UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA THE CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY: A STATISTICAL STUDY EDWIN C. VOORHIES BULLETIN 413 November, 1926 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRINTING OFFICE BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 1926 This bulletin has been made possible through the cooperation of many agencies which have generously contributed from their data and time. Among these are the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture, the California State Depart- ment of Agriculture, the United States Department of Commerce, the Agricultural Legislative Committee, the Produce Exchange of Los Angeles, the Poultry Producers of Central California, the Poultry Producers of Southern California, the Poultrymen's Cooperative Mill- ing Association (Los Angeles), the Sperry Flour Company, Albers Brothers Milling Company, Swift and Company, Armour and Com- pany, Petaluma Egg and Poultry Company, Pacific Egg Producers, Southern Pacific Railroad, Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, San Francisco Wholesale Dairy Produce Exchange, and Poultry Producers of San Diego. Thanks are due G. A. Read, Field Service Department Pioneer Hatchery, Petaluma; Bert L. Smith, Assistant Farm Advisor, Oro- ville, Butte County; Herbert E. Barker, Itinerant Assistant Farm Advisor, Berkeley, California, J. Murray Davison, Senior student, College of Agriculture, and S. A. Mosk, Senior student, College of Commerce, for their assistance in the statistical computations for this bulletin. At the time of the preparation of the manuscript for this paper the above mentioned were advanced students in the University of California. THE CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY: A STATISTICAL STUDY EDWIN C. VOOBHIES* SUMMARY Poultry and eggs are produced in almost all parts of the civilized world. California produces approximately 4 per cent of the chicken eggs and less than 3 per cent of the chickens raised in the United States. During the past few years, and more especially during the past ten years, a number of important changes have taken place in the poultry industry. These changes are summarized in the following discussion under (1) eggs and (2) poultry. Since California produces only a small part of the nation 's supply of both, it is evident that this state cannot be considered entirely separate from the nation as a whole. (1) Eggs. — Eggs are the primary poultry product of California. Since egg production is increasing more rapidly in both the nation as a whole and in California than is the human population, the purchas- ing power of eggs has shown a marked decline. This decline has been more rapid in California than in the country at large. Until the decade 1910-1920, California was an importer of eggs. During this period egg production increased so rapidly that the state became an exporter. Indications point to the necessity of proceeding on this new basis. Throughout the nation the production of eggs increased rapidly, largely because it was more profitable to market eggs than farm commodities in general. The purchasing power for California eggs may continue to fall unless the product be of such a quality as to command a premium on the eastern markets. California's poultry industry, being highly specialized, uses large amounts of concentrated feedstuffs. The poultryman is therefore interested in the relationship between egg prices and feed prices. Although feed prices have been low as compared with general com- modity prices, they have advanced slightly faster than egg prices since 1910. This advance has been offset largely by the increase in the egg production per hen in this state. The California poultry industry * Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics and Associate Agricultural Economist in the Experiment Station. 4 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION not only pays the freight on eggs which are exported but in many instances pays freight on feedstuffs that are imported, a fact which is shown by the importation of a large percentage of the concentrated feedstuffs used. Inferior eggs cannot pay freight both ways. California's principal outside market has been New York City, where a demand has arisen for Pacific Coast white eggs. Washington and Oregon have been California's main Pacific Coast competitors, and during the past three years especially have been increasing their offer- ings on this market more rapidly than has California. Other outlets for California eggs have been opened up in various eastern seaboard cities and in some of the cities of the Middle West and South. Cali- fornia eggs should aim to fill the premium class, as ordinary eggs are plentiful the country over, especially in the Middle West ; in addition, the long haul makes it advisable to ship out only a product of high value. Eggs from the Pacific Coast have been placed on eastern markets especially during the fall and winter months — the period of relatively high returns. Prices for California eggs are determined largely by conditions outside of the state; the more fall and winter eggs pro- duced, therefore, the more remunerative are the returns likely to be. It is not probable that any considerable change in seasonal production will take place in the nation as a whole. The proportion of pullet eggs to extra eggs has been increasing during the past few years. This is due to a more careful grading of eggs and perhaps to faulty feeding which often forces the young hen into early laying. A slight downward trend in the ratio of the prices of pullet eggs to extra eggs has been noticeable — a trend brought about in part perhaps by the larger proportion of pullet eggs produced. Cold storage of eggs has been especially beneficial to California producers because processing of eggs in this state is facilitated by the concentration of the industry. Eggs are stored in the spring, during the flush season of production, thus tending to maintain prices. (2) Poultry for meat. — Poultry for meat is a by-product of egg production. Chicken prices in the country as a whole have risen since 1910 more rapidly than the prices of other commodities; hence, the purchasing power has tended to advance slightly. This movement has been decidedly in the opposite direction for California, since this state specializes in the egg-laying breeds. The purchasing powers of broilers, fryers, and Leghorn hens on both the San Francisco and Los Angeles markets have declined since 1910. [BUL. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 5 In view of the favorable price obtained for the heavy breeds since the war, the question of the advisability of raising the meat breeds in this state has been raised. Attention is called to the seeming swing back to the meat breeds in parts of the Middle West. At the present time the meat birds of this country are being produced in the section of the nation where feed is abundant and where express is paid on the finished product shipped from that section. The principal source of income even in the Middle West, however, is from eggs, not meat. Whether California could compete under such conditions is, in the opinion of the writer, questionable. Foreign demand. — Violent disturbances of the egg trade of the world were brought about by the war. On account of the increase in production in this country, exports of shell eggs have risen rather rapidly. On the other hand, the imports of egg products such as frozen eggs, etc. (p. 122), from abroad have increased during the past few years so that the nation is just about self -sufficient in its egg supply. The prospect for additional foreign markets for eggs does not look particularly favorable, as nearly all egg surplus nations are endeavoring to increase their exports. The exports and imports of poultry are of minor importance. The present outlook does not justify a marked increase in the pro- duction of eggs and poultry. If the expansion of the California poultry industry is to continue, it should be directed toward a more efficient production of the highest quality eggs possible. It is doubtful whether California can compete in producing inferior eggs, if these are to be used for out-of-state shipments. THE GENERAL SITUATION Importance of the industry. — The production and consumption of the products of an industry determine its importance. Probably more widely engaged in than any other agricultural industry, the raising of poultry is of more direct concern to the consumer than are many other farm activities. According to the census of 1920, poultry was raised on 90.8 per cent of the farms of the United States and poultry was reported from practically every county in the country. In addition, there are a great many back-yard flocks not reported. These must be considered along with the census figures. Although the cash returns of such indi- vidual flocks are small, the aggregate value is large. There are few other commodities so wideky used in the occidental world as poultry meat and eggs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Fig. 1. — Poultry in the United States, 1920. Over 70 per cent of the poultry are in the Mississippi Valley where approximately 50 per cent of the nation's people make their homes. The northeastern section of the United States with its large industrial population is the great deficiency area of the country with respect to poultry and eggs. The number of poultry in the western states is relatively small compared with the remainder of the country, but it is of importance because of the surplus of poultry in comparison with human population. Figure used by courtesy of the U. S. D. A. TABLE 1 Chickens: Number on Farms, United States, 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920-1925 (Thousands — i.e., 000 omitted) 1925 1924 1923 1922 1921 1920 1910 1900 1890 427,000 43,400 99,400 129,800 46,000 79,800 28,000 470,300 50,500 107,400 138,800 48,700 89,200 35,700 424,800 45,200 101,100 121,800 43,600 78,500 34,600 408,600 41,400 95,200 115,200 41,700 82,500 32,600 357,700 34,000 81,500 108,000 37,800 70,400 26,000 359,537 33,256 84,516 105,348 36,408 74,011 25,999 280,341 31,289 69,471 85,192 25,627 53,671 15,091 233,566 27,952 58,104 65,365 22,294 50,300 9,551 258,871 Geographic Divisions: 28,110 East North Central West North Central 58,930 73,772 33,774 57,110 7,174 Sources of data: Years 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau Census, Fourteenth Census, 5: 610. (1922). Years 1921-1926 from estimates of U. S. D. A., Bureau Agricultural Economics, published in Monthly Supplement to Crops and Markets during February of each year. Figures for 1890 and 1900 are of June 1; for 1910 of April 15; for 1920-1925, of January 1. Note: The 1925 Farm Census returns are complete (November 1926) for the following divisions as of Jan. 1, 1925— North Atlantic States 42,966,993, East North Central 89,652,590, West North Central 123,076,892. Based on partial census returns, the author makes the following estimates for the remaining divisions — South Atlantic 41,600,000, South Central, 79,400,000, Far Western 33,700,000, United States total 410,300,000. [BUL. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 7 On the basis of aggregate value, poultry products ranked seventh among farm products in the United States in 1924, being exceeded by that of corn, dairy products, hay and forage crops, cotton, wheat, and swine. Their value was practically the same as that of beef cattle. The Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates of the Bureau of Agri- cultural Economics estimated the farm value of poultry raised and eggs produced for the year as $968,000,000. For 1925 it reached the sum of over one billion dollars ($1,117,000,000).* The importance of poultry in California. — The value of the chickens raised and eggs produced in California in 1924, according to the Bureau of the Census, was $44,423,606. f This was exclusive of other poultry products which would have added considerably to the aggregate, if such had been available. In a state with such varied production as California, it is difficult to make comparisons between the products of various agricultural industries. According to the estimates of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the California State Department of Agriculture on the value of crops within the state in 1924, poultry products were exceeded only by hay and forage, dairy products, grapes (including raisins). The farm value of the oranges produced was only slightly more than that of chicken eggs produced and chickens raised. The chicken eggs produced in California accounted for over two- thirds the aggregate value of chicken products, while in the country as a whole, eggs represented 57.4 per cent of the total for all poultry products. On a relative basis, eggs are of far more importance in the poultry industry of California than they are in the nation. In 1919 (Census) California produced 3.88 per cent of all the eggs produced in the United States, but only 2.73 per cent of the chickens raised. It is interesting to note, however, that the value of eggs produced in California in 1919 ($31,420,704) accounted for 4.6 per cent of the total for chicken eggs produced in the entire nation ($661,082,083) during the same year. Indications from the preliminary data on hand are that the value of eggs produced and of chickens raised in Califor- nia during 1924 will total considerably over the 1919 percentage of the total aggregate for chicken eggs produced and chickens raised in the United States. * Information from Koy G. Potts, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. D. A. t Final figure furnished to the author by the Bureau of the Census. 