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-
<D
Ol
o
_
CM
CO
"«■
>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
<M
CM
o
CO
OS
c
CO
CC
d
fc -H CM CM r-
o
a
?5.
^H ION K
» O O ~ oc
1
o
CO
OS
c
CO
t^
o
d
a
o
o
cc
"^
CI
a>
>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
<M
|
^ CM CM t-
e>
v>
3
a
£
'tH
o
c
-f
a
.2
OS
a
CM
cc
d
a>
"- 1
£ -H <M CO
a
o
bB
d
0)
o
o
OS
§ © OS © iO
U CM -«tl oo o-
UZ
cc
oc
C-l
o
d
£
fc ~ (N CM
5
o
o
OS
oo
§ OS OO UO c
° O N OO M
o
CC
C
c^
o
o
§j ^H CM CM t-h
CM
o
eo
"SCOOOHH
lO
CO
"0
»• N OO N !C
CC
a
oc
o
CO
OS
e cm i-t r- t>
t^
Oi
O"
CO
§ <m" ©~ oo" oc
CO
C-'
© ^ 00 OS CO
l>
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- <M -H O
S © N O N
W5
O
to
«0
c:
O
OS
CM
« OS CO t-( rH
ot
CC
cc
<M
OS
S N O CO H
en
CO
c^
OS
a
O * OO M ^
!>■
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 <C
«*
OS
CC
OS
o>
© CO OO © CO
t^.
>o
^
-£S rt
CO
o
2
to
o
"2 os i-i <m t~-
S » N Ol N
cc
o
CC
C CM -* i-H CO
5C
*
te
CO
2
S »-H OS lO ►«
© CO CO OO CM
5
CC
IC
c
d
oo
CM
£ lO O CO OS
O
CC
>c
CO
o
o
cc
CO
o
a os ih co <n
CC
■rf
US
OS
S NW lO N
© CM lO CO <N
C
CC
CC
CO
CO
CM
CO
"2 © o <n ^
S H CO N N
-
c
W5
o
cc
t~
OS
« r-H OS I- t^
oo
oo
3 OO OO CO CO
O N "5 N M
uc
W!
oo
CM
«
,C
a
D
o
C3
!a
"2 2
8
■3
6 "S "5 c
C o c c
J5 -3 * c ' JS
^ 1 o <
~
a-
O
C
8
"S
j fl c .c
■f
c
c
T3
4)
1
11 JS 1
3
c
1
"3
£
p
ts
a
CC
Ph
h-
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<P~
1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940
EAST NORTH CENTRAL
1890 1900 19 10 1920 1930
WEST NORTH CENTRAL
35
30
25
s»
u
Q:
id 15
Q.
10
5
35
30
25
i 2 °
u
ce
u 15
a.
10
7'~
\
1890 1900 1910 1920 1930
1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940
SOUTH CENTRAL
Z 15
Id
U
a.
uj 10
Q.
—-- ~-
N^.
^
1890
MOUNTAIN
Z 10
Id
1900 1910 1920
10
1930 1940
PACIFIC
_ fBrt -^r:^l
1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940
CHICKENS ON FARMS —
1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940
CHICKENS RAISED
Fig. 2. — Percentages of (1) all chickens in the United States by geographic
divisions, 1890-1935, and (2) chickens raised in the United States by geographic
divisions, 1909-1934.
Data from tables 3 and 4.
10
University of California— Experiment Station
n
o
w
O
m
GQ
B
3
m
«
En
_ o
ft OS
3 s
w
o
^
«*
coCMlr-CMCOt-.0>© 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<OOON O
05
. C» © 05 CM © CM <cf
5 N N rt M
©
o
"o
g
o
>-
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 <M CO
J N M m rt rt
ft,
o
o
CD
g
o
caOcOOOOsOOt^
1 °
02
CO
OS
, CO O © CM 0O CO CO
"3 CM CM y-i ^h ^h
°
T3
2
9)
a
1
C
P
s-
1
o
g
m
^OiOCOOO'-i^H
1 °
<M
o
■
OS
. oo o i— i co oo co co
i N N -l rH rt
ft.
1 °
1 ©
o
1 -
o
0>
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
2<MOSOSOSCO©OS
°-*»<CMCMI^©t^i-i
o
t^
CO
OS
r^
SmiOCOiONWOO
CM
© CO CM i-i i-h CM
CM
c
_o
'SotDOOWNNN
t^
5
m
t~HCM-<f»0©COt^
CO
CM
gNinOJOJNlOO'
oo
3
2
ScMcOCMrfOCOCC
■^
a
© CO CM t-h i-l CM
o
fc
CO
^(ONiJiOlMMtC
,— 1
o
CM
OS
^C0^1001HM>C
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
<D N OO N
H N » tO
~0 GO
<M CM CM i-H
co
00 ■>* 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
<M
10 00 os
•*t<
— 1
r-l
O
~
CO
i» r-< OS O
1^
>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
<a
>
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 ■>»< -<t<
N ■* iH CM O
CO ■* CO (N CO
^> 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
<!
H
J
H
O
Ph
fc
«s|
n
£
M
3
H
TO
o
H 1
M
H
Ph
u
«
IN
Ph
tf
<1
K
Ph
UJ
<1
H
fi
>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
<D
.JO.g,
ta *
73 a
03 (p
P< a
li
-2
o
A
03
M
60
, c3
lis
O o
^r
^(OCO!DOOO>OOOM<ON^
"5 ■**
MOOWtONON^ONH
T3 03
03 03
-U +->
•a j
pcfl
eg
00(0*M1CHC<IWOO«10)0
•^ CO
r-cftooooot^oooocftoooot^
t^ r^
CO
I _c3
99
OO^H'Tj<0000>-lfO»-cO<Mi-l
CO o
-n o3
03 03
"34S
p02
-
S.1©
42 S ^
0)001001^N»«CDOO«0
T* i-H
0©t-H-Hi-I©0>«-I^©-«J<CO
CM CO
ga rt
United
States
index of
whole-
sale
prices*
Q
<OT-H(MOJCN|lfli(M<MCMlO<Mi-I
OlOOfflONNOON**
r-ll-H HrtHHMMHH
t^ CO
T3
ffl
'a
p
|8§*8
DQ.S«g &
06
O
iflOHHOOOOlflNnHlON
03©o©03»-ir^©<-c-H(Mco
»-Hi-lrH »-HrH<NcN<MT-lT-l
(M CO
I
4)
DO
M
3's
oo
>*
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"*<M
CO »-l
co co
01
C
03
O
«o
1 OS
5
OOlfflOOOflNOOlWN
CM •«*
tO CD
■"O 03
'11
pCQ
>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 <M
«00500©OOi-lT-l«50>C<ltOCO
.5 03
G'a
i e3
3'e
«»
42 S ^
©<Nt^«O00C<»i-H«OlCCOCO>O
© 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
'-HC<lCO-'*<»OCC>t~000>©»-l<M
CO -ti
<M <M
CD CD
CD
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
Bul. 642]
Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing
91
cm
SO
o
o
CO
CO
oc
00
00
co
OS
00
CO
O
02
ao
HNOO^OO^Oi^NOIOOhOl
000001HOO<0**"!000«N«J
tOOOO^lflOSOOMMHHOOTlIN^
NNNOOO)0000<0'*M10 , *'*I15<*
H«SlHO>eN»!OO)N00<Ol9M
coioo3«>co<r>t^»ooooo-«»»^Hioeci
U)NN^OC!*'0')lOWlO00N»
00©0«OlOeO<M-«*<<N05<NIC<5^H«D«-l
lOlOCO-*lCi<M03t^t^OO<M<-li-l003
«Ot^«5>0000«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»-H<M00>O^HO3i-l^t<iO»O>Oe*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> <D o -
r\
"•>
/ 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»
<i
^r
bfi
a
_ CO
Oi rt
- j^»
£
~~~"
*-*"
*~~~
2>
o
o %
ro
0) '.
— CM
CO
-*c
=:
-""^
>■
<*!TI.
**>
0)
ru
en
1- <J
?±N3D
o «
-S3Dt
3 <
M3W3J
dia
CO c
) r
t r
ONHOd
1 C
«3d
5 !
sxn:
3 <
3
Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 129
In the above compilation New York quotations in September were
published only for 1933-1939. The averages of these years were : New
York, 18.7 cents ; San Francisco, 22.0 cents ; differential, -3.3 cents. In
October New York quotations were published only for 1930-1933, 1937,
and 1938 and for these years averages were : New York, 19.2 cents ; San
Francisco, 27.3 cents; differential, -8.1 cents. November quotations for
New York were published for 1930-1938 and the averages for these
years were : New York, 19.4 cents ; San Francisco, 22.5 cents ; differen-
tial, -3.1 cents. December quotations for New York were published only
for 1930-1938 and the averages for these years were : New York, 19.1
cents ; San Francisco, 21.1 cents ; differential, -2.0 cents.
The lowest Leghorn-broiler prices occur a month to two months later
in New York than in San Francisco, and the decline from February
through June is more rapid in the latter city. While at any one time,
in the months of a high differential in favor of New York, prices may
look attractive to the western shipper, transportation may delay arrival
in New York, and prices may then have declined materially. It would be
highly desirable for shipments to arrive in New York before broiler
prices begin to decline. But to ship when prices are declining on both the
California and the New York markets would be somewhat precarious.
The greater part of the dressed-poultry shipments from California to
New York arrive in February and March. The peak of broiler prices on
the New York market from 1929 through 1939 occurred rather regularly
between March 14 and March 29. About this time the volume of broilers
received in New York City begins to increase rapidly, receipts gaining
until a peak is reached in June. The latter month plus May, July, August,
and April in the order named are the months of heaviest receipts at New
York. In the remainder of the year, September-December, New York
broiler prices are influenced to a considerable degree by the large sup-
plies of other poultry classes marketed.
A comparison of colored-fryer prices at Los Angeles or San Francisco
and colored-broiler (red) prices at New York over a ten-year period
indicates a high correlation. There is a tendency for New York prices to
be slightly higher in March, while Pacific Coast prices generally range
higher from April through August. In the late fall and winter (Novem-
ber through February) there is a tendency for the average monthly quo-
tations, or over the ten years, to be approximately the same, although in
specific years differentials may be large. Monthly average prices for col-
ored (red) broilers at New York and colored-fryer prices at San Fran-
cisco from 1930 to 1939 are found in the table on page 130.
In this compilation New York quotations in September were pub-
lished only for 1933-1939. The averages of these years were: New
130 University of California — Experiment Station
York, 18.7 cents; San Francisco, 19.2 cents; differential, -0.5 cent. In
October, New York quotations were published for 1930-1933, 1935, 1937,
and 1938 and for these years averages were : New York, 20.3 cents ; San
Francisco, 20.4 cents ; differential, -0.1 cent. November quotations for
New York were published for 1930-1938 and the averages for these years
were : New York, 19.9 cents ; San Francisco, 20.1 cents ; differential, -0.2
cent. December quotations for New York were published only for 1930-
1938 and the averages for these years were : New York, 19.6 cents ; San
Francisco, 19.5 cents ; differential, +0.1 cent.
