rA O Pi kJ O < 73 & H M « I aoi>.«©©©c>oa> ©I00»0»0»0©»0"5 dootoooHoiiNdoi ©iO©W5«5iO©«5tf5 ooocooo'-i03 0"SO»0"5»ft©U5»0 ©00000«-HOiCiJ©0» OC00010U5OW5-* I ooeor--»Ha>(MOc» I oooctOHoiodoi IOU5©«5"5>00© I oooo«o»-ioo50a> I oooocOi-ii-ho>0505 «S»0O00>O»0'Ot— to I OOOOOHHfflOSOlN «OlCO«OlO»Co I O00CO00i-00»OiOU50»0»n I OOOCOOOtH05C01 o ^ CO o CM •o OJ 00 00 "9 t~©irS©lO©U5W5»0*0»0>0 tOt^COOOOOOOOCO(Ni-lOO 0»flOOO>fl05W5«5ift«5 1 t>.COOOOOOC»(MC<«^-<00 »-(U5000>0»0"tilO l O l '5 1 NMOOOOOOOHNrtdo 0»OOOlO>0»OiO>0»ClO 1 OOCOOOOOOOO^C-J-HOO o»ooo"S'-<»o i o«3io«o 1 OOCOOOOOOOOrH(MT-lOO ©lO©©»0©iO»OU5»0»0 1 OOCOOOOOOOO»-HOOOOCOC0»0>010 o oj 1 ■fOTfoooooMnHoo 00 ©©»-l©U5©(MiOf~C0 t~ 1 OOt^-*f©0000ooioiOoo»oic>o»o »o 1 lOt^CO©OOOOOOC3©»0©<©©*OiOU5»0»fl us 1 icr^oooooooooccc^'-^C o (N cj- r- or CT o n « m n « a cr o a Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 191 CO +3 oj -fl t-H Gfl 9; CO £ J o Oi W > lO o (-3 ^ Pi S3 Eh m 3 C ft M Ph o t> Pi P CD o o fe & o PH « o fe «? w o « Ph o & * < Pm w o «1 M H i> eN"0©©O5OiCN OOi©— ICOCOCOCM ■* © o »o © cm co no fi eo o o o CO o o «o I- oo s 01 CO o o o o t^ -* >o us o o lO o © LO OJ o >c 0-1 CO us 00 lO co T»i O COCOr-IUO©COUOO© lOWWlOOOMCOfflll) N O » O « M N I I H I W* MN CO N ©©lC>C©©»C«5lO I NNOlCOnNNNH oiSNioHoujiaio I NNOIMCONNIMH ©u0C0U0»OOl0U0»0 I NNHMWNNINO toifinNOioioio I I HHCONNNNrt © »« Its © CO "0 "3 I © I CO N N N N H © >-H i-l CO O US >o © I CO US CM CM i CN i l-i I - I CN © O © *-H >C CO CO CO CM CO CO 0)0000)00 I OiC5003050) o3 p, 1 s o" 8 S 192 University of California — Experiment Station < w o r-l ^ I W) ro • H w 1 ' 3 rd M Pi o 2 ft o < ft to s £ PI o to w o 1 S3 in o CI CO CM C5 CO CI CD CM IN OS CI cq CD CM o c cc o C3 ID O CO ift O) N OC •«*< co r- co o t-i co N N W IN CO CO N o o cc US o c us o t- >o o >o CO * CO U) O » •* 1C IN Ol N Cq N N M © »c d c CO o ~« O CO O «S CO IN TH TJI IO CO Tf H IN rtHIOQ0U)rt HHNINNNNN 19.0 19.0 21.0 21.5 25 28.0 25.5 21.0 21.4 19.0 21.0 21.5 25.8 28.0 25.5 21.7 23.5 28.5 19.0 23.8 23.1 27.0 28.5 29.1 23.9 24.8 OOtO»HlC»OOOrH NNNNNKIMNW ©OiOOlOOOOOo CM co cl cJ O CI CI i •«*«' O CN OCNOOt"~rtCO>Ot^'OCN NMHHNNNNNM CO CM 25.0 29.0 20.5 18.7 21.6 23.5 26.5 26.5 25.5 23.4 24.5 28.1 33.5 21.9 20 22.2 26.2 28.8 30.7 26.4 29.0 28.6 OlONNMONTllHOCO COi«N<*0)01NCqcONH cococncncncncococococo OOON^I^NNMOlTllCD HlflOHCONOrtHHO) COCONMININCOCOCOCON C O cc a c a cc CC a CT CC Cr CD CC cr cc cr oc cc CT cr" c cr Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 193 m QJ N H ^ O CO GO r£ DQ a © O 5 CD CC*MNHHMH(Nra 4) OOOOONNNNNCCOO »OCOCOrt^^^H.