UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AFFECTING T URKE Y MARKETING IN CALIFORNIA J. M. TINLEY and E. C VOORHIES BULLETIN 612 August 1937 CONTRIBUTION FROM THE GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA CONTENTS PAGE Turkey production in the United States 3 Turkey numbers in the United States 3 Geographic shifts in turkey numbers 5 Geographic shifts in relation to human population 7 Annual production since 1924 11 Production of all types of poultry 13 Location of turkey production 16 United States 16 California 19 Methods of marketing turkeys 22 San Francisco area 24 The Los Angeles turkey market 26 Price determination and price quotations 30 The San Francisco market 30 The Los Angeles market . . * 31 Trend of turkey prices in the United States 36 Turkey-production trend in relation to trend of human population 37 Changes in buying power and consumption habits 41 Regional trends in farm prices of turkeys 42 Annual changes in turkey prices 47 Seasonal variations in farm prices of turkeys 51 Seasonal price' movements for agricultural products generally 51 Two seasonal movements for farm prices of turkeys 52 Seasonal variations of turkey prices in wholesale markets 60 Comparison of various wholesale quotations in Los Angeles 60 Comparison of seasonal price movements in Los Angeles and San Francisco . . 65 New York market 65 Cold-storage holdings of turkeys and chickens 67 Marketing costs and margins 72 Summary and conclusions 74 Acknowledgments 78 [2] ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AFFECTING TURKEY MARKETING IN CALIFORNIA 3 J. M. TINLEY 3 and E. C. VOOKHIES 4 Toward the end of 1935, the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, University of California, was re- quested by various organizations connected with the poultry industry in California to undertake a study of poultry-meat marketing in the state. Although this study was primarily concerned with the marketing of chickens, it was found necessary to give some attention to the mar- keting of other types of poultry, especially turkeys. As the study pro- gressed, it was found that the marketing of turkeys presented so many problems distinctly different from those involved in the marketing of chickens that a separate investigation was justified. In response to re- quests from turkey producers in southern California, it was decided to give precedence to this phase of the study. TURKEY PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES Turkeys are produced and consumed in all parts of the United States. Moreover, turkeys move freely in trade from surplus-production areas to the large consuming centers. It is thus necessary to consider the tur- key industry in California in its relation to turkey production and mar- keting in the United States as a whole. Turkey Numbers in the United States. — Data on turkey production are not available prior to 1890. The census of that year was the first to enumerate turkey numbers on farms. The 1900, 1910, and 1920 censuses, together with the Agricultural Census of 1935, also enumerated turkey numbers on farms. The Agricultural Census of 1925 had no data on tur- keys, whereas the 1930 Census enumerated turkeys raised during the year 1929. For this reason the data on turkeys in the 1930 Census are not comparable with the data in the other censuses. Another difficulty in analyzing the trend of turkey production since 1890 is the fact that the various censuses were taken on different dates : the 1890 and 1900 censuses on June 1 ; the 1910 Census on April 15 ; and the 1920 Census 1 Eeceived for publication April 27, 1937. 2 Paper No. 64, the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics. 3 Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, Associate Agricultural Econo- mist in the Experiment Station, and Associate Agricultural Economist on the Gian- nini Foundation. 4 Professor of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station, and Agricultural Economist on the Giannini Foundation. [3] 4 University of California — Experiment Station together with the Agricultural Census of 1935 on January 1. As the bulk of turkeys produced each year is marketed during the months of October to December, and as most young turkeys (poults) are hatched during February to May, turkey numbers on farms are lowest in January. The 1890 Census enumerated 10,754,000 turkeys on farms. The next three censuses showed a marked decline to only 3,627,000 in 1920 (table 1). Part of the decrease in the number of turkeys on farms between TABLE 1 Turkeys on Farms in the United States by Geographic Divisions* Geographic division North Atlantic East north central West north central South Atlantic South central. Mountain Pacific United States. California 1890, Junel 1900, Junel 1910, Apr. 15 1920, Jan. 1 1935, Jan. 1 Number in thousands (i.e., 000 omitted) 1,246 530 277 174 2,462 1,501 701 427 2,864 1,571 833 860 1,571 811 527 550 2,210 1,876 1,105 1,209 52 82 87 173 349 224 159 234 10,754 6,595 3,689 3,627 288 158 117 175 250 446 1,349 579 1,486 444 828 5,382 596 1890 1900 1910 1920 1935 Per cent of United States total 11.6 22.9 26.6 14.7 20.5 0.5 3.2 100.0 2.7 8.0 7.5 4.8 22.8 19.0 11.8 23.8 22.6 23.7 12.3 14.3 15.2 28.5 29.9 33.3 1.2 2.4 4.8 3.4 4.3 6.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 2.4 3.3 4.8 4.6 8.3 25.1 10.8 27.6 8.2 15.4 100.0 11.1 Number of turkeys in 1935 as per cent of number in 1890 20.1 18.1 47.1 36.8 67.2 853.8 237.3 50.0 207.0 * In the 1925 Agricultural Census and the Census of 1930, turkeys on farms were not enumerated. Sources of data: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Censuses of 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920. and the Agricultural Census of 1935. 1890 and 1920 was probably due to the change in dates of the various censuses ; most of the decline, however, represented a marked decrease in turkey production. Correction of census data was made by the United States Department of Agriculture in 1924 to allow for differences in the time of taking the census. The corrected figures show turkey numbers on farms in 1890 of about 8,700,000, in 1900 of 6,600,000, in 1910 of 3,700,000, and in 1920 of 3,500,000. With regard to the decrease in tur- key numbers between 1890 and 1920, and the reasons for it, Jull et al. make the following statement : . . . Although the census enumerations were taken at different times of the year, the totals are fairly representative of the trend in numbers. . . . The rearing of the young stock [turkeys], in some respects at least, requires more detailed attention than is the case with most other classes of poultry. The pre- Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 5 valence of blackhead has been a dominant factor. The birds range widely and fre- quently trespass upon the property of neighbors, the vexation tending to discourage turkey raising. Finally, little attention has been given the important problems of the industry by investigators and others interested. 5 The Agricultural Census of 1935 (January 1) shows 5,382,000 tur- keys on farms, a substantial increase since 1920 but only about half the number shown in 1890. While these figures undoubtedly indicate a sub- stantial increase of production since 1920, part of the increase may be due to a change in breeding and feeding practices, especially in the west- ern part of the United States. These states and especially California have within recent years tended to specialize in the production of turkey eggs for hatching purposes. Large quantities of turkey eggs are shipped annually from California to hatcheries in midwestern and eastern states. For this reason, a larger number of turkeys are now kept after the Thanksgiving and Christmas marketing season each year for breeding purposes than was formerly the case. 6 Another factor which may account for the increased number of tur- keys shown on farms on January 1, 1935, may be the tendency for a more uniform year-round consumption of turkey meat. In earlier years the great bulk of turkeys was consumed during the months of November and December. During the past few years, while the heaviest consump- tion of turkeys is still at Thanksgiving and Christmas, it has become the custom of restaurants and hotels to carry turkey on their menus all the year. In order to care for this trade, turkey raisers have had to modify their breeding and feeding practices so as to have some turkeys ready for market each month of the year. Geographic Shifts in Turkey Numbers. — Equally significant as the marked decline in the number of turkeys on farms since 1890 is the change in the relative number of turkeys in the various geographic divi- sions of the United States (fig. 1). In 1890 about 49.5 per cent of all turkeys on farms were in the east north central and west north central divisions combined, another 20.5 per cent in the south central, 14.7 per cent in the south Atlantic, and 11.6 per cent in the north Atlantic divi- sions. The mountain and Pacific states together had only 3.7 per cent of all turkeys in the United States. In 1935 the east north central and west north central divisions had only 33.4 per cent, the south Atlantic 10.8 5 Jull, M. A., et al. The poultry industry. In: United States Department of Agricul- ture. Agriculture Yearbook 1924:415-16. 1925. The corrected figures in the previous paragraph were calculated from figure 7, p. 387, of the same article. 6 W. E. Newlon, Poultry Specialist in Agricultural Extension, University of Cali- fornia, estimates that in 1936 about 4,000,000 turkey eggs were shipped out of Cali- fornia to hatcheries in other states. 6 University of California — Experiment Station per cent, and the north Atlantic A. 6 per cent of all turkeys on farms. 7 About 27.6 per cent of all turkeys in that year were in the south central states and 23.6 per cent in the mountain and Pacific states. All the divi- sions, except the mountain and Pacific divisions, showed declines in tur- key numbers between 1890 and 1935 ranging from about 33 per cent for the south central division to approximately 80 per cent for the east north central division. In contrast, the number of turkeys in the mountain division in 1935 was about 850 per cent higher than in 1890 and in the Pacific division Fig. 1. — Percentage of all turkeys in the United States by geographic divisions, 1890-1935. (Data from table 1.) * about 237 per cent higher. Thus, in the face of a drastic decline in turkey numbers in the rest of the United States since 1890, the mountain and Pacific divisions show a several-fold increase in numbers. A large part of this increase in the two western divisions took place during the past twenty-five years and especially since 1920. In the mountain division, turkey numbers doubled between 1910 and 1920 and increased about two and a half times between 1920 and 1935, while in the Pacific division, numbers increased more than three and a half times during the latter period. These figures indicate that the expansion process in turkey numbers is still under way in the mountain and Pacific divisions and that the next 7 According to statements by H. L. Shrader, Senior Extension Husbandman, Ex- tension Service, United States Department of Agriculture, there has been a marked revival of turkey production in the north Atlantic states since 1935. Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California few years will show a still further advance in the relative importance of these two divisions of the United States in regard to turkey production. This development is of great significance, as will be shown later (p. 42- 47), in interpreting past and future turkey-price trends in California. In 1890 California had 288,000 turkeys, or about three-fourths the turkeys on farms in the Pacific division. In 1935 this state had 596,000 turkeys, the proportion being about the same as in 1890. About 2.7 per TABLE 2 Human Population of the United States by Geographic Divisions* Geographic division North Atlantic East north central West north central South Atlantic South central. Mountain Pacific United States. California 1890 1900 1910 1920 1935 Human population in thousands (i.e., 000 omitted) 17,407 13,478 8,932 8,858 11,170 1,215 1,888 62,948 1,213 21,047 25,868 29,662 15,986 18,251 21,476 10,347 11,638 12,544 10,444 12,195 13,990 14,080 17,194 19,136 1,674 2,634 3,336 2,417 4,192 5,567 75,995 91,972 105,711 1,485 2,378 3,427 35,740 25,522 13,661 17,360 23,250 3,706 8,280 127,521 5,639 1890 1900 1910 1920 1935 Per cent of total for United States 27.7 21.4 14.2 14.1 17.7 1.9 3.0 100.0 1.9 27.7 28.1 28.0 21.0 19.8 20.6 13.7 12.7 10.8 13.7 13.3 12.9 18.5 18.7 18.0 2.2 2.9 3.1 3.2 4.5 5.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 2.0 2.6 3.2 28.0 20.0 10.7 13.6 18.2 2.9 6.5 100.0 4.4 Popula- tion in 1935 as per cent of that in 1890 205.3 189.4 152.9 196.0 208.1 305.0 438.6 202.6 464.9 * Years 1925 and 1930 not included because data on turkeys on farms were not enumerated in the Agricultural Census of 1925 and the Census of 1930. Sources of data: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Censuses of 1890, 1900, 1910, and 1920. United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1935. 1935. cent of all turkeys on farms in the United States in 1890 were in Cali- fornia and approximately 11.1 per cent in 1935. Geographic Shifts in Relation to Human Population. — These data on turkeys on farms in the various geographic divisions assume even greater significance when contrasted with the proportion of United States popu- lation in these divisions. The estimated population of the United States for 1935 is approximately 127,500,000, or over twice as great as that in 1890 (table 2), whereas numbers of turkeys on farms were only half as much. This indicates a very marked decline in per-capita consumption. Since 1890 the north Atlantic division has had about 28.0 per cent of the total United States population, the east north central division about 20.0 per cent, and the south central division about 18.0 per cent. The proportion of total population in the west north central division de- 8 University of California — Experiment Station clined from 14.2 per cent in 1890 to 10.7 per cent in 1935 ; in the south Atlantic division from 14.1 per cent in 1890 to 12.9 per cent in 1920, with an increase to 13.6 per cent in 1935. Both the mountain and the Pacific divisions have shown an increase in relative population since 1890. In that year they had only 4.9 per cent of the total population in contrast with 9.4 per cent in 1935 (table 2) . A rough approximation of the relative importance of the various geo- graphic divisions as surplus and deficit areas (areas in which the supply of turkeys is in excess of or below local consumption needs) can be obtained by dividing the percentages of all turkeys on farms in each TABLE 3 Ratio of Percentage of Population to Percentage of Turkeys on Farms* Geographic division 1890 1900 1910 1920 1935 North Atlantic 41.9 107.0 187.3 104.3 115.8 26.3 106.7 142 1 28.9 108.6 173.7 89.8 154.1 54.5 106.2 120.0 26.7 96.0 169.9 107.5 159.9 82.8 95.6 126.9 17.1 58.1 199.2 115.2 184.0 154.8 120.8 150 16.4 East north central 40.1 West north central 234.6 South Atlantic 83.7 South central 155.1 Mountain Pacific 273.3 223.2 California 226.5 * Obtained by dividing the per cent of total United States population (for each census) into the per cent of all turkeys on farms (for each census) and multiplying by 100. If an area were exactly self- contained (that is, produced just sufficient turkeys to meet the average per-capita consumption of tur- keys in the United States), the result of the division would equal 100. Figures in excess of 100 indicate the extent of surplus and those less than 100 the extent of deficit in supplies. Sources of data : Tables 1 and 2. division by the corresponding percentages of total population in each division and multiplying the resultant figures by 100 (table 3). If the figure for any census year and for any division were approximately equal to 100, the area would be about self-contained in the production of turkeys ; in other words, the volume of turkey meat produced would approximately equal the volume of turkey meat consumed in that area. This involves two important assumptions : The first is that per-capita consumption of turkeys is about the same in all parts of the United States ; the second, that percentages of turkeys on farms in each division are a close approximation to the percentages of all turkeys produced and available for consumption in each division. With these assumptions in mind table 3 indicates that the north At- lantic division produced 41.9 per cent of its turkey requirements in 1890 and only 16.4 per cent in 1935. The east north central states produced just about enough turkeys to meet consumption needs up to 1910, but have since become increasingly a deficit area. In 1920 they produced a little more than 50 per cent and in 1935 less than 50 per cent of their Bul, 612] Turkey Marketing in California requirements. The south Atlantic division has fluctuated from a small surplus to a small deficit area. The west north central and the south central divisions have, since 1890, been the two main surplus areas. In 1935 over half the turkeys produced in the west north central and about one-third of those produced in the south Atlantic states were surplus. Up to 1910 the mountain and Pacific divisions taken together were deficit areas. In 1920, however, one-third of the production in the moun- tain division and one-sixth of the production in the Pacific division were TABLE 4 Average Annual Per-Capita Consumption of Geographic Divisions, 1918 Poultry -1919* in Pounds by Commodity North Atlantic South Atlantic North central South central Western United States Chickens 5.02 0.58 5.60 5.84 0.57 6.41 4.65 0.54 5.19 4.56 0.50 5.06 4.04 1.04 5.08 4.78 Other poultry All poultry 0.63 5.41 *It is the relation between these figures and not the actual figures which are important. The consumption of poultry meat would, of course, vary annually in accordance with changes in the numbers of turkeys and other types of poultry produced and marketed. Source of data: United States Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Yearbook 1924:1126. Table 709. 1925. surplus. In 1935 nearly two-thirds of the production in the mountain and over one-half of the production in the Pacific divisions were surplus. The assumptions on which the above estimates were based have to be modified to correspond more closely to known facts. In the first place, per-capita consumption of turkey meat is probably not the same in all parts of the United States. In the years 1918 and 1919 the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics, in collaboration with the National War Labor Board, made a nationwide study of the per-capita consumption of foodstuffs. The data on consumption of poul- try products are summarized in table 4. These data indicate that while the western division (mountain and Pacific divisions combined) had the lowest per-capita consumption of chickens, its consumption of other poultry was nearly twice as high as that in the other major divisions. Other poultry includes mainly turkeys, ducks, geese, and guinea fowl. In 1920 these states accounted for only 5.3 per cent of all ducks, about 3.0 per cent of all geese, and only 1.3 per cent of all guinea fowl on farms in the United States, but 11.2 per cent of all turkeys. 8 It thus seems reason- able to assume that "other poultry" would consist mainly of turkey meat. While these data refer to conditions during the years 1918 and 1919, 8 Data summarized from the 1920 Census. 10 University of California — Experiment Station there is no reason to believe that the relative importance of turkey-meat consumption in the western states has declined since that time. On the contrary, the widespread consumption of turkeys during most of the year in California and other western states, and the relatively lower prices, as will be shown later (table 13) may actually have increased the relative volume of turkey-meat consumption in this division. It is thus safe to assume that per-capita consumption of turkeys in the western division is still about twice as high as in other parts of the United States. In the second place, the percentages of turkeys on farms in the dif- ferent geographic regions may not correspond at all closely with the percentages of all turkeys produced in these regions. The correspond- ence may have been fairly close in the earlier censuses, but because of the trend in recent years of specialized turkey-egg raising in the western states, particularly California, the percentage of all turkeys on farms for this division would probably be somewhat higher than the percent- age of all turkeys raised. In other words, the data in table 1 for the year 1935 probably tend to overstate the increase in the relative importance of the mountain and Pacific divisions since 1920. The above data on regional trends of production of turkeys and popu- lation since 1890, interpreted in the light of regional differences in per- capita consumption, would seem to warrant the following conclusions : 1. Before 1920, the west north central and the south central geo- graphic divisions of the United States constituted the main surplus areas. Surplus turkeys tended to move from these divisions easterly to the north Atlantic and south Atlantic divisions and westerly to the mountain and Pacific Coast divisions. 