Differential between
San Francisco New York San Francisco and
Month price, in cents price, in cents New York price, in
per pound per pound cents per pound
January 21.6 20.6 -1.0
February 21.7 21.4 -0.3
March 22.9 23.5 +0.6
April 23.7 22.1 -1.6
May 22.5 20.5 -2.0
June 20.9 19.5 -1.4
July 19.9 18.7 -1.2
August 19.9 18.5 -1.4
September 20.1
October 19.8
November 20.0
December 19 . 2
High Leghorn-broiler prices in New York in February and March
(fig. 32) undoubtedly influence colored-fryer prices in those months.
With the coming of increased Leghorn-broiler supplies to New York
colored-fryer prices drop. Prices in New York are depressed somewhat
in the latter part of the year on account of the large poultry supplies
available at that time.
Quotations issued for the same eight months (September through
December excepted) from 1930 to 1939 show an average of 20.3 cents a
pound for Leghorn broilers at New. York, while at San Francisco the
average quotation for this same period was 19.4 cents. Colored-fryer
prices at New York for the same period averaged 0.3 cent higher than
those of Leghorn broilers, while at San Francisco the differential was
2.2 cents in favor of the colored fryers. A large broiler industry has
grown up in Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia, which supplies New
York city with broilers of the colored breeds. The development of this
industry may be one of the contributing causes in the decline of dressed
poultry receipts from California in New York from 1936 to 1939. (On
California markets these colored broilers would probably be classed
as fryers. ) New York thus has access to a large supply at a not very great
distance from the city. Leghorn broilers, on the other hand, are in rela-
tively greater abundance on the California markets than at New York.
Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 131
The average monthly price of Leghorn hens over the ten years has
been 17.0 cents a pound in New York and 16.2 cents in San Francisco.
Although both cities are primarily in egg-producing areas, New York is
nevertheless in a deficit area whereas the reverse is true of San Francisco.
On the other hand, colored hens during the same ten years averaged 19.8
cents a pound in New York as compared with 20.7 cents in San Francisco.
(If Los Angeles prices had been available over these same years, the
same general relation would hold.) Neither market is in an area produc-
ing colored hens, and since New York is closer to the center of supplies,
prices are somewhat lower.
Leghorn-hen prices have a greater seasonal change at New York as
the following table shows :
Differential between
San Francisco New York San Francisco and
Month price, in cents price, in cents New York price, in
per pound per pound cents per pound
January 17.4 . 19.0 +1.6
February 16.4 19.2 +2.8
March 17.3 20.2 +2.9
April 17.2 19.6 +2.4
May 16.6 18.8 +2.2
June 14.9 16.5 +1.6
July 14.3 15.5 +1.2
August 14.8 15.5 +0.7
September 16.2 15.9 -0.3
October 16.1 14.3 -1.8
November 17.2 14.9 -2.3
December 15.7 14.8 -0.9
Seasonal price variation at New York has points of similarity with
the seasonal price pattern presented of other poultry classes. The three
months of high prices are generally February, March, and April. A price
decline usually sets in in April or May which generally carries through
until October when the low price occurs most frequently. In California,
on the other hand, Leghorn hens do not evidence so much seasonality in
price movements. Between the months of high and low prices the average
differential for the years listed above was 3.1 cents as compared with
5.9 cents for New York. California prices generally reach a summer low
after which there is usually some recovery, whereas in New York the
decline usually extends for two or three months into late summer and
early fall showing the effect of the arrivals of poultry of many classes.
California prices rather consistently fall below those in New York in
the first seven months (fig. 33). In August during seven of the years,
New York prices were higher but in eight of the ten Septembers they
were lower. By October the differential in favor of California prices has
been widened. This widening of the differential continues into Novem-
132
University of California — Experiment Station
1
1
1
CE
o y,
> 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 </)
uj a:
z a.
So
£ Z
CD < _
it
UJ «"
a: a
ujg
u. **•
a
*- (\j o <\j ^ <o
*
O
(0 (VI CO
• 1 1
ro
fO
<\J (VJ —
SlN30-S3DN3y3JJIQ
QNOOd VJ3d S1N30
In the first three months of the year colored-hen prices frequently have
averaged from about 0.5 cent to 1.0 cent higher in New York City than
on the California markets (fig. 34), but the range between separate
years has been large. During the remaining months prices on the Pacific
Coast markets generally average higher. Seasonal price variation varies
134 University of California — Experiment Station
as between east and west coasts. Little regularity prevails in California.
The following are the monthly average prices for colored hens for 1930-
1939:
Differential between
San Francisco New York San Francisco and
Month price, in cents price, in cents New York price, in
per pound per pound cents per pound
January 21.0 21.8 +0.8
February 20.0 20.9 +0.9
March 21.1 21.6 +0.5
April 21.9 20.9 -1.0
May 21.4 20.0 -1.4
June 20.0 19.1 -0.9
July 19.8 18.6 -1.2
August 20.4 18.9 -1.5
September 21.3 20.3 -1.0
October 21.2 19.1 -2.1
November 20.9 18.4 -2.5
December 19.7 18.3 -1.4
In the above-mentioned years the range at New York between the high
and low month was 3.5 cents as compared with 2.2 cents at San Francisco.
Since rabbits compete with poultry, a comparison has been made be-
tween New York and San Francisco prices. Prices in the eastern city
are usually higher than at California points throughout the year, dif-
ferentials in favor of New York being higher in the four or five months
beginning with February. Comparable rabbit prices since 1936 are not
available so that the following cover the seven years 1930-1936 :
Differential between
San Francisco New York San Francisco and
Month price, in cents price, in cents New York price, in
per pound per pound cents per pound
January 12.6 14.5 +1.9
February 12.0 16.1 +4.1
March 11.7 16.9 +5.2
April 11.5 16.1 +4.6
May 10.6 16.2 +5.6
June 9.3 13.8 +4.5
July 8.5 11.7 +3.2
August 9.7 12.7 +3.0
September 10.7 12.7 +2.0
October 11.9 13.0 +1.1
November 12.4 14.0 +1 .6
December 12.5 15.1 +2.6
Comparable quotations have been obtainable on pigeons in the two
markets. New York prices generally follow the pattern set by most poul-
try classes — highest prices prevailing for three or four months begin-
ning in February. A drop then occurs usually ending in an October low.
Differentials between the two markets are far greater from February
Bul. 642]
Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing
135
through May. Unlike other poultry prices, those for pigeons in the West
seldom rise above those in New York.
Chicago. — Chicago is not only the center of a large poultry-consump-
tion area, but it is in proximity to the largest chicken- and egg-producing
O
< *
- u
X a-
Z
LJ O
£ in
> *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 <D
5±N30-S30N3ti3J3ia
o
in
o
in
O
<*
m
n
rvj
CM
QNOOd
d3d
S1N30
138 University of California — Experiment Station
tween colored-roaster prices at San Francisco (or Los Angeles) and
those of "springs" at Chicago show a high degree of correlation (fig. 36) .
Prices in the latter city have been materially lower as the following
data for the period 1929-1938 show :
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 25.0 19.2 -5.8
February 25.1 21.6 -3.5
March 26.2
April 28.0
May 28.0
June 27.3
July 25.6 22.6 -3.0
August 24.2 19.7 -4.5
September 22.9 17.9 -5.0
October 21.5 16.4 -5.1
November 21.4 16.1 -5.3
December 21.4 16.7 -4.7
March prices for eight of the ten years at Chicago average 23.3 cents
a pound; April prices for five years average 26.5 cents; May prices for
eight years average 26.6 cents; and June prices for nine years average
25.9 cents.
Differentials in favor of the Pacific Coast cities are normally higher
in the months beginning in September when the "springs" begin to
appear in quantity. The seasonal pattern on the Pacific Coast markets
is similar to that at Chicago. The pattern for "springs" in turn is similar
to that for colored hens.
Such data as are available on Leghorn-hen quotations at Chicago in-
dicate that Los Angeles (or San Francisco) prices normally average
somewhat higher. There have been exceptions, as occurred in 1937, when
the prices at Chicago topped those of Los Angeles by a fraction of a cent.
In the first half of the year Chicago quotations are generally about the
same as those in California or somewhat higher. Beginning in the late
spring or early summer the midwestern Leghorn-hen prices start a pro-
nounced downward tendency, ending in the year's low in November or
December. The difference in seasonal production, as well as in the poultry
classes produced in the Midwest and in California, make for a widening
of the differential in favor of the western markets as the year goes into
its third and fourth quarters. With the large volume of poultry coming
on to the main markets in the latter months, the competition of Leghorn
hens with other chicken classes — roasters, fowl and broilers and fryers —
becomes more severe. The price drops as the result of the increased sup-
plies, and the into-storage movement occurs. On the California markets
Btjl. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing 139
broilers and fryers are in quantity prior to the offerings elsewhere. The
main product of the industrjr in California is eggs, and outside of broil-
ers and fryers, the only sizable offerings from within the state are Leg-
horn hens. The chief reason for these offerings is culling and not price.
As a result of these various factors the midwestern and eastern offerings
of poultry are more seasonal than in California.
Comparisons between quotations on other classes of poultry at Chicago
and on California markets are difficult, if not impossible to make. While
poultry shipments made from the Midwest to California loom large,
shipments from California to Chicago are very small. At times in the
first half of the year shipments are made which are attracted by an
occasional price premium in Chicago.
RETAIL CHICKEN PRICES
Retail chicken prices for various cities and for the country as a whole
are issued once a month by the United States Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics. These have shown the same general tend-
encies as prices paid producers for chickens with certain differences,
characteristic of retail-wholesale price relations. In a rapidly rising price
period (1915 to 1919) producer prices rose more rapidly than retail
prices. From 1933 through 1936 producer prices rose somewhat more
rapidly than retail prices. (Compare tables 27 and 46.) On the other
hand, with falling prices those for producers have declined more rapidly
(1920-1921 and 1929-1933) . A lag can usually be noticed— retail prices
trailing those paid producers; for example, the price paid producers de-
clined in 1938 as compared with 1937 (table 46), while retail prices
changed but slightly (table 27). Both wholesale and retail prices moved
downward in 1939.
As compared with retail food prices those for chickens for the United
States as a whole were relatively higher from 1923 through 1929 (1923-
1925 = 100). Increased urban prosperity in the latter twenties brought
chicken prices in Los Angeles and San Francisco to higher levels than
retail food prices generally (table 28) . The relative drop in prices (1929-
1933) was greater for chickens than for foods in general. Retail chicken
prices increased more rapidly than general retail food prices from 1933
through 1938. This tendency did not continue through 1939. As com-
pared with most other foods, the general preparation of chickens for
market after leaving the farm is not great. Manufacturing and process-
ing costs entering into the preparation of many other foods are more
important than in the case of chickens, and hence general retail food
prices decline less rapidly than those of chickens (fig. 37). Furthermore,
chicken is placed in the luxury food class by a considerable part of the
140
University of California — Experiment Station
PQ «
o
Pw
o
o
.23
d
a
h
c
CO
oo
M
bO
1
n 0>oeoc<j>coo«o«5U50505cO'-ioe«5'— it— co
II ooooe<i«or-i>.ec^H^H^Hcoc<ii-iT-c(MOoo
5>
©
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
<!