-icOCO o OcoaoOOCqO co co *-h *— ii-hi— ii— i co n d i-s COIOCOCO<-1t-h>-i 1 -i^hcOCO CD >< 0*-HC^CO'rt<«OCOr~C002© COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO'^ OiOiClClCSOlCSClClOO) ~ O CD 194 University of California — Experiment Station w a S ^ r ~ bJO B » © £ 525 'S I- 1 Pi Pn DQ O P o Pn to ■£ P 1 00 oc co co e i c CS OS oo oo so r \ e N mhoiooo«)(D(o m mt^.inm©oo©oo 1*5 CM mcOlftinOSCOO© 1 tSOOOHN^NN 1 t~i~-o;o^co©i-i oiij>oioi«t|in» 1 f~r^coo©i-i!-«»-" 1 t-t-COOO^-H© 1 O0«!0«*000 ooooosi-ii-i-iCM-«fCN CO 1 incDCOO»-l©t~© t-IGOOSCMCOCMCOO CO CM er. a- '■'■ z w 3 3 c — or - e 3 : c OS CM X oo O! o c lO oo CI CM in © t^ CD CM O r-1 in m lO lO o o i-H © «sf CM lO CO CM m o >o CO CM »- M in OO m «5 115 M O O CO CM lO CO CN CO © -- KB © 15.0 14.5 8.8 © m -*f m © co in OS OS CM ^ Tt< CO <- m © t- 00 N in m oc os os in in in o cd t- OS CM ~i CO ■>*< CN m O Tfl CO CD CD © 1* in o n oi m o N O M H N ■* P W OOMOOOlONttOllOO lOCOr-lt~i-iT-icOCM-*iC< co c « c a o o" c o; >r o- a I - — oc M o CT c o Bul. 642 Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 195 < m Q P Eh t-H CO g o « r^ CO « O CS H ^ « o w o « o DQ P 3 o O o io o CM CO CM O jr. cc -- e i CO 00 c 17,555 4,245 14,647 7,487 1,773 19,135 CM oo ■•*" CO 13,789 2,200 6,347 6,106 2,674 13,655 ■"*< 9,544 1,386 5,287 6,691 3,073 12,653 co oo" co 5,627 1,395 6,867 6,239 3,237 12,428 CO 4,320 1,829 10,163 4,993 3,884 11,541 O co" co 4,496 2,450 14,370 4,758 4,764 11,970 00 o oo cm" 6,074 3,608 18,593 5,538 5,192 13,778 co CO l~ CM* iO 8,945 4,745 25,593 9,402 6,129 18,310 1*1 CM co 11,685 6,115 33,336 14,062 7,141 23,058 OJ >o CT3 13,702 6,826 37,645 16,586 7,216 26,537 CM lO OO* o 15,521 7,238 38,543 16,104 6,759 27,336 o a 'c - PQ I X > - I q 1 t- a i J ~: c IS C o CO O c- co' CM -r CO C-l C! U5 CO "- CM o CO c 00 12,610 3,282 9,079 6,290 4,170 16,884 co CM* iO 10,896 1.93S 4,906 5,085 5,166 15,210 o CM 7.714 1,616 4,782 5,159 5,815 14,625 oi co 6,245 1,828 7.184 5,976 6,452 14,608 co OS CM* 6,513 2,460 10,722 7,032 7,571 15,766 CO o © lO 8,172 3,986 15,360 7,088 8,584 18,335 us CM lO co 10,978 5,093 20,932 8,589 9.719 21,971 CM CO CM r~ 15,009 6.957 29,362 13,360 11,020 28,989 Oi CD o 18,186 8,359 37.831 17,560 12.128 35,446 o >o OS CM 20,455 9,417 43,651 20,137 12,188 39,228 CO o lO* 21,578 9,717 42,763 20,332 10,820 39,287 G5 1*1 1 1 £ I > cr 1 s c. I 1. c Of is c Eh 196 University of California — Experiment Station m pi m ps < o hi P^ u «H t* O M rd w A o oi y< OQ 2 p O »-i H t^ i*< O i-H ■- i - Oi «3 O) H CO »"* co co o os CO os l ~ »C OS lO CO on CO 1*1 o o ' - o * ^l IN « rfi >o CO ~ - H «5 lO OS GO co GO O i-H CO >0 CM OS lO CO CM 1*1 i*l CC CO co ^ H CO CM CM O OS 00 as **t -f O CO t^- i-l o ■**! ►*■ oi h n to to — o "* lO OS CO lO CM OS co >o O t> lO GO CO CD i-l IO t- CO CM o ^ 1*1 CO i-H t- Ui 30 o i-H CO «/5 OS CO lO OS CM CO CM — ' CM * H N !C (v. 00 co id CO O 1*1 ■ o t^- lO t- CM CM CO *^ co on CO "* CM CO ^t< 1*1 i - r^ CM CM CO tJ< CO H O O 1- >t3 tD if O OO —. ■ ,— 1 co *" "" oo o co r^ CI 1*1 OS CI O CM r-l CO 1+ 3! i - ' OS CO lO •^ ^, 5C CO CM H ~ ^ 1*1 rt CO O CO Oi CO 00 i-l CM as 1*1 ,_| CO i-l CO i-H ~ CI -- m CM O CO i-l c, r_l ■*P OS lO OS — OS CO i-i co ^ - O CO OS i—i (N lO o t^ CM O Oi IC CS lO t— 1~- t-- eo CC Tfl "5 CO CO OS — l^ ^H CO i-i CO 3 O ers. rs. . ters 03 u on "c roil ye oas >wl 3 £ IWhKh h § CC o CI CO — O OS 1 - CI cr. o CI CO to C~I CO CO 00 us 22,367 5,874 16,506 11,962 3,719 26,445 86,873 18,234 2,763 6,929 8,311 5,173 20,566 CO OS CO 13.179 1,529 5,142 6,620 5,873 16.667 o o OS 7,286 1,505 6,301 5,728 6.420 13,656 CD OS GO © 4,536 2,259 9,933 6,384 7,196 11,693 o o CM -*fl 5,032 2,854 13,119 3,049 8,452 9,137 CO CD 7,194 4,360 17,742 3,722 10,308 9,575 O CS cm" "5 9,838 6,016 23,042 5,637. 11,547 12,648 GO CM t~- 00 co 12,911 7,946 28,908 8,417 14,467 16,439 00 oo o OS 00 15,371 9,171 32,993 10,965 13,058 20,822 o GO CO cm" o 17,334 10,095 33,837 13,752 10,466 24,200 -*l GO CD cs o I a 'c 9 a ft a a "o • c p: 1 a | a c c g e. ■ 1 % 'a c 3S 00 CO to 1 - © Cl ci CO CO to >-~ OS e i CI • - CI OS ci 00 13,505 4,861 11,340 7.474 2,751 19,338 OS CM Os" "5 11,895 2,771 5,420 5,644 3,603 17,605 00 CO OS CD 9,190 1,951 4,784 5,648 4,496 16,520 42,589 8,274 2,492 6,857 7,101 5,883 16,360 co os CO 8,089 3,327 10,290 8,629 7,469 16,449 54,253 8,783 4,607 15,133 8,175 8,742 15,727 co CD 11,329 6,171 20,761 9,816 10,400 18,943 O CO I - 15,631 9,918 2S,924 13,337 13,000 24,898 o o 19,482 11,082 37.424 17,510 14,388 33,286 CM CO CO 21,847 11,669 41,344 17,649 11,946 37,097 CM lO 23,792 11,507 38,677 18,226 9,823 38,698 CO CM o Z 'c I c > a 9 ■ c i c ft DC > a