2. In 1920, while the mountain and the Pacific divisions together had a ratio of percentage of turkeys to percentage of population of 133.3 to 100 (table 3) , the fact that per-capita consumption in these two divisions was twice as great as in other divisions would have required a ratio of about 200 to 100 for these divisions to have been self-sustaining, that is, to have produced sufficient turkeys to meet consumption requirements. 3. By 1935, the surplus area had widened to include the mountain division as well as the west north central and south central divisions, whereas the Pacific division had become about self-sustaining. In 1935 the mountain division had a ratio of percentage of turkeys on farms to percentage of population of 273.3 to 100 and the Pacific division a ratio of 223.2 to 100. 9 9 The Pacific division had most of the turkeys kept for specialized egg production. Thus the percentage of all turkeys on farms was probably somewhat higher than the percentage of all turkeys produced. Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 11 4. The trend of relative turkey production in the two western divisions is still upwards. If this trend is maintained, it is not unlikely that within the next few years even the Pacific division may become a surplus re- gion. If and when this occurs, the movement of turkeys will be from the Pacific division easterly to the Atlantic states. Annual Production since 1924. — The above conclusions, based on an interpretation of census data relative to the number of turkeys on farms, TABLE 5 Turkeys and Chickens : Estimates of Number Baised in the United States, 1924-1936 Turkeys Chickens, numbers raised in thousands (i.e., 000 omitted) Year Turkeys Year Estimated per cent of previous year Indicated number raised in thousands (i.e., 000 omitted) Estimated per cent of previous year Indicated number raised in thousands (i.e., 000 omitted; Chickens, numbers raised in thousands (i.e., 000 omitted) 1924 1925 96.0 101.0 95.3 103.6 109.2 97.0 16,000 15,350 15,510 14,800 15,350 16,794 16,290 545,848 608,268 643,649 672,123 627,357 673,070 653,101 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 101.7 113.1 100.0 92.0 87.0 133.0 16,560 18,740 18,740 17,250 15,010 20,000 629,275 656,007 664,383 592,185 624,148 675,000f 1926 1927 1928 1929* 1930 * From 1930 Census, t Tentative. Source of data: United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates. Number of turkeys raised. April, 1935, and October, 1936. (Mimeo.) are further substantiated by approximations of the number of turkeys raised annually made by the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics 10 (table 5 and fig. 2) . These estimates, made since 1924, are not available in recent years by states. They have a further disadvantage arising out of the method by which they are de- rived. The figures for any one year would seem to serve, at best, as only a rough approximation of the turkey production in that year. These 10 The method used for arriving at these approximations is as follows : "The United States Census of 1930 issued figures on production of turkeys by states in 1929. . . . No annual quantitative estimates of turkey production have been made by this Bureau. However, an indication of annual per cent of change in num- bers raised, for the United States as a whole, has been derived from the responses to an inquiry included each year in the September questionnaire to crop reporters, ask- ing for the number of turkeys in their own flocks on hand for market. Applying these indicated percentages of change to the number of turkeys raised in 1929 as re- ported by the United States Census Bureau, an approximation of numbers raised annually is obtained. . . ." (United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates. Number of tur- keys raised. 1 p. April, 1935. Mimeo.) 12 University of California — Experiment Station figures, however, would serve as a fairly reliable indication of the gen- eral trend of turkey production since 1924. The census data on turkeys on farms show that, while the trend of production of turkeys between 1890 and 1920 was downwards, sometime between 1920 and 1935 the movement was reversed. The approximations made by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics indicate that the down- 700i — 650 S600 550 20 19 •n IRKEYS A* 18 § 3 16 15 14 ^ <- .-** — t-Trei id ^ f*~ CM O to to r-l CM to M 1 io to to CO V J to to o o> a > o> o> Fig. 2. — Estimated numbers of chickens and turkeys raised annually in the United States, 1924-1936. (Data from table 5.) Bui* 612] Turkey Marketing in California 13 ward trend may have continued up to 1927 ; since then the trend has been distinctly upward. The period for which these data are available is, however, too short to permit of any conclusions as to whether the up- ward trend since 1927 is likely to continue. Production of All Types of Poultry. — While the consumption of cer- tain types of poultry is largely of a seasonal nature, turkey meat un- doubtedly comes into competition with other types of poultry meat. Therefore, the trend of turkey production should be considered in rela- tion to the trend of production of other types of poultry. During the period 1890 to 1920, numbers of ducks and geese on farms TABLE 6 Poultry on Farms in the United States Census date 1890, June 1 1900, June 1 . . . . 1910, June 1 . . . . 1920, April 15... 1935. January 1. Poultry on farms Turkeys Ducks Geese Chickens Thousands (i.e., 000 omitted) 10,754 7,554 8,440 6,595 4,786 5,677 3,689 2,907 4,432 3,627 2,818 3,939 5,382 * — 258,871 233,566 280,341 359,537 371 , 603 As per cent of number in 1890 Turkeys 61.3 34.3 33.7 50.0 Ducks 63.4 38.5 37.3 Geese 67.3 52.5 46.7 Chickens 90.2 108.3 138.9 143.5 * Dashes indicate data not available. Sources of data: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Censuses of 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920, and the Agricultural Census of 1935. in the United States declined almost as rapidly as numbers of turkeys (table 6). Numbers of chickens, on the other hand, increased 38.9 per cent. In 1935 the number of turkeys on farms was only 50.0 per cent of the number in 1890, whereas there were 43.5 per cent more chickens. The 1935 Agricultural Census did not enumerate ducks and geese on farms. The fact that the relative decline in numbers of ducks and geese on farms has been nearly as great as that for turkeys indicates that con- sumers are not using these two types of poultry in place of turkeys. Con- sumption of chickens, on the other hand, has become relatively more important. It should be noted, however, that while chicken numbers on farms increased only 43.5 per cent between the years 1890 and 1935, human population more than doubled. Thus, per-capita consumption of chickens has declined, but the relative decline has not been nearly as great as that for turkeys, ducks, and geese. Very little direct correlation seems apparent between the year-to-year fluctuations in turkey and chicken production (table 5 and fig. 2). This 14 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 7 Turkeys Raised in 1929 by States and Geographic Divisions State Population in thousands (i.e., 000 omitted) Number of farms reporting turkeys Number of turkeys Average number of turkeys per farm Average number of turkeys per 100 of population 1 2 3 4 5 North Atlantic division Maine New Hampshire 795 464 359 4,221 681 1,590 12,427 3,977 9,565 948 805 1,247 1,383 292 1,040 8,348 1,333 12,741 25,481 19,460 28,549 61,396 12,784 24,433 ■ 166,721 31,609 175,089 26.9 24.2 22.9 44.4 43.8 23 5 20.0 23.7 13.7 19.4 73.7 3.2 4.2 Vermont 8.0 Massachusetts Rhode Island 1.5 1.9 Connecticut 1.5 New York New Jersey Pennsylvania 1.3 8 1.8 Total or average 34,079 28.0 28,137 4-4 545,522 3 2 1.6 Per cent of United States total . . . 11.8 East north central division Ohio 6,582 3,216 7,547 4,756 2,917 10,691 8,462 6,707 13,108 8,584 177,322 129,742 91,487 229,640 177,116 16.6 15.3 13.6 17.5 20.6 16.9 64-2 2.7 Indiana 4.0 Illinois 1.2 Michigan Wisconsin 4.8 6.1 Total or average Per cent of United States total . . . 25,018 20.6 47,552 7.5 805,307 4-8 3.2 23.2 West north central division Minnesota Iowa Missouri North Dakota 2,551 2,466 3,613 678 689 1,372 1,873 35,274 6,702 14,732 38,900 15,813 8,699 15,385 1,306,058 111,981 245,147 1,457,930 460,106 250,000 319,480 37.0 16.7 16.6 37.5 29.1 28.7 20.8 30.6 116.3 51.2 4.5 6.8 215 South Dakota. 66.8 Nebraska Kansas 18.2 17.1 Total or average Per cent of United States total . . . 13,242 10.9 135,505 21. S 4,150,702 84.7 31.3 226.8 {Table continued on next page) Sources of data: Col. 1: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1930.1930. Cols. 2 and 3: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Agriculture. The western states, vol. 2(3) :67. 1932. Col. 4: Col. 3 divided by col. 2. Col. 5: Col. 3 divided by col. 1. TABLE 7— (Concluded) 15 State Population in thousands (i.e., 000 omitted) Number of farms reporting turkeys Number of turkeys Average number of turkeys per farm Average number of turkeys per 100 of population South Atlantic division Delaware Maryland District of Columbia Virginia West Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Florida Total or average Per cent of United States total 237 1,618 483 2,414 1,710 3,126 1,735 2,908 1,432 15,663 12.9 98,412 15.4 2,239 60,714 9,718 278,579 30,331 527,715 11,214 182,522 19,453 205,300 10,430 80,235 10,834 85,731 4,193 68,689 1,489,485 8.9 27.1 28.7 17.4 16.3 10.6 7.7 7.9 16.4 15.1 57.4 25.6 17.2 21.9 10 6 4 2 4 9.5 68.8 South central division Kentucky Tennessee Alabama Mississippi Arkansas Louisiana Oklahoma Texas Total or average Per cent of United States total . 2,600 2,596 2,624 1,994 1,847 2,079 2,369 5,740 21,849 18.0 26,318 13,028 15,538 11,322 6,882 4,516 34,514 125,204 237,322 37.2 383,138 156,470 142,894 85,010 55,635 27,430 804,262 3,782,912 5,437,751 32.4 14.6 12.0 9.2 7 5 8.1 6 1 23.3 30.2 22.9 87.1 14.7 6.0 5.4 4.3 3.0 1.3 33.9 65.9 24.9 180.4 Mountain division Montana Idaho Wyoming Colorado New Mexico Arizona Utah Nevada Total or average Per cent of United States total 538 444 223 1,029 419 428 504 90 3,675 3.0 12,900 9,384 5,320 15,508 4,301 2,080 3,897 1,194 54,584 8.6 442,259 516,976 233,016 547,789 124,361 83,818 228,483 89,573 2,266,275 13.5 41.5 157.8 34.3 82.2 55.1 116.4 43.8 104.5 35.3 53.2 28.9 29.7 40.3 19.6 58.6 45.3 75.0 99.5 61.7 447.1 Pacific division Washington Oregon California Total or average Per cent of United States total Total, United States 1,548 941 5,513 8,002 6.6 121,526 6,447 10,016 19,776 36,239 5.7 637,843 251,713 600,359 1,246,993 2,099,065 12.5 16,794,485 39.0 59.9 63.1 57.9 220.1 26.3 16.3 63.8 22.6 26.2 189.9 13 8 See page 14 for sources of data. 16 University of California — Experiment Station is to be expected because chicken production is likely to be governed more directly by fluctuations in the profitability of producing eggs, whereas turkey production is governed more directly by the profitabil- ity of producing turkey meat. Furthermore, in many parts of the United States, especially in the south central and western regions, turkeys and chickens are raised by different groups of producers and in different areas. Turkey and chicken production, therefore, are not directly com- petitive. Chicken producers do not readily change to the production of turkeys when chicken and egg prices are low relative to those of turkeys, nor can turkey producers readily change to the production of chickens when the reverse situation occurs. LOCATION OF TURKEY PRODUCTION United States. — Further light on the relative importance of turkey pro- duction in the different divisions and states can be obtained from data in the 1930 Census. These data indicate that some 637,840 farms pro- duced turkeys in 1929 (table 7). About 37.2 per cent of these farms were in the south central division, 21.3 per cent in the west north cen- tral division, and 15.4 per cent in the south Atlantic division. The north Atlantic and east north central divisions had only 4.4 and 7.5 per cent, respectively, of all farms producing turkeys, the mountain division 8.6 per cent, and the Pacific division only 5.7 per cent. The total number of turkeys produced in the United States in 1929 was 16,794,485, of which 32.4 per cent was in the south central division and 24.7 per cent in the west north central division. The north Atlantic, east north central, and south Atlantic divisions together had only 16.9 per cent of all turkeys produced. The mountain division and the Pacific division had, however, 26.0 per cent of all turkeys, the number being nearly equally divided between the two divisions. Five states — Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, and Cali- fornia — together had about 8,598,000 turkeys, or just over 51 per cent of all turkeys produced in the United States in 1929. Texas alone had over 20 per cent of all turkeys (fig. 3) . The Pacific division had the highest number of turkeys per farm — 57.9 turkeys per farm as compared with 41.5 in the mountain division, 22.9 in the south central division, and an average for the United States as a whole of only 26.3 turkeys per farm. These data appear to substan- tiate the views of persons in the poultry industry that turkey produc- tion in the mountain and the Pacific States is more highly specialized and commercialized than in other parts of the United States. Additional information on the relative importance of the different Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 17 divisions as surplus and deficit areas can be obtained by showing the number of turkeys produced per 100 of population in each state and in each geographic division. In 1929 the average production of turkeys per 100 of population for the United States as a whole was 13.8, with a range of from 0.8 turkey in New Jersey to 215.0 turkeys in North Dakota (fig. 4). The mountain division had the largest (61.7) and the north Atlantic division the lowest (1.6) production per 100 of population. The /***••• • • • .• t\ • / " — ^4 . . V- ~ ~ — i — * * • • • \ . \ • • I r f • • • • • I S • . \ •• . I * * * • i <~> ••.(•• • •.* * / /•*.•. | • • . .* \ — • ••••••••• I* • • • I . ^ ( tach dot - 25,000 turkeys Fig. 3. — Turkeys raised in the United States, 1929. (Data from table 7.) average production of turkeys per 100 of population in the Pacific divi- sion was 26.2 and in California 22.6. If the per-capita consumption of turkeys in the mountain and the Pacific division is assumed to be twice as great as that for the United States as a whole, then the Pacific division would have required a pro- duction of 27.6 turkeys per 100 of population in order to have been entirely self -sustained in 1929. Instead, the production was only 26.2 turkeys per 100, which indicated a slight deficit of production under con- sumption needs. In California there were only 22.6 turkeys per 100. In the mountain division, however, there was a substantial surplus of pro- duction over consumption requirements, production being 61.7 turkeys per 100 of population and consumption requirements, only 27.6. The mountain and Pacific divisions together had 37.4 turkeys per 100, which indicated that these two divisions as a whole were in a surplus position in 1929. This bears out the conclusions arrived at above in considering trends 18 University of California — Experiment Station of turkey numbers on farms since 1890. The relative position of the states in the mountain and Pacific divisions has undoubtedly undergone some modification since 1929. The larger commercial hatcheries in the mountain division showed a 123.6 per cent increase in the number of poults hatched in 1936 over the number hatched in 1935. The 1935 fig- ures on poults hatched in turn were 112.9 per cent higher than the fig- ures for 1934. In the Pacific division the number of poults hatched in LECEND PER 100 POPULATION 0.0 - 5 CD 5.1 - 10.0 10. 1 - 20.0 20 1 - 30.0 30.1 - 60.0 60.1 - OVER Fig. 4. — Turkeys raised per 100 of population, 1929. (Data from table 7.) 1936 was about 33.9 per cent greater than in 1935, which in turn was 45.4 per cent higher than that of 1934. These data are particularly sig- nificant because the hatcheries in the Pacific division hatch around 40 per cent of all poults reported by hatcheries in the United States. 11 It would thus appear that there has been a marked increase in turkey pro- duction in the two western divisions during the past few years. In the United States as a whole, the number of poults hatched in com- mercial hatcheries has increased for six consecutive years. Whether this represents an increase in turkey production, however, or merely a trend away from farm hatching of turkeys is uncertain. Lack of more detailed data prevents a closer analysis of the effect of this increase upon the relative positions of the various divisions in re- gard to turkey production. More than likely, however, if this marked 11 United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Turkeys hatched by commercial hatcheries in 1935 and 1936. 2 p. July 2, 1936. (Mimeo.) Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 19 upward trend in production of turkeys in the Pacific division continues during the next few years, this division will become a surplus area, and thus, as will be pointed o^it later (p. 47), will probably have the lowest farm prices for turkeys in the United States. California. — If attention is confined more particularly to California, it is found that in 1929 about 37.4 per cent of all turkeys raised in the state were produced in the Sacramento Valley counties. The next most TABLE 8 Number of Turkeys Raised per Farm in California, 1929 Region and county North coast Del Norte Humboldt Mendocino Sonoma Sacramento Valley Tehama Glenn Butte Lake Colusa Sutter Yuba Napa Yolo Solano Sacramento San Francisco Bay region Marin Contra Costa San Francisco Alameda San Mateo South coast Santa Cruz Santa Clara Monterey San Benito • San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Northern San Joaquin Valley San Joaquin Stanislaus Merced Madera Farms report- ing Turkeys raised Turkeys per farm 1,241 44,788 36.1 14 194 13.9 183 4,871 26.6 447 19,995 44.7 597 19,728 33.0 4,198 465,959 111.0 578 109,938 190.2 622 91,550 147.2 481 41,032 85.3 256 17,726 69.2 298 26,940 90.4 349 29,994 85.9 180 23,829 132.4 238 22,338 93.9 424 32,668 77.0 280 12,291 43.9 492 57,653 117.2 669 18.0S1 27.0 154 5,071 32.9 268 6,901 25.7 2 5 2.5 178 4,703 26.4 67 1,401 20.9 1,343 55,043 41.0 95 2,397 25.0 290 8,198 28.3 235 9,582 40.8 112 4,137 36.8 439 27,514 62.7 172 3,215 18.7 2,722 141,823 52.1 709 38,596 54.4 814 39,242 48.2 853 49,409 51.8 346 14,576 42.1 Region and county Southern San Joaquin Valley Fresno Kings Tulare Kern Southern California. . . Ventura Los Angeles San Bernardino Orange Riverside San Diego Imperial Northern and eastern mountain Siskiyou Modoc Trinity Shasta Lassen Plumas Sierra Nevada Placer El Dorado Amador Calaveras Alpine Tuolumne Mono Mariposa Inyo State total Farms Turkeys report- raised ing 3,828 142,508 1,628 47,989 463 11,981 1,161 59,312 576 23,226 3,749 245,576 146 4,956 960 62,695 578 47,732 227 9,330 710 49,412 522 38,198 606 33,253 2,026 133,215 290 11,303 208 6,315 47 1,375 300 22,351 145 7,065 36 1,419 13 231 107 4,456 257 51,533 166 4,908 70 3,264 167 8,852 1 5 79 2,591 13 818 54 2,359 73 4,370 19,776 1,246,993 Turkeys per farm 37.2 29.5 25.9 51.1 40.3 65.5 33.9 65.3 82.6 41.1 69.6 73.2 54.9 65.8 39.0 30.4 29.3 74.5 48.7 39.4 17.8 41.6 200.5 29.6 46.6 53.0 0.5 32.8 62.9 43.7 55.9 63.1 Source of data: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Agriculture. The western states, vol. 2 (3): 568-70. 1932. 