00
o
1-3
00
M
M
-►J o
© ft
|| ©(N»0<MOS(McoaO~Hr-.-Hi-l<M»-IOS-»}t-«»<,-lcC>
5
©
ft^WNMOl^MOlONOOIOtlOMffiMOOOW
5S«01<D00'000N'<liO^Ot0Oi£>H{0N00M
03
a
©
£©
© o.
P4
o
o
IT © C^ (T> © OS t- TfiiOOUJOlHOON i-HiOCO"5C<l
5
S.s
> ft
00
©
3
CO
'8
P
oo
bO
bfl
0J
is©
■+-> o
"oS ft
o
V ©<No>o>c&»oe<it-~oooi»ooo»HO>-t<oeoa»'H
II 00050CO«00005TfeM'<*<TflcO»0'<*l'«<iO(MO
©5 ^^ _|_|,-|^Hl-l<-ll-<l-ll-l,-lT-I^I-l,-l.-4.-l
5
©
S'g
oj'E
> 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<ONNOON0001MO
©
m©
©'C
> a
8.gM0000!O©NrtNNO00^ONNO>NNN
>23^H*-iooooor-^H>*oi«©io<r>oo©oooo!-<<©e<i
gO«NNNNM*^MWWWM^COW^MW
1
M*l«eNOOOlOHN(iJ^ll}<ONl»e)Ort
OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS os OS OS OS OS OS OS OS
Bul. 642]
Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing
141
Moowioooao*
NNooaooooaoo
27.1
29.1
30.9
35.6
33.0
33.3
33.5
31.5
ooo^io^oooifl
^Hl-HC0'"*«3<»f5»O'**<
(NCmcocococococo
coeoo»i-H^f»«Oco
NNNOOOOOfflM
-HOi-tOOb-COOO
00»OU)NIN*i-l
NNMWC00505CO
ooJOe^eoiMcoco
ooeoo»oO'^«oe<i
NNNMWCOMtO
OOOOBH- < © O OS
30.2
28.8
32.5
38.3
37.8
36.9
36.0
32.6
i
©<M<Npq©*^oo»-i
c
8
coooosco©»o©»-i
»Ci-l«50<MCOeOO
cs»(N(Meococoeoco
0)
u
bO
o
i
03
c
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS
8
Q
co"T3
o> 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> <d o> S o> .£ «
'S'S'3 S'S'S'S
aaa^aaa
S22§222
<M CO CO T3 <M CO CO
.esosoj c os os o>
'd •:®cocot~o3cooo£-
<B c3 13 ^h ca co « «-h <M CO
C/J
-H '1'-' bj"-"*-"- 1
a
<
8
142
University of California — Experiment Station
population. The tendency for chicken prices to hold to relatively higher
levels than those for eggs is evident in retail prices (table 27) .
Between the retail prices of hens in San Francisco and the nation as
a whole, prices in the city have averaged approximately 4.1 cents a
TABLE 28
Average and Eelative Eetail Prices of Hens* in United States, Los Angeles,
and San Francisco, and Index of Eetail Food Prices, 1923-1939
United States
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Year
Hens
Retail
food
index
Hens
Retail
food
index
Hens
Average
price
Relative
price
Average
price
Relative
price
Average
price
Relative
price
Retail
food
index
1923
cents per
pound
35.8
36.4
38.0
40.2
38.2
38.9
41.2
36.7
32.2
25.6
21.8
25.9
30.3
32.0
33.5
33.6
30.1
1928-1925
= 100
97.5
99.1
103.4
109.4
104.0
105.9
112.2
99.9
87.7
69.7
59.3
70.5
82.5
87.1
91.2
91.5
81.9
1928-1925
= 100
97.9
97.0
105.0
108.5
104.5
103.3
104.7
99.6
82.0
68.3
66.4
74.1
80.5
82.1
85.1
78.9
77.0
cents per
pound
39.7
40.2
42.0
44.4
42.8
44.0
46.1
41.1
35.1
28.8
26.3
27.9
33.0
35.0
34.4
34.6
32.2
1923-1925
= 100
97.7
98.9
103.4
109.3
105.3
108.3
113.5
101.1
86.4
70.9
64.7
68.7
81.2
86.1
84.7
85.2
79.3
1923-1925
= 100
97.3
98.4
104.2
103.2
100.3
98.7
100.2
93.9
75.1
63.6
64.6
68.1
73.7
74.8
79.1
72.0
70.7
cents per
pound
40.4
41.0
42.1
44.7
43.3
42.4
44.3
40.8
35.2
28.5
26.5
32.4
35.2
34.8
38.2
36.3
35.1
1923-1925
= 100
98.1
99.6
102.3
108.6
105.2
103.0
107.6
99.1
85.5
69.2
64.4
78.7
85.5
84.5
92.8
88.2
85.3
1928-1925
= 100
96.4
1924
97.3
1925
105.9
1926....
105.2
1927
103.1
1928
102.4
1929
104 2
1930
101.5
1931
83.8
1932
73.0
1933
71.6
1934
77.2
1935
82.3
1936
82.7
1937
85.6
1938
81.4
1939
80.1
* Designated as roasting chickens in recent years.
Sources of data:
United States:
1923-1936: United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retail prices of food ,
1923-1936. Bui. 635:15-17, 80-87. 1938.
1937-1938: United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retail prices, p. 12,
January, 1938; p. 10 and 12, January, 1939. (Mimeo.)
Los Angeles and San Francisco:
1923-1927: United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retail prices. Buls.
396, 445, and 495.
1928-1936: United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retail prices of food,
1923-1936. Bui. 635:60-63, 142, 144. 1938.
1937-1938: United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retail prices, p. 15,
January, 1938; and p. 15. January, 1939, for annual indexes. Annual prices are averages of monthly
prices as given in monthly mimeographs.
pound higher during the twenty-seven years 1913-1939. There is a high
degree of correlation between the two sets of relative prices. From 1913
to 1939 they have averaged 0.5 cent a pound lower than those in San
Francisco.
Although large supplies of both live and dressed poultry are shipped
into California, retail prices within the state show a closer correlation
to producer prices within the state than to those in the entire country.
Bul. 642] Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing
143
Prior to 1930 San Francisco retail chicken prices were more closely
geared to California producer prices than were those in Los Angeles.
Since 1930 the reverse has been the case. This change would indicate to
120
Z 90
id
o
a:
u
a.
80
70
6
J
A*Z.V
_PRICE RELATIV
HENS
ES —
*a
\
\\
\\
RET
ML FOOD INDEX-
\\
— -\1
"A L
\ I
£\\
A t
A 4
\ 7
1 / /
\ //
V ^ 1
1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1
_ CVJ
oo o»
Fig. 37. — Eelative retail prices of hens and index of retail food
prices, United States, 1923-1938. (1923-1925 = 100.)
Data from table 28.
some extent a change in the demand of the southern California area for
chickens within the state. Furthermore, it may be that the area con-
tiguous to Los Angeles furnishes a larger proportion of the chickens
entering that market.
COLD-STORAGE HOLDINGS OF POULTRY
Owing to seasonal poultry production, storage plays a not inconsider-
able influence on price. Poultry storage holdings show a pronounced
seasonal variation for the United States (table 29) and for the Pacific
section (table 30.) Over the whole country poultry accumulates in the
coolers in the early fall, with a large volume of young chickens mar-
keted, and holdings rise to a peak toward the end of the year (January 1
144
University of California — Experiment Station
usually being the peak). This seasonal rise is accelerated by the market-
ing of the greater part of the annual turkey supply. Net out-of -storage
movement usually starts in January, is greatest in March, and generally
ends in late summer. The variation in holdings is from 173 per cent of
the average annual holdings on January 1 to about 57 per cent on
August 1.
In the Pacific section poultry storage holdings show far less seasonal
variation than for the United States (fig. 38). This is partly accounted
for by the lack of pronounced climatic changes on the Pacific Coast. In
TABLE 29
Indexes of Seasonal Variation in Cold-Storage Holdings of Various Classes
of Poultry in the United States
(Average for year = 100)
Date
All
poultry
All
poultry
minus
turkeys
Broilers
Fryers
Roasters
Fowls
Turkeys
January 1 . .
February 1 .
March 1 . . . .
April 1
May 1
June 1
July 1
August 1 . . .
September 1
October 1 . . .
November 1
December 1 .
173
167
145
111
80
63
58
57
58
67
88
134
177
164
139
106
75
58
55
54
58
74
101
139
153
136
117
90
64
47
44
58
85
117
138
151
194
180
156
124
85
57
39
29
29
53
101
153
200
195
170
131
94
67
46
31
24
31
72
138
178
164
141
103
67
58
66
70
67
129
139
142
115
99
86
72
57
46
31
78
Source of data:
Calculations by authors based upon data in table 63.
this section there are, moreover, two peaks and two low points in poultry
storage holdings, the peaks coming usually in February and August
and the valleys in May and November.
Unlike the cold-storage holdings of turkeys, which have shown an
upward trend in the peaks of each year and a somewhat less pronounced
downward trend in the low points of storage holdings,* 50 there has been
no pronounced trend in the peaks or low points of the totals of all other
poultry classes in the coolers of the country (fig. 39) .
There is considerable correlation between chicken storage holdings
and prices at different times of the year. When supplies are leaving
storage from January through June prices are rising (table 50). Gen-
erally, while storage supplies are accumulating from August until De-
cember, prices are falling (table 46).
60 Tinley, J. M., and E. C. Voorhies. Economic problems affecting turkey marketing
in California. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 612: 69. 1937.
Bul. 642]
Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing
145
Total poultry cold-storage holdings include not only various chicken
classes but, in addition, other poultry types; for example, turkeys, ducks,
and geese. A breakdown of the total storage data into component parts
gives a clearer picture of the storage movement in the different classifica-
tions and a somewhat better understanding of the seasonal variations in
storage holdings.
Table 63 indicates that the most important poultry meat in the United
States from the standpoint of the amount placed in storage is the roaster.
This is followed by fowls, closely trailed by broilers, and last by fryers.