M f- S a a i a c c- Bul. 642 Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 197 10 os co co cm cm 1C N ■* CO O CO lO 1-1 •* CO H lO K! (M N N W « ^ lO N m H N ID ■* CO O CO CO t- CO OS CO o ra m to to co n CO O i— I OS CO CM Oi N M (D W CO co r^ co Ol CO OO H N C» CI Oi t-H CO 1-1 © N « O CO CO OO CM O lO CM ■* "3 - O CM CM -* lO Jj to •* CM 00 ^p COS >o OO to lO lO CM CO CM "* L ~ CO ". t^ 00 OS i-l i-l CM o >* O i-l »o CO O »0 00 •* CO CM CM "- m o co os oo -^n CM CO CO i-H O t— CM i-T i* O OO cs »o OS lO N CO W CO (N OO CM O to OO ■*! CM OS OS OO CM to ■* N ^i « CO id H CO M ■* ■* N O -H "* tD N H i— i co co co io co co i— i oo i— i os oo r-~ os CO H to ■* N N O) H i* N CO H t)< OO ■* N 1^ i-H CM O OS CM lO CO i-i ** CO t- ■* >0 lO OS CM i-l CO Tf -*> O to i-l to" i-l i-H CM i-l to 00 O lO i-l CM IT- i-l * 0O CO H •* o 1-1 CO i-l H CO CO i-l CM "O CM CM CO co i-i - - •^l CM CM CM lO CO T-l CO ! * S3 3 S pq pt, « fe fH P § »o os co »o to ^ *o -H CM T-H M CO CO N CO LO © i-< i-l CO lO O t^ i-l t^ esf >o o i-l to cm co o io oo © r— CO CO Ol lO t^ O to OS 00 IO ^n t- "O ••• CO OS O L~ o CM '.", CI i—l 00 t^ C j ~ ■* o LO t^ itf< o 00 IC t> CO CO CM i—l CO CN OS OS OO CO tD N N to t* to CO -tfl (l L, O O rJ i fJJ pq ^ tf ^ tH P S 198 University of California — Experiment Station t § O Ch w - o o Eh Ul P o Q © © >rtH i-H lr~ Tt< co N ro w >r: t-h r~- CO O I~~ ^H CM t-H CM >-< © © CO © lO i— ' © r-- OO CO co co' t— © CM W i— I tN »« ■; 1^ O ■* (O •f © IN © © © f M N H CO M CO O) Ol N N (O N CO « •* M » O to lO lO 115 OO O O N tO T(l O "5 H ^ w O) CO CO ■f 00 « •■- T -< - © »o 1-1 t^ 3 CO C) os ■"*! •* crc in kti l(~ r- CO its CO CO >o t- CO CO *~ © t- 00 1-1 oo o t- (M t— r-H <0 ^J< N C. i(5 N H H M ■* KJ H r-H IN r-H (M CO CO «0 CM UO CM O O - CO ■* © O rH CM O © 0O O t^ t~^ t — CO (-_ o ,_! m ,_l 1 - CM ,-i •o •-' ■* eu CO rH CM «5 ,_l CO • o rH CO o - CO © ^ C 1 >o CM CO a OO o lO Cl SO CO CO' • lO r-l r -- W CM ,_, CI to "■ " OS o CO — to CM oo h- C-! ici oo '"I * "■J lO CM O C3 CO n ~ oo CO © c- 00 OS o © oo OS o to CO CI ~ © o t~- oo CO •**! '-- ■ c t^ OS OS OO CM CM OO rH CO oo as co CO CS CO CM CI OS O to oo tO CM © © CO i-H Ui CO CM CM ©" US tr- —i o -\ © CO t~ A CO O OS CM CO 00 "** CM .-H oo - to CO t1< OS to ..-. ".