20 University of California — Experiment Station important region was southern California, which produced 19.7 per cent. The northern and southern portions of the San Joaquin Valley produced 11.4 per cent each, and the northern and eastern mountain counties about 10.7 per cent. The remainder was produced in the coastal regions (tables 8 and 9 and fig. 5) . There are two large central markets for turkeys in California — San TABLE 9 Human Population and Turkeys Eaised in 1929, and Turkeys on Farms in 1935, California Region of state Population 1929 Per cent of state total Turkeys raised, 1929 Turkeys on far ms over 3 months old on January 1, 1935 Number Per cent of state total Per 100 of popu- lation Number Percent of state total North coast 131,270 326,960 1,270,180 321,600 209,220 324,500 2,717,970 146,950 2.4 6.0 23.3 5.9 3.8 6 49.9 2.7 44,788 465,959 18,081 55,043 141,823 142,508 245,576 133,215 3.6 37.4 1.4 4.4 11.4 11.4 19.7 10.7 34.1 142.5 1.4 17.1 67.8 43.9 9.0 90.7 16,497 223,657 11,536 23,189 74,968 45,193 122,863 77,676 2.8 Sacramento Valley 37.6 San Francisco Bay region South coast 1.9 3.9 Northern San Joaquin Valley . . . Southern San Joaquin Valley . . . Southern California 12.6 7.6 20.6 Northern and eastern mountain 13.0 Total 5,448,650 100.0 1,246,993 100.0 22.7 595,579 100.0 Northern California supply area* 2,286,090 3,162,560 42.0 58.0 822,992 424,001 66.0 34.0 36.0 13.4 414,498 181,081 69.6 Southern California supply- area t 30.4 * Includes all counties in north coast, Sacramento Valley, San Francisco Bay, and northern San Joaquin Valley regions, all the south coast region except San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties, and all the northern and eastern mountain counties except Mono and Inyo counties. t Includes southern San Joaquin Valley and southern California regions, and San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Mono, and Inyo counties. Sources of data: Population from: California Taxpayers Association. The Tax Digest 12 (2): 61-62. February, 1934. Turkeys raised from: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Agriculture. The western states, vol. 2 (3) :568-70. 1932. Turkeys on farms from: United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Statistics by counties with state and United States summaries. In: Cenus of Agriculture, 1935. vol. 2:949-51. 1936. Francisco and Los Angeles. The San Francisco market draws its sup- plies from the north coast, Sacramento Valley, San Francisco Bay, and the northern San Joaquin Valley regions; also from the south coast region except Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties ; and from the northern and eastern mountain counties, except Inyo and Mono counties. Los Angeles draws its supplies from the seven counties in southern California, from the southern San Joaquin Valley region, from Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties in the south coast region, and from Inyo and Mono counties in the northern and eastern mountain counties. Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 21 By regrouping the counties on the basis of whether they would tend to ship their turkeys to the San Francisco or the Los Angeles market, it is found that the San Francisco turkey supply area, with 42.0 per cent of the population of the state, produced in 1929 about 66.0 per cent of all turkeys raised in California (table 9). On the other hand, the Los Angeles supply area, with 58.0 per cent of the population, produced only EACH DOT = 5,000 TURKEYS ~l J *• \ v — I A -.•..••• Fig. 5. — Turkeys raised in California, 1929. (Data from table 8.) 34.0 per cent of the turkeys. In the San Francisco supply area, 36.0 tur- keys were produced per 100 of population and in the southern area only 13.4. Each area needed about 27.6 turkeys per 100 of population to meet consumption requirements. Thus there was a surplus of turkeys in the San Francisco supply area and a large deficit of turkeys in the Los An- geles supply area. The latter area, to meet its consumption requirements for turkeys, had to supplement local production by obtaining turkeys from northern and central California and from other surplus states in the mountain and Pacific divisions. While definite data are not available, it is the consensus of opinion among persons acquainted with turkey production in California that production of turkeys since 1929 has increased somewhat more rapidly 22 University of California — Experiment Station in southern California than in northern California. On the other hand, turkey growers in southern California seem to have specialized more than growers in northern California in the production of eggs for ship- ment to eastern hatcheries. If this is the case, a large part of the increase in southern California would consist of breeder hens which would not be available for the Thanksgiving and Christmas marketing seasons. These (0 cc u u Q COUNTRY PRODUCE HOUSES AND PACKING PLANTS BROKERS IN DISTANT CITIES HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS o cc CL LOCAL COOPER- ATIVE PLANTS CENTRAL COOPERATIVE SELLING AGENCr CC Id D Z o u Fig. 6. — Marketing channels for turkeys. hens would tend to be marketed from March to June of each year. Dur- ing those months there would be a surplus of turkeys in the Los Angeles supply area. Part of this surplus is ordinarily shipped to eastern markets. METHODS OF MARKETING TURKEYS Several methods are followed by producers in marketing their turkeys (fig. 6). Many producers located near large consuming centers find it possible to sell their turkeys direct to consumers (either at roadside stands or delivered to homes of consumers) or to local retail stores and butchers. Producers located at a distance from consuming markets, or not having the retail-store and consumer outlets, usually dispose of their turkeys in one of four ways : 1. They may sell their turkeys alive to hucksters (independent itin- erant buyers) 12 or to independent local dealers, who in turn sell to whole- 12 Also known as peddlers. Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 23 sale dealers or to retail stores and butchers. A few hucksters also sell to consumers and to hotels. 2. They may sell them to a local produce house or killing plant which kills, dresses, grades, and packs the turkeys bought. The latter in turn may sell their dressed turkeys through a broker or to a wholesale dealer in a distant market. 3. They may sell them alive to a wholesale dealer located in a nearby consuming center. In some instances the wholesale dealers maintain one or more country killing plants ; in others all killing, dressing, grading, and packing are done at the city plant. The wholesale dealer in turn sells to retail stores and butchers and to hotels and restaurants. 4. They may sell their turkeys alive or dressed to a local cooperatively owned receiving plant. Some of these plants kill, dress, grade, and pack ; others grade and pack only, the killing and dressing being done by the farmer. As a general rule, the local cooperative packing plant is affili- ated with a central selling agency. This agency undertakes to dispose of turkeys delivered to the country units, mainly to wholesale dealers in the city in which the selling agency is located. The central selling agen- cies often sell through branch offices or brokers in other cities. Many local cooperative packing plants, not affiliated with a central sales agency, dispose of their pack through wholesale dealers or brokers in dis- tant cities. No accurate data are available on the relative importance of the dif- ferent methods of sale in the different parts of the country. A rough approximation, however, can be obtained from a study made by the United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Eco- nomics, in 1931. This study gathered information on production costs and methods of sale from several hundreds of farmers in all the impor- tant turkey-producing sections of the country. An analysis of the replies from the farmers reporting as to method of sale indicated that in the northeastern and southern states the bulk of turkeys was sold directly to consumers or to local retail stores (table 10). In Texas and Oklahoma, the east north central, and the west north central states, about 50 per cent of all turkeys were sold to produce houses. In the east north central states another 44 per cent were sold to retail stores and consumers. In Texas and Oklahoma nearly 32 per cent and in the west north central states nearly 30 per cent were sold through cooperative associations. The cooperative method of sale was the most common in the mountain states. About 80 per cent of the farmers participating reported that they used this method of sale, as against 14.2 per cent who sold to produce houses. In the Pacific states about 60 per cent of the farmers partici- 24 University of California — Experiment Station pating sold through cooperative pools, about 18.1 per cent to produce houses, and 10.0 per cent directly to consumers. Marketing practices in San Francisco and Los Angeles turkey-supply areas differ somewhat from those described above and will be treated separately. San Francisco Area. — Previous to 1929 the great bulk of turkeys raised in northern and central California was sold to hucksters and TABLE 10 Method of Sale of Turkeys, 1931 Group of states Northeastern Southern Texas and Oklahoma East north central. . . West north central . . Mountain Pacific Total all reports . Sales through cooperative pools Sales to hucksters Sales to produce houses Sales to retail houses Live Dressed per cent * per cent 2.6 per cent 8.5 per cent 4 6 per cent 34.7 4.5 0.1 3.1 12.7 62.5 29.3 2 5 8.3 50.6 3.2 — — 5.2 50.9 13.5 1.6 28.1 — 43.8 5.4 1.7 78.3 2.2 14.2 1.8 2.2 57.8 4 3 18.1 6.6 2 5 39.0 4 5 20.8 15 Sales to consumers per cent 49.6 17 1 6.1 30.4 21.1 1.8 10.0 18.2 * Dashes indicate data not available. Source of data: Clawson, Marion. Methods and costs of turkey production, 1931. United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics, p. 17. 1933. (Mimeo.) wholesale dealers in San Francisco. In the fall of 1929 a cooperative association, the California Turkey Growers Cooperative Association, was organized with head offices in San Francisco. In its first year of operation, 1929-30, it handled 1,390,000 pounds of turkeys which were sold to dealers making the highest bids. In 1930-31 and subsequent years this association, as well as the Northwest Turkey Growers Association, 53 sold its turkeys on a basis of open quotation. Prices for different grades of turkeys were named just before Thanksgiving and again just before Christmas, all sales to dealers being made at this price. The membership of the California Turkey Growers Cooperative Asso- ciation has grown from 339 in 1929-30 to around 600 in 1935-36 (table 11). The volume of turkeys handled increased in the same period from 1,390,000 to 2,552,000 pounds. The association operates two killing and dressing plants, one»at Fresno, and the other at Modesto, and receiving 13 The Northwest Turkey Growers Association, with headquarters in Salt Lake City, operates in the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colo- rado, Nevada, and Utah. It has branch sales offices in New York, Chicago, San Fran- cisco, and Los Angeles. Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 25 stations for killed and dressed turkeys at Red Bluff, Orland, Williams, Atascadero, Lincoln, Marysville, Sacramento, Knights Landing, Susan- ville, and Porterville. All turkeys delivered by members are graded and packed at each receiving station. Precooling facilities are available at each plant. Plant-operating expenses have been reduced from 0.89 cents in 1929-30 to 0.63 cents a pound in 1935-36. Several pools are operated annually. In 1935-36 about 10 per cent of all turkeys were sold in the Thanksgiving (November) pool, about 17 TABLE 11 Operations of California Turkey Growers Cooperative Association Year Number of members Number of pounds of turkeys sold Number of receiving stations Station han- dling expense per pound 1929-30 1930-31 339 442 530 573 607 568 1,390,476 1,359,849 2,446,778 2,311,880 2,407,857 2,573,404 2,551,777 9 14 15 15 * 12 14 dollars 0.0089 0.0082 1931-32 0.0074 1932-33 0.0070 1933-34 1934-35 0.0073 1935-36 0.0063 * Dashes indicate data not available. Source of data: California Turkey Growers Cooperative Association, annual reports. San Francisco. per cent in the Christmas (December) pool, about 37 per cent in the freezer pool (January to March), and 26 per cent in the breeder pool (April to June) . The rest sold during the remaining months of the year was handled on consignment for individual producers. In the various pools producers are paid about 70 per cent of the current market value at time of delivery and the remainder when the pools are closed. About 40 per cent of all turkeys handled were sold in San Francisco, 20 per cent in Los Angeles, and the rest in eastern markets. Practically all tur- keys in the freezer pool are sold in New York. The association also operates a voluntary egg pool. In 1935-36 about 600,000 turkey eggs were handled in this pool on behalf of some fifty-seven large producers. In addition to the California Turkey Growers Cooperative Associa- tion and the Northwest Growers Association, which sells in San Fran- cisco through a broker, large quantities of turkeys are handled in the San Francisco market by the established brokers and dealers. Many of these dealers specialize only in poultry ; others handle poultry and other farm products. In a survey 14 made in 1930 the following types of private " Grether, E. T. The wholesale poultry business in San Francisco. Jour. Farm. Econ. 14(4):630-39. 1932. 26 University of California — Experiment Station operators were found to handle poultry, many of whom probably do not handle turkeys : Class of operator Number General produce dealers 25 Wholesalers 9 Eetail wholesalers 8 Meat packers 4 Produce brokers 2 Cooperatives 2 Producer — wholesaler (ducks) 1 Hucksters and commission buyers 36 Total 87 The position of the various elements in the market has not been greatly changed since 1930. Most of the live turkeys bought in northern and central California (other than those handled by the cooperative association) are purchased from producers by hucksters and by a few wholesale dealers who operate country routes. The hucksters in turn sell most of their turkeys to whole- sale dealers and to some retail slaughterhouses. Several of the larger dealers have connections with packing establishments in other states. A large proportion of turkeys coming to the San Francisco market arrive in dressed and packed form. Most of the larger handlers of poultry are located in a comparatively concentrated area, covering not more than 1 square mile in downtown San Francisco. The greater part of the turkeys arriving on the San Francisco market from outside the state and some from within the state come by railroad. Most of the local poultry is shipped in by truck. Be- cause of the relatively concentrated trading area it is possible for gov- ernment agencies to obtain daily a fairly accurate check on the volume of poultry arriving on the market. Unfortunately these data are not segregated by classes of poultry. The value of this service could be greatly increased by a classification of receipts. The Los Angeles Turkey Market. — The Los Angeles turkey market, while similar in some respects to that in San Francisco, has several im- portant differences. 1. Up until 1935 there was no cooperative association handling tur- keys on behalf of producers in southern California. Two cooperative associations (the California Turkey Growers Cooperative Association and the Northwest Turkey Growers Association, located in San Fran- cisco and Salt Lake City, respectively) operated on the Los Angeles market through brokers. Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 27 2. The main poultry dealers operating in Los Angeles, all of whom handle turkeys along with other types of poultry, are scattered over a very wide area. Supplies are not concentrated as in San Francisco. 3. A large part of the turkeys and other poultry (both live and dressed) from other states come to the market by truck. Shipments by rail are relatively, though not absolutely, less important than in San Francisco. 4. Retail slaughterhouses in Los Angeles are relatively more numer- ous than in San Francisco and are scattered over a very wide area. In San Francisco there were only about 18 retail slaughterhouses in 1935 as compared with about 120 in Los Angeles. Furthermore, most of the retail slaughterhouses in San Francisco procured all or a large part of their supplies of poultry from local wholesale dealers, whereas in Los Angeles they purchased from hucksters or directly from farmers in the country. The handlers of poultry in Los Angeles (most of whom also handle turkeys) may be classified as follows : 15 Number fHandling carloads (or truck loads) of dressed Brokers J and live poultry and selling mainly to whole- sale dealers 11 fHandling only dressed poultry and selling to Dealers J retailers, hotels, restaurants, and institu- tions. This group includes meat packers 9 (Handling dressed poultry, but also operating j slaughterhouses and selling to retailers, etc. 5 fSmaller dealers operating slaughterhouses, sell- Wholesale-retail . ,, , , , , ,, l mg some poultry wholesale, but mostly re- dealers , ., . ' 1or > tail to consumers 120 (Purchase directly from farmers and sell to " ) wholesale-retail dealers 90 The wide dispersement of dealers in the Los Angeles market and the fact that such a large part of the poultry supplies, even from out of state, arrive by truck have made it difficult for government agencies to obtain any reliable information on daily receipts. This is a very se- rious problem from the standpoint of both local producers and dealers, for a constant uncertainty is injected into the market. This cannot but react to the disadvantage of local producers. Turkey producers in southern California have given much considera- tion, during recent years, to the question of cooperative marketing of 15 Based on information supplied by the Produce Exchange of Los Angeles and the Department of Health of the City of Los Angeles. 28 University of California — Experiment Station turkeys. An unincorporated organization known as the "Southern Cali- fornia Turkey Growers Association," consisting of producers, hatchery- men, and dealers, was formed some years ago to promote the best interest of the turkey industry of southern California. In 1934 and 1935 this association arranged between producers and hatcherymen the prices at which turkey eggs would be sold. The following year (1936) the pro- ducer members of this association, mainly located in Riverside County, incorporated under the same name for the purpose of marketing their turkeys cooperatively. It was able to negotiate the satisfactory sale in 1936 of the breeder hens of its members, through a broker in Los An- geles, who represented the Northwest Turkey Growers Association, with which organization it has since become affiliated. Groups of producers around Ramona and Escondido have also incorporated, the first to mar- ket turkey eggs, and the latter to operate a killing, dressing, and grading establishment. Other groups of producers in other parts of southern California are also considering the formation of local associations for the purpose of marketing turkeys. Meanwhile a new unincorporated organization, known as the Asso- ciated Turkey Growers of California, has been formed to take over the broader functions previously performed by the Southern California Turkey Growers Association. Various turkey-producer groups are studying the feasibility of forming a larger organization covering the southern part of the state to coordinate the marketing activities of the various local associations. Turkey growers in southern California operate at a distinct disad- vantage in selling their products on the Los Angeles market. In the first place, their turkeys, many of which are of good quality, are sold alive to hucksters and dealers in lots. Grading of live poultry is a very rough and at best a very uncertain undertaking. These turkeys from local growers come into competition with well-graded, high-quality, and uni- formly packed, dressed poultry shipped into the Los Angeles market by the California Turkey Growers Cooperative Association, the Northwest Turkey Growers Association, and many long-established packing plants in other states. A large percentage of these turkeys are government- graded or come from plants with an established reputation for quality and using a well-known brand name. Under these conditions locally grown turkeys sold under a miscellany of brand names or under no brand name at all are likely to be discrimi- nated against. Moreover, local dealers and hucksters in buying "flock- run" or loose lots of poultry are prone, in order to protect themselves, to be more exacting in their demands and to grade live turkeys down as Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 29 much as possible. This tendency is especially marked when the market is weak or if plentiful supplies appear in prospect. Unorganized growers of turkeys in southern California operate at still another disadvantage which becomes particularly important during the last three or four months of the year — the heavy pre-Thanksgiving and Christmas marketing period. From September onward local dealers start accumulating supplies of turkeys for Thansksgiving and during December for Christmas. Data on supplies of turkeys in California and other western states are at best meager, nor do dealers know what quan- tities of turkeys will be shipped to southern California by the California Turkey Growers Cooperative Association and the Northwest Turkey Growers Association nor what the opening price will be. A few years