TABLE 30
Inpexes of Seasonal Variation in Cold-Storage Holdings of Various Classes
of Poultry in the Pacific Section
(Average for year =
100)
Date
All
poultry
All
poultry
minus
turkeys
Broilers
Fryers
Roasters
Fowls
Turkeys
January 1
110
123
122
101
88
90
101
103
98
87
83
94
125
108
85
73
63
73
98
112
115
114
115
120
105
82
54
39
37
65
119
148
154
145
133
119
128
97
80
64
54
77
102
113
118
122
119
125
147
151
136
113
99
86
80
68
67
58
79
116
135
114
101
89
78
75
86
93
96
107
112
114
77
163
211
171
May 1
143
June 1
123
July 1
103
August 1
76
47
28
16
42
Source of data:
Calculations by authors based upon data in table 64.
Turkeys rank ahead of fryers if comparisons are made with various
chicken classes. In the Pacific section holdings present an entirely differ-
ent picture. Turkeys have far outweighed any single chicken classifica-
tion in total holdings in any one year since 1931 (table 64), while in
chicken holdings broilers have usually been first. Fowls rank next, fol-
lowed by roasters and fryers in the order named. In 1939 fowls ranked
all other chicken classes. The volume of the various types of poultry
placed in storage in the country is somewhat indicative of production
conditions.
Turkey numbers in the Pacific Coast and mountain states are larger in
proportion to the human population than in any other part of the na-
tion. 61 From the chicken standpoint, the Leghorn is outstanding on ac-
count of specialized egg production. This accounts for the relatively
61 Tinley, J. M., and E. C. Voorhies. Economic problems affecting turkey marketing
in California. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 612:14-15. 1937.
146
University of California — Experiment Station
large production of the two products which would normally be the result
of utilizing the Leghorn — broilers and fowls. Large numbers of colored
fowls are shipped into the state from the Midwest and no separation is
made between these and Leghorn fowls in issuing statistics.
200
Fig. 38. — Indexes of seasonal variation of cold-storage holdings
of all poultry and all poultry except turkeys, in the United States
and the Pacific section.
Data from tables 63 and 64.
The roaster classification plays a minor role in the chicken storage
supplies of the West. A large part of the roasters are shipped into the
state and placed in storage until needed.
Broiler storage holdings in the United States are less highly seasonal
than all poultry or individual classes of poultry (table 29 and fig. 40).
The broiler market is somewhat limited and if storage is to be avoided
the bird can be grown to the fryer stage — or, in the case of colored birds,
can be allowed to reach the roaster stage. On account of the relatively
limited broiler production, however, storage supplies are usually not
u
H
(0
Q
Id
h;
Z
Z
O
h-
u
UJ
U
L_
U
<
Q_
53
CC
rn
p4
fTi
o>
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
<D
o
fl
rn
o
rn
Ph
^
«H
O
GO
rti
bo
(Ti
T3
O
^
o>
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 <M •«* lO CO CO tfi
• OOOSOOOrt
ootooJWNoqo
co co co -* o cm »-i »
i OS CO* "0
it—-* coco
■* t— ON tiHX
OS CO 00 00 CO 00 lO
JSfcS
CO CM CM <-H * -H
i-H <M i-H i-ICM CM
s-s-g
1 1
COOOlOOOlOi— (CMCMOO
CC lO M M ifl CO (N rt Ol
OrH(MO<OlONMlO
3 O
(N •* CS CM C<5 SO CO N y- 1
cmos •* oo cqco' -* oo"*
CO-H-*<MCM
I— CM O* *
O0 CO * CO t— >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
NOOrt<ON
MHCNrtrH
• ■*coo>oin
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 <M tH
aooi
■ -- o oc _ .
lO CO ■<* O <M CM lO •
■ OS Oi CO y— i CO I
) >C •<*" <-h ■
(MrH(N
ICOOOON-
co co co m ■<*< '
■fNtOOOOOOiOO
rti -* co co •>* co co cm
^HNUJONOCS
(D N CO m CO N <H M
lOO500-«*<©-*t<-HTt<
C5 lO OJ CO CO ■* N oo
OOCOCO»-cOOt^O
i-c NMN
N00 ■* (N O O) CO 05
CO 05 CM •
t^ OO -f C . _
Oioortoooouji
i-< CO OO ■* OO CO <
rtOOONCOCOOCO
O) O 1(5 CO "O CO I
cor- os co rf< (
r^ CM rt (
*-li-i»-l ^H CM CM
ffiHO'C'fNCOlO
O <H OO CO N ■")< «5 CO
CO^eMCMCM^-^O
CO CO O) •* CO CO lO I
io th rfi cm o> 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^Tt<W^»OCO
CO lO CO «3 lO CO CO ■*
tHOOOlcNNrtN
Ococot— r— cc-*«-«f
lONTfcON^icNN
oooo'ooccco'n
• OCqiOCNlOTtl
OCOt>NOOCOCD«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<m~<m*co
; c o o
5 ©-« :"S> c3 c3 ■
■B % §.s£oo 2 -
<l is -el £ "^ x; ^3 wo
cvOteh'ScocSO
+-> 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
<M
OS
N Ol N
n e oo io * h
O CO OO
«5 i-l
H O « H N H
1°
CO
OS
OS CN CN
N ■* ifl O •* H
O CN CN
i-H CN
t~ CN CO O O ©
CO CN
OS
CN
OS
rt< i-h Tt*
If « tt (O ^ H
ONOO
o oo •* © o o
■<»< CN
C3 «
CO
os
N OS ©
» rt Kl rt M M
O CN -*
^H CN
CO 00 f 1-1 l-H O
CO i-l
OS
CN
OS
00 © ^H
t^ OS © l-H l-H CO
O CO CO
«-H CN
CO CO *J< l-H 1-1 O
CO l-H
CO
os
OS CN O
-H i-H CN
CN OS US i-H CN O
^ N H< N M (D
OS
CM
os
t- O O
OO CO •* CO CN O
i-t ■**< co
00 OO CN CO OS CO
•
o
c
"c
a
^ : :
c • .
£? : os
^3 • os
° n 1
° £ <=>
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
<ro
CM
OS
Ui
CM
Ui ^H
O OS
r>.
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
<M CO
rt
_
**
PH
CO
OO ■"*
O oo
.-3
o
00
C!
o
o o
J"e8
T_l
CO
L'l
3 "S
OS
CO CO
o
'O
^H
CO'
o
OS CO
CO
O CO
t^
OS
CO
C)
,— <
o o
CO
<M lO
CO
co
IO
oo
IO
■* CO
o <»
(N
in
o
CJ
-f 1—1
.3+3
CO
•"■ I
is
™%
CO
CO oo
O
OS
CO
fr-
Ui
CO CO
«*
CO
CI
rt
A
CO
Ui to
CM
CO
oo
to
r-
CO 1-H
),
—
og
C4
CO
ei
c+3
is
co
CM
OS
CO «o
*
CI
co
00
00
CO 1-H
£
O Ui
(O
OS
,_,
>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
<n bo
:s*g
o o
c?3
oo
oo
CM
•*
CO
Tf< CO
ih'hT
OO
1^
«c"
00
IOCS'*
00
«s
us
l>
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
<l o
02 r
* s
& °
p
H
.03 ^
w o
OS
CO
OS
WOOOOMTf
US t-h CO US
CM
ooooo
co
CM
(M O O 00 oo O
co co if
2
CO
oo-*o
CMC33
g
CO»-l
CM CN
CO CO
CM
CO
CM
os"
Oco
OS
eo
oo
CO
OS
O CC rH iH CO CO lO
US CM ^H CM
co
U5NOOOCNO
CM O0 CO OS
CO
CM
O US CO CO
(M CO
CO
as us ■* | os
raooii co
■tx CO 00
CO CO 1 OS
©OS
CO
00
CM
CO
OS
OONNOOOMOOO
Tt< CO t~~ lO t^ OS
~h i-H CM CM CO
o
CO
NOOOhhO
CO OS CO
CM CO
CM
cs
OS
OO CO O 1 CO
CO 00
rfi "*l US
Tt< OS CO
us o
oseo
CO
O
cm"
CO -^1
CM CO
eo
us"
co
CO
OS
^hOcOO>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*<cMus©©©
■* O CN N O) CO
^H US
t>
© 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
<M
©©
oo"
o
CO
OS
COOONOMOOOOO
CM CO © (NO
o
CO
NCXllONOO
0O 1-H
CO
O
OO^f ©
CM
CM
us©us | ©
co oo oo 1 ©
co us us us
us i-T 1 t^r
o©
CM
©
os-
OS
OS
OOi-H^OOOOOOO
O CO Tfi
i-l CM 1-H
o
us
OrtNcOCMO
^ oo r- co
CO
co
US
©©OO© I oo
CM CM
os ©Tti 1 co
oo O O os
USrHi-T | t^T
© co
CM OS
OS
os"
00
CM
r^O"ct*>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-<*<toO
tO
eo
CM
.-H <M
eo
CM
<N
OOO
to
CO
OS
oot^t~ot^>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
<m O O eo O
to
to
to
*-l CM
CO CO
CO
OS
eo
CO
CM
OS
CO i-H .-H
CM
CN
O O CM ■»*< CM
CO i-H
00
1-H OS
a
CO
CO
35 M
:s-g
O ©
£*
& cs
rt
■1
'c
:
T
8
is
c
•—
I
e
c
1
1
8
c
c
X
1
c
c
1
1
c
i
c
c
<
3 DC
: c
a c
- a
\ ■>
\ 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 ^
<l is
72 -ij
© t3
^ a
EH O
^ o
72 O
£ °
OS
CO
hJ
M -v
pq
02 r^
<
>< 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 <n
w >
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 <M
CiOOMWOIN
O^lOCOOlOiHM
i-c<S
03 T3
""OS
5 o^ a > 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
<s CO
o
CO CO
co
CO
"
o
co
o
o>
ft
B
o>
CO
o
a <m
OS <M
n o h h h
CM
CM
co
OO
CO
o
a
© -*
O — i
OS CM CO CO l>
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 -*
■* <o o ^i o
CM
00
OO
-ft
CM
>
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$
§ -*
<N i-l
© i-H © CO CO
CO
CM
CO
CO
OO
CM
East
and
west
north
centra
t -»
CM TJ.