8 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE POULTRY INDUSTRY The most important chicken, egg, and meat producing territories of the United States can be divided, according to their geographical location and the character of the industry, into three fairly distinct sections. Mississippi Valley. — The first section comprises principally the states lying in the Mississippi Valley, including Minnesota, Michigan, Number of Laying Hens in United States by Geographic Divisions MllUn 160 120 80 HO | JANUA 1 JANUA 1 RY 1920 RY I92S >$■ r, -..? r ^HB VORTH ATLANTIC ' :ast /vort CENTRAL ^ V /bST /VORT :entral "I SOUTH CENTRAL SOUTH ATLANTI ,1 FAR WESTERN 1 Million 160 80 Fig. 2. — The above chart shows the number of laying hens in the United States by geographical distribution in 1920 and 1925. Numerically the increase was greatest in the Middle Western States. Eelatively, the greatest increase was in the North Atlantic States, followed by the Far Western States. California is represented in the Far Western classification and has about two-fifths of the laying hens in this grouping. Data from table 1. See note under table 1. Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Tennessee. According to the estimates made by the United States Department o£ Agriculture, the entire Mississippi Valley area contained over 72 per cent (72.3) of the chickens in the United States on January 1, 1925, while the human population made up approximately 50 per cent of the total.* The enormous quantity of eggs and poultry meat from farms in this area, especially on those of the corn belt, are produced on grain and stock farms. Up to the present time, there has not been a large number of Dept. Commerce, Bureau Census, Fourteenth Census, U. S., 2:31, 1922. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY TABLE 2 Chickens: Leading States in Number on Farms 1910 and 1920 with Partial Statistics 1925 State Jan. 1, 1910 State Jan. 1, 1920 Jan. 1, 1925 * 22,691,641 20,563,850 19,910,221 16,850,099 15,266,241 13,216,024 12,719,572 11,895,903 10,293,843 10,232,498 9,698,401 9,142,719 9,010,945 8,014,938 8,000,457 7,341,469 5,665,964 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 27,746,510 25,120,643 24,883,985 20,232,637 18,062,744 16,919,248 16,754,293 14,503,468 13,212,619 11,615,257 11,495,057 11,353,647 11,137,259 10,913,645 10,477,598 10,426,648 10,414,600 30,275,338 25,738,132 28,222,087 4. Ohio Ohio 20,927,460 Kansas 21,584,965 7. Texas 17,355,369 17,306,490 16,408,080 10. New York Nebraska 13,499,515 13,052,650 13,023,482 13,023,482 11,035,942 12,784,512 13,408,720 * Preliminary announcement, subject to correction. Sources of data: Years 1910 and 1920, arranged by author from data in Dept. Commerce, Bureau Census, Fourteenth Census, U. S. 5: 610, 1922. Year 1925 from preliminary figures furnished author by Bureau Census. Remaining data for January 1, 1925, is being compiled by Census Bureau. TABLE 3 Eggs: Leading States in Production 1909, 1919, with Partial Statistics 1924 State 1909 State 1919 1924* 110,922,159 108,662,882 100,284,261 99,118,224 81,087,689 80,028,638 77,377,977 73,683,489 71,191,449 59,556,356 53,323,702 50,269,446 46,460,624 45,356,592 43,781,616 41,244,285 40,735,238 120,697,319 117,203,569 105,757,907 102,377,143 83,101,293 76,136,616 75,998,172 70,264,074 64,123,885 62,175,172 60,249,543 133,776,386 3. Ohio 113,020,993 4. Ohio 112,893,410 86,974,603 93,144,604 7. Texas 102,047,724 8. Texas 9. New York 99,907,325 10. New York 87,167,262 11. Minnesota 76,321,570 17. California * Preliminary announcement, subject to correction. Sources of data: Years 1909 and 1919 arranged by author from data in Dept. Commerce, Bureau Census, Fourteenth Census, U. S. 5: 679, 1922. Year 1924 from preliminary figures furnished author by Bureau Census. Remaining data for 1924 being compiled by Bureau Census. 10 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION specialized chicken farms, although the district produces eggs and chicken meat far in excess of the requirements of the area, so that a considerable proportion of the product must find markets elsewhere. During the past five years information received from these states indi- cates a development of the commercial flocks.* This apparently is true in those sections which have become largely industralized. Northeastern States. — The second section includes Maryland, Dela- ware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, and the New England states. Approximately 30 per cent of the population of the United States in 1920 was in this area, while only 10.5 per cent of the chicken population was found there. Although many large and specialized poultry farms have been developed in this area, the supply of poultry products from it is wholly inadequate to meet the demand. It is this section of the country which has attracted the attention of the pro- ducers of the Pacific Coast during the past few years, the major por- tion of the interstate egg shipments from the Pacific Coast, therefore, has been unloaded in this area. Pacific Coast States. — The third section comprises the Pacific Coast states of Washington, Oregon, and California. Commercial poultry farming has been developing rapidly in this section, especially since 1910, and considerable quantities of eggs are shipped annually to other sections of the United States and to foreign countries ; the prin- cipal shipments being made to Atlantic Coast markets, although of late there have been shipments to cities in the Middle West and South. Washington and Oregon are the main western competitors of Cali- fornia in this trade. Not only are eggs from these states found in quantity on California markets, but with California, these two states furnish the bulk of the " Pacific Coast White Eggs" on the markets of the eastern seaboard. Rocky Mountain and Southern States. — In addition to the three principal areas of chicken and egg production mentioned above, the southeastern states should be mentioned on account of the aggregate chicken population, which is comparatively high in spite of the fact that the number of chickens per farm is low. The production in several of these states does not meet the demand for poultry products. The Rocky Mountain and southwestern states confine the chicken industry largely to flocks of relatively limited size. The states of Idaho and Utah are of interest to the California producer, as eggs from these two states are to be found not only on the California * Source — Letters from professors of poultry husbandry in the state colleges of agriculture of the middle western states. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 11 markets but, in addition, have recently been shipped to the markets on the eastern seaboard. Some of the remaining states in this area furnish at times a market for California eggs — Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Colorado. (See table 34, page 68.) TABLE 4 Chickens: States Leading in Numbers Baised* Statistics 1924 1909, 1919, with Partial State 1909 State 1919 1924f 31,058,772 30,413,289 28,970,482 23,860,411 23,845,961 22,776,881 22,098,966 17,572,773 16,348,429 15,865,254 15,336,955 15,182,753 14,724,281 13,765,827 13,706,397 13,393,599 12,529,844 11,412,001 11,382,815 10,862,870 10,431,235 9,673,838 8,062,383 7,849,231 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 31,076,091 29,893,565 29,363,102 25,829,724 22,618,296 22,502,600 22,458,227 16,817,261 15,796,750 15,663,745 15,554,496 15,506,845 15,062,386 14,588,012 14,227,483 14,047,006 12,929,044 12,441,555 38,184,909 32,203,811 4. Texas Texas 25,256,884 6. Ohio 29,064,067 Ohio 8. Kentucky 19,670,036 20,310,433 Kentucky 13. Nebraska 20,352,255 15. Georgia 16. New York 14,382,861 15,275,548 19. Alabama 21. Wisconsin 22. Arkansas 23. South Carolina 24. California * Chickens raised to marketable age, does not include baby chicks. t Preliminary announcement, subject to correction. Sources of data: Years 1909 and 1919 arranged by author from data in Dept. Commerce, Bureau Census, Fourteenth Census, U. S. 5: 682, 1922. Year 1924 from preliminary figures furnished author by Bureau Census. Remaining data for 1924 being compiled by Bureau Census. For the census and for purposes of estimation, the country is often divided into the North Atlantic, East North Central, West North Central, South Atlantic, South Central, and Far Western states. Yearly estimates are now made for each of these regions on the chickens on hand January 1, together with the number and value of chickens and chicken eggs produced. (Table 1, page 6.) DEVELOPMENT OF THE POULTRY INDUSTRY United States. — The chicken industry of the United States has grown markedly since the first census of the poultry industry was taken in 1880. The number of chickens increased far more rapidly Comparison of Increase in Human Population, Chickens Kaised, and Eggs Produced in the United States, 1880-1925 Millions zsooo toooo /SOOO /o 000 5 OOO 4 50O 4 OOO 3 500 *5 OOO 2 SOO 2 OOO I 500 / OOO SOO 450 400 350 300 2 SO ZOO iSO too SO ^ + — *»^' ...j. ,/" Eggs Proi iun' Fig. 3. — Since 1880 population has slightly more than doubled, while poultry and egg production is over four times that of 1880, Data from table 5, p. 13. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 13 than population from 1880 to 1890; while during the next decade, 1890-1900, an actual decrease was registered. From 1900 to 1920, and especially from 1910-1920, the number increased more rapidly than did the population. From January 1, 1920, to January 1, 1925, esti- mates* show an increase of 19 per cent (18.75) in the chicken popula- tion of the entire country, while the human population shows an increase of only 9 per cent (9.15) between January 1, 1920, and July 1, 1925. Later estimates based on partial census returns indicate TABLE 5 Human Population, Chickens, and Chicken Products, United States 1880, 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920, 1925. Actual and Eelative Statistics of Human Population, Chickens on Farms, Chickens Eaised, and Eggs Produced *Eggs produced *Chickens raised Chickens on farms Population United States Relative numbers (1880=100) Year Eggs pro- duced Chick- ens raised Chick- ens on farms Popu- lation United States 1880 (June 1) 1890 (June 1) Thousands 5,482,931 9,836,675 15,523,949 18,899,753 19,848,539 23,619,312 Thousands 125,507 285,609 250,624 460,611 437,302 678,300 Thousands 102,272 258,871 233,566 280,341 359,537 427,000 Thousands 50,156 62,948 75,995 91,972 105,711 112,786 Per cent 100.00 179.41 283.13 344.70 362.01 430.78 Per cent 100.00 227.56 199.69 367.00 377.11 540.45 Per cent 100.00 253.12 228.38 274.11 351.55 417.50 Per cent 100.00 125.50 1900 (June 1) 1910 (Apr. 15) 1920 (Jan. 1) 151.52 183.37 210.76 1925 (Jan. 1) 224.87 1926. Source: Pierce, Howard C. The Poultry and Egg Industry of Europe, U. S. D. A. Bull. 1385: 2. * Production figures are for the preceding year. that the percentage increase in chicken population 1920-1925 was approximately 15 per cent. See table 1, p. 6. The chicken popu- lation during the five years, 1920-1925, has therefore increased far more than the human population. The estimate for the number of hens and pullets of laying age on farms for January 1, 1926, was about 4.7 per cent greater than for January 1, 1925, according to reports received by the United States Department of Agriculture from about 45,000 farmers representing all parts of the United States, t The rate of increase in poultry has been greater since 1880 than for any other kind of livestock, being most nearly approached by dairy cattle. It might be added that numbers alone do not depict the poultry industry today as compared with a decade or even four * Crops and Markets, Supplement 3:82, March, 1926. t Crops and Markets, Supplement 3:82, March, 1926. 