ago it was the policy of these associations to name their selling price two and three weeks before Thanksgiving and Christmas, which gave local dealers in each major market ample time to purchase such local supplies as they needed. As the two associations have developed a demand for their prod- ucts, they have tended to place their sales in each market before naming their opening prices. In this they have been so successful that they are able to delay naming their selling prices until about a week before Thanksgiving and again before Christmas. This method of operation places local dealers in a difficult position. Not knowing what prices will be named by the two cooperative asso- ciations, they endeavor to delay purchasing from local producers as much as possible. Furthermore, they endeavor to buy as cheaply as pos- sible in order to safeguard themselves against loss. This attitude of mind on the part of local dealers cannot but have a depressing effect on prices for turkeys received by producers in southern California. The conditions above described point the way to a possible solution — a way to overcome many disadvantages under which producers in south- ern California labor in disposing of their turkeys. This solution appears to be the organization of producers in southern California either into a number of closely affiliated local cooperative associations or into one large cooperative association, which in turn would coordinate selling activities with one or both of the two outside cooperative associations which already operate in the Los Angeles market. In view of the wide area over which production is scattered in southern California and the fact that large numbers of producers close to cities have a special pro- ducer-to-consumer or producer-to-dealer outlet, the organization of several local killing and packing cooperative plants would seem the more feasible form of organization. A federated organization for the local cooperative associations as well as independent producers could advan- 30 University of California — Experiment Station tageously be organized to coordinate the activities of the various locals and to represent all turkey growers in matters of common interest, such as development of standard grading and packing methods and develop- ment of a suitable brand name for southern California turkeys. One single brand name, instead of a number of separate brands, would ap- pear to offer many advantages. PRICE DETERMINATION AND PRICE QUOTATIONS There are also several significant differences between the San Francisco and the Los Angeles markets in the methods whereby prices of poultry (including turkeys) are determined and made public. The Ban Francisco Market. — In the San Francisco market there is no organized exchange for trading in poultry-meat products. The service of determining current prices is undertaken by the Federal-State Market News Service in San Francisco. Data on supplies of poultry arriving in San Francisco, together with prices paid and received by wholesale dealers for various grades and classes of poultry, are gathered daily by officials of the Federal-State Market News Service. This information is assembled in a daily mimeographed report, which is available free to all persons or firms desiring it. The data in these reports are also used by the daily newspapers and various trade and farmers' periodicals in their daily and weekly market reports. Officials of this government agency visit dealers daily and obtain from them information on the prices paid and received by them for different grades and classes of poultry including turkeys. 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. Many dealers frequently make avail- able to the market reporter purchase and sales invoices. In addition to this information on prices, all the important handlers of poultry report daily to the office of the Federal-State Market News Service their re- ceipts 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 thus collected enables the Federal- State Market News Service to obtain a fairly accurate view, not only of the prices ac- tually being paid and received by dealers, but also an idea of the general tone of the market ; that is, whether trading is good or poor and whether prices are showing a tendency to increase or decrease. Two general sets of prices are quoted on dressed turkeys. 18 The first 16 With other classes of poultry quotations are for both dressed and live. Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 31 set gives the prices paid by wholesalers f .o.b. San Francisco for various classes of turkeys. This would constitute the price which producers would receive if they delivered their turkeys (dressed) in San Francisco. The second set indicates the prices at which the various classes of tur- keys are sold by wholesale dealers to the retail trade. Prices received by producers in the different parts of the San Francisco supply area for various grades and classes of turkeys tend to run fairly uniformly below the prices quoted by the Federal-State Market News Service as paid by wholesale dealers f.o.b. San Francisco. In other words, the prices re- ceived by producers at any time are determined largely by the current quotation less the margin taken by local handlers to cover costs of trans- portation, handling, and shrinkage (plus or minus profit and interest on investment) between the point of purchase and San Francisco. 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 and hucksters 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 frequently complaints that the margins of hucksters or of wholesale dealers are too wide or that the general level of prices is too low. Most producers, however, recognize that the latter condition is merely a reflection of general supply and demand condi- tions over which producers, hucksters, and dealers have no control. Pro- ducers, however, have the assurance that the prices quoted are as near an accurate reflection as possible of such general marketing conditions. The Los Angeles Market. — In marked contrast with conditions in San Francisco, there appears to be a considerable degree of dissatisfaction among producers and retailers in southern California with the price- determining service in that market. Two separate bodies undertake to determine poultry prices in south- ern California. The lesser known 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 daily contacts with wholesale and retail dealers, especially as the office appears to be under- manned. 32 University of California — Experiment Station 2. The wide dispersion of the trading area and the large volume han- dled by retail slaughterhouses which cannot be contacted daily has made it impossible, up to the present time, to develop satisfactory machinery for assembling data on current receipts of poultry including turkeys. Data on receipts by rail are obtained daily from transportation agencies but no data are available on local and out-of-state truck receipts. 3. The local newspapers have not undertaken to publish the daily quotations of the Federal-State Market News Service. As producers obtain their information on current prices mainly from newspapers, little use is thus made by them of the official government quotations. 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 absence of reliable data on cur- rent receipts, partly to a more rapid turnover in 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 service of the Federal-State Mar- ket News Service is much less widely used in Los Angeles. The chief source of market-news information is the Produce Exchange of Los Angeles. The Produce Exchange of Los Angeles is organized to conduct trad- ing in dairy and poultry products including turkeys. Practically all brokers, packers, wholesale dealers, and cooperative associations han- dling manufactured dairy products, eggs, and poultry in and around Los Angeles are members of the Exchange. In 1935 the Exchange had some forty-nine full members and thirty-one associate members. Officials of the Exchange gather and display in a prominent position all perti- nent market information about the products on which trading is con- ducted. Every day, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, the Ex- change is opened for trading at 4 :00 p.m. Bids, offers, and sales are made by members on various grades and types of products including turkeys. The price at which the last bid, offer, or sale made for each grade and product is recorded becomes the official 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 Exchange. No trading is con- ducted in dressed poultry. Because of the difficulty in handling live poultry on the Exchange and because of the absence of standard grades for live poultry, no actual sales of live poultry are made on the Ex- change. The prices quoted for live poultry are merely a reflection of the Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 33 prices which dealers consider are and could be paid concurrently to producers (actually to hucksters) f.o.b. Los Angeles. These prices are changed from time to time by the method of bids and offers whenever the consensus of opinion of dealers indicates that supply and demand conditions warrant a change. In reality, therefore, the prices as deter- mined by the 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 Exchange only eighteen regular members and ten associate members handle poultry. Several of these handlers of poultry do not deal in live poultry or handle it only occa- sionally as brokers. Such members do not regularly participate in the determination of live-poultry quotations. In actual practice the deter- mination of current values of live poultry by the method of bids and offers is undertaken by not more than ten members of the Exchange, practically all of whom are wholesale dealers. Thus, neither producers nor retailers, including retail slaughterhouses, are represented in the determination of market values. Another weakness of the method of determining market values by the 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 Exchange quotation is regarded as the foundation upon which current daily sales are based. In the determination of the Exchange quotations, dealers thus consider not only what they are willing and are able to pay producers or hucksters for poultry, but also the prices at which poultry can be moved to the retail trade. Thus, at certain times the 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 chickens, turkeys, and other types of poultry from wholesale dealers reflect rather rapidly the reactions of consumers to prices being charged for different types of poultry. Re- tailers have found that consumers react unfavorably to very wide varia- tions in price at different seasons of the year. If prices fall too low at one time a considerable consumers' resistance to higher prices is later experienced. Consequently, retailers are anxious to keep prices to con- sumers as uniform as possible or to prevent wide seasonal fluctuations of price. In order to meet these reactions of retailers, the wholesale dealer attempts to prevent his prices to retailers from falling to too low a level 34 University of California — Experiment Station during periods of plentiful supply and from rising too high during periods of short supply. During periods of heavy supply dealers are willing as a rule to buy only limited quantities at the current market quotation. The heavier supplies offered are taken only at prices below the current market quo- tation. Part of the poultry purchased at such times is moved currently to the retail trade ; part is put into storage. On the other hand, during the periods of low supplies, the current needs of retailers are met largely out of accumulated storage stocks and partly out of current purchases from producers. During such times, dealers who have insufficient poul- try in storage are frequently willing to pay the market quotation or higher for live poultry. Comparisons of prices received by producers with current 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 1 and 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 Exchange quotations for similar classes. The Exchange quota- tion cannot, therefore, be regarded as a very accurate reflection of the prices received by producers at certain times of the year. The above criticism of the effectiveness of the Produce Exchange of Los Angeles as a price-determining mechanism for live poultry gener- ally has to be modified somewhat in the case of turkeys. Although the consumption of turkeys is not nearly so seasonal as it once was, it is probable that approximately 50 per cent of all turkeys produced an- nually in California are marketed in time to meet the Thanksgiving and Christmas trade demands. In some years considerable numbers of turkeys, which are not ready for the two holidays, are marketed during January and even as late as February. A large part of the turkeys marketed late in December and in January and February go into cold storage. A second, but lower mar- keting peak, comes ordinarily in the months of April to June, during which farmers sell their breeder hens. Only small quantities of live tur- keys are marketed from July to September, consumption requirements being supplied largely from storage holdings. The daily quotations on turkeys from July to September therefore tend to reflect current sales of wholesale dealers to retailers, mostly out of storage, but supplemented by such current supplies as are offered. About October, however, dealers begin laying in supplies for Thanks- giving ; only part of their current purchases are needed to meet current consumption requirements. The Exchange quotation often does not alter Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 35 until shortly before Thanksgiving, although there may be several changes in the price paid to producers. Actual observation of the be- havior of producer prices and Exchange quotations in October and No- vember, 1935, showed this to be the case. For example, the Exchange quotation on young toms was maintained at 17 cents a pound until late in October. Many producers, however, were selling turkeys to hucksters in the country at and even above quotation. The unwillingness of deal- ers to change the quotations for turkeys appears to have been due to fear that they might get the price too high in relation to the prices named just before Thanksgiving by the two big cooperative associations. Considerable criticism was voiced by producers and retail slaughter- houses about the Exchange quotations. Some of the criticisms were that the quotations were often assertedly manipulated 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 Exchange quotations were subject to manipulation were able to produce any concrete evidence. Some of the illustrations advanced by a few producers and retail slaughterhouses may have been evidence of manipulation ; on the other hand, numerous other factors may have been responsible for the discrepancies between the Exchange quotations and the prices received by producers. A few producers seemed inclined to believe that a low level of prices, caused by general supply and de- mand conditions, was due to manipulation. It is, however, an extremely difficult matter to obtain evidence of and prove manipulation. The Ex- change quotations, after all, represent the collective views of distrib- utors as to market values, and owing to the lack of reliable data on receipts it is entirely possible that dealers may frequently make mis- takes. Furthermore, dealers do not publish their reasons for making changes in the prices quoted. It should be pointed out in this connection, however, that the small number of persons participating in "making" the prices for poultry on the Exchange, together with the fact that only wholesale dealers are represented, makes occasional manipulation pos- sible, regardless of whether or not manipulation actually occurs. Quite apart from the possibility of manipulation, the Exchange quo- tations on poultry do not serve, from the producers' viewpoint, as a very satisfactory reflection of current prices paid to producers. Quotations based on dealers' opinions of current market values can never be as reliable as quotations based on actual sales, especially if dealers' opin- ions are also influenced by resale values of poultry. Furthermore, quo- tations made entirely by only one element in the trade will always be open to suspicion, no matter how closely they reflect actual market 36 University of California — Experiment Station values. The absence of reliable data on production of poultry, generally, and especially turkeys, both in California and in the United States as a whole, together with even less reliable data on current receipts of poul- try in Los Angeles, still further complicates the situation from both the producers' and the distributors' viewpoint. One of the cardinal require- ments for a reliable system of price determination is adequate and accurate knowledge of supply and demand conditions. Looked at from any angle the conditions under which current market quotations in Los Angeles are determined 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 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 marketing element in Los Angeles. 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 carried in the local newspapers. 3. It would seem necessary that some agency, such as the Federal- State Market News Service or the city and county health inspection services, undertake to develop machinery for collecting accurate data on current receipts of poultry. This could be done if one or more inspec- tion stations were established at which trucks hauling poultry into the Los Angeles market would have to report. TREND OF TURKEY PRICES IN THE UNITED STATES Numerous complex factors influence the prices of individual commodi- ties at any given time and over a period of time. Moreover, the factors that influence the level of prices 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 these factors to price, it is convenient to analyze price interrelations from several different angles. Over a long period of time the most important factors that would influence the general trend of turkey prices would appear to be (1) the trend in the production of turkeys in relation to the trend of population, and (2) changes in buying power and consumption habits. Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 37 Turkey -Production Trend in Relation to Trend of Human Popula- tion. — In the first section of this study it was shown (p. 4) that the number of turkeys on farms had declined from 10,754,000 in 1890 to 3,627,000 in 1920, with an increase to 5,382,000 in 1935. In spite of the fact that part of this apparent decline was due to changes in the dates on which the various censuses were taken, these figures do indicate a marked decrease in turkey production between 1890 and 1935. During the same period human population in the United States more than doubled. It is evident then that per-capita consumption of turkeys declined consider- ably between 1890 and 1935. As numbers of ducks and geese also de- clined and the relative increase in chicken production was less than the increase in population (p. 13), it is also evident that the consumption of other types of poultry did not replace that of turkeys. A study of the production trends for turkeys indicates the probability that prices of turkeys have increased considerably since 1890. Unfor- tunately, the earlier censuses did not give data on the farm value of tur- keys. The United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricul- tural Economics has, however, published data since 1909 on the farm prices of turkeys on the fifteenth day of October, November, December, and January of each year. 17 During the period 1909-10 to 1935-36 there were several violent fluc- tuations in general business conditions associated with the World War and the recent economic depression. These economic disturbances were accompanied by violent fluctuations in the prices of large numbers of commodities including turkeys. The major part of the effect of these fluctuations on the farm prices of turkeys was removed by dividing the average of the four monthly prices reported by the Bureau of Agricul- tural Economics for each year by the corresponding four monthly in- dexes of wholesale prices prepared by the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics. These two groups of prices are shown in table 12 and figure 7. The average annual farm prices (unadjusted) of turkeys, based on quotations from October through January, remained fairly stable be- tween 1909-10 and 1915-16, but increased rapidly from 14.9 cents per pound in 1915-16 to 32.0 cents per pound in 1920-21. After the World War, prices declined to about 25.0 cents in 1924-25, but again increased to 30.2 cents in 1926-27. A rapid decline took place between 1928-29 and 1933-34 with some recovery between 1933-34 and 1935-36. The 17 From 1909 to 1912 these data are available only for the United States as a whole. Since 1912, however, the data are also available by states. In recent years farm prices of turkeys have been shown for one or two additional months. 