00 CM 1 CO «* ©
CO
o
o
©
©
2 ^
i-H CO
CM CO CM CO CO
t-
r-
OO
^
00
i co
13 00
CM "tfi
M H •* H M
00 © t~- t— OO
IO
§
CO
l«-
CO
~ co
-# OS
r-
©
o
■f
U5 OO
N W «5 CO M
>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
© <M
^ f o> 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
<H
5^-SS
o^o-
CO o-
MO M O •*
c-
o-
co
CO
Q
O g o.
lO Tf
■"*! © 00 © oc
cc
CC
»a
OS
F
a
CN
CM
lr--
.i*d
OT3 C
OO oc
CD 1-1 i-H US CC
oc
-1-
©
O g T}i
CM <M
* CO W CO K
or
or
co
"cS'S
~ * i— :
a
i-h ta
■«fri U0 CM i— 1 i—
cc
t^
00
u|
**
- 1
"- 1
I>*
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
„+>£
<i °£ 2
a£ 2
gg.2-
tag
03
O
OOOOOOOOOOO
CO
o
w
"OS'S 5
as «
Ot^-*<^t^tOO<MOl005
Ci," rn' l-i rH ^H i-i C<l NN WN
o
» 2 a
««a
o
"* O OS
<OOMMCSrt(iO«SN*C9
t~
3
NOOOOOONOOt^NNOCD
t>-
a
o
H
<Ji Oj Oj Oj C' Oj Oj Oj C'^ Oj Oj
05
O
>>
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<M^0000t^»0
eococot^.oot^oooor-1-iO
o
o
o
a
OCCHlflCe^COrtOXBlO
o
>>
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 ^ <m
CO
a-§ >»
•~.5a
M
« s _
O05^Ht^C005C0»-HCD<Mr^ OJ
OlOOSi-lCOCOCOCMOOCMCN i-l
s* a
§^
lO(M (Mi-(-^<COCO<MeOOO CO
0> 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
<u
" O
O CO O O O O O
ia
2
O M
OOOOOOO
CD
d
o
5JH3
A
-«
"o
co -t-> 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
<U CO
CO «-H
Ol lO >0 N O IO N
(C
bo
CM
d
d-S
o
co
1
O 03
v. ^
to
co 00
CO 10 00 <m CO OC 1 CO
r>-
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 ^ <D N ffl
OS
CO
O
Tig
. t~-
CO OS
t~- CO O CO lO CM 1—
IO
<D
$> «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
to c
CO 0-
1-H t^ OO O0 O O0 »-H
CO
1^
'8
•*
i-i «a
«S «5 CO »-l CM CM M 1
-
c
P-t
a
6
bC
83
A
CP
>
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-«*<C0OO(NO
Nt-io-^eo'-ioodooo
ooTfnuo^oo'Coto*
cq»-<©d©c<jeoeoeoeo»oeo
O00Or»<«0e0OOco000000
Ol "3 H N U)
oo co
<N CO*
o o o o o
0"«
CMCJt^toeococoT-i
s§a
o «o o >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<MlO<MCO<M<MO»©
^ tn CJ ^3 s* 6 si
h, h 2 •< g id hj
m g
m -g. -2 > 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
<!
co
W
Eh
O
m
w
w
w
o
<1 CO
r. CO
§s
t%
w -
£ 5
Hi 2
« M
O o
£ °
-2
a
'3
o
CD
U
>}
"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<t^OO^HO
tNi-Hi-ir^Oi«<MOO<MO
T*l OO r~ «3 <M
CM
*J
e
o
<» CO
T-H-sffiooiousooseoo
CTJ
CO
00«5«C I -IOOOO^<NOOU5
CO »HTtt'*'<1<M'*'Ofl
East and
west
north
central
S
*. co
t>
, 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
>>
<d
o
08
o
ft
a
03
03
a
— . o
S
oooeoNooooooiO'fco
O
|
iooor-«o«5ooooi-io^Hoo
o
JO
'3
<3
Ah
lo
co
ooooooooooo
ooooooooooo
o
o
o
8-S-g
a
t^i-»eooo«OCT3000050
ot^oeo'**»T-iooooo
<M <M CM y-l
o
o
o
o
I 00
is *
a
***o«MN<e«oto
o
1
tf5^Hi-H{N«00OO-*{NOi»H
East and
west
north
central
1*.
a
wooousionweoNN
CN<NTti^<*»-H^HOOecOO
o
o
o
XI
a
O
>>
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 <e to
, <r> oj <m oo »-*
^ *# -* -^ eo »o
eo c* cn co co
r~eoeMO(Mt-«!t~©oo-*!<eo
00!OCl011flO«t»10MMrt
t^
oo
t~
CM
©
oo
CO
CM
©
CO
us
CT>
CM
~
£
CT,
£
<#
CI
05
>o
CO
OO
<B 00
tO N N N CO
(O U) M 1(3 O
NNNW««IN'**lOHH
t^ OO N O ^
i« M i« * t(i
N » O U3
© co r~ r»
© co co to
© © © © ©
© © © © o
ttOOiHONHt^MOeoiiS
v> • •
. lOM<tN^»NNH«ON
rt©i-iiot^cN»c.-ieot^-*
*N»H<0!Ol(3M»CON
NM^IiONr.
N U3 (O N N CO N
o oo w * o
!OMOiOOOe4iO>l3XON
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~N<MO00t--Ol^.CT5CT>0>»H0iU5C5
Sr h
i-iT-ii-<i-i.-<i-ic^ca(Mrt»-if-i'-i^H.-<i-ic<i!-Hi-ii-i
<j
|>
I-*
^ c o
00-»f'-H'0050t»005<£>C<«t^OC«OTt<uOCO»-i'^'
o
«S H
© i— li-l>-l«-lC0l^-H(M(M00h-.t^000»OO3»-lOcO^f<
fc
S R
,_I^H,_,,_|,_|.-l»-l<N<MC<l^-l»-l'-H»-ll-IC<('-tC*e*^Hl-l
Rl^
o
•jSh
OHMNHTjlOOMM'tiaoOOlOlOOOlNHN*
a
CO
OilNOOON^tOOOlNONOOTfl^miM^OON
2»h
HHNNNTfOOMlOCOOOOOlOOHffilNNMO
bi
Rj o
P
£S N
i-l^(MC0<M"<»<OC<5OOT-l00O©©<MC»'-HC<lf~O
<!
§ R
i-<»-l.-H»-li-1»-lT-IC-«C<l<N<M<-l»-l<MC*0*^H<Me<>i-l»-4
>>
R g <n
<M(MO-*C^<-HTj<c<IOO'*<t^t^«0<MT»<00>05t^T»<00
s
^s N
i-ii-icoco<M-*r^ecoooi-iooo^Hccoj-Heot^»o
,-i,-(,-i,-i,-(,-i,-t<Ne<i<N<M<N(Ne<i<N<Mi-i<M<Ni-i.-i
1-5
§ R
°
OJ
N*
* S «
i-lO<MP0(N^<t-»»-IOt--?-c©©©i-l00©^H'«S<05O
»-5
S R
r-li-Hi-li-(>-I^H^H<N<MC^<M<M(N<MC^(M(MCSC^i-Ci-H
>>
2 >>*
©i-tost^-oousot^oooe^i-ieoot^t^io^oo
ri
a
" § N
i-i^H»H<M(Meor^oooo>-coooc<ico'H^H'»t<oic
§ R""
c
>-.'
ft
Ot— I'-lCO'-HCCI-^O'COOCqOOSOS'-ceO'— iOco»-i«o
*<
S R
rHrtt-l>-l»-(T-l»-IC<lCq(M<MC<l>-l'-lCl<MC^<MC^(MT-(
.
R"g«=
t^to^^j<t^»ot^.c>iT»ta>oOTt<ooo3005eoi-ir^«D»-i
■2 3 -H
0©»-H<Ni-l<MiOOeOO<MCr50000©~HT-<Oev|©0
Ha,- 1
i-i.-Ii-ItHi-It-i.-h(NC^<M<M»-i>-Ii-i<M(MC^<M<N1<Mi-i
v
Rl^
J2
»3 H
o © *— ic^»-i(M>oO'-<>oc^a30oooo5-H I — i © e-j © »o
& R
!-lT-I^H > -| 1 -lrti-l(M<N<M<Ni-li-li-l'-«C<lC^Cq(M<N»H
o
K
R"go
coooo>oo5«5i— iTfH(i)N»nioiooiHe©wN
«3 rt
§ R
oooTHOi-Hr»<ooe^c»5»Hoot^t^ooooosTHOkfs
«j
8
PH
©
ca
cc
<*
,r
r rr
r^
oe
Oi
c
c-
<#
Ifl
--
r^
X
o-
<-T
a
a-
ss
a
a
o
a
«
OS
O!
cr
a
o:
a
2
a
at
a
Bul. 642]
Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing
175
m 10
O CO
o
M rt N
CO ^f Tfl
■* os
CO ^H
00 lO
i-l OS
CO
C» OO Ol
* lO 115
»o CO
CM CO
OS 00
t^
© CO Tt<
CO CM CO
co t^.
CO ^H
i-l O0 «-- OS CM OS CO
O OO H U) M tO M
t^ co oo r^ o
O O) rt «3 *
ID lO N
O) N IO *
i-H i-l O0 CM
■^ »o CO i*l
t^ -*• !>• 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
<Sft!«ft
£ v S «
cp o3 0) ca
' C ^ ' S ^
t- 1 oj^ CD
^> 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
<r>
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^
<!
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
C4
c-g
04
CM
C 1
CM
CM
CM
>>
O
CO
<M
lO
CO
r-
lO
©
CO
©
©
©
©
oo
^
CO
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--
<o
CO
CO
—
^H
CT,
r-
CO'
-+*
CO
on
•-5
§9.^
co
CM
CM
CM
CM
C4
c>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
<M
«
42
»1n
Ob
Ui
t>
-*
©
l~
t^
O
©
<M
©
©
<*
©
>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
<M
u
<V|oO
©
CO
CO
CO
-*
©
CO
OS
t.