-, © © © UO t^ CO CO "5 C 1 IC " ■* ■«*! t- CO oo oo -r 1 - M t^ tO © ■*! WS 00 OS f t^ " to O OS CO I- © -* OS oo ^1 C5 © r-- CO o CO rH cs CM " oc C5 oo CO -C r-H OS co -f lO lO «o 00 O0 CM OS lO © 1-H o oo oi _^ •f CS -^f in co Tfl »o CO (M '-:■ t^ CO —i co ^H CO CO © oo 3 CD O >> CD 1 i o & : u in c H K H Q s Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 199 CM i-l O CM OS OS CM CO OS OS OS CO lO CO lO K5 O) lO CM t-- CO CO CM O i-< OO CM i*l CM CM O CO O * ■* cp H OO N O H O CO ■* M CD ■<*i >C O t-i ■*# iO OO CO CO CO CO lO CO !D O) N Ol H O! co co r^ os cs cs n ra oo ^ ih «5 ia oi h o m n w io ■* o m h r-l CO O T-H ■* OS CN CO "O CO CO CO CO CO IS O CO N It CO O) II) » t-i o ■«*< o t— cs C5 CO O O t-i i-l CM N CO W 113 CO » H O iO ■* lO O U3 H ■* O CO CO << i*i" co" CO t»" ©" CO CO CM t-i CO CM i*- CM CO CO CS OS lO H OO CS OO H i-i i-i cc i-h in O OS CM lO 1*1 5 >> g * b g a ti >h c c 3 j? a « fr H tf fan £-. Q g CO O O H 1^ O lO OO lO i-l CM i*i CM lO CO CO OS CM O CO CO M o iO W lO it Ol N N N Q CO OO N N O O O OS >0 CS CO Cs CS r- i-h -0 © -**l © CO r-l l^ CO CM lO CO CO OO o if CM CO CS © CS CO OS m co m © t-i >/-; co co t-h i-H CM CM CM r^ co co co co o »0 1*1 CO CM O CO CM O 00 O CM 00 Q CO C lO •* LO H CM 1*1 i— 1 CS CS O OO O l^ £~- O Cl O »0 "0 O CO CO i*l CO CM OO i~ — CO CM »>• O0 CM Tt< CM os © ■>*i O CO s ^'tSII « £ « ph h Q S (OhfafeHQS S S OS T3 c. <3^c 200 University of California — Experiment Station I - 02 3 02 o < p hi o O 1* no M T3 02 O fe = s 3 o EH H a «i tf o Eh Ul ft O o En Hi P O Pn 1,168 58 303 714 992 440 CO 1,327 61 221 544 293 281 CM CM » IO N i# "3 O CO CO GO OS © -H OS cm" N N lO OO ■>* OO -<*< *o os OS O CO CO Tf lO N OS CO © CO 1,491 44 53 294 594 206 2,682 >fl tC CO if N Oi os co t— O co as O f t- ^H CM" CO O f N «5 CO o i-( o co co no -# — I CM OO i-t © OO lO i-l if i— 1 t^ OS i— I i— I CO CM OS -f ^H i-H CM OS 1-H LO co 175 28 191 391 1,177 207 OS CO cm" N M N Ol ■* N Oi M M N rf if CO CM -fl CO CM IN N •* ■* CO CM CO CO -^ 00 os CO eo 364 54 256 646 1,481 434 3,235 393 54 319 699 1,618 484 co co" 439 52 416 753 1,836 544 © © CO 110 00 OS CO © CO CO t^ CO CO © t~- tp oo co co eo co H< 1,019 62 378 865 1,259 515 oo s a "c I a > Cf 1 V ' c a V > E- C £ J c Eh Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 201 1,590 219 323 359 627 548 co CO CO CO 1,789 209 90 301 289 511 3,189 2,075 31 173 321 603 482 OO CD CO 2,012 133 99 280 816 461 o OO CO 2,053 127 71 328 1,075 423 o 1,347 73 135 323 1,238 354 o 1*1 CO H i(( (M N O) t|( CO itl OS CM OO CM lO CO