38 University of California — Experiment Station tH H PQ < En a 02 O H •« OS & u p ft o M Ph c* 9 of w M o W 2 O § ». rH I* g W os &5 O b os fa o 02 fa O 03 fa) Q O "M 3 Ph 3 fa o O Q 03 P M w Q (5 M O 03 w P En 03 w o t-H Ph « t3 -a ^1 >> "Cxi 2 >> a O O i-H o> 1-H I © t— I PL, T3 3 3 o a (h a 09 V a r 53 - 03 ft- 1 >-, oj ■&> •tOOliHiHOOONXNHWieH • i-H i— INNNr- li- iHHr < »— I »— l •— « •MHC00)'*!CO!0l0©NO'HO00!DNMNM®N . rt MHHHHHHHrt«NMHHrt(MNnHrtHMrtnrHH 13 O a s o o o -a 2 c -3 03 3^ OXJ a^ o «* O Q> M bl- oS ■-> 1- . o> +j > o <^o ■NiHM^ONOOrtN^mOOifl x? m i- 03 03 !R o> ©005©(Mt--.0>©lMT»a50'-i'-i • 1— ( 1— I 1— * 1— li-Hi-H»HCSCS|i-Hi— li— li-Hi-Hi-H— Hi— I—- I 1-H 1— ( »-H 1-H 1-H 03 3 a o -< a C 0> IS o o> as o > a a 03 i-s o o • NlOO-n-lOOOOlONPSrtlONNMffllOaOlSOfflt^lOOOOO^l ■oaooooiHNO'<«WMii*>0'*M**M»eNoiOH •.—I 1-lHrt HrtNMNrtHHrtHHilHHH i-H -H •O0i05OOO»O'HNNN0100MiHIOO»XINXCOi*I!0*XiOXNM ^"l , M'» l '0**X-lc005NO)Oi>C"*XOO)0>>'50Xr-l— lifio>'»i HHrtrtHHrtHNNNMNINNNNMNNNNHrtHrtrtrt NNCOOJ'O'OOlOOlPSOOt-.NilNNeOXNNOONtDOOlH ^<^ l CO'*>0^"OOSNh'C]Ci:00)WtO-H-tO)XCO'HXOrH!OOJ'*< HrtHi-lHrtiHHNNMMMNNNMMNNNNHrtrtHHH !©NNXlOl/5lO!000'H'H10Ci3iOXiHXM«5IOO)>*0>'-lOC<5M »fti*O'^«5O5C0l>-i-IC<5C^C^"*»C'— INNOMO)0)Oi- I <© — I •*»< ilHHrtflrtHi-INNMMMWNNMMWMNHi-IHHiHNH ^ 0>OlOt l «'-IX05 MMMM'*'*MNOCO!CO>'5>0«OM , *®!ONNiHt>.CCrHN1010 HHHHHrtHHINNNMNNflNNNNNNNHHHHrtH O5©i-IC^00^'OCC>t>-00a>©'-iCvICC'^ , "5«Db-' O-KHiHiH-lr-lrHr-lr-li-llNNMlNININININlNINmcOOmMCSCO 0>0>0)QO^ OS OS OS Oi Oi 05 Oi 05 OS Oi Oi Oi 05 OS OS 05 OS O OS GOJOJOi oS .2 X5 '3 > os IS 13 e8 Q a "o u e3 >> 0) J3 C a, > '3 -a a E o 03 01 >. as -3 X5 O 5 3 73 O i? a 03 Ml >| -a T3 a. > 'S « a> ° b ■<-> a ■— . CM g 1-H .X a o S3 o o W .9 "fi < o t- 3 03 a> 3 "3 o *C M 0> c a> o 2 "» 9 o a c 'i -a 13 fT S3 CM 03 •• 2^ En a — — J2 !_: flj i-H eses S3~ B>— • C5o» x e .2 o 0--S «-a ±i 3 3.2 fl o uio 03 0_ •• •• !T! 35 • O 03 h w Q, 0) 570 Oi d o> a h 03 a OS Q X O a> o li tjS o^ cs o •3«o . ©3 ^M M*> Gt3 'Sl'S-l > 03^ o> T. 2 2 a Z^i »H ..gU d^OGOO © 03 at . £ 3 o 02 o Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 39 actual farm prices for turkeys adjusted for changes in the wholesale commodity index indicate that the level of farm prices of turkeys in the postwar period was much higher than during the prewar period. Further light on the change in the long-time trend of turkey prices can be obtained by contrasting relative changes in the farm prices of to $ <0 to 00 to 1 i 1 to xa t-. to to to o> o> o Fig. 7. — Actual and adjusted farm prices of turkeys in the United States, 1909-10 to 1936-37. (Data from table 12.) turkeys since the period 1909-10 to 1914-15 with those of all farm prod- ucts, wholesale commodities, and chickens (fig. 8). During the War the relative increase in farm prices of turkeys was approximately the same as that for all farm products, wholesale commodities, and chickens. How- ever, while the prices of all farm products and of wholesale commodities declined over 40 per cent from the peak in 1920-21 to 1921-22, turkey 40 University of California — Experiment Station prices declined only 5 per cent. During the next few years there was some recovery in prices of all farm products, whereas turkey prices con- tinued to decline until 1924-25, from which date turkey prices again recovered sharply. For the whole period 1921-22 to 1929-30, however, the price per pound received by turkey producers in the United States 230T Fig. 8. — Eelatives of farm prices of turkeys, chickens, all farm products, and whole- sale prices of all commodities, 1910-1914 = 100. (Data from table 12.) i Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 41 averaged nearly twice that prevailing in prewar years, whereas prices of farm products generally averaged only about 40 per cent higher. Between 1929-30 and 1933-34 farm prices of turkeys declined pre- cipitously, the rate of decline being greater than for prices of farm prod- ucts generally or for prices of wholesale commodities. As compared with the prewar level, however, turkey prices in 1932-33 and 1933-34 were relatively more favorable than general farm prices. Moreover, the re- covery in turkey prices between 1933-34 and 1935-36 was considerably greater than for prices of all farm products. Part of this recovery in turkey prices relative to all farm prices between 1929-30 and 1935-36 was due to the decline in production of turkeys between 1933-34 and 1935-36. The rapid decline in the relative price of turkeys in 1936-37, on the other hand, was due to a one-third increase in turkey production between 1935-36 and 1936-37. Farm prices of turkeys have shown the same general pattern of be- havior as farm prices of chickens. While chicken prices slumped some- what more than those of turkeys in 1921-22 and continued at a some- what lower level from 1921-22 to 1929-30, they have both held to higher levels than prices of farm products generally. The relatively high level of prices maintained for both turkeys and chickens between the years 1921-22 to 1929-30 reflects the marked decrease in the production of poultry meat generally in relation to the trend of population. Changes in Buying Power and Consumption Habits. — The fact that farm prices of both turkeys and chickens declined more rapidly than prices of farm products generally during the years 1929-30 to 1933-34 can be explained by the fact that among urban people both turkeys and chickens are considered to be luxury products. A decline in general pur- chasing power is usually reflected by a much 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 prices of turkeys and chickens to in- crease more rapidly than prices of staple foods, due consideration being given to changes in the level of production of turkeys and chickens in relation to population. Thus, if the ratio of turkey producton to popu- lation is maintained during the next few years on about the same level as before 1929-30, it is reasonable to suppose that the relative level of farm prices of turkeys will be similar to those during the period 1921-22 to 1929-30. Another important factor that may influence the general trend and level of turkey prices is a change in the habits of the American people in regard to the consumption of turkeys. In the past turkeys were con- 42 University of California — Experiment Station sumed mainly at Thanksgiving and Christmas. According to statements of producers, dealers, and restaurant operators, there has been a marked tendency during recent years for turkeys to be consumed more regu- larly the year round. This will increase the annual demand for turkeys. If the volume of production does not increase in proportion to the in- crease in demand, the general level of turkey prices will rise. On the other hand, if the upward trend in turkey production continues, the increased consumers' demand for turkeys will tend to prevent any marked decline in the level of turkey prices. The consumption habits of the American people for turkeys are chang- ing in another important respect. During the past few decades the average size of the family in the United States has declined. When fami- lies were large the demand was for large turkeys for the Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners. With the decline in the size of the families, a demand has developed for a smaller turkey. Since 1932 hen turkeys have regularly commanded a premium over heavier torn turkeys. In re- sponse to this premium producers are attempting to produce a lighter type of bird. 18 If this attempt is generally successful, it will introduce an important modification in the future interpretation of the number of turkeys produced. A given number of turkeys in the past will represent a larger total volume of turkey meat than a similar number in the future. Thus, turkey numbers will need to be considered in relation to the change in average weights of birds. Another significant change has taken place within recent years in consumption habits, which to a certain extent has offset the demand for smaller turkeys for home consumption. Reference is to the tendency for a larger proportion of families to eat at hotels and restaurants. While at one time nearly all families had Thanksgiving dinner at home, large numbers of families now have their Thanksgiving dinners at hotels and restaurants. These establishments, of course, demand a large turkey for their Thanksgiving trade. This does not apply to the Christmas holiday, which is still largely a home affair. REGIONAL TRENDS IN FARM PRICES OF TURKEYS It was pointed out (p. 5-6) that while the production of turkeys in the United States had declined between 1890 and 1935, production in the mountain and Pacific divisions had increased. In 1890 the two western groups of states were in a deficit position in the production of turkeys, whereas in 1935 they together produced a surplus of turkeys over con- sumption requirements in the two regions. 18 Anonymous. Smaller birds mark turkey style trend. Pacific Rural Press 133(6): 170. 1937. Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 43 TABLE 13 Comparison of the Average Farm Prices of Turkeys by States, November and December Prices, 1912-1914 and 1933-1935 State and division Average price in cents per pound, 1912-1914 Average price in cents per pound, 1933-1935 Actual gain or loss in cents per pound, 1912-1914 and 1933-1935 Percentage gain or loss, 1912-1914 and 1933-1935 North Atlantic: 21.67 19.03 22.63 18.87 24.18 23.58 25.78 19.77 22.20 19.02 15.29 15.93 14.78 14.88 15.82 15.02 13.66 13.38 14.98 13.88 13.12 13.70 14.03 12.55 16.62 19.18 17.75 15.57 15.82 14.65 15.30 15.65 19.02 12.98 13.07 12.82 14.23 13.55 12.72 14.90 11.55 11.03 18.06 19.13 16.13 17.70 15.27 14.82 19.77 16.88 24.76 19.17 19.60 17.87 20.05 14.75 23.26 21.17 22.17 24.17 25.67 17.17 28.00 22.67 24.67 21.67 16.13 17.17 16.00 15.50 16.00 16.00 14.98 16.17 15.67 14.83 15.83 14.48 14.33 13.57 18.48 21.00 20.50 17.17 17.17 17.67 18.67 17.00 18.67 14.60 14.67 14.33 14.33 14.80 13.58 17.50 13.87 13.73 16.19 15.67 13.22 16.50 15.10 14.17 18.83 16.33 19.67 17.37 16.67 16.12 19.33 15.78 +1.59 +2.14 -0.46 +5.30 +1.49 -6.41 +2.22 +2.90 +2.47 +2.65 +0.84 +1.24 +1.22 +0.62 +0.18 +0.98 +1.32 +2.79 +0.69 +0.95 +2.71 +0.78 +0.30 +1.02 + 1.86 +1.82 +2.75 +1.60 +1.35 +3.02 +3.37 +1.35 -0.35 +1.62 +1.60 +1.51 +0.10 +1.25 +0.86 +2.60 +2.32 +2.70 -1.87 -3.46 -2.91 -1.20 -0.17 -0.65 -0.94 -0.55 -5.09 -1.80 -2.92 -1.75 -0.72 +1.03 + 7.3 Maine +11.2 New Hampshire - 2.0 Vermont +28.1 Massachusetts + 6.2 Rhode Island -27.2 Connecticut + 8.6 New York +14.7 New Jersey +11.1 Pennsylvania +13.9 East north central: + 5.5 Ohio + 7.8 Indiana + 8.3 Illinois + 4.2 Michigan + 1.1 Wisconsin + 6.5 West north central : + 9.7 Minnesota +20 9 Iowa + 4.6 Missouri + 6.8 North Dakota +20.7 South Dakota + 5.7 Nebraska + 2.1 Kansas + 8.1 South Atlantic: +11.2 Delaware. ... + 9.5 Maryland +15 5 Virginia. . +10.3 West Virginia + 8.5 North Carolina +20.6 South Carolina +22.0 Georgia + 8.6 Florida + 1.8 South central : +12.5 Kentucky +12.2 Tennessee +11.8 Alabama Mississippi + 0.7 + 9.2 Arkansas + 6.8 Louisiana + 17.4 Oklahoma +20.1 Texas +24.5 Mountain -10.4 Montana — 18.1 Idaho -18.0 Wyoming - 6.8 Colorado - 1.1 New Mexico - 4.4 Arizona - 4.8 Utah Nevada Pacific: - 3.3 -20.6 - 9.4 Washington -14.9 Oregon - 9.8 California - 3.6 United States + 7.0 Source of data: United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Average prices received by farmers for farm products. November and December reports, 1912-1914 and 1933-1935. (Mimeo.) 44 University of California — Experiment Station This transition since 1890 of the two western divisions from deficit to surplus areas has had an important bearing on the trend of farm prices of turkeys in these divisions in relation to the trend for the United States as a whole. Farm prices of agricultural products tend to conform to a fairly defi- nite geographic pattern. The highest farm prices are usually found in deficit areas — that is, in areas which produce little or none of the farm products consumed in those areas. For most agricultural products the LEGEND CENTS PER POUND I 1.0 - 12.0 □ 12.1 - 14.0 14.1 - 16.0 16.1 - 18.0 16. I - OVER Fig. 9. — Geographic distribution of farm prices of turkeys, 1912-1914. (Data from table 13.) 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. Prices gradually decrease the farther surplus areas are from the consuming centers to which their goods are shipped, because of increasing transpor- tation and handling charges. 19 The pattern varies for different agricul- tural products according to the location of the surplus areas in relation to the deficit areas. Previous to 1920 the highest farm prices for turkeys were found in the north Atlantic and the Pacific divisions of the United States and the lowest prices in the west north central and the south central divisions. For example, during the three years 1912-1914, the states of Texas and 19 Changes in transportation rates, zoning, and differences between local and through rates may modify this general principle but will not invalidate it. Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 45 Oklahoma had an average farm price for turkeys of 11.0 cents and 11.6 cents a pound, respectively. From these states prices radiated out in an easterly and westerly direction (table 13 and fig. 9). The average farm price in California was 20.1 cents or 0.3 cent higher than in New York state. After 1920 the mountain group of states also became an area of sur- plus turkey production. Because of this westerly shift of the surplus area, farm prices of turkeys in the Pacific division tended to decline Legend: Cents per pound 12.0- 14.0 □ 14.1 - 16.0 EZS1 16.1 - 18.0 E=3 18.1 - 20.0 vm 20.1 - OVER ■■ Fig. 10.- -Geographic distribution of farm prices of turkeys, 1933-1935. (Data from table 13.) relative to prices in the Atlantic states. During the three-year period 1933-1935, Idaho had the lowest farm prices for turkeys in the United States, or 13.2 cents per pound ; prices in California averaged 19.3 cents a pound, or 3.4 cents below those in New York state (table 13 and fig. 10) . The effect of the transition of the mountain and Pacific states from deficit to surplus areas can also be seen by contrasting the average level of prices in the various divisions during the three years 1933-1935 with those during the years 1912-1914. Farm prices of turkeys in the United States as a whole averaged 7.0 per cent higher in 1933-1935 than in 1912-1914. The average level of prices had increased in every major geographic division in the United States, except in the mountain and Pacific divisions, in which the level was 10.4 and 9.4 per cent lower, respectively (table 13). The influence of the geographic shift in the surplus areas upon farm 46 University of California — Experiment Station prices for turkeys is also shown in table 14 and figure 11. While data on farm prices by states are available only since 1912, it would appear that before that year farm prices for turkeys in California were somewhat higher than in New York state. During the next seven years (1914-1920) farm prices in California averaged about 1.7 cents per pound below TABLE 14 Farm Prices of Turkeys for Four Selected States, 1912-1935 ; Average of November 15 and December 15 Prices (Cents per pound) Year New York Illinois Texas California Differential between Cali- fornia prices and those in New York Texas 1912 18.6 14.8 10.5 19.6 + 10 + 9.1 1913 20.5 15 1 11.4 20.8 + 0.3 + 94 1914 20.1 14.7 11.1 19.8 - 0.3 + 8.7 1915 21.0 15 9 11.7 20.0 - 10 + 8.3 1916 25 19.8 18.3 23.0 - 2.0 + 4.7 1917 29 2 22 6 18.1 27.3 - 19 + 9.2 1918 35 9 27.1 22.3 32.2 - 3.7 + 9.9 1919 39 5 29.5 24.5 38.0 - 15 +13.5 1920 42.5 32.8 26.5 42.0 - 5 + 15.5 1921 40 31 27.5 35.5 - 4.5 + 8.0 1922 44.0 35 6 25.5 34.0 -10 + 8.5 1923 43.5 31.5 16.4 27.7 -15.8 +11.3 1924 36 26.9 17.7 30.8 - 5.2 +13.1 1925 43 2 31.4 24.8 40.8 - 2.4 + 16 1926 42.3 31.9 27.1 42.9 + 0.6 + 15.8 1927 43.0 33 25.5 38.5 - 4.5 + 13 1928 44.5 33.5 25.5 34.5 -10 + 9.0 1929 40.0 28.5 18.5 31.0 - 9.0 +12.5 1930 30.5 20.0 16.0 27.0 - 3.5 +11 1931 28.5 19.0 16.0 25.0 - 3.5 + 9.0 1932 21.5 13.0 8.5 15.5 - 6.0 + 7.0 1933 19.5 11.0 8.8 16.0 - 3 5 + 7.2 1934 22.5 15.0 13.4 19.0 - 3.5 + 5.5 1935 26.0 20.5 19.0 23.0 - 3.0 + 4.0 1936 24.0 14.0 11.0 19.0 - 5.0 + 8.0 Source of data: United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Average prices received by farmers for farm products. November and December reports, 1912-1936. (Mimeo.) those in New York state and during the next nine years (1921-1929) about 7.5 cents per pound lower. Since 1930, because of the decline in turkey prices generally, the differential between farm prices in Cali- fornia and those in New York state fell to an average of 4.0 cents per pound. The average level of farm prices for turkeys also appears to have declined relative to those in Illinois, a large consuming area, and Texas, a large surplus area. If turkey production continues to expand in the Pacific states as rap- idly as it did during the years 1920 to 1935, these states will soon be- Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 47 come surplus areas. If and when this happens, the Pacific division will tend to have the lowest farm prices for turkeys in the United States, due consideration being given to differences in average quality of turkeys produced in the various divisions and states. However, the Pacific states may enjoy some advantage in transportation costs if turkeys are shipped to eastern markets by boat rather than by rail. o en «* o> 0) o> 0> o> a o> o> Fig. 11. — Farm prices of turkeys in California, New York, Illinois, and Texas, 1912-1936. Average November 15 and December 15 prices. (Data from table 14). ANNUAL CHANGES IN TURKEY PRICES The estimated annual volume of turkey production in the United States appears to be one of the most important single factors influencing the annual level of farm prices of turkeys during the years 1924-25 to 1936- 37 20 (tables 5 and 12 and fig. 12) . With the exception of two years (1929- 30 and 1930-31), an increase in production over the previous year was associated with a decline in prices from the previous year and vice versa. This relation between the estimated annual production and prices of turkeys is brought out even more clearly if turkey prices are adjusted for changes in the general price level (broken line in fig. 12). Because the annual figures on production of turkeys may be subject to consid- 20 The annual level of prices in the United States is measured in terms of the aver- age farm prices in the United States on the fifteenth of October, November, Decem- ber, and January of each year. Farm prices of turkeys are not available during other months of the year. In any case the great bulk of high-grade turkeys (other than breeding hens) is marketed each year during these four months. 48 University of California — Experiment Station J 9f\ CM 19 18 w $ § 16 3 15 14 - - - oCZZl CM CM CO CM 0> CM CO CM o> o> CM o> O o> to o> CM to to to 3 lO to o> CD to in CO CM tl CM o> o> CM I CO CM o> O to o> CM 0> to I O to o> CM (O «* in to t- to to to to to to 1 1 1 i 1 i i-4 CM to ** in o> 0> at O) CD Fig. 12. — Estimated production of turkeys (1924 to 1936), and actual and ad- justed farm prices of turkeys (1924-25 to 1936-37) in the United States. (Data from tables 5 and 12.) Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 49 erable error in any one year, there appeared to be little justification in attempting- to get a more exact correlation between production and prices. Since 1927 the trend of turkej^ production has been upward, whereas that for adjusted prices has been downward. The downward trend in adjusted prices is probably due to the marked upward trend of produc- tion and partly to the fact that turkey prices declined more rapidly during the depression years 1930-1934 than prices generally (fig. 8). Because of the fact that turkeys are in the luxury class of consumption goods, the year-to-year prices of turkeys are greatly influenced by changes in general business conditions. An improvement in business from one year to the next would ordinarily be accompanied by a more rapid rise in turkey prices (provided production remains substantially unchanged) than in prices generally. Similarly a decline in business conditions from one year to the next would normally be accompanied by a greater proportionate decline in turkey prices than in prices generally. Another important factor that might affect the average level of farm prices in any one year is the state of maturity of turkeys during the early part of the main marketing season which ordinarily runs from October to January. In some years, owing to climatic and other natural factors, a much smaller proportion of turkeys is available for market before Thanksgiving than in other years. In years in which maturity is normal or in advance of normal there is not likely to be much change in prices during the marketing season, provided there is a fairly accurate knowledge of the total number of turkeys produced. A simple average of the prices on the fifteenth of October, November, December, and Jan- uary (as used in this study) is thus likely to approximate fairly closely to the weighted average price for the four months. 