14 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION decades ago. It is estimated that the hen of today in certain sections of the country is more efficient than she was in 1900. This statement would doubtless also hold for all classes of livestock. The growth in the chicken population of the far western states was relatively greater from 1890 to 1920 than that of the other geo- graphical divisions of the country. From 1920 to 1925 the greatest relative growth in chicken population was in the North Atlantic States, followed by the Far Western States. The greatest numerical Fig. 4. — The average egg production per hen in 1919 was lowest in the Southern States. Production varied from 38.5 eggs in Georgia to 85.3 per hen in Maine. Excluding chickens which were not layers, the average production per layer was about 77 eggs. It is probable that the number of eggs reported to the census enumerator in the winter of 1920 as produced by the farm flock in 1919 is less than the actual production because of a lack of records, and of a tendency on the part of some to judge by the number of eggs being laid at the time of the year the census was taken, when production was at the low point of the year. It will be noted that California is among the high states. The census of 1925 indi- cates that the average for California is approximately 92 eggs per hen. This latter figure has been computed by dividing the 1924 production by the number of chickens on hand, January 1, 1925. No correction is made for males. Data from table 115, p. 166. Photo from U. S. D. A. Yearbook 1924, p. 402. growth was in the Middle West (fig. 2). From January 1, 1925, to January 1, 1926, estimates of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics indicate an increase of 14 per cent in hens and pullets in the western states, about 6 per cent in the north central states, and 4 per cent in the south central states, while the south Atlantic and the north Atlantic states show a decrease of 1 per cent and 2 per cent, respectively. [BUL. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 15 Statistics of egg production indicate a substantial increase for the country during each decade for which figures are available. From 1880 to 1890 the increase was 80 per cent; 1890 to 1900, 50 per cent; 1900 to 1910, 25 per cent ; and 5 per cent from 1910 to 1920. Egg production per capita also increased from 1880 to 1910 but decreased slightly between 1910 and 1920. In 1880 the per capita production in dozens was 9.00; 1890, 13.09; 1900, 16.96; 1910, 17.30; and in 1920, 15.65.* If estimates of both egg production (Bureau of Agricultural Economics) and population (Bureau of the Census) were used for 1925 the per capita production would be between 17 and 18 dozen. California. — The increase in the number of chickens in California was especially marked during the decades 1880 to 1890 and 1910 to 1920, the growth during the latter decade being the greatest since census enumerations have been taken. During these two decades, the increase was far greater than the increase in human population. It was during 1910 to 1920 that the state began to ship eggs in large quantities to the eastern seaboard, thus becoming an exporter rather than an importer. According to the 1925 farm census the increase in the number of chickens from 1920 to 1925, was 22.6 per cent or approximately the same as that of the human population for this period. The rate in the increase of chickens has been greater than for an}' other class of livestock, being most nearly approached by dairy cattle. The 1925 farm census showed that one-fourth of all the chickens in the state were in Sonoma County, popularly referred to as the Petaluma district. The largest percentage increases during the period 1920 to 1925 have been in certain coast counties and in a number of interior counties — Eiverside, San Bernardino, Sacramento. (See table 108, p. 160.) Private estimates of the number of chickens on hand in California on January 1, 1925, range from 15,000,000 to 18,000,000. The lower estimate is based upon a carefully revised mail- ing list of 50,000 poultrymen kept by a large feed concern in Cali- fornia. The list contains no names of poultrymen having less than 150 hens. The 1925 Farm Census did not enumerate the chickens within certain city limits where many flocks in this state are found. The production of eggs in California shows even a greater growth than the number of chickens since 1880 (table 6, p. 17). The produc- tion of eggs per hen has increased. In 1910 the production per hen was 87 eggs, although in 1920 the average production had dropped to 74 eggs. This drop might have been expected owing to the marked ^Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture 1924, p. 388. 16 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION increase in the number of poultry. In very few of the animal indus- tries is a rapid expansion accompanied by the exercise of the greatest care in breeding. In 1925 the average production was 92 eggs per hen. Chickens in California, 1925 .••• «*{« 1 Fig. 5. — There is a concentration of chickens in Sonoma, Alameda, Santa Cruz, Los Angeles and San Diego counties. The beginnings of a considerable concentra- tion in several Sacramento and San Joaquin valley sections and in Eiverside and San Bernardino counties can be discerned. One dot equals 10,000 chickens. These figures are only approximate — the 1925 figure being obtained by dividing the number of eggs produced during 1924 by the number of hens on hand January 1, 1925 (table 6, p. 17). While these statistics are satisfactory for purposes of comparison the writer esti- [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 17 mates that the number of eggs produced per layer in 1924 was between 120 and 132. This estimate is based upon the conservative statements of poultrymen in various sections of the state. The production of eggs per capita in California increased from approximately 6.7 dozens in 1880 to 16.5 dozens in 1900. In 1920 it amounted to 18.7 dozens, while in 1925 it was between 22 and 23 dozens, or 5 or 6 dozen more per capita than the average for the United States. TABLE 6 Actual and Kelative Statistics of Chickens, Livestock and Human Population, California, 1880-1925 (Thousands- i.e., 000 omitted) Year Dozen Eggs pro- duced Chickens raised Chickens on farms All cattle Dairy cattle Swine Sheep Human popula- tion 1880 (June 1) 1890 (June 1) 5,771 13,679 24,444 40,735 64,124 97,907 1,426 3,504 3,947 5,666 10,427 12,785 815 1,608 1,445 2,077 2,008 1,918 210 317 307 382 502 557 868 594 598 767 909 431 5,727 3,373 2,563 2,417 2,400 3,045 865 1,213 1900 (June 1) 1,485 1910 (Apr. 15) 1920 (Jan. 1) 7,849 12,929 14,383 2,378 3,426 1925 (Jan. 1) 4,180 Relative numbers (1880 = 100) 1880 100 237 424 706 1,111 1,696 100 246 277 397 731 897 100 197 177 255 246 235 100 151 146 182 239 265 100 68 69 88 105 50 100 59 45 42 42 53 100 1890 140 1900 172 1910 275 1920 396 1925 483 Sources of data: Eggs produced and chickens raised — data for years previous to those listed, e.g., 1879, 1889, etc., 1879-1919, Bureau of Census, 14th Census 5, pp. 682, 685. 1925, Bureau of Census, U. S. Census of Agriculture, 1925, Cal. p. 7. Chickens on Farms, 1880, 10th Census,3, p. 250; 1890-1920, 14th Cen- sus 5, p. 610; 1925, U. S. Census Agriculture, 1925, Cal. p. 7. All Cattle, 1880-1920, 14th Census 5, p. 572; 1925, U. S. Census Agriculture, 1925, Cal. p. 7. Note that all cattle includes Dairy Cows and Heifers over 2 years. Figures for censuses prior to 1900 were nominally exclusive of calves. Dairy Cattle, 1880- 1920, 14th Census 5, p. 573; 1925, U. S. Census Agriculture, 1925, Cal. p. 7. Swine, 1880-1920, 14th Census 5, p. 598; 1925, U. S. Census Agriculture, 1925, Cal. p. 7. Sheep, 1880-1920, 14th Census 5, p. 586; 1925, U. S. Census Agriculture 1925, Cal. p. 7. Human Population, 1880-1920, 14th Census 1, p. 95; 1925, Esti- mate furnished author by Bureau of Census. Relative numbers computed by author. A comparison of egg production per hen in California and in other states in 1920 is made in figure 4, p. 14. California reported not only a large number of poultry of all descriptions per farm, but a relatively larger number of chickens than most other states. Since California is a state of specialized agriculture, it will be found that in comparing the number of chickens per farm on only those farms reporting chickens, California stands second to Iowa. Farms in California reporting chickens showed 113 chickens per farm in comparison with 18 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION COMPAEISON OF INCREASE IN HUMAN POPULATION, CHICKENS ON FARMS AND EGGS Produced, California, 1880-1925 7~hoosonds /OOOOOO 50 000 45 OOO 4OO0O 35 OOO 30 OOO ^5 OOO ZO OOO 15 OOO /O OOO 5 OOO 4sSOO 4- OOO 6 500 O OOO Z.500 ZOOO /SOO /OOO 500 Eggs pr-oducGct - \ y / \»' y s S S y r / / / S A .-" / Chickt ?ns on Far y ++* Y 6 / / / t ^f^oput a-f-/or? Fig. 6. — Since 1880 California's human population has increased slightly under five times (1926 — 5 times), while the chickens on farms have increased almost nine times and the eggs produced have increased almost seventeen times. Data from table 6, p. 17. (Eggs in dozens.) [BUL. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 19 62 for the country as a whole.* Although a production of only 74 eggs per chicken was reported for 1920, this was high in comparison with the production of other states, California being exceeded only by the four New England States of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont — all with small chicken populations. California out- ranked all other states in the number of eggs laid per farm during 1919 on account of both the large number of chickens per farm and the high egg production per hen. Partial returns from the 1925 Farm Census indicate that at present California is second only to Washing- ton in the number of eggs per hen. (Table 106, p. 157.) Of great inter- est in this connection is the inquiry which the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture is conducting annually on records of egg produc- tion in all parts of the United States (table 115, p. 166). Returns for California for 1925 in this preliminary study indicate that of the 22,000 farms in the country reporting, those in California had a pro- duction of 197 eggs per hen — a record closely approached by Washing- ton and New Hampshire, each with 188 eggs per hen. These figures are over twice as large as those reported by calculations based upon the census. It should be emphasized that the returns are from only a few farms and the number of eggs per hen is undoubtedly too high. While the number of farms reporting for California in this inquiry evidently is small (22,000 for the entire country), the average percentage pro- duction per month in the different states should be of interest, and with additional information, this work should prove of great value. The Western States enjoy a decided advantage over the United States as a whole in that a greater percentage of eggs is laid during the months from August to February, inclusive, than in the United States as a whole. This statement is also true for California in this inquiry, except during January. Trend toward egg breeds in the middle west.\ — During the past decade there has been a trend toward the strictly egg-laying breeds, notably the White Leghorn, and away from the heavier dual purpose breeds in those sections of the Mississippi Valley in which commercial or semi-commercial flocks of five hundred or more birds have been developed. In some sections a scarcity of good stock has hastened the trend toward the egg breeds. At the present time there seems to be on the farms in many sections of the Mississippi Valley a tendency to swing back toward the heavier breeds, a change which has been * Computations by author based on Department of Commerce, Bureau Census, Fourteenth Census, U. S. 5:681, 1922. t Information obtained by author from professors of poultry husbandry in Middle Western States. 20 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION brought about by the comparatively low prices offered for Leghorn hens and broilers. The American breeds are probably still preferred for small farm- flocks ; and most brown eggs will continue to be the small farm-flock product, while most white eggs will come from the hennery. For this reason many believe the white eggs found in our eastern markets are usually superior to the browns. If this be true, the preference for white eggs should gradually increase and the average price for white eggs should continue to rise. TABLE 7 Poultry: Average Number of Principal Kinds per Farm by Geographic Divisions, United States, 1910, 1920 Average number per farm reporting Division All fowls Chickens Turkeys Ducks Geese 1920 1910 1920 1910 1920 1910 1920 1910 1920 1910 64 46 73 85 106 37 38 47 50 88 53 47 61 69 88 29 30 39 45 69 62 45 70 83 103 35 36 45 48 86 50 46 57 66 85 26 27 36 43 65 5 6 5 5 6 5 4 6 6 9 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 8 6 10 8 6 6 6 6 6 5 9 6 7 8 5 5 6 6 6 5 8 6 4 4 5 5 7 7 7 4 4 7 6 4 5 West North Central 5 8 9 9 5 5 Source: Dept. Commerce, Bureau Census, Fourteenth Census U. S. 5: 5, 1922. Poultry other than chickens. — Compared with chickens, turkeys, ducks, and geese are relatively unimportant in the United States. There was a decline in numbers in all three of these classes of poultry in the United States and in California from 1890 to 1920. The average number per farm of the principal kinds of fowls and the per cent distribution varies considerably for different sections of the country. PRICES AND PURCHASING POWER OF EGGS Egg prices and general commodity prices, United States. — High prices for eggs do not necessarily mean prosperity, nor low prices unprofitableness for the egg producer. If the prices received for eggs are high compared to the things the egg producer must buy, the poultryman is prosperous; if they are low compared with the things he must buy, he is not prosperous. Consequently, a comparison of [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 21 the money prices of eggs and poultry and of the money prices of other commodities is of interest and value. Figure 7 shows comparisons between the relative farm prices received in the United States for eggs and for all commodities, together with the "purchasing power" of eggs. This comparison is termed "purchasing power." TABLE 8 Poultry : Per cent Distribution of Different Kinds by Geographic Divisions, United States, 1920 Division All fowls Chickens Turkeys Ducks Geese Guinea fowls Pigeons 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.6 7.69 23.22 29.08 10.32 9.61 11.28 2.65 4.56 1.61 7.64 23.51 29.30 10.13 9.48 11.10 2.65 4.58 .59 4.22 11.78 23.70 15.16 11.82 21.52 4.77 6.44 2.37 13.88 21.11 28.95 10.19 10.18 8.00 1.96 3.36 .64 3.44 18.44 27.17 13.36 17.20 16.77 1.60 1.38 .61 10.49 11.93 12.74 27.03 17.44 18.37 .73 .65 1.88 20.18 12.97 West North Central 20.39 12.64 5.88 12.37 4.31 9.38 Source: Dept. Commerce, Bureau Census, Fourteenth Census, U. S. 5: 1922. TABLE 9 Poultry: Number of Turkeys, Ducks and Geese, United States and California, 1S90, 1900, 1910, and 1920 United States California Year Turkeys Ducks Geese Turkeys Ducks Geese 1890 10,754,060 6,594,695 3,688,708 3,627,028 66% 7,544,080 4,785,850 2,906,525 2,817,624 63% 8,440,175 5,676,788 4,431,980 3,939,203 53% 287,799 158,356 116,602 174,708 40% 157,514 62,293 40,061 64,792 58% 37,659 1900 28,419 1910 14,195 1920 14,912 60% Source of data: Dept. Commerce, Bureau Census, Fourteenth Census, U. S. 5: 611. 