©
©
©
CO
CO
Ob
Tf
©
co
©
©
CM
03
~§2
>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
<Ji
Bul. 642]
Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing
177
lOM'fNNOOOOCO
OOC5»C<MOO00
OWOWNNOM
lOMlOOiNOOOO
oo«©«oooe<iTt<
tO(i)lONNON!0
r-IQ0>O>Or-<00O^H
•*COMNNN«)lO
OC0"5OW5OOO
Oi-H<MrfiO>00«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^
<J
s-s
g ft
W 2
if
o °
« 5
'4J
<J (N
ft
O"*
R
-t° t-^
o
o
G-*<
<I)H
S*-
.m
Tl
cu
ft3
3
Q •
•fi
■s*
Cfl
02 ^
A
1H
I
.iu
C ft
t,n
^Q
Pi
o
_M OjOJ
-OOP
3
a)
"S o> 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
<x> o
g-3
2L CO
.si
g'S
ki
s
o
,4
13
^"tt Hffl«3OOOOC0OHON»'<i<rtCD^0)NOKI00MNN00O{0P5H
5, 5c<»C<ieNJC0^^ir0C0C0r-IO5O03C33CT>O00lr^000300t^CDC0»0>«'0'0-*Tf<
C3
cd
!£ ^ (Nt0O»O!0t0OM»C0>HMfflON'H00a)0i00C<|l0Nt000iOC0'<1<tD
w |>OffliO^I>OiO'**®C»»001«NOiNNNNWN(e(DiO'*t<!|iiO>0
O
ft
CD
S5
X "tt OHrtrt^NlflmONOOCSlOCOfflOTtlNIMTtllOrtNINrtOOlONlO
cgO»-iOOOOOi-i-<OC^OOOOt-(OodoOO'-HOOOOOOO
1 §. ++ 1 ++ 1 1 1 1 1 1 II ++ 1 1 1 1 ++ 1 + 1 1 II
o
13
CD
o> &
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^^^C<IiOr^OiOr^iO"*i>0»Ct^t--t^OO»«CNC35t^OOCNICNl(?OfOCN
u
§
CD
CD
CD A
2^t^^^^^^O^CV3COO>'*Tt<e0500500'5f<^-"i-l03CDCOCNCO-H»OOOOCiO
Y^c^cxa>O^Oc>i^a3<^o^c»f^r^coi^05c»o0^oooc^cx)05irococNcOrt
|» ~ N
CD
CD *H
> ft
<
R K -*rHNON'*(OCDNffi(NOOOONrtCONOOlOlO'*C<IM050NiHfHiO^
42 S ocs050 oO^^CCi^Cqt^«CDCDt^O^C»050COC3Jt~05CNlCOCV 3 CNl»--l
o3
CO
t-,
CD
CD
+3 w
CD ft
2oOOO!0!OOeOiHO»OStO«»rtNN001rtNC»NtewN*NNM'<|i
l'>iOooo50rtON!00!'-imcococot^NONc»oio«i05t^o>mcO'*cort
CD
cd'C
> ft
Rg(DTj<(NHl000tOC0»O><DiOrtTjl^lcSHHMC<5NiHNO00OH(DN0S
42 So>ooo>ooa>rtinooo(NN(0>oco-JDOiNcoo5iocoo)NooKimmNo
ft
cd
CD
43 o
IS ft
?JocNicot^.efl^^HioeNi^oseNicoooi-Heoeoeoco^HO«Nic33<r>coo«Nt*t^o»i>-
I'-HOCOaOOO'H^COOlNOJNNaDNOONOOCncOCOrHOOINNCNlNrH
II ^ HrtHHrtHNNHHrtH-HHrtHHrtHH ^ _ rt _ ^ rt
CD
cd'C
> ft
S.gCOO)THOOT-ll>NCONTflC<|lOCna>NiHCD<OMtOlOCN|cniO"«00«5'*COO
42 S^CV5^Tt<u^Tt<OC3COOC>«OO^^CO>OCOlOCOt^CCiOCOOOTt<t^.OOOOOOI>.
g OTH.^rt^»H^i^<NCNCOCV5C^eNlCNCNCNlCNICNCNlCNICNlCNl^-l»-c-H^H^H^^-lrt
.s
'3
o
O
CD
"a; ft
2oO'-<!D05<*'*a>0«)'*00<OrHMTt(COt^CCtDmiNNtOCN|NOO)'*(N 1 -l
|NOO0)O)OOOMNO0!00N(DOt»NCNXOnO0)CMNHMMi-l
5 "
CD
2 °
cd'C
> ft
Ag«>©cNr^»o^eNeot^eNi'*«D'«<©eo'-HcN»Oi^HeNioeot~t»«<t<oocD^i-(»o
g Ortrtrt^^T^rtrtCNirOCNC^C^C^(^C<ICQCNCNlCNlCNCNIrt^-(^H^Hi-lrti-lT-l
03
CD
O'HMM^lOCDNOOaiO'HINM'O'lOtDNOOCSOr-INm'^'OtDNCOCn
rHrtrHrHT-lrtrHrtiHrtCNIINCNINCNINCNNCqCNICOCOCCCOCOCOinMmM
Oi Oi OS Oa OS Oi 05 Oi Os 05 Oi OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS os
3 o TK
h e .3
ft
o
•3
-a
S3
o
C3
a
tc
ft
O
aj
Oh
u
m
P
CD
3
3 .
d
AB
3
3 o
"-C
©
u
ft
-< *
2
^T3
c 1-1
c >>
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»<Ot^-*t«00!-li*t^H
tN,-i^rti-i^H_<MT-l,.H
c
1 CO
CN
0000OSt^0Si-lt^O»OO
0)OOBHC<J101000CO«3
1°
CM
OOOUJfflN^WHNO
i-HCN^Hi-Hi-ll-lT-li-lrtl-H
CO
1 =
CN
coosOcNCNiOOOsO'**
CMCN^Hi-li-li-lrti-li-i^H
CO
CO
1 «
CN
NOONCBOOStOOONe
COt^t^lOOOSOOi-Ht^-C
CNCMi-It-ICNi~Ii-ICNt-ICN
CO
oo
31.5
29.9
32.6
18.7
16.1
23.4
22.3
25.0
22.6
20.1
22 1
oo
©
CN
-t
34.7
24.7
33.2
17.4
17.0
21.6
21.5
25.6
22.8
21.4
20.1
19.6
oc
CN
a
Cr
c
«
o
5
a
CN
cr
o
c^-
ct
«-
a
cc
c^
a
a
ev-
er
-
ev-
er
c
1
to
ex
oo
CN
CN
CO
OC
o
oo
20.8
21.8
20.7
20.0
18.2
15.9
20.5
23.4
20.0
23.1
19.9
19.6
19.7
25.3
21.0
28.1
19.5
19.7
00 U5 OS OO CM OS
i-H »-H O t"~ O i-i
CM (M CM CM CN CM
19.9
18.6
18.3
25.6
22.1
20.0
«5 T* l-H i-« OS lO
tJ< «o t~- o t^ «0
14.0
15.1
16.2
17.5
16.2
14.8
OS O >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 <M <N <M <N
OS
H CO » O) c
OO OO b- •**< (N
i-H i-l i-H (N <M
05
1-H
i*< ■* i-l OJ t~-
•V 1C ^ O) N
05
H N .N W) N
* U) ID N !C
o
15.1
16.6
17.9
21.9
16.6
CN i«
>li OO IS O) >c
O * » o> to
<M ^H rt 1-1 i-H
O 00
ifi OO
21.4
19.5
23.7
17.2
05 T*
^H OS
OJ i-c
20.7
24.5
19.2
18.4
CO CO
«-! o
CM <M
19.7
21 6
21.4
17.6
m i-
«
o-
a
d
a
a
cr
a
a
Ot^wSi-icOOiOcOCMTt<0
I OOOTllffllOOlOlOlNOOOO
<MCM(Ni-li-I^Hi-li-H<M»-l»H
Oeoi*<050«50oifcoo5«-ioo
•o-t<©coooo5©!-4©o5GO»»
COCMCOi-H^Hi-l(M<M(M»^i-li-l
I OOWNHOOMOMOO
NM«NHN«HINHH
(DOOOOllOONtOH^N
I -«*li-lc-0>OCOOO»C0000505
MillNINHHNNCqHH
»mO>B5K)00<jlMN«01
I »oioootiooo^HOir^Oi-H
WeONNHNNNINNIN
CD05COt>-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<IOJ«OC<)05
I ifOOOMrt^UJONOTll
CNIl-li-li-ll-Hl-li-^i— li— ll-)^H
OlOCDNOIOeOh-W^OOOO
lONHOlOloOifO^SN
I *Sl0M!Dai0C00)O^(»
05t^COl«i-li-IOCO^< , *^><0
I NUJOOOONNHOMNrt'oi
COeO<Mi-i^He^<Mi-l<Mi-cCN^H
COCMCOCM00300COOOOOOCO
I OOONOO^NO^OOOHO
<M(MCOi-Ii-i<MC<JCN|C<Ii-ICM(M
t^I>-C^t^C<lCOi-ICOCOCOi-lt>.
I n^WIJCrtONHOOOON
COCNe<5»-li-l<M<M<M<M»-li-<i-l
0> 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
-<? mo
.J?e3 » <»
d . iJ co
•"? 03 „T3
•a'd "§
g§s§
o g .a
fa a ^
■So >. 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 £
■< <D
r-i
oo .£5
w -—1
»o
W
s ^
A
ri a
pq
O P
m o
<
pq ft
H
g &
£ *
cc -*j
w s
O <u
PM
O
£
t*
«i
£h
w
o
a
w
>
<
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 ■*
ooeo<Nico.-icoot~co
l-H^HrH,-<CNl«-<<Ml-l*-l
21.2
17.6
14.9
19.6
22.8
19.0
24.5
18.5
19.0
N10I0ON1OU500U5
UO.— llOOCMOiCOOOO
CM<Mt-ICM<M«-iCMi-ICM
1
21.9
15.0
19.9
20.1
19.4
24.7
20.2
20.1
coococoiOTjiost-i
1 »<*N(»t-INON
OOlOCNcOCJlOCM
1 -flTtt^lOiOCOCOlO
11.9
10.6
11.4
14.8
15.4
17 3
14 1
14.3
CMCOOOi^^r-COt--
1 nrHNTiiu3N'*n')i
1 MNMIOOOUJ^IO
"0>OOMNN<fOH
1 lONN000001I10t»l»
1 COCOlOOSi-HOOOt^Oa
-t
17.1
14.8
14.7
18.4
22.0
20.0
19.5
17.3
19.8
co
o
CM
co
cr
«
ifl
cr;
CO
ex
re
O
- e«
cr
co
cr
cr
t^ © o
OOON
00
CO
CM
CI
Iffl
CO
©
CM
CM
CO
O
co
CM
eq
cr.
CM
CM
cn
e
at
o
©
CM
CM
cm
CM
IQ
O
CM
co
CO
CI
cr
IQ
o
CN
o
CM
o
CM
a
©
CM
o
CI
CO
90
00
cm
CI
©
as
1 -
MS
IQ
to
CM
cr
CM
CO
IQ
CO
IS
co
00
CO
3
s
co
tea
o
CO
r-
CN
CO
co
r~
CN1
CO
©
to
ad
CO
SB
IQ
©
IO
co
ud
IO "5 CO CO CM
CM 1-1 1-1
CO CO i-H CO O
O CM CO O 00
uy
CO CO CO CO CO CO
Bul. 642]
Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing
183
Ol M N r-l
00 i-l OO f-
17.2
21.2
18.5
20.6
17.2
16.9
>H © <M r»i CO tti
OS CO OS ^t* OS OS
1-H CO »-H CO »-l 1-1
19.5
21.9
20.5
26.2
19.7
20.5
cq co Tf oo o co
OS OO o ■<*< o o
rl i-H CO CO <M CO
17.1
17.3
18.1
23.0
19.9
17.3
W H H Ol N N
* «5 O O) O U5
N N O tD N •*
n io i/j o) «5 ■»