21 In a year in which 21 A simple average price is obtained by adding the prices on the fifteenth of Octo- ber, November, December, and January and dividing by 4. This can be shown alge- braically as follows : a+b + c+d -r = simple average price, where a, b, c, and d represent the prices in October, November, December, and January, respectively. A weighted average price is obtained by multiplying the price in October by the percentage of the total production marketed in October and so on for each of the four months. The four totals are then added and divided by the combined percentages for the four months. This can be shown algebraically as follows : (axq) + (bxr)+(cxs) + (dxt) . — ^weighted average price, where a, b, c, and d repre- sent the prices, and q, r, s, and t the percentages of total production marketed in October, November, December, and January, respectively. The weighted average may or may not correspond with the simple average; whether it does depends upon variations in prices and percentages marketed during the four months. 50 University of California — Experiment Station maturity is retarded, however, the smaller quantity available at the beginning of the marketing season will probably sell at a price consider- ably above the simple average price and the larger quantity available at the end of the season at a price considerably below. Under such circum- stances the simple average of the four monthly prices would tend to be higher than the weighted average price (table 15) . Unfortunately very little data are available on the state of maturity of the turkeys each year. Dealers in each area may have a fairly good TABLE 15 Hypothetical Example Showing Effect of Delayed Maturity on the Average Farm Price of Turkeys* Normal maturity Late maturity Month Per cent production sold Farm price on 15th of month in cents per pound Per cent production sold Farm price on 15th of month in cents per pound October 10 25 30 15 80f 22 23 23 22 22.5 22.7 5 20 30 25 80f 25 November 25 December 21 January 19 Total or simple average Weighted average 22.5 21.6 * Number of turkeys produced assumed to be the same in both cases. In seasons of late maturity supplies will be light and prices high in the early season. At the end of the season prices will decline as a result of the heavier supplies available. t Remainder of breeding turkeys sold later in year. idea of the maturity of turkeys in their immediate vicinity but such data are not available for the United States as a whole. The lack of such knowledge may, and usually will, react to the detriment of both pro- ducers and dealers. In the interest of more orderly marketing of turkeys, it would seem highly desirable that machinery be developed, preferably by the United States Department of Agriculture, to collect more accurate data on production of turkeys annually and also on the state of maturity of birds especially during the early months of the marketing season. It is logical to expect that prices of turkeys would be influenced to some extent by prices and supply (including storage stocks) of substi- tute meats, principally chickens and to a lesser extent beef, lamb, and pork. Because of the unreliability of data on production and prices of turkeys in any one year, no attempt was made to measure the influence upon turkey prices of variations in the production and prices of substi- tute commodities. It would seem, however, that in years in which sup- Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 51 plies of substitute meats are low and prices relatively high, these condi- tions would act as strengthening or supporting factors to turkey prices. On the other hand, plentiful supplies and low prices of substitute meats would tend to act as a weakening factor in turkey prices. SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN FARM PRICES OF TURKEYS Seasonal movements of prices of farm products often differ as between the farm and wholesale markets because most farm products pass out of the hands of farmers soon after harvesting each year. From then on they are carried by dealers or cooperative associations and fed into the retail markets during the remainder of the year. This section will be devoted to a consideration of seasonal variations of turkey prices received by farmers, in contrast with similar variations in the farm prices of other agricultural products. Seasonal Price Movements for Agricultural Products Generally. — The normal seasonal movements of prices of individual farm products are influenced by several factors, the most important of which are : sea- sonal variations in production and marketing ; seasonal changes in con- sumption habits ; storage holdings at different times of the year ; and accuracy of knowledge of potential supply at the beginning of and dur- ing the marketing period. Most farm products can be grouped under three categories for which there are somewhat different seasonal movements of prices. Under the first category would be included commodities such as milk and eggs which are produced all the year round, though in varying quantities. Under the second category would fall the more durable types of prod- ucts, such as wheat, barley, corn, and cotton, which are marketed by farmers during only a few months each year. In the last category would come perishable fruits and vegetables, which in any one area have very restricted marketing seasons, lasting often for only a few weeks. For commodities in the first category, prices received by farmers are normally highest during the season of low production (usually the fall and winter months) and then gradually decline as volume of production increases, being lowest at the time of peak production. For commodities in the second category, farm prices are usually high at the beginning of the marketing period and decline as the volume of sales by producers increases. While the prices of such products usually advance consider- ably during the rest of the year, farmers are not directly concerned with these advances, because their products have passed into the hands of dealers. For products in the third category, seasonal movements are largely influenced by the quantities arriving daily in the large consum- ing markets of the country. In the beginning of the season prices are 52 University of California — Experiment Station high ; then they decline as the season advances ; later, as supplies taper off, the prices again rise ; and finally cease entirely when no more prod- ucts are available for market. These characteristic movements of prices of farm products tend to be repeated annually, although some variations may occur in any one year owing to changes in the times of peak and low production associated with abnormal climatic and other natural factors. For commodities in the first and second categories, departures from normal seasonal move- ment of prices in any one year may also result from variations in stor- age holdings in relation to current production and marketing. If the volume of production for the year has been overestimated, prices at the beginning of the heavy marketing period would tend to be too low (in relation to the actual volume of production). Current consumption would thus be unduly stimulated. Later as more accurate information on the actual volume of production became available, prices would tend to increase more rapidly than the normal seasonal rate. On the other hand, if the volume of production for the year had been underestimated, prevailing prices at the beginning of the heavy marketing period would tend to be too high, which would discourage consumption and cause storage holdings to accumulate. Later as more accurate knowledge of the actual supply situation becomes available, prices would tend to de- cline below the normal seasonal level. Abrupt and unpredictable changes in consumer buying habits or purchasing power may and usually do cause departures from the normal seasonal movement of prices of such products. Two Seasonal Movements for Farm Prices of Turkeys. — Farm prices of turkeys differ somewhat from the seasonal pattern of most other types of farm products in that there are two distinct marketing periods. As was stated previously (p. 49), the first and more important period be- gins in October or late September and continues until the following January or February. The second period begins in March or April and continues until May or June. The quality of turkeys marketed by farm- ers during these two periods differs considerably. During the earlier period, it is high, the sales consisting mainly of young birds produced the same year. During the later period breeder hens (those which have been used for egg production) are sold. These are usually in much poorer condition than those marketed before January. The prices received by producers of turkeys in different parts of the United States tend to reflect the prices prevailing in the nearest large assembling centers. Prices in these centers in turn would be more or less closely knit through prices prevailing in the large consuming centers of Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 53 the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. In any one state or local production area, however, the seasonal movement in prices in any one year may depart from the seasonal trend in the country as a whole because of peculiar local conditions. With this limitation in mind, the average farm prices for turkeys in the United States as a whole or in any one state or a group of states can be used to determine the seasonal pattern of farm prices of turkeys. As was previously pointed out (p. 37), the most extensive and reliable data of this nature are those published by the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics. They represent the farm price (by states and for the United States) on the fifteenth day of each month beginning in October and ending in January (table 12). These data have been regrouped in table 16 to show the changes in farm prices in turkeys from the preceding month. In twenty- three out of twenty-eight years (1909-1936) farm prices increased between October and November, declined four times, and were unchanged only once. Three of the decreases occurred during the years 1929 to 1932 and were probably largely a reflection of the decline in consumer buying power. It is thus safe to conclude that the normal ten- dency is for farm prices of turkeys to increase between October and November. This may be due (1) to carrying charges, (2) to poorer qual- ity (because of immaturity) of birds available for market early in Octo- ber, or (3) to caution of dealers in opening their bidding for turkeys in the early part of the marketing season, when information about produc- tion is still incomplete. Prior to 1917 increases in prices ranged from 0.0 in 1914 to 1.6 cents in 1916, the average increase for the nine years being about 0.8 cent. From 1918 to 1928 (eleven years) the increase in prices from October to November ranged from 0.9 cent in 1924 to 4.4 cents in 1922 and 1927, the average increase for the period being 2.7 cents, or nearly three and a half times more than the average rise for the period 1909 to 1917. Part of this increase in the average price rise between the two periods is undoubtedly a reflection of the higher level of prices dur- ing the later period ; part is probably due to a tendency to underestimate the volume of the turkey production during the early portion of each season. During the same twenty-eight years, average farm prices of turkeys in the United States increased nineteen times between November and December and decreased nine times. Five of the decreases occurred since 1929, again probably reflecting declines in the general price level and low consumer purchasing power. The average of the seven price rises during the period 1909-1917 was 0.9 cent, nearly the same as for the October-November rises. During the period 1918-1928 the average of 54 University of California — Experiment Station the nine rises was about 2.4 cents, or somewhat less than for the October- November rise. During the same period prices declined twice between November and December, the average decline being about 2.0 cents. Average farm prices rose ten times between December and January, TABLE 16 Change in Farm Prices of Turkeys in the United States over Prices in the Preceding Month, 1909-1936 (Cents per pound) October to November November to December December to January- Year Higher Lower No change Higher Lower No change Higher Lower No change 1909 0.7 1.6 0.9 1910 1.1 8 .0 1911 0.1 3 1 , , 1912 0.8 0.1 1 1913 0.6 0.3 .0 1914 0.4 .0 1915 1.1 0.7 1 1916 1.6 1.0 0.1 1917 1.0 2.0 0.1 1918 1.8 13 3 1919 1.7 2.8 8 1920 1.8 1.3 0.1 1921 1.5 4.4 1.3 0.9 4.3 3.2 4.4 4.0 0.4 0.5 1.9 4.0 1 9 3 9 4 3 2.8 1.6 2.8 3.0 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.4 3 3 2 4 7 6 2 7 7 1 4 6 2 7 5 1.8 2.6 1.3 1.2 2.5 2 3 1.4 0.7 0.0 1.4 0.2 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934.... ,0 1935 1936 Number of changes S3 4 1 19 9 10 14 4 Source of data: From table 12. decreased fourteen times, and remained unchanged four times. The average change in prices from December to January (both increases and decreases) was much less than average changes during the earlier months. The average increase for the period 1909 to 1917 amounted to 0.1 cent, and the average decrease to less than 0.4 cent. In three years prices were unchanged. The average increase during the years 1918 to 1928 was approximately 0.5 cent and the average decrease about 1.7 cents. For Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 55 the period 1929 to 1936 increases in price from December to January averaged 0.8 cent and decreases 0.9 cent. These data would seem to indicate that before Thanksgiving each year dealers have only very approximate information on the volume of pro- duction, the state of maturity of birds, and consumers' reactions to retail prices around Thanksgiving. The fact that prices increased nineteen times between November and December indicates that as a general rule TABLE 17 Monthly Average Prices of Young Tom Turkeys 13 Pounds and up as Quoted by the Produce Exchange of Los Angeles (Cents per pound) Year Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1923 33.0 26.0 30.0 40.0 40.0 34.5 28.0 28.0 30.0 20.6 13.0 15.7 20.1 33.0 26.0 30.0 40.0 40.0 34.0 28.0 28.0 30.0 20.0 13.0 16.0 21.0 * 26.0 30.0 40.0 40.0 34.0 28.0 28.0 30.0 20.0 14.1 16.0 21.0 36.0 26.0 30.0 40.0 40.0 34.0 28.0 28.0 30.0 20.0 15.0 16.0 20.3 36.0 26.0 30.0 40.0 40.0 34.0 28.0 28.0 30.0 20.0 15.0 16.0 17.6 36.0 26.0 30.0 40.0 40.0 34.0 28.0 28.0 30.0 20.0 15.9 16.0 17.0 36.0 26.0 30.0 40 40 34.0 28.0 28.0 30.0 20.0 16.0 16.0 17.0 36.0 26.0 30.0 40.0 40.0 34 28.0 28.0 30.0 20.0 17.6 16.0 17.0 36.0 26.0 30.0 40.0 40.0 34.0 28.0 28.0 31.2 20.0 19.7 16.0 17.0 36.0 27.3 30.0 40.0 40.0 33.8 28.0 28.0 27.0 18.1 18.0 15.4 17.1 32.4 28.0 34.2 40.0 40.0 32.2 28.0 26.3 25.6 16.3 15.8 17.7 20.0 25.3 1924 29.5 1925 1926 38.6 40.0 1927 35.6 1928 28.3 1929 28.0 1930 28.5 1931 25.5 1932 13.0 1933 15.1 1934 20.6 1935 21.7 * Dash indicates data not available. Source of data: Records of the Produce Exchange of Los Angeles. dealers are conservative in their pre-Thanksgiving bidding. On the other hand, the fact that prices declined nine times indicates that in some years they were overoptimistic. After the Thanksgiving sales, dealers have a much better idea of the volume of turkeys that will be available for the Christmas trade and also of consumers' reactions to the existing level of resale prices. They are thus able to readjust their bidding prices so as to more nearly equate demand and supply for the Christmas trade. In January some further but minor adjustment of prices is necessary in order to absorb the re- mainder of the turkey stocks. Whether prices in January are increased or decreased would depend upon the number of turkeys (in relation to the total production for the previous year) still to be marketed. If a rela- tively large proportion is still unmarketed after Christmas, prices would tend to decline in January. On the other hand, if available supplies are low, the keen bidding of dealers would tend to increase prices. Turkeys purchased by dealers after Christmas are put into storage for sale during the rest of the year, and, therefore, come into direct com- 56 University of California — Experiment Station petition with breeder hens marketed from March to June. Unfortu- nately, the United States Department of Agriculture does not publish data on farm prices of breeder hens. The Produce Exchange of Los Angeles, however, has published daily since 1923 three sets of quotations on live turkeys. The first is for young toms weighing less than 18 pounds, the second for young toms 18 pounds and up, and the third for young hens 8 or 9 pounds and up. These quo- TABLE 18 Monthly Average Prices of Hen Turkeys 8 Pounds and up as Quoted by the Produce Exchange op Los Angeles (Cents per pound) Year Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1923 31.7 28.0 * 30.0 25 3 1924 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 27.3 28.0 29.5 1925 30.0 30 30.0 30.0 30 30 30.0 30.0 30 30.0 34.2 38.6 1926 40.0 40.0 40.0 40 40 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40 40.0 1927 40.0 40.0 40.0 40 40 40 40.0 40.0 40 40.0 40 35.6 1928 34.5 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34 34.0 34.0 34.0 33 8 32.2 28.3 1929 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 1930 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 26.3 28.5 1931 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 27.4 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 23.7 24.9 1932 20.6 20.0 20.0 17.1 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.6 17.9 16.3 13.0 1933 13.0 13 14.1 15 13.2 15.6 16.0 17.3 19.0 18.0 15.8 15.7 1934 15.0 15.0 15.0 13.0 11.8 12.0 14.9 18.0 18.0 17.9 19.4 20.3 1935 19.6 20 20.0 19.3 17.2 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.3 16.7 22.1 23.9 * Dashes indicates data not available. Source of data: Records of the Produce Exchange of Los Angeles. tations are supposed to represent the prices paid daily by dealers to hucksters (or to producers) for live turkeys f .o.b. Los Angeles. They are based, moreover, on average rather than on prime, or top-quality birds. The quotations for young toms less than 18 pounds and for hens aver- aged by months are shown in tables 17 and 18, respectively. Previous to 1931 for hens and 1933 for toms these quotations showed very little seasonal change. In most years some change either up or down occurred in the last three months of the year, when prices were being- adjusted to the new supply of turkeys available for the holiday season. Since 1933 the quotations on live young toms between January and October have shown more frequent changes, but display no marked sea- sonal trend. In 1933 quotations increased between January and October, in 1934 they remained about the same, and in 1935 showed a decline. In the case of young hens a more marked change and definite trend in quotations has been shown since 1931. In each of the years 1931 to 1935 with the exception of 1933, quotations on young hens declined several cents between March and June, but tended to remain unchanged Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 57 from June to September. It is extremely doubtful whether before 1931 the daily quotations represented prices paid to producers f .o.b. Los An- geles for breeder hens. These are of poorer quality than hens sold earlier and it would be reasonable to expect a price break when breeder hens began coming on the market. Since 1931, however, the decline in quota- tions in April and May probably more nearly reflect prices paid to pro- ducers for breeder hens. No pronounced seasonal trend in quotations on live turkeys is shown. The changes in prices usually coming in November and again in April or May (for hens) merely reflect the adjustments necessary in the two marketing periods — those in November to reflect the new season's pro- duction of turkeys in relation to prospective demand, those in April and May to reflect sales of breeder hens. The fact that quotations are made in February and March and again from June to September when very few live turkeys are marketed by producers would indicate that during a large part of the year quotations are purely nominal, and, if anything, reflect only dealers' estimates of values on which sales to the retail trade can be based. Because quotations for several months of the year tend to be purely nominal and not based on actual sales, considerable doubt will arise as to how accurately the quotations in the months of heavy trading (October to January and April to June) reflect prices actually paid to producers. As was previously stated (p. 35), it was found, by actual observation, that while the quotations of the Produce Exchange of Los Angeles remained unchanged for several consecutive days in October and November, 1935, many producers were receiving in the country, prices that equaled and even exceeded the quotation. Since 1930 the pooling and sales policies of the two large turkey growers' cooperative associations in the western states would tend to modify any seasonal price movements for the turkeys delivered by their members. These organizations operate three pools or more each market- ing season : a Thanksgiving pool for turkeys delivered before Thanks- giving; a Christmas pool for turkeys delivered in late November and the first few weeks of December; a freezer pool for turkeys delivered after Christmas ; and a breeder pool. Members receive an average price representing the proceeds of sales less expenses in each pool, due con- sideration being given to the grades of turkeys delivered by individual members. The turkeys delivered in some of these pools, especially the freezer and breeder pools, may be sold several months after delivery at varying prices. Because producers received only a net price represent- ing the average proceeds of sales, these subsequent variations of price in the wholesale markets will be averaged in prices received by producers. 