1922. The index of wholesale prices compiled by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics is used in converting prices of eggs to purchasing power. This index is now based upon the prices of 404 commodities. The purchasing power of eggs, therefore, indicates the value of eggs in exchange for all commodities, making up the com- modity index of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics at wholesale prices compared with pre-war exchange values. 22 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Eelative Farm Prices op Eggs Compared with "All Commodity Index,' ' United States, 1910-1925 Ind*X 1910-14. = lOO Z30 ZZO Z/O ZOO 190 mo /70 160 150 f40 130 IZO //O /OO 90 eo Pric All e Ti Comr nodi Hes- ft It // // "/ t / t 1 1 / / S f i t I 1 1 1 1 1 1 / / / i \. — - f / / / K \ \ / / / ; \ \ / 1 t+s- -Prt re 1 hc/s> ' '£ 99S // V •»#' >s I' • V < \ y / \ -V ^>^ Pur-t. E 99 , :has s (L ha >.s.) Qowe ^-3 s c Sect, chat //ar- uhg \ The Po^ si — Eqqs __ ^ f — r - T~ § Fig. 7. — From 1910 to 1915 the price indices for eggs and all commodities were approximately the same. In 1916 the "All Commodity Index" began to advance more rapidly than the "Egg Price Index." The "All Commodity Index" remained above the ' ' Egg Index ' ' until 1921, when all commodities declined to a lower point than eggs. In 1922, however, eggs fell far below all commodities. This figure applies to the United States as a whole and not to California.* For California see figures 9 and 12. Data from table 10, p. 23. The purchasing power is often calculated by a comparison with non-agricultural commodities on the assumption that farmers exchange their products more generally for non-agricultural commodities than for ' ' all commodities, ' ' as used in this publication. The poultryman, however, in California is a purchaser of agricultural as well as non- agricultural products. Owing to the intense specialization in the * Equation for the line of trend is y = 96.1 — .24 x, origin January 1, 1918. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 23 poultry districts of the state, the specialized poultryman is perhaps more interested in the prices of agricultural commodities, such as feed, than he is in the prices of non-agricultural commodities. Standards of living are constantly changing. Expenditures are different today than they were five, ten or fifteen years ago. Too much stress should not be placed upon purchasing power as the "All Commodity Index" TABLE 10 Eggs: Eelative Wholesale Prices and Purchasing Power of Eggs, United States, 1910-1925 Year Actual price (cents per dozen) Relative price All Commodity Index Purchasing power I II III IV 1910 22.6 19.4 21.9 21.5 22.6 21.9 24.9 34.2 40.0 44.3 47.7 33.3 28.6 30.1 30.3 33.5 105 90 102 100 105 102 116 159 186 206 222 155 133 140 141 156 102.7 94.7 100.9 101.8 99.9 102.6 129.0 180.3 197.7 210.1 230.2 149.6 151.5 156.5 152.4 162.0 102 1911 95 1912 101 1913 98 1914 105 1915 100 1916 90 1917 88 1918 94 1919 98 1920 96 1921 104 1922 88 1923 90 1924 93 1925 96 Sources of data: Columns I and II, computed from the Monthly Supplements to Crops and Markets, U. S. D. A., Bureau Agricultural Economics. The relative price is in this case obtained by dividing the actual price for each year by the average (arithmetical mean) of the prices for the five years 1910-1914. The average of the prices 1910-1914 is 21.6 cents. The relative price for 1910 is, there- fore, 22.6^-216 = 105: 1911, 19.4-7-21.4 = 90, etc. Column III — Bureau of Labor Statistics index converted to a 5-year base (1910-14), published in the Supplement to the Agricultural Situation, B. A. E., June 1925, 54-62. Column IV — Computations by author. The purchasing power is found by dividing the "relative price" by the "All Commodity Index." Current monthly statistics can be found in the Monthly Supplement to Crops and Markets, pub- lished by the Bureau of Agricultural Econonmics. does not take into consideration many manufactured articles which have been actually cheapened by mass production. In conjunction with purchasing power the egg-feed price ratio should be consulted p. 36. Two types of changes are apparent in each of the curves in figure 7, (1) a long-time movement, and (2) short-time fluctuations. (1) Long- time changes are known as secular trends. "The secular trend is that part of the fluctuation which is due to the gradual and persistent tendency to change which exists for an interval of several years, an interval the definite length of which cannot be assigned but which may 24 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Eelative Prices and Purchasing Power of Eggs and Agricultural Commodities, United States, 1910-1925 Tncfex $ 8? S3 ^ 1? s s CO S> 8 $ ^ c* 1 $ § 0) S3 5> yi ^ $ 5) S) 5 5» § * 5 Fig. 8. — Between 1910 and 1915 the price index for eggs and the price index for agricultural commodities in the United States ran almost parallel. From 1916 to 1919 the prices of agricultural commodities in the country as a whole were relatively higher than the prices for eggs. Since 1920 relative prices for eggs have been higher than relative prices for agricultural commodities in general and farmers have increased their poultry flocks. The downward trend in the purchas- ing power of eggs has been less rapid than the downward trend in the purchasing power of other agricultural commodities. Figure 8 should be viewed in connection with figure 38, page 93, giving the price indices for chickens in the country.* (Table 50, page 92). Data from table 10, and Bureau of Agricultural Economics. * Equation for the line of trend of purchasing power of eggs is y = 96.1 — .24 x origin January 1, 1918. Equation for the line of trend of purchasing power of all commodities is 2/ = 93.6 — .55 x, origin January 1, 1918. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 25 extend over a generation and sometimes for a longer period."* The causes of the secular trend are those which operate persistently year after year, such as increase in population, consumption and standards of living. (2) About the secular trend are cyclical fluctuations, which in the case of eggs, are rather irregular. In times of small profits, Eelative Prices and Purchasing Power of Eggs, San Francisco, 1890-1925 Index- z I9IO-I4 = IOO Z20 ZtO ZOO WO no /ao /50 140 « 5 5> $ gs 0; izo no / In 1 C omrr (U.i odri y / / / ^N V / / 1 / / f / \\* • / / 1 / i / / / / -Sec Pur u/ar Pou Tnt E 99- ;.(S V 1 1 1 / J V s~ /\ /N y \ / < 1 l J - E 99 (5. Inc F) iex \>* V ^ s\ VJ \ — V /y / '-. gs. ■sing (S.F. Pov 'er^ V s ' \ "»-..»— *■ \ s 1 " — ~ 4 y / / i \ n \ \ \ \\ I / / f \ \ \ ^ I90I I90Z /903 /904 190S I90& 1907 1908 1909 I9IO 1911 I9IZ 1913 I9ia 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 I9Z0 1921 I9ZZ I9Z3 /9Z4 I9Z5 30 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION It should also be remembered that the term ''purchasing power" is used in comparison with the wholesale prices of 404 commodities. It is highly improbable that the poultryman purchases any consider- able percentage of some of these commodities, and even if he did pur- chase all of them, the prices listed are for the country as a whole and TABLE 12 Eggs: Actual and Eelative Wholesale Prices, Purchasing Power, Los Angeles, 1901-1925 Year Actual price (cents per dozen) Relative price Purchasing power Year Actual price (cents per dozen) Relative price Purchasing power I II III 1914 I II III 1901 22.7 24.8 25.9 28.0 27.8 28.5 30.1 30.2 35.6 34.8 33.2 32.3 32.1 67.5 73.9 77.0 83.5 82.9 84.9 89.7 90.1 106.0 103.7 99.0 96.3 95.7 84 86 89 96 94 94 94 98 107 101 105 95 94 35.1 32.0 33.8 40.0 51.3 55.0 56.1 42.7 38.2 38.7 38.2 41.7 104.7 95.5 100.7 119.2 153.0 163.7 167.1 127.1 113.7 115.3 113.9 124.3 105 1902 1915 93 1903 1916 78 1904 1917 66 1905 1918 77 1906 . . 1919 78 1907 1920 73 1908 1921 85 1909 1922 75 1910 1923 74 1911... 1924 75 1912 1925 77 1913 Sources of data : Column I. Based upon computations made by author. Wholesale price is the arith- metic averaeg of monthly quotations. Monthly quotation obtained by computing the arithmetic means of Wednesday quotations in each month. Original quotations from Cal. Cultivator. All quotations are net as the trade discount has been subtracted by the author. Column II. Computed by author, based upon 1910-1914 =33 . 50 = 100. Column III. Computations by author based upon Column II and "All Commodity" index (Bureau of Labor Statistics). not especially for California. From the preliminary cost of produc- tion studies carried on to date (pages 146-155), it should be noted that the poultrymen in the Petaluma section purchased feeding stuffs amounting to 50 per cent or over of the costs of production. While the purchasing power studies are of interest — especially to the indus- try, as a whole, the individual poultryman is perhaps more interested in the ratio of feed costs to egg prices. Comparative prices of eggs in certain cities. — Higher prices were realized for fresh extra eggs on the San Francisco and Los Angeles markets for the first part of the decade 1910-1920 than on eastern markets. In comparison with the 1910-1914 quotations as a base, prices in the east since 1918 have been relatively higher than those in California. In certain cases, California quotations were actually below those in some of the eastern centers. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 31 Eveiy effort should be made to decrease costs of production, to produce ' ' quality ' ' products, and to lessen the cost of transportation. Under the stimulus of relatively high prices, a great expansion took place in the poultry industry of the state and large shipments of eggs were sent to the eastern markets. California was thus placed in the role of an exporter rather than an importer. This surplus in the state has made the price relatively lower in California than on the Average Prices of Eggs Per Dozen at New York, Chicago and San Francisco, 1910-1925 Fig. 13. — The average price per dozen for certain grades of eggs at three cities of the country gives a partial explanation of the reason for the purchasing power of eggs in California failing to hold up as well as the purchasing power in the country as a whole. It should be especially noted that from 1910 to 1915 quotations of extra eggs in San Francisco were far above the quotations for certain grades of eggs in New York and Chicago. Since 1916 the quotations in San Francisco have been more nearly equal to quotations for standard grades in eastern cities. Data for New York and Chicago from U. S. D. A. Yearbook 1924, pp. 1002 and 1003. 