lO i*l lO o eo* 133 22 139 421 1,795 357 CD OO cm" 128 26 162 456 1,979 473 CM co' n h a n « n CO iC CM CM CO i-H CM CM HO O tfS cm" CO co co" 387 57 252 682 1,466 739 CO 00 CO t- CO i-H O 00 O co as co co co i^ «J CM OO CO r- os o CM CO Broilers Fryers Roasters Fowls Turkeys Miscellaneous 1, c 1,926 106 354 825 349 801 CO CO 2,243 122 181 688 145 683 4,062 k m io •* ic n i-H o t^ r- oo cm CO i— 1 1*1 I-H CO CM CO CO* CO 'O CO OS 00 00 l~- tr^ OS O OS r-H CO CO CO lO cm" CO CD CO O lO Ol O! Oi 115 OO OO OO OS CO OS CM CM CD 1*1 cm" CO CM co" OS OO lO I*" O CO if 1*1 co io r— 1*1 CO CM OS 1*1 OS 1*1 CO CM i-l OS m CM CO O CO t^ CO O O OS H N -* CM 00 cm" 676 28 246 181 1,496 453 o oo o CO* 721 36 346 183 1,841 519 CD i*i CO CO 1,022 28 498 256 2,231 619 co 1,176 52 584 338 1,648 641 os CO 1,304 93 554 425 895 647 oo OS CO "c PC a. cc f- a I ■ c P3 or > a :- or = C a .1 'a c a 1. c 1*1 oo t o CM* ■ M N rt - i-H CO CO H t-» CN ti. CM s It" 2,202 100 122 709 294 841 00 CD n" 2,321 116 106 674 623 977 i*" 2,503 145 147 623 948 1,049 if lO* 2,238 118 172 817 1,346 870 CD U3 DISH OlON oo o co r~ oo i>- CO i— I CM OO t^ t^ O CD lO 1,002 81 251 713 2,151 746 i*l OS 771 75 292 686 2,458 774 CO >o o 1C5 795 79 333 768 2,704 820 OS OS UO* 1,113 96 332 755 2,961 899 CD 1,427 114 373 820 2,020 1,046 O o CD io" 1,856 123 346 966 780 1,061 CO a 'c a > a a 7 PC or OS > Si ■- 5 E- X - z c ,1 1 .0 % c E- 202 University of California — Experiment Station & ^ ^ rt m 3 w o < & O O > OH K rd o 2 A o O EH C-l w. CM C i" 1.73S 137 190 804 159 1,088 CO CO i— ( lO O CO l-H O "f (M O OS -* CO (M Tj1 1,987 162 129 705 288 1.071 CM CO 1,865 172 138 680 447 1,102 o 1,509 153 148 612 735 789 CO CO N O) N N N if H ffl (O lO OO N t^ H lO 9 N o CM CO 431 35 145 548 1,116 647 CM CM CS cm" O •>*< CO OO CO CO l>- if "0 i-H CO i-< ■-O i-H CO CO CO m co 990 60 193 633 1,754 734 3 1,300 92 187 723 1,328 780 o ■^1 1,701 74 210 861 3S3 799 CO o I L > I a ■ X PC s i 5 h D c a Is 1. c osio": 01 CO i-H IC cm" CO lO Ifl 1^ ■* - 9 K5 « O tH r^ oo m m 1C CO os m cm i-H IC e a CO »H in o- CO N OO N c CO 00 »H co m CC OS co to in c oo c -- / oc OO i- CO co- -i- n m « co CO © t-, H r- cm m OS .