58 University of California — Experiment Station CO « o p o o « Ph Ph- o h O o Eh _o 'u 05 fa -3 bl 3 O a) -a o o O -3 3 1) cr- £ 05 o « 3 .S v_ ' '75 Ol s § a ~* o o> 0) C o .3 'C <*> -a. c C s3 o •-, 8 S a m os a a • - • 2 JB as o3 « 3 o o S 8 CO a) . a O 2 3-3- S ra £ Ih a <*-. a CO -^ oo kg O: U; ,0 . O r- +j u Ih o $ A a o o >. OS 0) a CI a 5 71 >-. p*3 5 J3 0) 73 !>a -a t: o3 3 ^ OJ 3 2 a > 05 •* t. a oB * S ° s -^ ft 05 a a cC (- ".£ ■a o3 5 8 g & a a o 03 +» a 03 03 »5 3 o -►» °"c ft »*> I- o 03 ft 0> QC fi a 03 a ■a if 3 O oo g o a i-i u .. x> > o a o a ,d oj C *» "S S° a ^ S °3 bfl 3 a) cq J2 3 72 O 03 05 Q £ G "tS >- o o> a s 05 '-J3 > a ° a Z i-> b - u co a) CO £2 2 O . o -i ^ i c? 3 3 1 0) u a oi •- a >> » —* .2 o3 a) a £ 03 S 3 a) u. W c3 a a) i-S a: o3 C3 «i ■/. a a oi J5 05 o3 T3 a> v 05 05 a a3 c £ ^2 1 H a § CO 05 3 a 03 0) fc> a 03 Q 3 O >> Ih 03 3 a S3 >-5 bo a 'S a '& s -o (V S3 « T3 o o3 a) ft ^ a> J3 03 03 -_ a> M -a S 5 CO o M Eh O P C? O « Pn i M « P a , |g _M as 05 k. a) gj a5T3 « J2 s 5 a °. o ^ o 05 .2 a> « ,g a u 03 ft j>; a c •r oj Ph "s3 M -c is c d fl) CJ CJ 3 i- if a a M % •2 2 >, o3 aj •- o * ^ 2. ^ j- C 03 ^ a, T3 o « g ^ 05 a 0) O f 2 c -I Tl 03 T3 a 03 O M Ih 3 H a 05 3 >> O 05 Q, t— 05 ^ a i- £ 05 "^ > 13 a s O O) +-> -a tc "a § ?. 05 • - ja •3 wj cc 0> §j 3 J5-S ■^ a 8 ^ 3 2 0) o § -a a 3 05 5 a 8 a o . "■ cc 1h a ►_• «H ["J 9 I o » : ». t> 03 ^3 - U, 05 bfj T3 e 2 a 3 * 2 75 >, ft ■^ 0) ^^ -4 Ih 75 a |1 o *^ +^ f. M a M 3 05 ' 3 J3 ft X 0> a S3 75 a a o *^ o . S3 3 a .. c 9 .£ o> 05 -a -a -2 I 05 ■- «» Ih Ih 00 "*"• ft » >> -« -« hQ « 3 «-> « a *« S o c £ +-> 03 0> T5 05 75 73 _05 8 Ih fa a 05 S3 o fa >> u a 05 M S3 T3 a 03 "si S3 -3 0) fa o -a 05 ■a 3 C ^ 05 ^ 3 '*" n O .2 -^ — a 05 o 05 Ih Oj 03 ft 05 T3 Q 03 8 ft J S oo O ■~ 0> O s3 — 03 cc tf 9S - u 0) S fa a OS -a C5 fa a X Tl >> .a 01 a a ■a > S3 05 a> a r >. go an 4^ is (U 3 fa 2 +a 9) '3 a .-3 75 ,05 .S 8fa > T3 13 a 2 S3 3 j3 a 05 4h 75 bt fa >. c§ 05 "3 cc I a g 05 05 bfi a 05 if a 03 -a fa 0> u 3 T3 O 05 it a o si? •w 05 *S 05 i % fa T3 ■» i § ^ fe 2 o 05 a 03 ft a o U ^^ ss § ft, S -5 03 PQ t 05 O £ .a p o Bui* 612] Turkey Marketing in California 59 *© *<3 o O iH PQ < EH d a o i CD CO M CO M j!} Jj p g "oi +3 +"> 3 5 CD 3 M ^! t- Ih 1 03 1 6 a o >> CO 1 CD CO u B s a +3 1 CO CO Oi »— 1 9 3 CO .2 <+4 o CO 1 co CO 05 CD — +3 CD CD .s CD u 03 s o 'S >> +3 H CD 'E cd xi 03 CD Ah +9 >> - * '$ M a 3 o X! ** CD '8 M M' f* a 9 O c | O '3 cd X X +-» -0 CD >> >> i-8 ^ ^ * "5 CD 9 CD CD SO £ £ ^ .3 t> u 03 .2 as 03 "O CO o •J 3 03 02 2 © 8 a „ fS 53 CD CD* C ti i 8 CD CD MS 'E "E • "i >> o c* o o 2 J — .2 Oi T3 « o> •fi oo 8 § •2 ^ Oh '3 a oj *o3 1/ o3 '3 £ 3 O b X E>H £ ^ CO +3 oo .. -e >. bC bo 03 CD c 3 CD CD o CO 1-H •8 d 3 D a CO s 2 •ta *c3 3 o* CD I C 3 3 3 O O >. >> •- a) 2 3 S © s c3 co *-> 'tH o -a 5 o J2 "3 *o3 o > "c a O 1* E -*J O a '— tad CD CD 3 CD T3 a a s to i 3 t3 3 • 03 rv. 13 co +3 cd a i CD a CD ^ ffi c8 co +3 i- O O. CD ti CD o "> 3 3 o >> CO >) CD ED £ c M a 3 O 13 d a ■8 i a 03 03 3 _o '■4J 03 -*j O 3 CD co CO 3 +3 -8 a 3 c-. CO* C "oi i ^ »T » CD 2 03 co C rj 1|| i_ ^ X CO TJ CD — (- +3 4) CD > O CD O. X) CD X Q 'h3 Q >> v ^ "2 >> CD 3 CD CD >> £ CD u s T3 ■£ s CD T3 M 3 CD a .2 3 T3 CQ CO a S3 "3 95 s .S3 V. -a ***i Oh _o 3 F*i "C o CD CM 53 e 0* M «D 2X1 S «D - O 3-^1 S .2 3 f 3- - 5 o^.2 c C "o S"S i 3-g§a.2^| 23 l CD -*^ O CO s U cDca * -^ 2 2. W >S CD „ CO 2 O* t"-— cocci a •^■ J "< n> Xi - 03 «■« w CDX g2^*3?5^o •s&- b h c 2, ° ^S'O «=. O CD^ -'^ , *-' 2 03 a O CD - 2*J 03 2-J302^ CD03 O-'-J 3 SX M 03 ^ a 3 £ g !f 03 . 3 S O 3-0 • 2 O 3JS S 03 03 CD Sn t- a » co.^ CD C » o3 S O O O CD -j li s§ J 3 CO'-" CD 3 3 c 3 CD . *t CD 3 cu 3 od a.S 2 «>«-. > co « . h m v "X«« o 3 CD T 2 >>a ^ CD c8 03 -^X^ 3 8 -^ co *X w 03* 2 03 O *" >> O CD CD - O 3 0.2 > S Oi.«ffl 3X7.2 • ♦3 x ^> — '"' aj^i CD X - X ° 3 W) O'.S b£ X CD «o» 3'^ 53 3 O +3 -u 3 3 CD CD 3 b -a a >» t£ c CD'S 03 ' -5 is 5s >> S 3 03 CD O 03 >, CD cxl'> s-SiS^IJ CD 3 2 03 08 3 "03^X^0 O 3§ g^S fe 3 2 c3 O a CD Xi CD" flj-j 3 r" m * j^> !TZ CD a 2 CD— i tj,, M ® 3 oo a c-2 ;.a*a o o3 *3 _, +3 +3 . _ ^ 3 co co CO • ' 2 S a 2 s? 03 03 03 os * a; >>.S 3 ..CN—t-i +3 CD ■ao oo^ a sjjo | S3 2^45 9 a^i 3 CD > CD > •£ •Si -Si X*3 a5 CD Q 3 cr X 03 +3 CD > O X c3 CD 3 .2 3 CD 3 2 '■>-> 03 CD X 3 a u O «C 3 3 O*o3 w CD'3 O 3 oo • -X x +3+J S 03 O — 2 CD ° c3 3 +3 oo *> 08 a-sg « >>CD 2 3 a M 3 03 XX CD •^ 03 3 CD ** 3 *? 3 CO ** co-^ Ci CD »H a; ©8 X u +373 ■r 1 cd o XJ 3 X os a t« 2 ^^ **-• r^ o a 86 3 o CO «r a a CD JT CD aco; •2 a CO CD ■4.' N D*^ 2 . - C" c* 5 2 a— 2 •s<<° - -•-^ a mx o — O o3 CD 03 -a 13 - CD OTJ « T3 3'0 < ' *3*S =3 fl -3 2° §2^-« > 3 cd : - +3-^ a a 3-3'i3 CD O CD 3 g CD MO <£< 03 03.2 oo ^f|"d -4-1 CO x a - s og to"; "3x SPaj'S CD co H CD O'© CD' 1.5 CN>_, CO ™ «r oq_S^o co^ •- > «'^^CO +3 05 CD fefcCDojSicS^os aCDo3CD5c» A-.S fe „CO CD +> 3 s >. 3X— COO© 03 y-S-c? 3 CDO ° b^CN +3 *3T> bgT3 mS«„ ©2 CD oo-^ a cd*; i3 Ja a 03 o • sS^c? a 3 sj'co J3 , ■§-p a Jx g feC g O* 3 CD ° CD. 2 -X-° mco 3 a-z m 03 CD 3 M MX PhZ o a a a, * £ cr o.S :S+3X mS od ^ «Ot3'+*! 60 University of California — Experiment Station SEASONAL VARIATIONS OF TURKEY PRICES IN WHOLESALE MARKETS Comparisons of seasonal variations of turkey prices in various wholesale markets are rendered difficult, owing to lack of uniform grade classifica- tion as between markets and because even in individual markets grade and class designations have been changed from time to time. The sources of turkey-price information readily available to producers are summar- ized in table 19. Comparison of Various Wholesale Quotations in Los Angeles. — In Los Angeles the most extensive and comparable turkey-price data avail- able are those in (1) the two farm papers, the California Cultivator and the Pacific Rural Press, and (2) the quotations of the Produce Exchange of Los Angeles. The quotations of the latter agency, as was explained earlier (p. 32), are of particular significance because they are used as the basis of purchase of live turkeys from local producers. The Produce Exchange does not issue quotations on dressed turkeys. Since October, 1931, the Federal-State Market News Service (Los Angeles office) has included in its daily "Butter, Cheese, Eggs, and Poultry Report," quo- tations on dressed turkeys during the main marketing season (October to January) with some irregular quotations during later months on dressed old hens. Prior to 1933, however, quotations were issued only intermittently and grade classifications were changed frequently. Since 1933, however, grade classifications have been more uniform. Comparison between the quotations of the Federal-State Market News Service and those of the Produce Exchange of Los Angeles is rendered difficult partly because the quotations of the former agency are for dressed turkeys, whereas those for the latter are for live turkeys and partly because quotations of the former agency are for first-quality birds, whereas those of the latter are for "average run" or average qual- ity. Nevertheless, if both quotations were based on the prices at which actual sales were made, they would tend to change more or less in har- mony and at about the same absolute rate. A comparison of the Federal-State Market News quotations on dressed young hens with those for the Produce Exchange of Los Angeles on live young hens during the months of November and December for the years 1933, 1934, and 1935 indicates that fluctuations of quotations on live hens are accompanied by similar fluctuations on dressed hens, although the degree of change is much higher on live than on dressed hens (table 20 and figure 13). In interpreting these data it is necessary to bear in mind the fact that dealers buy the bulk of their turkeys from producers Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 61 during the first three weeks of both November and December and sell to retailers during the week or so before Thanksgiving and Christmas. In 1933 prices of dressed hens declined 1.0 cent after Thanksgiving and later increased 1.0 cent in the week before Christmas. Quotations on TABLE 20 Federal-State Market News Service and Produce Exchange Daily Quotations on Young Hen Turkeys, Los Angeles, November and December, 1933 to 1935 (Cents per pound) 1933 1934 1935 Month Federal- Produce Month Federal- Produce Month Federal- Produce and State, Exchange, and State, Exchange, and State, Exchange, day dressed live day dressed live day dressed live Nov. 1 21-22 18 Nov. 1 21 -22 18 Nov. 1 26 -27 21 2 21-22 16 2 21 -22 18 4 26 -27 21 3 19-20 16 5 21 -22 18 5 26 -27 21 6 19-20 16 6 21 -22 18 6 26 -27 21 7 19-20 16 7 21 -2iy 2 18 7 26 -27 21 8 19-20 16 8 21 -2\y 2 18 8 26 -27 21 9 19-20 16 9 21 -21H 18 11 26 -27 21 10 19-20 16 12 21 -21H 18 12 26 -27 22 13 19-20 16 13 21 -2iy 2 18 13 27 -27H 22 14 19-20 16 14 21^-22 18 14 27 -27y 2 22 15 19-20 16 15 21^-22 18 15 27 -28 22 16 19-20 16 16 2VA-22 18 18 nominal 22 17 18-19 14 19 2\y l -22V l 18 19 nominal 23 20 18 14 20 2\y 2 -22y 2 18 20 nominal 23 21 18 14 21 22 -23 21 21 29 -29 J^ 23 22 18 16 22 24 -24H 22 22 29 -30 23 23 18 16 23 2iy 2 -25y 2 23 25 29 -30 23 24 18 16 26 24H-25M 23 26 29 -30 23 27 18 16 27 24^-25^ 23 27 29 -30 23 28 18 16 28 24^-25^ 23 29 26 23 29 18 16 30 23 -24 22 Dec. 2 26 21 Dec. 1 18 16 Dec. 3 23 -24 20 3 26 21 4 18 14 4 23 -24 20 4 26 21 5 17-18 14 5 23 -24 20 5 26 21 6 17-18 14 6 22 -23 20 6 26 21 7 17-18 14 7 22^-23 18 9 26 21 8 17-18 14 10 22 -23 18 10 27 21 11 17-18 14 11 22 -23 18 11 27 21 12 17-18 14 12 22 -23 18 12 27 21 13 17-18 14 13 23H-24 18 13 27y 2 -28 l / 2 25 14 17-18 14 14 23M-24 18 16 27y 2 -28y 2 25 15 17-18 15H 17 23^-24 22 17 27^-28 26 18 17-18 18 18 24^-25 22 18 273^-28 26 19 18-19 18 19 24^-25 22 19 27^-28 26 20 18-19 18 20 243^-25 22 20 273^-28 26 21 18-19 18 21 24H-25 22 23 273^-28 26 22 18-19 18 24 22 24 273/6-28 26 26 18-19 18 26 23' 22 26 273/2-28 26 27 18-19 18 27 23 22 27 273^-28 26 28 17-18 15 28 23 22 30 27 -273^ 26 29 17-18 15 31 22 31 26 Source of data: Dressed: Federal-State Market News Service. Daily reports on butter, cheese, eggs, and poultry. Los Angeles Office. November and December, 1933, 1934, and 1935. (Mimeo.) Live: Records of Produce Exchange of Los Angeles. live turkeys, however, declined 2.0 cents a pound after Thanksgiving and increased 4.0 cents just before Christmas. In 1934 quotations on dressed hens increased 3.5 cents between the first and last weeks in No- vember, whereas those on live turkeys increased 5.0 cents. Immediately after Thanksgiving quotations on dressed turkeys fell 2.5 cents, whereas 62 University of California — Experiment Station oC November 1954 December November December Fig. 13. — Federal-State Market News Service daily quotations for young hens, dressed, in Los Angeles, and Los Angeles Produce Exchange daily quotations for live hens, November and December, 1933-1935. Thanksgiving and Christmas indi- cated by T and C. (Data from table 20). Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 63 those on live turkeys decreased 5.0 cents. During the week or 10 days before Christmas, quotations on dressed hens increased 2.5 cents in con- trast with a 4.0-cent increase on live hens. A similar behavior in these two groups of prices was shown in 1935, except that apparently at Thanksgiving the quotations on dressed turkeys were too high and those on live hens too low. At Christmas quotations on dressed hens were from 1 San Francisco Los Angeles ^-A-n qjT-^ ==F 32 30 n •P 5 26 _ 1935-36 24 ^rfL *n.-~ , *=\ Sept, Oot. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Fig. 14. — Daily prices of dressed young hen turkeys, San Francisco and Los An- geles, September through February, 1933-34 to 1936-37. Thanksgiving and Christ- mas indicated by T and C. (Data from IT. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ.) 64 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 21 Dressed Turkey Prices at Los Angeles and San Francisco, 1931-32 to 1936-37* (Cents per pound) 1931-32 1932-33 Month Los Angeles San Francisco Los Angeles San Francisco Young toms Young hens Young toms Young hens Young toms Young hens Young toms Young hens October November December January February March 32.3 31.1 30.2 24.4 22.6 23.0 30.3 29.7 31.0 24.4 23.8 24.5 32.4 30.5 29.4 23.2 19.0 18.0 30 5 30.6 30 2 23 2 21.0 21.0 1 19.8 16.9 16 15.5 16.4 19.8 16.9 16.5 16.0 16.9 17.8 16 5 14.5 14.5 14 5 18.3 16.7 15.6 15.5 15 5 Month October . . . November December January. . . February . 1933-34 Los Angeles Young toms Young hens Under 17 lbs. Over 17 lbs. 19.0 19.2 19.0 17.8 18.1 17.8 18.4 19.1 18.2 18.6 19.6 18.5 San Francisco Young toms Under 17 lbs. Over 17 lbs. 23.3 24.6 19.3 19.6 17.7 17.3 19.1 19.1 20 20.0 Young hens 23.0 19.3 17.8 18.4 18.5 1934-35 Los Angeles Young toms Young hens Under 17 lbs. Over 17 lbs. 20.6 22.8 20.6 21.5 22.3 22.6 23.2 23.5 23.3 24.2 24.4 23.8 24.5 26.3 24.8 San Francisco Young toms Under 17 lbs. Over 17 lbs. 22.4 23.3 22.0 22.1 23.8 23.8 24.0 24.4 24.7 24.7 Young hens 22.0 22.0 23.7 22.8 23.3 Month September October . . . November. December. January.. . February. . March 1935-36 Los Angeles Young toms Young hens Under 17 lbs. Over 17 lbs. 23.5 25.0 26.5 24.4 26.7 27.5 26.2 25.7 27.0 25.3 24.8 26.8 24.2 24.0 25.5 24.2 24.0 25.5 San Francisco Young toms Under 17 lbs. Over 17 lbs. 25.5 25.5 25.0 25.0 26.9 26.6 25.9 25.3 24.1 23.5 23.1 23.0 23.0 23.0 Young hens 25.0 26.0 27.6 28.1 26.1 25.5 25.5 1936-37 Los Angeles Young toms Under 18 lbs. 23.4 21.4 18.4 17.9 18.0 Over 18 lbs. 24.2 21.6 18.3 17.9 18.0 Young hens 26.7 24.2 20.8 19.5 19.0 San Francisco Young toms Under 18 lbs. 24.0 21.4 18.0 17.8 18.0 Over 18 lbs. 24.5 21.1 17.8 17.7 18.0 Young hens 25.5 23.3 20.4 19.4 19.3 * The quotations are not complete for all months. The following dates indicate the days for which data are given in months which are incomplete: 1931-32: October 26-30; December 1-21, January 4-26, and in addition prices were for young hens and toms under 16 pounds (prices for young hens and toms over 16 pounds were $0,254 and $0,216 for Los Angeles and San Francisco) ; March 1-7. 1932-33: November 21-25; March 1-24. 1935-36: September 4-30; October 8-31; March 1-9. 1933-34: October 17-31; February 1-16. 1936-37: October 19-31. 1934-35: October 10-31; February 1-8. t Dashes indicate data not available. Source of data: Computations by authors on the basis of daily quotations issued by the Federal-State Market News Service, San Francisco, California. Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 65 1.5 to 2.0 cents a pound below those at Thanksgiving, whereas those on live hens were 3.0 cents higher. These data also indicate that, except for the Thanksgiving of 1935, the differentials in prices between live and dressed turkeys were much smaller in each year at Thanksgiving and Christmas than during the earlier weeks of November and December. Similar relations are shown between the dressed and live quotations on toms. As the Federal-State quotations are supposed to represent actual prices at which purchases of turkeys by dealers are made, it would appear either that the Produce Exchange quotations during the first two or three weeks of November and December do not reflect accurately the prices paid to producers, or that the dealers are able to exert considerable control over both the buy- ing and the selling prices of live turkeys. Comparison of Seasonal Price Movements in Los Angeles and San Francisco. — For the San Francisco market the only turkey-price infor- mation (except jobbing prices, that is, prices to retailers) available prior to 1928 was that carried in the Pacific Rural Press and the Califor- nia Cultivator. Grade classifications were changed from time to time. In October, 1928, the Federal-State Market News Service (San Francisco office) began issuing quotations on dressed turkeys in its "Daily Poultry and Game Report." These were carried only during the months of Sep- tember or October through February or March, with irregular quota- tions on old dressed hens. Since October, 1933, grade classifications have been more uniform. A comparison of the Federal- State Market News quotations on dressed young hens in the Los Angeles and San Francisco markets for the years 1933-34 to 1936-37 shows no marked differences in the average level of prices in these two markets (fig. 14) . Price changes in the San Francisco market were, however, more frequent than those in Los Angeles. A com- parison of the monthly average quotations on dressed young toms and hens in the two markets for the years 1931-32 to 1936-37 also indicates that prices in the two markets tend to move close together (table 21). During the years 1935-36 and 1936-37 dressed young hens sold at a premium over dressed young toms. This bears out the statement made earlier (p. 42) that during the last few years, a consumer preference has developed for lighter birds. New York Market. — For the New York market the Urner-Barry Com- pany has issued weekly in the American Creamery and Poultry Produce Review three sets of quotations : on live turkeys arriving by freight and express or truck, freshly killed dressed turkeys, and frozen turkeys. These quotations are issued in considerable detail by classes (toms, hens, 66 University of California — Experiment Station ffl < 03 S o Q B > o £> O o o 02 3 M =1 0> 3 3 o3 a .3 o M 03 03 3 o3 3 3 03 •-a 03 >* W '3 U)lfllflCICO*lOH!OOi»00 ■*CCOOOO!'-*NC»lfiOOlO!0000 HOOCOW'CmNONOOl r--cc»o:©"5''*'c«5 - *i<-*<"*ost>- ONNNOMMCO1Q0115H NOONOOtOroOOCOtOW© 0)«500NlflT|H io©ooioo!'