1925 prices furnished by courtesy of Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Data for San Francisco from table 11, p. 27. eastern markets. It is to these markets, especially New York, that California has been sending the larger part of the surplus. The increase in production, placing the state on an exporting basis, has made competition keener than before the war, and from all indi- 32 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION cations has established this as the basis on which the state will have to compete in the future. Isolation, which at one time tended to make prices higher in California has, together with the surplus, made prices lower during the past few years. Purchasing power of eggs and other agricultural commodities in the United States. — The census statistics for 1925 show a large increase in the number of poultry in the country as a whole. The diagram shown in figure 8, page 24, presents a partial explanation at least of this expansion in the poultry industry. A comparison is made between the relative prices for eggs in the United States and the price index of thirty other agricultural commodities. (Bureau of Agri- cultural Economics statistics as published in the Supplement to the Agricultural Situation, June, 1925, pp. 54-62.) In 1910 the pur- chasing power of eggs was above that of the combined agricultural products. During the year 1911 it showed a considerable decline, but in 1912 it advanced and remained above that of the other commodities until 1916. From 1916 to 1919 other agricultural products advanced more rapidly in price and hence in purchasing power than did eggs. From 1920 through 1925 the relative price of eggs and the purchasing power have been higher than for other agricultural products. For the country as a whole, the price changes of eggs from year to year have not been as violent as in the case of other commodities. From 1920 to 1921, it should be noted that although the price of eggs declined it did not decline as much as that of other farm products. In spite of the adverse agricultural conditions existing in 1921, eggs showed a favorable purchasing power, being over 100 per cent. Although the differences between the purchasing power of other agricultural prod- ucts are less than in 1920 or 1921, eggs have been relatively of a higher value than the aggregate of the other farm products since 1920. The trends of relative prices show that during the sixteen-year period the general tendency has been for eggs to advance more rapidly in price than other agricultural products. Of more interest are the lines of trends for purchasing power. The sixteen-year period shows a decline for both eggs and other commodities — but less for eggs than for other products. Being relatively higher in price than most other agricultural products during the past six-year period, the reasons for the large increase in the chicken population of the nation are obvious. The bulk of the nation's eggs is produced as by-products in other lines of agricultural endeavor on hundreds of thousands of farms where it is comparatively easy to increase or decrease production. San Francisco Los Angeles 33.60 37.14 24.52 28.60 19.84 23.72 21.30 23.90 22.40 23.82 23.80 26.16 26.98 29.30 32.02 33.80 39.00 38.82 46.44 45.52 51.06 48.88 40.94 42.54 [BUL. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 33 Monthly index of purchasing power. — Since seasonal variation in price and production make it difficult to arrive at a satisfactory yearly price, an attempt has been made to compile a monthly index of pur- chasing power at both San Francisco and Los Angeles. The pro- ducer is more interested in obtaining a cent more per dozen for his eggs in March and April than he is in October or November ; con- sequently, he is more desirous of seeing the purchasing power 100 per cent in the months of flush production. The arithmetic mean for each month during the period 1910-1914 has been computed and is as follows : January February March April May June July August September October November December The ' ' All Commodity Index ' ' by months was then computed in the same manner as the egg prices. The monthly arithmetic mean (1910- 1914) for the "All Commodity Index" is: January 99.6 February 99.4 March 100.0 April 100.5 May 99.7 June 99.3 July 99.7 August 101. 1 September 101.6 October 100.2 November 99. 1 December 98.6 A monthly relative price for eggs was next obtained by dividing the price for each month by the average price for each month of the base period, 1910-1914. Likewise, a monthly relative for "All Com- modities" was obtained by dividing the "All Commodity Index" for each month by the average of each month during the base period, 1910-1914. The purchasing power by months was then obtained by dividing the egg price relative by the "All Commodity" relative for the corresponding month. 34 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 13 Monthly Purchasing Power of Eggs, San Francisco, 1910-1926 Months of 1910-1914=100, i.e., January, 1910-1914=100, etc. Month January February.... March April May June July August September. October November... December... 1910 93 105 103 108 105 108 106 108 104 102 109 102 1911 111 100 100 103 98 103 102 104 102 100 100 1912 1913 105 83 101 77 104 89 98 90 91 95 89 101 92 97 88 99 94 98 93 102 91 106 81 106 1914 123 106 104 105 103 104 102 103 101 102 94 112 1915 104 102 101 93 91 96 93 96 95 87 1916 1917 Month 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 91 83 72 94 74 70 70 85 83 77 77 85 77 70 70 71 97 97 83 95 82 77 75 93 89 102 78 80 82 79 81 88 84 102 74 69 73 79 75 89 83 94 73 78 71 74 85 91 81 85 78 96 62 69 80 87 78 77 74 90 60 78 74 79 72 76 76 86 74 78 79 73 74 73 77 88 80 77 72 73 71 69 78 81 69 64 65 64 95 76 91 86 80 70 71 66 1926 January February March April May June July August September. October November.. December... 63 67 87 84 81 83 81 80* 75* 72* Source of data: Computations by author. See page 164. * Subject to revision. TABLE 14 Monthly Purchasing Power of Eggs, Los Angeles, 1910-1926 Months 1910-1914 = 100, i.e., January, 1910-1914=100, etc. Month January February March April May June July August September... October November December 1910 98 91 99 102 105 101 106 105 107 102 104 97 1911 102 115 104 106 107 104 106 107 102 103 100 104 1912 95 96 106 99 85 98 97 92 97 93 100 89 1913 91 89 93 88 92 92 89 95 93 95 100 101 1914 116 110 98 106 109 106 103 101 94 108 97 110 1915 92 96 93 100 103 90 92 94 92 92 91 85 1916 84 86 78 1917 65 65 69 78 74 67 63 64 64 65 61 66 [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 35 TABLE 14— (Continued) Monthly Purchasing Power of Eggs, Los Angeles, 1910-1926 Months 1910-1914 = 100, i. e., January 1910-1914 = 100, etc. Month January February... March April May June July August September October November. December.. 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 79 76 78* 77* 74* Source of data: Computations by author. See page 163. * Subject to revision. Seasonal variation in the prices of extra and pullet eggs. — Quota- tions at San Francisco and Los Angeles show the same general seasonal variation, February to July, inclusive, being the months of relatively low quotations on extra eggs. While pullet eggs do not decline rela- tively as much as extra eggs, neither do they advance as much. One interesting difference between the quotations at Los Angeles and San TABLE 15 Seasonal Variation in Prices of Extra and Pullet Eggs, San Francisco and Los Angeles San Francisco Los Angeles Months Extras Pullets Extras Pullets I II III IV 106.1 77.4 65.5 69.2 71.5 76.0 83.4 99.5 120.0 144.2 154.0 133.2 100.0 112.5 81.2 71.6 76.1 77.8 80.3 86.1 98.3 114.5 133 140.0 129.2 100.0 106.0 81.4 68.9 72.6 75.0 79.8 87.7 102.7 115.4 136 5 144.0 130 100.0 115.4 February 80.2 March 72.6 April 76.8 79.6 83 3 July 88.9 August 99.3 September 106.0 October 122.7 November 137.1 December 138.0 Average 100.0 The above table shows that if 100 were taken as an average for each month, 106. 1 would be the rela- tive wholesale price for extras at San Francisco in January, etc. Source of data: All computations have been made by the author, median link relative method being used. Column I, 1900-1925; II, 1912-1925; III, 1900-1925; IV, 1917-1925. 36 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Francisco is that during February pullet eggs have been relatively higher than extras at San Francisco without there being any consider- able difference at Los Angeles. During December on the other hand, pullet eggs have been relatively higher at Los Angeles than extra eggs, while the reverse has been true at San Francisco. A comparison of prices on the San Francisco market during the five-year period 1921-1925 with those of the period 1900-1904, show the relative prices in general to have dropped during the winter months and risen during the period March to July, inclusive. This same general tendency is apparent on the Los Angeles market except for the fact that the prices during the fall months were relatively higher during 1921-1925 than from 1900 to 1904. THE EGG-FEED PRICE RATIO A valuable conception of the status of the egg industry is gained by a study of the purchasing power of the product in terms of feed rather than in dollars and cents. The fact that eggs sell high in November of one year and somewhat lower in the same month of the next year is not of as much concern to the producer as whether the product will purchase feed at a favorable ratio. Egg-feed price ratio, Petaluma. — The egg-feed price ratio used in this study indicates the number of dozens of fresh extra eggs required to purchase 100 pounds of feed (50 pounds of grain, 50 pounds of mash). The ration used in the study of the egg-feed price ratio is as follows : Grain Mash 12.5 pounds wheat 20 pounds bran 12.5 pounds corn 10 pounds corn meal 12.5 pounds barley 10 pounds barley 12.5 pounds milo 5 pounds meat scrap 5 pounds fish scrap 50 pounds 50 pounds This ration was used in the Petaluma egg-laying contest. This egg-feed price ratio is not comparable with an egg-feed price ratio for the United States as a whole or for any of its geographic subdivisions. Such a ratio, to be of any value, must necessarily take into consideration other pertinent factors. It is obvious that other factors such as (1) average egg yield per hen, (2) seasonal yield per hen, (3) quality of product, (4) economy of production, and (5) efficiency of marketing, play an important part in the study of the egg-feed ratio. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 37 The proportions of feed ingredients given above remained the same for the fifteen years (1911-1925) except in 1918, 1919, and 1920, when wheat was eliminated from the ration on account of the war emerg- ency. Equal parts of corn, barley, and milo were substituted during this period for the grain portion of the ration. Egg and Feed Wholesale Price Kelatives, Petaluma, 1910-1925 I9.D-I4 - IOO /90 /80 no i&o I5C /40 /30 /zo //o fOO 90 A / / V Fee< / In dex -— - f \ i r / / i 5ecc f&ec /or y Jhc r renc 'ex i-n / / / / / / It \ y / \ 1 -Sec £99 War Trerr d \ t / N A jf ^57< 7 ? n d&K ^ *^\ 1 1 — - - - r ~~~~~ . =5= 5 5! 1 5? 5l 91 !5 5> 51 K SB 5) 5j L & § § § § i 5j 5) 5> Fig. 14. — From 1910 to 1915 the differences between the relative prices of feed and eggs in the Petaluma district were not great. In 1916, however, the feed price index began to advance more rapidly than the egg price index and remained higher until 1921, which was a favorable year for the poultryman buying all of his feed as the feed price index fell below the egg price index for that year. The tendency since 1913 has been for the prices of feeds to advance more rapidly than the price of eggs. Data from table 18, p. 41. Comparisons throughout the year are based upon weekly feed and egg quotations in the Petaluma poultry district of California. The feed quotations used are wholesale quotations published in the Petaluma Weekly Poultry Journal. The costs of mixing and grinding the feeds have been added to the feed costs. The egg quotations used are the net wholesale quotations of fresh extra eggs on the San Fran- cisco Wholesale Dairy Produce Exchange. These quotations were * The equation of the feed index is y = 136.6 + 2.8 x, origin 1919. The equa- tion of the egg index is y = 125.2 + 1.7 re, origin 1919. 38 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION used because of the difficulties encountered in obtaining comparable prices paid to farmers over long periods of time. Figure 15 shows the yearly variation in the egg-feed ratio. During the fifteen year period, 1911-25, the range of the yearly ratio has TABLE 16 Egg-Feed Price Katio- -Petaluma The number of dozen extra eggs required to purchase 100 pounds of the following mixture: 50 pounds mash (20 pounds bran, 10 pounds corn meal, 10 pounds ground barley, 5 pounds meat scrap, 5 pounds fish scrap); 50 pounds grain (equal parts corn, barley, milo and wheat). Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Average Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Average 1911 7.11 1912 6.39 8.77 10.25 10.80 11.00 10.43 8.43 7.17 5.66 4.66 4.08 5.52 7.76 1913 6.70 9.62 10.54 9.95 9.50 8.30 7.35 6.23 5.09 5.25 3.41 3.91 7.15 1914 4.69 6.95 9.40 8.73 8.40 7.78 6.72 5.66 5.04 3.89 3.80 4.16 6.27 1915 9.00 10.40 9.58 9.00 8.61 7.75 6.35 5.18 4.18 3.61 4.55 7.07 1916 5.65 7.28 9.26 8.90 8.64 8.04 7.26 6.61 5.73 4.82 5.04 6.19 6.95 1917 8.45 10.24 10.32 10.91 11.04 9.68 8.46 7.69 6 55 6.04 6.79 8.59 1918 6.00 8.64 9.95 10.14 9.54 8.94 7.75 6.72 5.79 4.73 4.13 4.07 7.20 1919 5.60 8.45 7.77 7.30 7.06 6 44 1920 7.34 1921 4.96 7.45 8.29 9.43 10.45 9.63 6.37 5.55 4.56 3.64 3.44 3.90 6.47 1922 10.21 9.38 10.18 9.08 8.95 7.80 5.06 3.93 4.36 5.13 7.39 1923 6.63 9.35 10.18 9.65 9.40 9.20 8.55 6.15 5.30 3.87 4.71 5.29 7.36 1924 9.46 10.55 10.50 10.35 8.55 8.71 8.08 6 35 5.75 5.75 6.29 8.10 1925 6.63 10.80 10.41 9.85 8.26 8.44 7.73 7.08 6.03 4.93 4.85 5.77 7.57 1926 7.44 9.49 8.66 8.24 8.01 7.16 6.84 6.07 5.18 4.46 Source of data: All computations by author. The aggregate price of each ration for the period was computed by using the wholesale prices of feed quoted weekly in the Petaluma Weekly Poultry Journal. The wholesale prices of eggs at San Francisco were used in the study. The figures above were obtained by dividing the wholesale price of eggs into the wholesale price of one hundred pounds of the ration, plus a charge for grinding and mixing. been from 6.27 dozen, or 75.2 eggs, in 1914 to 8.59 dozen or 102.8 eggs in 1917. The arithmetic mean for the period is 7.25 dozen or 87.0 eggs. There has been an upward trend in the egg-feed ratio as is shown by the line of trend in figure 15. From 1911 to 1925, the number of dozen extra eggs required to purchase 100 pounds of feed increased 5.4 per cent (trend values). [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 39 The relative prices for eggs and feeds (for the ration used) are shown in figure 14. Both indices are based on the period 1910-1914 as 100, and it may be noted that there is a fairly close agreement between these two. During 1916, however, feed increased far more rapidly in price than did eggs. The drop in the feed index in 1921, however, was greater than that in the egg index, although in 1922 the egg index fell below that of feed. The tendency in 1925 and during the first ten months of 1926 was for the egg index to gain on the feed index. The general trend during the past thirteen years, 1913- 1926, has been for feed to rise somewhat more rapidly in price than No. Doz. Extr-a Eo&& Requir-ec/ J-o Purchase /OO LbS. Feed Egg-Feed Price Batio, Petaluma, 1911-1925 - E 99 -r&6 >d Ri, itio \ 4. — ». , - Trt ?nc/J [ ■ " — - 1 Fig. 15. — The chart shows the number of dozen eggs at the average wholesale price per year which are required to purchase one hundred pounds of a standard poultry ration. Since 1910 there has been a slight tendency for the prices of feed in the Petaluma area to increase more rapidly than the prices for extra eggs. The years 1914, 1919 and 1921 were especially favorable for the poultryman buying his feed while 1912, 1917 (in spite of the high prices for eggs) and 1924 were unfavorable.* Data from table 17, p. 40. eggs. This is shown quite plainly in figure 14 by the trend of the relative prices of feed and eggs. The ratio fluctuates above and below the trend, being sometimes above and sometimes below it. These fluctuations are caused in part by cyclical changes and in part by accidental changes. During nine of the fifteen years covered by the study, namely, in 1911, 1912, 1913, 1917, 1920, 1922, 1924, and 1925, the ratio was less favorable than normal. Two or three years appar- ently are required to complete the upward or downward movement of the cycle, viz, 1912-1914, 1914-1917, 1917-1919, 1921-1924. * Equation for line of trend is y = 7.003 + .02722 x, origin 1911. 40 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION The wide fluctuations in egg prices month by month and over a period of years constitute one of the most important problems with which the poultry industry has to deal. A study of table 17 and figure 16 (fifteen-year period) shows that March stands out as the month of high egg-feed price ratio and low egg prices while November has the lowest ratio and is the month of highest egg prices. The order of the months in the egg-feed price ratio is the inverse of what is found in the variation of wholesale egg prices. There is no considerable difference in the prices of feed for the various months. Therefore, the comparison of the prices received for eggs and the resulting ratio to feed costs has value. More eggs should be produced during the last five months of the year. This is a fact generally admitted ; and the most efficient poultryman is managing his flock now with this end in view. The majority of the people engaged in the poultry industry have a long way to go, however, before production will materially change the fall and winter prices. A study of the egg-feed ratio coupled with a study of the increase in average egg production gives a partial explanation of how persons already in the industry in California continue to make a profit, and in addition, it offers a partial explanation for the expansion which has taken place. Seasonal variation. — The seasonal variation in the egg-feed price ratio is shown in table 17 and in figure 16 (page 41). In table 17 the average month is taken as 100, all percentages above or below 100 being deviations from the average. The seasonal variation in the wholesale prices of fresh extra eggs at San Francisco is also given. TABLE 17 Seasonal Variations in Egg-Feed Price Eatio and in Quotations on Extra Eggs (100 = normal for month) Egg- Feed Price Ratio Fresh Extra Quotations I II November 59 March 66 October 64 April 69 December 69 May 72 September 76 June 76 January 88 February 77 August 93 July 83 July 109 August 100 February 120 January 106 June 124 September 120 May 130 December 133 April 133 October 144 March 136 November 154 Source of data: Column I— computations by the author based upon data in Table 16. _ The median link relative method was used. Column II — computations by author based upon compilations of whole- sale monthly prices obtained weekly from the files of the Pacific Rural Press. The median link relative method was used. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 41 Seasonal Variations in Egg-Feed Price Eatio, Petaluma, and in Fresh Extra Quotations, San Francisco /40 130 tzo HO IOO 90 ao 70 / — - — .. ____ / 'Egg Fet >d RaHt ) S ^< V. f Fresh Extra Qt/ofaHons / / \ / /X f \ \ N N ( ^ V \ ^^_ / S Fig. 16. — Eggs produced in August, September, October, November, December and January purchase relatively more feed than eggs produced during the remain- ing six months of the year. When the egg-feed ratio is high the price of extras is low, e.g., in March, whereas the reverse is true in November. Data from table 17, p. 40. TABLE 18 Poultry Feeds: Eelative Wholesale Prices at Petaluma, 1910-1925, and Eggs: Eelative Wholesale Prices at San Francisco, 1910-1925 1910-1914 = 100 Year Relative feed prices Relative egg prices Year Relative feed prices Relative egg prices 1910 94.8 100.4 107.6 99.2 98.1 102.7 108.9 166.8 106.2 96.4 93.9 98.9 104.6 97.1 99.6 125.3 1918 177.5 177.3 197.5 121.2 118.3 124.9 135.1 147.4 163.0 172.4 174.9 128.1 111.5 114.3 112.8 125.0 1911 1919 1912 1920 1913 1921 1914 1922 1915 1923 1916 1924... . 1917 1925 Sources of data: Weekly wholesale poultry feed quotations were obtained from the Petaluma Weekly Poultry Journal. The arithmetic mean of the weekly quotations was used as the quotation for each month. The wholesale price of 100 pounds of feed used in the egg-feed ratio was then computed and a fixed sum for mixing and grinding the feed was added. The wholesale quotations of eggs are for the San Francisco market. 42 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION SOURCES OF CALIFORNIA POULTRY FEEDS California poultry men are users of large amounts of raw materials which are manufactured into eggs and poultry, and are naturally interested in the sources of supply for the various feeds purchased. TABLE 19 Poultry Feeds: Quantities Sold to Poultrymen in California by Feed Concerns, 1925 Amount (pounds) Per cent of total feed listed Origin of feed Feed California Other places (Ranges of estimate) 50,868,683 26,550,072 • 17,684,995 8,816,659 9,501,516 7,538,505 7,157,300 5,904,702 5,877,776 5,713,570 4,968,010 3,248,134 2,909,867 1,911,300 1,748,800 1,455,142 827,550 811,604 351,500 572,924 30.9 16 1 10.7 5.4 58 4 6 4.3 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.0 2 1.8 1.2 1.1 0.9 5 0.5 0.2 0.3 0-15% 10-60% 100% 0-30% 50-60% 100% 0-80% 100% 0-40% 0-50% 0-50% 100% 0-10% 100% 100% 100% 100% 70-100% Middle West Wheat 40-70% Utah, Idaho, Oregon, Washington 0-20% Middle West 0-100% Oregon, Washington 0-40% Canada 0-60% Kansas 10-100% Oregon, Washington, Utah, Idaho, Milof Canada 0-20% Kansas 40-50% Oklahoma and Texas Oats 20-40% Oregon, Washington, Utah and Idaho 0-60% Middle West Shell 60-100% Eastern Oil cake meal Kaffir 0-100% Orient 0-100% Oklahoma and Texas 0-20% Canada 20-100% Utah, Idaho, Oregon and Washington 90-100% Eastern Milk Grit Alfalfa meal 164,418,609 100.0 Sources of data: Data furnished to author by several California feed concerns. * One dealer estimates that 15 per cent of the corn sold by his firm originated in the Argentine. t Includes Egyptian corn (Brown and White Dura). Data furnished the author by various concerns in California give some indication concerning the sources of supply of concentrated feeds. This information will give the poultrymen some idea as to current demands for various feeds. The feeds listed below have been sold to California poultrymen during the year 1925. In explanation of table 19, it will be noted that 50,868,683 pounds of corn, or' 30.9 [BUL. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 43 per cent of the total amount of feed sold, have been bought by Cali- fornia poultrymen. The highest amount originating in California was 15 per cent. Estimates of the percentage of corn coming from the Middle West ranged from 70 to 100 per cent. Table 19 indicates rather a serious problem to the poultry industry of the state. On the most conservative basis it is estimated that Cali- fornia imports over half the poultry feeds sold within the state. It is hoped that by some method California farmers growing feed and poultrymen buying feed can be brought to a realization of the feed needs of the poultry industry of the state. Feedstuffs are relatively bulky and heavy, hence the freight rates per pound are necessarily high. The poultryman in many instances is paying freight on the raw material in the shape of feedstuffs and is paying freight on the manufactured product exported from the state. PRICE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GRADES OF EGGS Ratios between the quotations of pullet and extra eggs on the San Francisco and Los Angeles markets. — Both pullet and extra eggs have been quoted regularly in San Francisco since 1912, and in Los Angeles since January 1, 1917. Comparisons between these two grades have been made by the use of a percentage relationship. The following will illustrate the method of obtaining the ratio used in this study. Net quotations on the Los Angeles market, January 3, 1917, were : Pullets $0.34, Extras $0.38, making the ratio 34/38, or 89.47 per cent. One net quotation for both pullets and extras was obtained on the same day during every week of this entire period, and the average (arithmetic mean) of the four or five ratios obtained for each month was then taken as the average for that month. That there is not a constant relationship between these quotations can be seen from table 20, p. 45. The ratios on the San Francisco market have ranged from 66.2 per cent (October 19, 1922) to 100 per cent (October 29, 1913, February 17, 1915), and at Los Angeles from 66.3 per cent (October 12, 1925) to 100 per cent (May 1, 1918). On account of the standardization in grades, the demand for pullets is at times comparatively inelastic, a situation caused by the requirements of chain stores, markets, and restaurants. The average (arithmetic mean) of the 731 ratios in the San Francisco study and of the 469 for Los Angeles are approximately the same (87 per cent). 44 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION The trend for San Francisco is slightly downward from 1912 to 1925. During the period 1916-1920 the ratio was especially high, but this might have been expected since certain concerns undoubtedly shifted their demand from extras to pullets during periods of rela- tively high prices. Since 1922, however, the tendency has been to Percentage Relationship Between the Net Quotations of Pullet and Extra Eggs on the Los Angeles Market, 1917-1926 Per Cen-r too 95 90 65 80 75 70 Putfe-h Ex <-ra Pa ft/b ^^i 1 ( i tz Montr i Mow ig Ave ^1 1 — ^ - n , i ^ 3 3 3 4 ■* ^ ^ 3 ■* ^ ^ 5 ^ 3 ^> *^ -S "S ^$ ^ c 5 £ 1917 19(9 f9l9 I9Z0 J9ZI I9ZZ I9Z3 S9Z4 /9Z5 Fig. 17. — A pronounced seasonal variation can be seen in the relationship between the prices of pullet and extra eggs. Pullet eggs are usually relatively higher during the first months of the year and lower during the fall months. There has been a tendency during the entire period for pullet eggs to be relatively lower than extras. Data based on calculations from table 111, p. 163, and table 113, p. 165. increase the ratio. The trend in the Los Angeles ratio has also been downward. There is a considerable fluctuation from day to day and from week to week, and it is evident that there can be no wide variation in the nutritive value of the two grades within such a short period. Seasonal variation. — There is a pronounced seasonal variation in the relationship, as can be seen from table 20, p. 45 and figure 18. January stands out as the month of high relative value while October is low. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 45 Seasonal Variation in Percentage Relationship Between Pullet and Extra Quotations, Los Angeles and San Francisco Fig. 18. — The data used in connection with the chart are the percentage relationships between the prices of extra and pullet eggs. The normal ratio (rep- resented by 100 per cent or unit y) is high during the first months of the year. The same general seasonal variation in the relationship between pullet and extra eggs is evident in Los Angeles as in San Francisco. Although receipts are not segregated, available data point to low comparative receipts of pullets during the first months of the year and high receipts in the fall. Data from table 20, p. 45. TABLE 20 Eggs: Seasonal Variation in the Percentage Relationships of Pullet Quotations, to Extra Quotations, San Francisco, 1912-1925, Los Angeles, 1917-1925 Month San Francisco Los Angeles Month San Francisco Los Angeles 105.8 104.6 103.8 102.9 101.5 101.6 106.6 105.9 102.2 102.9 100.9 102.0 July 99.9 98.0 95.8 91.5 93.7 100.9 100.1 August 99.9 September 92.2 October 91.9 November 93.5 December 101.9 Note. — From the above table it will be seen that if the average monthly relationship between the prices of pullet and extra eggs equals 100, in January the San Francisco index is 105.8 or 5.8 per cent higher than the average; whereas in October the relationship is 91.5 or 8.5 per cent below the average relationship. Pullet eggs are therefore relatively high in January and low in October. Source of data: Computations of the percentage relationship between the prices of pullet and extra eggs were made for Wednesdays of each week by the author. The arithmetic mean of the Wednesday percentage relationship for each month was then taken as the percentage relationship for the particu- lar month involved. The seasonal variations were then computed from these monthly relationships by the link relative method. Data for Los Angeles (computed from 1917-1925) evidence the same general seasonal variation as does San Francisco, except that the variations from March to June are comparatively nothing and the decline in the ratio from August to September is more abrupt than is the case on the San Francisco market. 46 UNIVERSITY OP CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Percentage Eelationship Between Pullet and Extra Quotations San Per Cen-t- Francisco, 1912-1925; Los Angeles, 1917-1925 94 9Z 90 88 86 84- 8Z Son Francisco Rf/a-hton V \ \ < fc- — Los Ange/e? Sec y/ar Tret id \ 7^ s.f: Rek ft/or s-^ \\ \ / \/ 1 5 5 K 1 Fig. 19. — A comparison between the relationship of pullet to extra eggs in Los Angeles and San Francisco shows plainly that the relationship does not vary greatly as between the two markets. During the period of relatively high prices the relationship was high. In the comparatively unfavorable years pullet eggs have apparently been worth less. The general trend in the relationship on the San Francisco market, has been downward.* Data based on calculations, tables 111, 112, 113, 114, pp. 163-165. Percentage Eelationship Between the Net Quotations of Pullet and Extra n ^ u Eggs on the San Francisco Market, 1912-1926 JOO 95 90 85 BO 75 / -Pullei Exti -a Ra <-io \ /u V \ n \ 1 SflP-A 'on+h bovine ■ Aven '9 s ' \ r — - 1 - - -^ C -?> C" -$\ c; -5^ c: ^?\ c -3* c -^ cj ^ c -^ Cg ^'M'-M^'^^^M-^^'MSfl Z9/2 /9I3 1914- J9I5 1910 19/7 f9IS I9ZO !9Zt I9ZZ I9Z3 I9Z4 I9Z5 Fig. 20. — The percentage represents the percentage relationship between the wholesale quotations of pullet and extra eggs. Pullets are low in price when compared to extras during the months of August to November, inclusive. With only slight variations, San Francisco and Los Angeles follow the same trend. The ratio has been consistently lower, however, for September in Los Angeles. During the five years 1921-1925 there has been a pronounced decline in the ratio during September and October. Data based upon table 112, p. 164, and table 114, p. 165. * The equation for the line of trend is y = 87.12 — .108 x. [BuL. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 47 PER CAPITA YEARLY CONSUMPTION OF EGGS* United States. — In 1918-19 the United States Department of Labor, through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, working in cooperation with the National War Labor Board, made an investigation into the cost of living in industrial centers of the United States. This covered white families in 92 cities or localities in 42 states. According to estimates obtained, the apparent per capita consumption of eggs in the United States (industrial centers) amounted to 12.49 dozens. It is of interest to note that California's largest markets, California and the North Atlantic States, claimed the highest per capita consump- tion. The western states led the entire country with 14.59 dozens, two dozens more than the average for the country as a whole. The North Atlantic States- followed with 13.90 dozens. For the other sections, the per capita consumption was as follows: South Atlantic States 11.90 dozens South Central States 11.76 dozens North Central States 10.75 dozens The states producing the largest total surplus of eggs, and having the lowest prices, apparently consumed the smallest quantities of eggs. This may be due to the larger consumption of cereal products (bread, etc.) and potatoes in the Central States. The per capita consumption of eggs in the rural districts is con- siderably larger than that of the industrial centers. Investigations by the United States Department of Agriculture during 1913-19141 indicated that the per capita annual consumption of 800 northern rural families was 33.6 dozens, while similar data from 150 southern families showed it to be 30.8 dozens. Consumption of eggs in the United States compared with other countries. — British authorities! have estimated the per capita con- sumption of eggs in certain countries of the world to be as follows : Canada 313 Belgium 213 United States 180 France 133 Great Britain 110 Sweden 86 Denmark 75 Norway 61 * U. S. D. A. Yearbook 1924, p. 1127. t U. S. D. A. Bui. 410, Value to Farm Families of Food, Fuel and use of House. t Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries: Report on egg marketing in England and Wales, p. 12, London, 1926. 48 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Egg products. — Eggs have many varied uses, some of the more important being : 1. Directly, as human food (shell eggs). 2. In baking (shell, frozen, and dried eggs). 3. In confectionery (principally egg albumen). 4. In the manufacture of mayonnaise dressing (principally egg yolks). 5. In photography (egg albumen). 6. In tanning (certain classes of eggs unfit for food). 7. In stock and poultry feeds (certain classes of decomposed eggs unfit for human food). 8. In fertilizers (any bad eggs). 9. In the manufacture of dyes (egg albumen). 10. In the manufacture of certain textiles (albumen). 11. In the manufacture of paints and varnishes (albumen). 12. In pharmaceutical preparations (albumen). 13. In clarifying wines and spirituous liquors (albumen). 14. In sizing paper (albumen). 15. In the manufacture of glue and adhesive (albumen). 16. In the manufacture of artificial ivory (albumen). 17. In the manufacture of ice cream, especially French ice cream (shell and dried or powdered eggs). 18. In the manufacture of soap (Germany — yellow of rotten eggs). This list gives an idea of the importance of products other than shell eggs. (For egg equivalents see table 116, page 169.) The U. S. Standards and grades for eggs in commercial use.* — The establishment in San Francisco and Petaluma of a Federal-State Inspection service on eggs, in conjunction with the use of the tentative wholesale grades as formulated by the U. S. Department of Agri- culture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, marks a distinct advance in the marketing of this product. The wholesale grades as used today are the result of a careful and intensive study of poultry production and marketing conditions throughout the United States over a period of years. They have grown out of the results of practical experience, and as at present constituted, are designed for nation-wide application. They are of a nature to lend themselves to refrigerator as well as fresh grades, and conse- quently will eventually bring about a common standard that will be understood wherever eggs are bought and sold in the United States. * Courtesy of Henry G. F. Hamann, Bur. Agr. Econ., U. S. D. A. [BUL. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 49 This common standard is the thing that is at present lacking. Eggs bought or sold on one market under certain trade names, are resold on some other market under a name which may be similar to the first but interpreted differently. The term " Extra first" in Boston may also be used in New York or San Francisco, but each of these markets places a different construction on the term, relative to the eggs in question. This lack of a common terminology has com- plicated the entire economic scheme of marketing this product. The grades used are based on the U. S. standards of quality for individual eggs, which were accepted by representative members of the trade in the United States at Chicago on January 19, 1925. With a thorough understanding of the points considered in determining the interior quality of an egg as presented in these standards, no real difficulty should be experienced in the interpretation of the various grades. The U. S. standards of quality for individual eggs, as well as the tentative wholesale grades are presented in tables 21 and 22, and show the seven standard types or kinds, from which the grades have been developed. The four standard qualities for clean sound shell eggs are named — U. S. Special, U. S. Extra, U. S. Standard, and U. S. Trade. The two standard qualities of stained or dirty shelled eggs are named U. S. Standard Dirty and U. S. Trade Dirty. Those which are checked or cracked are named U. S. Checks or Cracks. Since the U. S. Standards of quality relate to the condition of the shell as well as to the interior quality, color, size, and weight are not considered factors of quality, but of grade. Color of shell also is considered as a factor in establishing various color classes within the grades. COMMERCIAL HATCHERIES IN CALIFORNIA There were on January 1, 1926, two hundred sixty-two commercial hatcheries, each with a capacity of 1000 eggs or over, in 37 different counties of the state. One hundred thirty-five of these in twelve different counties are accredited. An accredited hatchery is one which follows certain rules and regulations prescribed by a Farm Bureau Accredited Hatchery Project. These include a rigid inspec- tion of stock with reference to health and vigor, by persons over which the breeder has no control, and in addition conformation to certain standards which are set up with respect to the pedigree of the males used. 50 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION O M 03 6 i- O M O II ver % in.; bubbly or obile. _>> _3 ■3 3 c 3 C c a ent may ly visible blood -3 O QQ O CP ™ 3 S -5 a S si 3 ^ S <» "° >> •° 0?- 0? s £ 0) o?! 3 > 7 3 U 3 M >> S, Sj s 5 © y "S 5 0) ^ XI » P O s s P Q >> 5 3 X5 >> a ° ^ 3 £1 ."3 "a ^3 3 S _>. 13 c a c & a >> « -3 03 3 O 3^0 K 00 •-; T3 ■5 t-i ■-! r> . O 3 ^ >> 13 03 O . 3 3 (II S S 3 M QQ P a 3 _C3 to 0? Si 03 > c u > o ,1 £ « 3 ^ ^ o> -Q X3 « a § S ^ Q s 3 >> 1 ~ 1 1 5,3 3 '8 E >> a; IS .2 3 c3 73 T3 ..-Q 2 ^ 03 *= n S £ -u > X3 _4J t- _> c += > S3 3. b£ ;3 "3 « > -3 o CO QQ s 3 3 * g 3 >» 3 03 3 c P BE S PC P • - s- 3 ° — >. ^\ 3 . -° « 3 -2 > ^ § a) s S "° >> rt s £ o3 C t« _>. 3 ^ t: >> £ ^ o3 3 a .3 o d 03 CO p — C c a c a 9 3 "3 J4 3 a X! _0) 3 >>! 03 > 3 S _>> 13 s vi IT 3 e a a is 1 > 2 3 2 ^'> 2-^o- >> § S G 3 r 1 & 3 ^0 > ,| > 1 i ? « X3 X3 m 3 2 c § S ^ '3 a 73 1 "J 1 1 r2 3 >> 0' sS .2 co 03 3 03 T c ,2 3 -J s (0 *" CU a. •*> -u 1 E fc. 00 QQ P c or c K a .2 «l 3 8 a c cr a a. 5^ 3- bU O SJ "3 v > J2 5 s « Q 3 a 03 ao tH ° i 13 > « t 00 <3 3 -3 w : '.2 a co c or s 2 0> £ • P C 0: a. 00 ." J2 03 'M 3 > © s G N a — £ "3 3 a 13 a; -r to J2 >i a - Jj 3 . P c S 3 a; >> 03 5 3 .2 3 > a $5 >> 3 oo O o £ a s 3 03 "a si 3 is 3 2 03-3 3 & ^3 3J2 3 co o • op 3-3 3 -3 3- •§"8 03 .2 t. 03 3X2 <^ o °5 3S 073 Sc 03 "« a P>»S D^3 a3c£iH to" . §,0=0 £73 P co' O p" I 15 3 «:" 3 H 3 8 og td ^3 2 -Jo I f.s 5r_ -° be <^ 03 -Q a £ °CO 3 Z ^ 0^ js_2 a m m £ m_ a M 03 t- 0-5 03 o ;s c 3&^ c3t3 3 3^3 S3 03 to ° !*^ «.S H2 00 • 00 >>0 01 co g "3 03 § as H - J3 '03 £-3 ^3^ „_ •« 00 3 ^ ^ CD O) 03 ,3 1-3 [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 51 CP o a d jp 3 CD CO cS o Ja cS a -a CP Is _o 13 co M hO CP "o o> a c a a 1 S 03 o t-q CM CM CO CO CO CO ^ ^# Tf , US IQ Oi Oi Oi Oi •<*< * «o »c Oi Oi t CO O hC s ^ '3tj U.S. Trade Dirties or Better •*lfl*N Oi 00 t^ CO i-H CM CO U. S. Stand- ard Dirties oooio^ '33 a "3 U.S. Trade Dirties or Better CN CM CM CM CM OKS CD CD CD CO t^t^i>- t~ Oi Oi Oi Oi t^ t^ i> t^ 00 : U.S. Trades U5iOlO>0 Oi Oi Oi Oi U.S. Trade Dirties or Better Mini- mum per- centage Balance Balance Balance Balance 50% or more U.S. Trade Dirties U. S. Standard Dirties or Better Mini- mum per- centage Balance Balance Balance Balance oooo 00 t- CD lO U.S. Trades or Better Mini- mum per- centage Balance Balance Balance Balance oooo 00 I>- CD lO U. S. Standards or Better Mini- mum per- centage Balance Balance Balance Balance Balance Balance Balance Balance oooo oo r^ cd ko U.S. Extras or Better Mini- mum per- centage oooo rH C^l C<1 CO oooo OO C~~ CD lO Pa in Mini- mum per- centage OOOO OO t- CO lO >> a u o •2 ® C si "s.a CP Q I -- "i. ■- "I c a .3 '2 P Reasonably uniform Reasonably uniform Reasonably uniform Reasonably uniform c 2 7 > a a - c e e 3 8 > > ' d r - i > ! 1 I May be greatly variable.. May be greatly variable.. May be greatly variable.. May be greatly variable.. > a > a a a % a 3 e 1 a IS a T C > a ■> May be greatly variable.. May be greatly variable. . ,2 15 J " C v y ■J \ , "t ■ a - : y 1 c >' C ;iz !