»-i tti i-H Tft I>- 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<C0C0
i-HOOlCOSCOOS-^OSOS
OyHi-Hi-ICO^HC^i-Ii-I
24.1
21.6
15.5
19.8
22.0
20.5
26.2
19.7
20.5
OsOcO^^iOOOCO
1 fHlOOSOSO-**!©©
COi-Ht-HtHCOCOCOCO
18.2
13.8
17.4
17.7
18.1
22.7
19.9
17.2
OOOWNOtOWN
1 M'^'JllOlOatDlO
1 MOMUSIOO)'*^!
00Nil^iOO'*M'*
1 TtlN^llOONlOMlO
i-ilfllNNM^NOffl
1 't^tOOOONtDUSCO
1 OOTfOOOHOOOOO
i-Ht-CC0C0»~1C0«-1t-I^H
•^«5COO3COC0CO©rt<
1 N-*NONOOOOOO
i-Ii-<t-IC0C0t-HC0»-HC0
»OOi(5MHO^NO>
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 <s a
,S O T3 O o
MX) ^Op
^'S ° .5
S *£
184
University of California — Experiment Station
OJ
r^
rH
bo
r/3
o>
w
is
hJ
o
>
fe
• —|
<1
pi
Ul
p
<~>
o
hI
ft
CQ
ft
S
en
kn
<u
fe
U
P4
o
w
1
CO
CI
ee
1^
to ■* oc
00
>OlOOO(MlOOeO«5
t--«l<T-<»Oa>iOOOi(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 <M rt i-h
O
OO
«
<M
cc
OO
I*
27.7
28.0
18.4
18.6
17.5
18.4
21.2
19.6
19.7
17.9
15.7
29.2
28.0
21.0
20.0
15.6
18.3
22.6
18.6
23.0
19.4
19.5
30.7
27.3
23.2
20.0
14.1
17.9
22.6
19.3
26.6
18.8
19.6
-^<<NI©©C©O0©^cMC<»
1 tOlO'*tDOOiO!'OlOH
<NCNieq-Hi-4i-i»-i<M<NeN
l>.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
<M(M—lr-li-l.-l.-l<M^H'-l'-<
00 O) Ol O! M i- 1 "0 •»»< UO © ©
1 <MCOO>I^cMr^.OO©COCOa>
CO<N.-l^(Mi-li-l<M^Hi-li-l
36.1
28.7
18.1
16.4
23.2
21.5
20.1
20.6
16.7
21.9
19.7
1
27.3
32.1
18.2
13.6
21.3
20.1
21.5
18.0
18.1
21.6
as
1
i-<ootM^H<r>c»<N-<*<rt
NWOOOOOOOONN
CNeO~H«-li-H^He«<N»-li-i
CO
CO
o-
CN
a
c
«
cr
or
cr
a
M
o
ec
cr
cc
o
OC
M
a
as
a
c
^
*
>,
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
<M i-H i-i CM rH CM rH i-H
NO)iHOOtO>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<ON«3 05
I OJtDOXMNrtOOlflaot)
MNN'HHHCqHNi-irt
COWKJNlOWtOOOOOUJ
I O^DOOOCCNOrotOOOO
COCNCMrHrHrHCNrHcMrHi-l
I rH © CO lO O 1
OSIO »
NNNINi
I1OK5 00O
lOl^OOOl
OOOOOOOtOffl^fflNt*
ffl©OO'*NO5 00Tl<OtO
NNNOHHHHNMrt
•>*<(DOJ'<t , O»©WM»O>00lO
I MtOOOOlONOOMOSKS
WOiNOOlOMWaittOOtD
COCMCMrHrHrHCMrHCMrHrH
oow
cocoes
OONtDOfl
. . rH CO 00 CO ©'
HNNNNHHN
ONOOCS«DOININW*OOCO
I MINHOlOOiONHmOHO)
COWCCrtHNNNNNNH
HOOOONOlNHlOOiOJNO
COrHrHOOCO-rJ<cOO©asCM©
MCOMr-lrtMINININr-IWC]
NOONONOl
rttOCOOOtDON.
WNMrHrHINNMH,
• 000X5'*
lOiOOOS
0(0 1(5 00010
ONIHU5XN
CNOJO^NO
rH COOSrH OS CO
MNiHNrtrt
OS OS Oj OS CD OS OS OS OS os os OS OS
^O
Q o
io«
CO
£ d ®
«
04 ™ o
CO
ecu
£
O
o
fti
is « 2
~ os v3
3~3
o>>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 <o
03 >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^-<*<OCOCTl-tf>0000
1-ll-lT-ieMCNHHCMTHl-l
IN^OOOM
WNOtOOCOO
<M 00 Tf (M O
otooomo
i *C t^ lO CO CO
NOONO CO
l-Hi-H OJCM i-l
«> Tjt o lO Tt< CO
I if^OlNrH^
<NrH(N(NN(N
CNI CN| <M CM (
"OOK3 «5M
i CM CO rfi | HO
rt CO OO 00 •* «5 CO H I
I CM O t* CO CO •* CO CO <
CMCMCMCN<MCNCM(M(
»Ot^<MC©00<M»Otf5CM
1 O t>» CO <M CM CO CM CO CO
CMi-lCMCM(MCM(MCM<M
TfiOitllNlOHlOcOitl
OOt^OOCOCM^HCSIOCM
i-HtMi-HCMCMCMCMCMCM
-tOrt 05 10 I
l CM <M CM CM i-l CM
i"O(DS00O)O
J CO CO CO CO CO ■<*<
005000103010)00)
WOOlOCOONfOiCifMlO
I *OOOiHOOHCO(NlflrtO)
COCO(MCMi-KMCMCMeMeMi-l
NSi-lCOMOHHiOOOOOO
HN(0O<0W0)MO(DO00
COCNN(NlHrHiH(N-ICNlNr-l
OOftDNNifOOtDlO
I COO Ol
CM CM IM i
OONtDi
I 0(0000'
INHHHNHNHi
CJaCMrtlCMCMCOCOlO-*CM>
rH(0(lJH!00(NHtOO)(
COCMCMCMi-lCM(MCMCMi-li
NOOOU5I
COCOCM CM ,
• CM <M -H CM Hi
UiNN-INiHrtNOSOOlO
I NrHNNOS(N'Jf(»CCliH«5
COCOCM<Mi-lCMcNeMCMCMi-l
OOCOOSCOCOOOOOCMCOi-IOi
COCOCOCS|(MCMCMCq(M(Mi-l
OUJOOlOOOtOCCOOlOH
050010COCOCO-*"*1>CO>0>CO
COCOCOCMC5cN|CM(MCS|i— li-cCNl
OOCSNeOitOiiHMOiOtN
I OOCOlOCOCSlcO^fCOlOCM-^O
COCOCO<N<NieMCM<M(MCNlCqCM
00-*TtlOO500C0COC0C35t^t--
I NM"0rt00^if(NINrtl»O
COCOCOCN)i~l<MCMCM<McNl<MCS|
^©COO^WifHiOOOlOiO
I lO O COCM OO OS-^l COO CM i-H O
COCOCOCMi-Hi-HCMcMCMCMCMCM
NOWOOWHtOH^QO
I COO)tNtN»NCO"OW(OrtO
MCMCCM-lrHNINCNMtNCN
OOaOrtMfO'
C 03
.2c3
o o
3 <-.
-I
C O
Mc3
s
'3*0
n-3
11
fi >>
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 <n
s| a
o
S
d
cd
•soa
O&Q^
a s
Bul. 642]
Problems Affecting Poultry Marketing
187
CO +j
a? '«
8 g
02 o,
" o
r
W
o
H
o
CO
H
O
aiiooHHTiiNus^
000<Mi-((MO>»C<l
W(Bll)IOlOOM»
I MONlDTflfllON
e©©r~«oa>»oe*o
eoc^^Ht—ooooo
OSOO»*NNfDOOT)l
COt--000-<f©©<M«0
H*WH*HOlNO
(NOOOOeC«SCOO(M
I WNOUJ^M^OM
w w m ra n
©eot^eoeoor-icoooos
C4C4t-Ii~It-ItHi-Ii-It-Ii>-Ii-H
NNlDflllOOlNOMH*
<DN®iOHMNOtOMW
llHOOlON^OltOOOOlW
C\JC<JrHr-li-C»H»HT-l1-lT-li-<
'*'oso>-*f<Meoi-~-'**<t^.t---*fi
^H*-*Oooaaoseoc<iooi>.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-ecoc<ios»-ii-Hoo
T|IOO"CHNINN>9<*(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)<O<DHU)00tDtONN
OS OS OS OS OS
43 T3
S c
bO O
.S2 -2 ^
•S+-
188
University of California — Experiment Station
CO 4J
a t
O g
1-1 CU
g ft
w g
M
O
o
O
1
©
a
©
is
CO
CO
CM
CO
a
CO
cm
O CO
CO OS
CN i-l
o
CO
C)
l-ll-H»-l<Ni-ICM<M^H
O
«
TCtBlOOMHlflol
l^^t^COOlOCMOO
l-<i-li-ICNI<MCOCNli-l
co
CO
OOlONMHiON*
i-Hi-li-l<M<M<M<Nl<-l
~Hi-Hrt<M<M(MCN|'-l
19.2
14.2
15.4
20.3
20.8
23.2
22.0
18.6
1 OO^IOOHONOO
i-Ci-H.-lCN]CM(M<Mi-l
17.8
15.4
15.3
21.5
20.8
20.0
22.4
18.4
OeOOcOCO]c©(N»/5t~-
I OimcONNOlOlOlN
rH»-li-Hes«tN«-ie«,-«i-<
(BOlOO)WOO*«lO
1 OSC©COi-l'cHi-lTt<OI--
i-H^Hi-lCNICOeNCMCOi-l
1 osi*<coi-icooco©t-
i-l»-li-lCN<M<M<MCNl.i-l
19.8
15.2
14.9
18.5
22.6
19.4
21.9
20.1
17.1
'
-"«f00<MCN«OSCC>©T»<f_
CNC0»OOOCMOS'*<i-l^.
cr
CO
co
a
a
e'-
er
CO
cr
cr:
ev-
er
K
c
o-
cr
C
cr
'
©
CO
C)
O
O
K!