-< >- CO CO CO OO l> *-* co ■"H CM Tm ' o CO CM C a / 1 or > | Eh '1 s p C I C jr I c Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 203 cm t>- OS **i M OO (C O N IO O M O UJ O '(J « « N O O OO M N O) O N N O) ■* CM ^< f~ CM 0> CM CO CO CM lO CO CO CM lO CO lO O P >> o 5 =5 3 2 do CT3 as us oo o Ui 05 CM CO us DO CO N © o © a IN CO CO OO H 1C N M N H N © N ,-( CO CO CM CM i" CO CO M Ol Ol O © OO rt lO h N « OS CM -^ •* ^H CO cm" 1,166 81 269 438 1,041 61 153 os o CM CO OO © N ■* © H * © H IM CO 1M ■* H CO i-H CO CO l~- CM 1,249 140 372 362 2,220 28 244 co 681 168 386 278 2,392 17 283 «5 O CM 360 124 432 378 2,479 16 293 CM OO o "*" 350 159 493 562 3,335 19 327 CM 500 196 517 718 4,679 22 363 OS OS co" 755 239 623 855 4,710 45 395 7,622 M CO * © * N O — < ^ ■<* O GO O t- t-H CM to © ~* rf •H J-* CM" co UO I 'c I a > pc a 1 > f t 5 P I C C E- »-( CM OO CO CM CO O CO CO o CM CM -*f i-l O tO CO O US ■* t~ CM ■"}< rt N H N lO CO i-l CO O CO OS CM 00 00 i-l «5 CO CO i-l lO O OS Tjt i-H CM >0 OS i-H CM O) CO lO © O * N ifl * N O » CO N CO OS lO CM !>. CO © CO 00 CO ■O N O CO 0> 0> ^ ® S3 '> T o o S ^ S 3 3 .2 204 University of California — Experiment Station cs »ra oo t- os >o o OS CO OS I~- OS CD t*i -# »o OS O t-h OO »C CO CO 10(0 ifj N Kl t> K) « 01 o CO CO CO lO CO CO t-H CO CO T-H CO "tfl o t-h co os as t-h N «5 lO U3 t- l>. CO CO CO CD ->HH t-h ,-H CO t-h O CO O -H CO O CO T-H O -*i OO lO CO CS t^ O O ■* CO t- >o lO M lO O) lO Tti t-h o en o f~ oo t-h OO CO ■* >o o o in £h IE* (h _u Q O PQ Er Ph ' is • £hQ§ 673 234 401 692 1,893 230 668 a (D Tf 115 (D N Ol O O t-h OO U3 t-h |>. i(5 N IN N 1(5 1> N * CD co CO OO CD OS "0 CO O 00 OO CS t>- OO O OO CO N H H K) 00 IN ■* CO CO S50 148 201 551 1,231 277 483 tr- ee 985 130 204 616 2,174 218 524 OO 983 128 205 714 3,203 127 572 CO CO 867 135 166 S14 3,735 61 454 CO 448 127 187 907 3,858 43 415 5,985 376 122 210 911 4,536 39 383 co" 484 120 215 966 6,121 50 358 8.314 536 127 319 859 6,706 64 476 £5 o OS 570 129 300 842 4,493 107 479 o CO OS co" Broilers Fryers Roasters Fowls Turkeys Ducks Miscellaneous c o oc c- s< C CO CO OS CO T-H IC o tc 665 110 268 969 1,880 227 486 >C5 O CO 578 132 218 931 1,813 184 529 4.3S5 661 123 171 776 2,483 171 512 4,897 805 130 696 236 3,698 142 535 CO H# co" CS OS O CO OO t-h r>- O CO t-h CO »o OO t^ OO T-H CO CO OS lO CO s? 688 188 374 563 5,584 62 524 CO os 397 180 415 660 5,332 62 686 - 7,738 CO CO t^ O CO CO CO ia co o co »o r- t-h CO T-H -^t CO OS t— co CO 461 230 521 735 7,052 77 795 OO os 567 279 575 845 6,937 111 779 CO o o" 612 262 557 770 3,958 136 706 o o 'c I a: to Sh s I C a. is c 5 o B P C o e 1 "5 c