#0')"noo!0 U5tONOOO>0'-lNM^ < l010 a _o "in "> -5 <3 'C 03 0. M»NtDMNNOM!OOW ^nHOll9T((flifflNO©H OOrtOOOOJOlNOHNOO OSOS<-Ht-»tO-»l<'*feOr^©e<»MOKOKJ"OMOOOOOOO t^-oo>oect>-ooc<50c*5eo NN>HNO)NNO>iH>HWO> oo oo co »o IN!000NWO00«5-H>H •-I >-l r-H (M CN1 (MNNNCJMMMMCOmM OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS a> Si B o o Q 03 3 C 03 •-5 3 o u a s 3 O o 3 O o w 3 3 a 'u 3 03 a> t- 3 pq 3 o Si < 03 - Q 03 ..go 3 o CO Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 67 young, and old) and often by point of origin (for example, Texas). Quotations for any individual class, however, are likely to be intermit- tent and in the absence of some uniform grade designation are apt to be misleading if used as a basis of comparison with turkey prices in the two chief California markets, San Francisco and Los Angeles. COLD-STORAGE HOLDINGS OF TURKEYS AND CHICKENS Cold-storage holdings of turkeys on the first day of each month show a considerable seasonal variation both for the United States and for the Pacific division. For the United States as a whole cold-storage holdings reach a peak each year, usually on February 1, and are lowest on Novem- ber 1, the variation being from 169 per cent of the average annual cold- storage holdings on February 1 to about 31 per cent on November 1 (tables 22 and 23 and figs. 15 and 16) . In the Pacific division the peak of storage holdings usually comes a month later than for the United States. This section also shows a more extreme fluctuation from nearly 211 per cent of the average annual cold-storage holdings in March to 16 per cent for November. United States cold-storage holdings of all poultry differ materially from those of turkeys, reaching a peak in January of each year and a low point in July, August, or September (table 24 and figs. 16 and 17). The degree of fluctuation is somewhat less than for turkeys. In the Pa- cific division cold-storage holdings of all poultry show much less seasonal variation than for the United States. In this section there are, moreover, two peaks and two low points in storage holdings of all poultry, the peaks coming usually in February and August and the low points in May and November. Cold-storage holdings of turkeys both in the United States as a whole and in the Pacific division have shown an interesting trend during the last decade. There has been a definite upward trend in the peaks of each year and a somewhat less pronounced downward trend in the low points of storage holdings (fig. 16). While numerous factors may be respon- sible for the opposite trends in peaks and lows of storage holdings, this phenomenon does tend to substantiate the assertions made by dealers that consumption of turkeys is tending to become more of a year-round proposition. Cold-storage holdings of all poultry do not show a similar trend. There appears to be no marked correlation between cold-storage hold- ings of turkeys and prices of turkeys at different times of the year. The absence of such correlation may be due partly to the fact that turkey prices at different times of the year tend to reflect different qualities of 68 University of California — Experiment Station CO OS 10 H Xi 05 O Q a > o 0) O O O 0) 6 -M a 0> «2 3 3 3 •-5 41 C 3 >-5 03 3 En a) "3 totoioaiONOrtrHiocio) OOOOON-naQOOlOOOO'* «-^ 00*>HOlNCD!DOO(NOiOX NXMOooN-roiin^'HO! Ift-^iHOOtOOOlOMNINO® ■*NONNCO-"XN»NOl fM'HTf.HOClCOOOiO'HQO ^< CO CO ^* ^ ^* ^ CO ^ ^ CO '•& OOMCClOtONX^O^NO lO CO ^* ^* ^* ^* CO CO ^ *3* ^* ^f (NOt l O-HM«-"iflffi'"0 OOtOOXN^OONONM fflOO«5(NC<:NXC)rtO'*ffl •*»-HO!XNXC0(OXrtOlO XrHNiOXiOCOMNXCO -Hi<50'-iminmiox--i,H'*0(NC<: WO*«0*0'HOINNO O >— it>.0 , * l COCOOCMCO>-iC5 OOOiOMNrtO'i'OOX CllO'*' -5 o '3 a3 CMi/5tf5«o — eN>eoeot--««i-->o CONll5!B(eoii-iiOlO'-itDN Mffl'-'tOMOi-'NOcaiO* MMMM^f^M^MMtO Nh.MaNX(Oi(5lOlOP3r>. !0«NX*Oi-NCONMrt »NN«5 ooxoaw^oaxHe) (^^l^^co^^c•^t"eoeoco•«^ , ■^■ lOUJOJOOlOOHtOMlflrt OlO'5T|ii-iTfCl^iXO!ON CMCMCOeOCO>OCO^»O(N«5(N'J l '*V NtDffl(N'eO'j"=£''* , 50^» < ^ | £>>'5 CO CO CO 00 CO © <— i M » O N X •wNi>«)'ON»«OOSOON •*}l , >Offl .CN)COCOCOCOCOCOCO ~ OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS 8 S CO OS at 3 C a >-5 -1-3 C o S i o a ® 53 O u ^>> 3. c o o s o o w "si H 3 _o C < O 3 cj a> it 3 « 3 M 3 a — 83 a £D 3 o 03 Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 69 o o o O o o o o o o 8 o o o o ■0 * rO (M o o o o o o o o o o o o O Q O O O O o o 4 n oj — SQHOOd JO ^QNVSnOHX 8 8 .0 * o o o o eg o o 70 University of California — Experiment Station * O 210 200 190 180 — / • \ \ — / / / / \ \ \ ^Turkeys — \ Pacific section \ / \ 170 \ 160 150 1 A A // V \ \ \ // \ -/ / \ / ' V V ) Turkey a — United Stat es 14U 130 * / / - 1 * m m 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 110 1 AD 1 1 \ \ \ \ \ 7 A11 y Pac: f 9 m ^ «fe poultry — Lfio section 1UU 90 RO 1 1 1 1 \ \ \ \ \ V ou ' \a 70 r— M CO Al] L poultry — ^Vw V^ b\J — Uni Lted States " 50 — \ < \ \ 1 i 40 3C or \ \ \ \ N > \ N \ \ 1 / 1 / / / / CKi 7~ 10 — _L 1 1 1 | M N Months Fig. 16. — Indexes of seasonal variation of cold-storage holdings of all poultry and of turkeys in the United States and the Pacific section, based on the years 1926 through 1936. (Data from table 24.) Bui* 612] Turkey Marketing in California 71 s-QNnod jo jNomiw 72 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 24 Indexes of Seasonal Variation* in Cold-Storage Holdings of All Poultry and Turkeys in the United States and in the Pacific Division Date January 1 . February 1 March 1 . . . April 1 . . . . May 1 June 1 Turkeys All poultry United States Pacific section United States Pacific section per cent per cent per cent per cent 139 77 173 110 169 163 167 123 166 211 145 122 142 171 111 101 115 143 80 88 99 123 63 90 Date July 1 August 1 . . . September 1 October 1 . . . November 1 December 1 Turkeys United States per cent 86 72 57 46 31 78 Pacific section per cent 103 76 47 28 16 42 All poultry United States per cent 58 57 58 67 88 134 Pacific section per cent 101 103 98 87 83 94 * Average for year = 100. Source of data: Calculations by authors based upon data in tables 22 and 23. birds and partly to the fact that the major adjustments to supplies are made each year in the four main marketing months, October to January. MARKETING COSTS AND MARGINS The difference in the prices paid by consumers for turkeys and those received by producers represents the amount taken by various agencies for the services of handling turkeys. These sources include local assem- bly, killing, grading, and packing, transportation to wholesale markets, distribution to retail stores, and retailing to consumers. Both producers and consumers are deeply interested in the efficiency with which these various services are performed and in the possibility of reducing costs of marketing and dealers' margins. From a practical standpoint, however, data on marketing costs are extremely difficult to obtain. There are usually two ways of approaching a study of this nature : The first and relatively more simple method is to ascertain prices prevailing in the successive marketing stages, for exam- ple, prices (1) received by producers, (2) paid by wholesale dealers f.o.b. cities, (3) paid by retailers to wholesale dealers, and (4) paid by consumers. The second and more involved method is to make detailed cost analyses of operators in the successive marketing stages, together with analyses of transportation costs. Considerable effort was made during the course of this study to obtain reliable data on dealers' margins and costs of marketing turkeys in Cali- fornia. The absence of reliable and comparable data on grades and qual- ity of turkeys, however, made price comparisons in successive marketing stages impossible. Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 73 The data on prices received by producers for turkeys in California as published by the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics (table 14), are an average of prices received by producers in all parts of California for all grades of turkeys. For this reason, a comparison of farm prices of turkeys with prices paid by wholesale dealers in the large consuming centers of the state will throw little light on the relative importance of costs of country assembling, killing, grading, and transportation to cities. The Federal-State Market News Service in the San Francisco and Los Angeles markets publishes, in addition to prices paid by wholesalers for dressed turkeys, data on prices paid by retailers to wholesale dealers (jobbing prices) . These prices, however, are issued regularly only during the main turkey marketing season (October to January) of each year and intermittently during the rest of the year. Furthermore, both prices paid by wholesalers and jobbing prices are often given as a range of prices. Jobbing prices during the months of November and December of 1935 and 1936 ran from 1 to 2 cents a pound above the prices shown as paid by wholesale dealers for U. S. prime government-graded dressed turkeys and from 1 to 3 cents above prices paid for loose (unpacked) dressed turkeys. The higher jobbing prices probably represent those paid by retailers for top-quality birds. If this assumption is correct, wholesale dealers would appear to operate on an absolute margin (dif- ference between buying and selling price) of from 1 to 2 cents a pound on dressed turkeys. The percentage margin would, of course, vary from year to year, according to the general level of turkey prices. The margin on live turkeys would be considerably higher than on dressed turkeys, since it would have to cover the additional costs of killing and dressing as well as the allowance for shrinkage between the live and dressed weight. Considerable data were obtained from the daily newspapers in Los Angeles and San Francisco on retail prices of turkeys during the 1935 and 1936 marketing seasons. These display an even greater, range than do jobbing prices. For example, the range of prices on what were desig- nated in retail-store advertisements as top-quality or prime-quality hens or toms often varied as much as 4 and 5 cents on any one day. On several days the advertised retail prices were even below the prevailing jobbing prices. While part of the variation in prices charged by retail stores was probably a reflection of differences in margins of different types of stores, for example, chain stores and independent grocery stores, the bulk of the variation is undoubtedly due to differences in the quality of birds sold. In the absence of clearly recognized grades, a comparison of retail prices with jobbing and wholesale prices is of little value. 74 University of California — Experiment Station An attempt to obtain detailed data on marketing costs was even less successful. Most wholesale dealers handle other types of poultry as well as turkeys. In retail stores a still wider range of meats and other com- modities is handled. Neither the wholesale dealers nor retailers queried kept accurate and detailed data (by types of products) on proceeds of sales and costs of operation. Estimates by individual dealers of costs of handling turkeys showed such a wide variation as to be of little value. Nearly all dealers queried stated, however, that in years of large tur- key production they can operate on a smaller margin and at lower costs than in years of low production. Under the circumstances it is hazardous to venture even a rough esti- mate of the efficiency of marketing turkeys in the varying stages between the producer and the consumer. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The 1890 Census enumerated 10,754,000 turkeys on farms in the United States. The next three censuses showed marked successive declines to 3,627,000 in 1920. While part of this decline was undoubtedly due to changes in the dates on which the various censuses were taken, these data nevertheless do indicate a very material decrease in turkey production in the United States. The 1935 Census enumerated 5,382,000 turkeys on farms, which, although a considerable increase over the figures for 1920, are still greatly below the figures for 1890. This decline in turkey num- bers since 1890 becomes still more significant when it is realized that the population of the United States just about doubled during the years 1890 to 1935. This indicates a very marked decline in per-capita con- sumption of turkeys. In the face of this decline in turkey numbers in the United States as a whole, between 1890 and 1935, the mountain states had over eight times more turkeys in 1935 than in 1890, and the Pacific states nearly two and a half times* as many. The greater part of this increase came in the last fifteen years. The 1930 Census enumerated turkey production for the previous year (1929). These data show that the average number of turkeys per hundred of population for the United States was 13.8. The correspond- ing figures for the three Pacific states together and for California were 26.2 and 22.6, respectively. The largest surpluses over local consumption requirements were produced in the west north central and south central states. The Sacramento Valley and the northern part of the San Joaquin Valley are the most important turkey-producing sections of California. Bul. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 75 During- recent years southern California has tended to grow in relative importance. From available evidence it would appear that per-capita consumption of turkey meat in the western states is approximately twice as high as the average for the United States. If this fact is taken into consideration, a comparison of turkey numbers on farms with population in the differ- ent geographic divisions of the United States indicates that in 1920 the north Atlantic states produced about 17 per cent of their requirements of turkeys, the east north central states about 58 per cent, and the west- ern states about 70 per cent. The west north central and the south central states produced nearly 100 per cent more than their consumption needs. The south Atlantic states were about self-sufficient. In 1935 the deficit position of the north Atlantic, south Atlantic, and east north central states was greatly accentuated. On the other hand, nearly one-third of the turkeys produced in the mountain states were surplus and the Pa- cific states had a small surplus. Annual estimates of turkey production made by the United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Economics, since 1924, indicate that the downward trend in turkey production probably continued until 1927 ; since then the trend has been distinctly upward. This marked decline in turkey production in the United States is re- flected in the relatively high prices for turkeys received by producers from 1920 to 1929, during which period farm prices of turkeys averaged nearly 100 per cent higher than during the period 1910-1914, whereas the index of all farm products averaged only 50 per cent higher. During the depression farm prices of turkeys declined more rapidly than prices of all farm products, but since 1933 they have shown a greater degree of recovery. As turkeys are in the luxury class of prod- ucts for most city consumers, prices of turkeys are likely to reflect more clearly than the more staple foods the effects of changes in general pur- chasing power. Improved business conditions during the next few years will be an important factor in restoring the level of turkey prices rela- tive to those of other products. The annual production of turkeys, together with the level of consumer buying power, appears to be the most important factor influencing the annual level of turkey prices. Less important factors, the influence of which could not be measured because of the inadequacy of both price and production data for turkeys, appear to be the prices of chickens and prices of other meats such as beef, pork, and lamb. High prices for these competing meat products would appear to be a strengthening fac- tor in turkey prices. 76 University of California — Experiment Station During recent years farm prices of turkeys in California and other western states have tended to decline relative to farm prices in other parts of the United States. During the three-year period 1933-1935, farm prices of turkeys in the western states averaged about 10 per cent lower than during the period 1912-1915, whereas prices in other geo- graphic divisions averaged around 10 per cent higher. Another indica- tion of the effect of the change in the relative importance of turkey production in the western states is shown by the fact that in the period 1933-1935 farm prices of turkeys in California averaged 3.3 cents less than in New York, whereas in the period 1912-1915 they averaged 0.3 cent higher. Farm prices of turkeys show no pronounced seasonal movement largely because there are two distinct marketing periods for turkeys. The first and more important runs from October to January or Febru- ary of each year. During this period the bulk of young turkeys is sold mainly for the Thanksgiving and Christmas trade. The second but less important marketing period runs from March or April until June, dur- ing which breeder hens are sold. Because of the poorer quality of birds sold during this later period, prices are usually several cents lower than during the earlier period. Because of the lack of comparable quotations in the different whole- sale markets of the country, it was found impossible to make comparisons of prices in these markets or of prices in farm wholesale and retail mar- kets. Cold-storage holdings of turkeys show a pronounced seasonal varia- tion, the peak coming in February or March each year and the low point in November. There did not appear to be a very close correlation be- tween storage holdings and seasonal prices of turkeys. Since 1925 there has been a pronounced upward trend in the peak storage holdings of turkeys in February or March and a less pronounced downward trend in the low storage holdings in November. This gives weight to the opinions of persons in the poultry trade that during the past few years there has been a tendency for turkeys to be consumed throughout the year and not only at Thanksgiving and Christmas. In northern and central California a large proportion of the turkeys produced is marketed through a cooperative association which was es- tablished in 1930. Up until 1935, however, the producers in southern California did not market cooperatively, the bulk of their turkeys being sold to local buyers (hucksters) or to dealers. Since the beginning of 1936 several local cooperative associations have been formed in south- ern California. These organizations operate killing, dressing, and grad- Bui>. 612] Turkey Marketing in California 77 ing plants and have affiliated or expect to affiliate with a larger coopera- tive association in selling their turkeys on the Los Angeles market. In the Los Angeles and San Francisco markets the Federal-State Market News Service issues daily quotations during the main marketing season (October to January or February) on dressed turkeys. In central and northern California the quotations for the San Francisco market are used by country buyers as the basis of purchase from producers. In southern California local buyers use the quotations of the Produce Exchange of Los Angeles. While the quotations of this agency are sup- posed to represent the prices paid to producers f .o.b. Los Angeles, avail- able evidence indicates that such quotations do not always represent the prices actually paid to producers, but rather dealers' estimates of mar- ket values. Producers in southern California operate under another difficulty in disposing of their ungraded turkeys in competition with well-graded dressed turkeys shipped in from other parts of the country. It is ex- tremely difficult for dealers to grade live turkeys, and consequently they tend to buy on an average grade, which discriminates against local pro- ducers of high-quality birds. A further problem arises in the determina- tion of prices around Thanksgiving and Christmas. A considerable proportion of the turkeys sold in Los Angeles is shipped in by two west- ern cooperative associations. These two assocations are able to make a considerable number of forward sales at what amounts to an open price. The actual selling prices are announced about a week before the two holidays. Local dealers, not knowing what these prices will be nor what quantities of turkeys will be shipped into Los Angeles, endeavor to pass much of the risk of a decline in prices on to producers in the form of low buying prices. The marketing of turkeys during the Thanksgiving and Christmas seasons is to a considerable extent a gamble in all parts of the country because of lack of reliable and accurate information on total production in the United States and the state of maturity of the current year's pro- duction of turkeys. More accurate and timely information on produc- tion by states would aid materially in reducing the speculative element in turkey marketing. For Los Angeles, marketing conditions could be improved, from the standpoint of both producers and dealers, if some agency were established to assemble and publish daily data on arrivals of turkeys and other types of poultry in the Los Angeles market. An extension of the Federal- State Market News Service and wider use thereof by country buyers and producers would also be of material as- sistance to producers in enabling them to judge current market values. 78 University of California — Experiment Station Finally, producers of turkeys in southern California would materially strengthen their bargaining position by undertaking to kill, dress, and grade their turkeys at country plants and by establishing, or selling their dressed turkeys through, a cooperative sales agency in Los Angeles. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge gratefully the assistance of Mr. Martin H. Blank, who aided in the collection of data in the Los Angeles market. Thanks are also due to Mr. F. M. Hudson, Secretary, Produce Exchange of Los Angeles, the officials of the Federal-State Market News Service in San Francisco and Los Angeles, numerous wholesale and retail dealers and brokers in both markets, and officials of the Health Department of Los Angeles for valuable price and sales information. Mr. L. D. Sanborn, Mr. N. L. McFarlane, and Mr. J. C. Miller, assist- ant farm advisors in Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego counties, respectively, and several members of the Los Angeles County Farm Bu- reau were of great assistance in making contacts with producers and in supplying many useful suggestions. Mr. W. E. Newlon, of the Agricul- tural Extension Service, University of California, also supplied the authors with many valuable suggestions and he, together with several members of the staff of the Giannini Foundation, aided and advised in the preparation of this bulletin. 10m-9, '37(9625)