cc
co
CO
CO
>o
OS Ifl
^ OS
CM !-H
os -t
o OC
CO CO
U5<Mi-HOOOOOfHTtlt^CD
lOOt-^i^cOCMOSCOOl^
CI CI — < i-i -H <M r* CO C) i-H
OOlSOWNMOOWlOOO
1 oscocot^-*r^<N©i»<eMos
CNCOCNi-li-I^CNjeNlCMCNi-i
30.3
27.1
23.4
19.0
15.0
17.7
22.6
21.2
24.8
22.0
19.5
OMO>^ii90t|(NOO<0
1 HNCOOilCOONHifllMOO
NOO^ONNHOOOOfflrt
1 OCO^fC35>OlOOO^H^HOO
OOCNeNi-lT-l^HCSjCNICNCNIi-l
NMlCitl^lOTfNlOlOOl
1 0«5<MOs»Ocoo»©OSi-Ht-™
CO<M(Mi-<i-<i-li-l<Mi-ceO]»-t
NNONTfOWOOOOOia
1 »-ccC>eOOC>»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<coasco»noo50cocoi-H
1 oaocor^-*t<-»fcn005i-i©t—
CO,CN<N1i-Ii-i^-HCN1t-i<MCO«
1 ©oseoor^^oscNoseoot-
MN«WHHHMHNNH
cc
CN
a
Cr
cr
e
M
o
CT
cr
CO
w
C
co
co
cr
CC
co
cr
CO
cr
OC
«
O
O
CO
CP
c
a
1-1
^3 6
£ 3 .2
t-. rC <-> 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 «OCO<OOO^HOOO
OOOiCOt^OiO
1 OOCOOOiC&OCO
000>OOOOiO»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<IOO«OCOI>-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><DNtocioooa>o
a
1 OC
OCNIOOO«OOkO>000
<MOCOt^COO»-HOOO>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<MOa>
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»C<M«*iO
I 0»00«OOOi-l05<N»-HO
oooifsioiooi— i>o
I O00CO00i-<O3C^i-l05
* ©>00»OiOU50»0»n
I OOOCOOOtH05C<I005
l-icqco-fiocot^oooi©
mncoKimMncom'*
01O3OJO)O301QO)O>01
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»-H<N'-IOO
8
©ot— oiraocNioioioio
1 OOlOC^O>OOOOCOC<t»-l©©
el
rt
t*
Uh
oS
OCOOO"500>0»0>010
o
oj
1 ■fOTfoooooMnHoo
00
©©»-l©U5©(MiOf~C<l>0
t~
1 OOt^-*f©0000<MCVi'-''-l©
o»
C<»OCOO«OOOOlOlfS»0«5
iO
1 NN^OOOOOOlCOINiHO
o
ioo>ooioiOoo»oic>o»o
»o
1 lOt^CO©OOOOOOC3<Mi-lO
o
0>©»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>
<J
W W OO ^ O « N
T-t <M •«* •"*< «5 W5 CO
U3
at
00
»o
o
o
lO
O
o
iO
0-1
CI
LO
00
eo
CO
CO
i.O
lO-*t<©lO<M©-<*<©CN
OCMCMCOCOCOt-^lO"*
*-!©©0©CDCN©
•*f^©.-i©iO«©t~
OHHMMeOON
co«5ioooif5»oe<i
OOOOOS'-ICOCOCN'-^
O>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
co
lO
*
CO
2
©<N©©CN©CM©©
^HMNlOlOO^lO
CM
iq
o
>o
o
o
<M
o
o
lO
3
co
eo
CO
>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 <M CO "* CN -rf -<*i CM
© © CO HO
CM US Tj< ~H
US © © O © © US
M O ^ M ifl U5 H
00 CO © © to i-l US
CM I ih ■* •* N ■* rj< rt
I <N I
o io n o k) ra m
© CO CO CM CM CO t-H
OH«W*U50N00010
COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO-*
0^»050SOiO>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 <N
>o ~« O CO O «S CO
IN TH TJI IO CO Tf H
IN <N IN IN IN <N IN
0-*Ot^OO"50
1
c
o o ira o o o» o
O) H H If) CO f H
H IN « N N IN IN
OOOWOOiOO
I O)O>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
©OiOOlOOOOO<M
1 0©-*fCOt^T-lrt<NOi
MIMNNNMMMM
1
0»OiO©iOCOOOt~-
©CO-^COt^O^CNCO
COi— I M N N to CO w n
O
CO
M
o
CO
cc
a
cc
a-
U!
a
CO
CO
O
o-
a
ex
cc
-
ec
cr
C
cr
CO
C)
CD
CM
CO
c~
CO
02
CO
CI
ec
cc
>o
CM
co
cl
cJ
O
CI
CI
<N © O
I>i •«*«' O
CN <N <N
Hi lO i-t CO m »o o
© -^ t- as © O co
N « IN N CO CO IN
30.6
24.0
23.6
co e n M« co io
i-i uo t^ c» O 00 b-
N N W N CO IN N
28.4
24.0
22.0
21.5
24.5
26.6
27.6
29.4
25.9
26.1
23.2
24.5
21 1
U! CO CO O CO N O
CO N if ID N CO CO
H IN IN N N « IN
22.0
23.1
18.5
17.1
18.9
23.5
25.5
27.5
23.5
21.5
22.0
22.4
16.3
17.0
18.4
23.5
25.5
27.5
23.5
21.5
23.9
22.4
18.7
17.5
19.6
23.5
25.5
28.0
25.1
21.5
OlOCOiOOOlOiOCOiON
>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
Ocoao<MC*q<M<M<Mooao
IOCOCO'-Ht-It-I.-Hi-ICOCO
O
NOOOONNNCONOOOO
NMMHHHMHCOW
&
CD
02
OOOOOIMC^(MOO<MOOOO
*— I CO CO *"H rH r— I CO »"H CO CO
bb
00000<M(M<MOOCMOOOO
OCOCO^rHi-HCO^COCO
"3
<M<X>OOCqO<MOO<MOOOO
OCOCOi-l'-l'-lcO'HCOCO
CD
d
1-8
OOOOONONONOOOO
ionrarHNiHMHnM
ccj
00500^HlO<MC<)!M030000
«5COCOCO<Mr-HCO<— ICMCOCO
ft
OU3050010NNNNOOOO
lor^cocoiMi-icoi-ii-icoco
c3
OOOOGO(M<M<M<M<MOOOO
iCNracoiNHCHrtcon
^2
CD
0©0000(MC^<M<MWOOOO
»o <^> 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<mcmcn
1
O^OOKJlOOOOOC
OOCSO^H-HCOCMCO
tea
1
COOOCMminC3T-<©
OOOOHNHIN^K
oc
1
©COOCM>-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 © -<f
<l « H
O m m m CD O t--
OS © CO CM -# CO C
r- o r-
^ CM CO
N N M lO 00 O 'jl
00 OS CO i-i CO CM C
10.0
10.1
8.5
lO t-i CO CO o •* O
t- OS T-l t-H rM T-l C
10 9
9.0
6.5
f~ in lO in in O m
U0 CO CS OS O i-i OS
13.5
10.4
6.9
n m oo in in x h
CD oo OS os i-t O C
15.0
11.8
8.8
•n co i-i co t^ o o
t^ OS i-l O CO CM >-
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 <N CI
to o to to OO
CM CO
CO O
lO 1-1
CO OS O CO t^
i-l CO i-l
m CM
CM «0
2 -2 m g
CO 00
CM
OS
CO
I>-
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~
<r> 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
<N~ cm" in" -cH
r -
©
30
a
CO
cc
CO
to
CO
-V
CO
r-
or
rH
00
© O0 CS t~~
o o o o
CO © © CO
OO N M
N IN iO
s m x
i-l <M lO
© cm" tn
CO CM © CO
■*f CO T-H T-H
CO 00 LO i-H
c-
_'
r^
so
OS
t-
©
CO
rH
CM
so
^
CC
to
^
m
1-1
—
1 -
CM
CO
ifl
CO
on
V
l~
t<
ro
CO
~
a
O0 -tH r- I ><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 <N
. N lO N
C) OO ■* W to rt U3
r-l t>- 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'
<M
o
■^H
00 COS <M
CO CM CO CO -*l CO
CM CI CM © CO CS to
■* M IN m •* o o
uo lO tO O OO O0 CM
(N © © ©" CS ©
CM
o
CN
Tt<
J<
r~
CO
r~
I—
r- '
-f
03
«>•
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 <M Tf
O0 CO © ©
•'
a
a
■-
r
5
C u O b 3 2 -~
CQ fe tf tn H Q g
OS 1-1
OS
c
»H
"* CM
t^
CO
r~- r—
/,
t^
'.'1
CI
CM
lO I~-
ec
(M CO
rt CO
os
•O CO
-r
,-,
"
CM
©
lO CO
§
m to
CI
CI
«o ^
CM
CM t^
to
--
uo >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 -<ti cc t^ tp
© iO © CO
O CN lO » lO rt CN
co os os cs co co i-i
lO CO Tf CO CO Ol CO
>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 <JO i— ( OS
N N K3
O CO OS l«
O CO b.
T-H CM OO CO i*l
-**i os os oo i-h
CM OO CO
O f O) OO
CO CO OS CM CO O
CO t^ CM O iH
CO OS 1*1 CM "*< t-i
© t- CM T-H 1*1 OS
CM lO r-l O i-H t- t-
CO CM CO i-l CO i-l i o
OO CO t-l OO lO t- I-
i~-T oo © ©" i*i cm' io"
CO O "*l CO O O CS
1C CO lO o
1*1 CM CO O CO lO O
CO OS CO CM OO
lO CM OO 1*1 CO t—
1*1 CO CO CO 1*1
O OS 1^ OO co
OO CO CM OO CM
o" co" t-T o oo"
t-h H CO CM CM
lO O OS O0 t^ t- i-l
r^ i-l CO CM CM
3 £
~ >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
<M
CO
cm"
OS t~ OS © OS ©
OS lO © CO © CO
CO CO Tfl OS CM
CO
cm"
848
83
337
564
681
411
2,924
Broilers
Fryers
Roasters
Fowls
Turkeys
Miscellaneous
"c
OS
CO
CI
CO
1 -
c
OS
CI
-.o
lO
co'
lO N Ol N H OO
i* O CO H M O
CO H OO MS
CM
OS
■* O OS M O O)
O © © CO r* CO
© i-l i-H 00 lO CO
CM
CM
CO
1,281
52
169
797
723
719
If
CO
1,207
124
147
806
913
686
CO
oo
CO
935
91
188
734
1,155
560
CO
CO
co
CO
CO CO O N O N
HI t> 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
00
1 -
rt OO i-H
-«f OS
t-
o
OS t—
CO i-H
CM
00
I©
m f^ CM
^
OS
t— »-l
00 CO
*
CJ
■*!
CM
rt
m
M N ■*
Tf •"*!
p-
os
oo co
OS CM
00 CO
in
CO
,H
o
© 00 <N
CM I>
m
OS .-< >-
CO CO
CO
OO l>
*-*
co
■"H
CM
Tm '
o
CO CM C
<M O"
O
CO
CO rt CN
OS C
OS
1—1
■*
r
£
cr
2
a
r
' rr
a
'c
t-
a.
1
c
01
B
C
C3S
oe
cr
a.
i -
o
CO
o
1,131
156
315
925
102
77
959
m
CO
CO
co'
1,198
111
273
904
202
58
967
co
CO
1,282
106
314
752
425
55
865
OS
OS
t^
CO
1,273
109
299
659
774
32
847
CO
OS
OS
CO
1,056
103
282
570
1,138
28
699
CO
oo
00
CM (M -^ OO i-H CO O
W OO O 'X ■# N f
in co -f co •«»<
CO
CO
N « 9 O C9 <D N
N ^ X O ^i CC CO
i-h cm ^ in co
OS
CM
171
32
245
470
2,041
35
308
3,302
206
48
213
528
2,910
49
410
4,364
CM i-l OS t* CM O T<
i^ tji o as i-h co oo
CM CM if OS «C
OS
CC
in
CO
co -f o cm co -»f in
•**< m -«*< os -* r-~ t-
co n ■* co in
CM
CM
a
'c
pq
or
-
>
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