« •/. ; '5 ) CO - 0, X '•> 6 i DQ >P U. S. No. 1 Extras U. S. No. 2 Extras U. S. No. 3 Extras U. S. No. 4 Extras ! C c 7 c y y a i - £ y e >' c !z y it ■J. 7 -St cm j- 1 S3 a — - 3 C £ oS i xy ICO ^ ' d : ' x y 5p"t i ! ! U. S. No. 1 Trades U. S. No. 2 Trades U. S. No. 3 Trades U. S. No. 4 Trades t3 d a d h P 1 g9 CM H p 3 — a CO P 3 -a c e3 h p U. S. Trade Dirties U. S. Checks or Cracks 52 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION The total egg capacity of the larger hatcheries in the state is 7,781,342. The capacity of those accredited is 3,414,000 or 43 per cent of the total. Since small hatcheries were not listed, it is estimated* that the total capacity of the state is approximately 8,000,000, and as Number and Capacity of Commercial Hatcheries, California, 1926 Fig. 20. — a. Commercial hatcheries are found in 37 different counties in the state. Each dot represents one hatchery. 6. An incubator capacity of 50,000 eggs in the state is represented by each dot. Sonoma County far outranks all other counties in the state with an incubator capacity of 3,489,000, or over 40 per cent of the capacity of the entire state. Los Angeles County ranks second with slightly over 900,000 egg capacity, followed by Santa Clara with 750,000. Data from table 23, p. 53. two or three chicks are sold during the year for each egg capacity, it will be readily seen that this business in California has reached large proportions. It is felt by the author that regular reports, on hatchings, by the hatcheries would prove invaluable in judging the industry's future. * Estimate by E. B. Easson, Specialist in Agricultural Extension, Poultry (resigned). [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 53 TABLE 23 Hatcheries: Number and Capacity in California, 1926. Hatchery Projects Accredited County Hatcheries, 1926 Egg capacity of incubators one filling Accredited hatchery project in county 13 3 1 3 3 14 6 3 2 2 29 5 2 2 6 3 5 17 3 7 3 2 6 12 14 5 1 3 9 5 1 31 24 2 8 4 3 278,000 23,000 6,000 50,400 4,200 58,500 122,000 48,000 16,000 22,760 907,500 155,000 118,640 55,000 50,800 7,500 75,000 131,080 29,000 132,500 165,000 23,000 120,500 233,859 108,000 41,160 125,000 14,712 750,000 130,000 8,000 3,489,000 222,840 19,600 51,400 34,000 5,200 Yes Butte '. No No No El Dorado No No Yes No No Yes Madera No Yes No Merced No No Napa Yes Yes Placer No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No Santa Barbara No Santa Clara No Yes Solano No Yes Yes Sutter No Tehama No Tulare No No Total 262 7,781,342 Number of counties having accredited hatcheries 12 Number of hatcheries accredited 135 Capacity of hatcheries accredited 3,414,010 Per cent of total hatchery capacity accredited 43% Source of data: Compilations furnished author by R. B. Easson, Specialist in Agricultural Extension, Poultry. (Resigned). 54 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION RECEIPTS OF EGGS San Francisco and Los Angeles. — Since 1891 there lias been a steady increase in the receipts of eggs on the San Francisco market. The average yearly receipts 1891-1895 totaled 166,059 cases, while the average for 1921-1925 was 802,133 cases. The latter figure was somewhat greater than that for many of the larger egg markets of the country (fig. 26). The peak was reached in 1923 with a total of 854,989 cases. During 1924 and 1925, there was a decided decrease, due perhaps not to a decrease in production or consumption but to the tendency to ship directly from the centers of production to those of consumption. This has been the case especially since the develop- ment of processing and storage facilities at the production centers. Though San Francisco is becoming of less importance as a shipping point, the receipts there give rather illuminating evidence on the apparent progress that has been made in the industry of the state. Comparisons between three five-year periods, 1901-1905, 1910-1914, and 1921-1925 (fig. 24) point to a pronounced tendency to a more even distribution of receipts throughout the year, though they con- tinue larger in spring and smaller in fall and winter. This probably has meant an increase in returns to the shippers as the increase has occurred during the period of relatively higher prices — September, October, November, December, and January. The more even distribu- tion throughout the season has tended to raise prices slightly (rela- tively) during the months of heavy production. The development of cold storage facilities at production centers and direct shipments have also had an effect on San Francisco receipt distribution. Since the pioneer days of the forties and fifties, California has received eggs from other states and foreign countries. At first they came largely from the New England and Middle Atlantic States and even from China. Since the fifties, Oregon has shipped to California. At the time of the opening of the transcontinental railroad, dire predictions were made as to the future of California's egg industry and immediately after the railroad 's completion, shipments were made from middle western points. The data with reference to the volume of receipts from eastern points were most fragmentary until com- paratively recent years. During 1884, 2,980,254 dozen eggs were received at San Francisco, of which 1,356,250 dozens, or 45.5 per cent, were shipped from out- side the state over the Central Pacific Railroad.* In 1901 the volume * Pacific Eural Press, 31:32, 1886. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY r)f) of eastern shipments had been decreased materially, as the reports for that year show that of 10,112,010 dozen eggs arriving at San Francisco 1,779,630 dozens, or 17.6 per cent, arrived from eastern points.* Eggs from out-of-state points are still arriving on the San Francisco market, although California has swung into the position of an exporter during the past two decades. During 1925 shipments from outside states TABLE 24 Monthly Eeceipts of Eggs by States of Origin, San Francisco, 1925 (Cases) States Jan. Feb. March April May June July 52,060 46,855 72,649 79,174 63,769 72,049 62,489 64 1,232 448 1,406 798 400 1,044 75 137 380 2,744 4,404 2,896 240 566 3,915 6,237 Utah 719 497 622 3,636 Total 53,159 57,598 64,855 47,067 56,200 59,965 76,625 80,596 94,610 84,523 82,276 96,950 68,877 79,345 86,649 77,784 74,920 91,874 73,470 1924 72,483 1923 70,077 States Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total Per cent of total 54,803 50,699 43,783 41,213 46,918 686,461 64 6,306 800 402 305 37,348 240 10,780 91.9 271 400 18 423 34 200 450 .8 .1 384 25 2,454 205 2,101 6,329 2,417 3,334 5.0 Utah 1,799 430 627 1,884 1.4 Total . 63,620 57,109 61,692 53,923 50,331 54,475 47,581 50,587 58,129 44,519 45,861 54,094 51,558 52,737 61,719 746,706 760,043 854,989 1924 . .. 1923 Source of data: Mimeographed sheets issued by U. S. D. A., Bureau of Agricultural Economics, San Francisco Office, 1926. made up 8.1 per cent of the receipts at San Francisco (60,345 cases of the 746,706) most of which originated in states west of the Mississippi River, particularly in Oregon and Washington. These * Pacific Daiiy Eeview, 1:1,1901. 56 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION two states supplied 48,128 cases of the 60,345 originating outside the state in 1925. The first nine months of 1926 show that 14.3 per cent originated outside of California compared with 7.5 per cent in 1925. TABLE 25 Monthly Beceipts of Eggs by States of Origin, Los Angeles, 1925 (Cases) States Jan. Feb. March April May June July 34,015 37,118 56,937 63,061 64,830 46,913 35,836 762 Arizona 1,480 10,196 1,646 15,131 176 400 101 3,959 7,668 8,930 Illinois Kansas 919 960 1,136 Nebraska 420 New York 2 3,304 575 130 5,675 4,823 940 3,334 635 6,276 856 Utah 2 583 64 685 3,195 501 3,551 1,524 1,388 Total, 1925 36,114 37,351 61,543 74,720 83,796 74,558 59,555 Total, 1924 States Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total Per cent of total California 27,261 18,688 23,889 21,912 25,998 220 456,468 982 3,526 62,048 176 884 3,015 420 2 24,052 2,756 15,713 5,018 79.4 Arizona .2 .6 8,666 5,382 304 755 956 10.8 880 4 .1 .5 141 480 1,560 400 1,597 480 301 541 990 4.2 Texas .5 Utah 1,138 102 918 35 3,446 369 2.7 .9 Total, 1925 39,388 26,995 26,452 11,777 25,974 16,556 24,610 18,063 30,989 9,306 575,050 Total, 1924 Note. — These figures were not compiled before August 1, 1924. Source of data: Mimeographed sheet issued by U. S. D. A., Bureau of Agricultural Economics, San Francisco Office, 1926. During the past two years there has been a tendency to increase the total quantities of outside eggs on the San Francisco market, most of which have arrived during the season of heaviest receipts (fig. 22) — a time when arrivals are heavy on the markets of the country. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 57 5">t?3 ST" 3 o p -± p " ® s M ' < Jon. Hs OPa£,M o O ^ » O 'I War-. B Ifs ? i p & ^ o ~ S Ef. ^^h*" May o 3 ^^ B B IS Ja/u >-*" " o o N *p _. M p l-l 3 CT3 tr" j to ct- OS o co £i i—i Sep*. M Nov. CO to M ur o v o Jan. i- 1 so •.°-b o -< bo CO e Mar: so .+- l-i o ra O _, p_, m. U S P DO § up May July Sept. a> a 2 o May GO d s Jufy QQ Sept. > Nov. Jan. Man £|p-g° B-S-aEB May ° 02 O crS ai so Jufu Sept. © B ._. Nov. t? B © 3 £p M Jan. to ~ M ^3> ft o 2 «w tf Mar-. H,®««^ Moss 5 8 8 ft ><5 *"^« ^ £ If *p rt^ > — % s. *? ^ ?8f IS II ^ t* J 5 1 t J J 3 1 /A ^ ^ *&^* J v. i \ & 8 s ) 5 t "~^*m ■^W, l/i <-< "^■"s -> < '' >s / / \ / 1 1 1 58 UNIVERSITY OP CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Unfortunately, Los Angeles returns are available only for 1925. The receipts from out-of-state points at Los Angeles were larger than at San Francisco, amounting to 118,592 cases or 20.6 per cent of a reported total of 575,050. The receipts by truck at Los Angeles offer obstacles to the collection of statistics; hence, the total reported is perhaps too low. Idaho, Oregon, and Utah furnished the bulk of the out-of-state receipts at Los Angeles during 1925 and these arrived chiefly during the period April- August. Egg Eeceipts, Los Angeles, 1925, 1926 Thousand s of Cases JOO 90 eo 70 GO 50 AO 30 ZO * ' s _«•• \ ■Tof al A ^ecre, pis *-*** / f \ \ h h y \ \ fi ft II \ V \ II II \ V \ i»*~ < \ / M / t r \ % \ — . r"*~ Ca t ■zei'p- /-far n/a 'r-otr ,"'* • ■•» r+* 19Z6 Fig. 23.— Los Angeles is not only the market for large quantities of eggs from the Petaluma area but in addition during 1925 received large shipments from western states, notably Idaho, Utah, and Oregon. The larger number of outside receipts came to market from April to August during the period of relatively high production and low prices. The statistics are undoubtedly incomplete as receipts have been difficult to ascertain in Los Angeles. Data from table 25, p. 56. Current receipts obtainable in Eeview of the Butter Market at San Francisco, issued by U. S. D. A. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, San Francisco. The movement of eggs from the states west of the Mississippi will be regulated by the prices obtainable in the various consumption centers of the country. It will be rather difficult for any one center to be far out of line in prices with others because of the ease of transportation. This fact merely emphasizes the necessity of produc- ing ' ' quality ' ' eggs which will command a premium over the ordinary product found on the market. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 59 TABLE 26 Monthly Eeceipts of Eggs, San Francisco, 1910-1926 (Thousand cases— i.e., 000 omitted) Month January February... March April May June July August September October November. December.. 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 27 38 46 43 32 37 38 43 42 68 62 44 50 59 56 67 75 74 89 97 80 57 81 70 66 79 79 81 58 72 89 71 74 81 87 41 46 57 50 58 62 35 42 56 65 53 49 57 42 44 56 45 40 51 57 38 25 36 36 34 31 29 38 30 36 28 30 32 27 32 24 30 29 27 34 23 25 28 29 27 25 37 27 29 475 589 635 575 610 626 584 1917 56 77 91 93 91 77 58 41 38 38 27 32 719 Month 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 53 81 80 93 83 71 51 39 34 27 26 29 48 59 73 83 93 80 66 62 42 32 27 33 44 55 102 114 80 76 67 55 42 43 36 43 58 71 123 109 100 79 62 57 44 40 33 35 54 59 102 118 106 81 72 63 51 45 42 45 65 60 94 97 87 93 63 61 54 58 54 62 58 56 81 82 79 75 72 57 50 51 46 53 53 47 77 85 69 78 73 61 54 48 45 52 54 52 74 75 May 72 77 July 78 56 47 49 667 698 757 811 838 855 760 747 Source of data: Compilations by author based upon statistics published by the Pacific Dairy Review, San Francisco, during January of each year. Current statistics are published monthly in the Weekly Review of the Butter Market at San Francisco, Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 60 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 27 Eggs: Seasonal Variation in Eeceipts, San Francisco, 1901-1905, 1910-1914, 1921-1925 Month 1901-1905 1910-1914 1921-1925 January 58.61 105.28 165.92 166.90 164.52 141.28 97.05 93.72 58.01 47.41 50.49 50.80 80.35 115.75 150.60 140.44 142.77 100.45 106.36 106.27 68.25 68.19 61.31 59.22 93.91 89.30 144.10 146.46 129.58 121.17 106.08 91.99 76.11 68.14 62.49 70.66 February March April May June July August September October November December Average 100.00 100.00 100 00 Source of data: Computations by the author based upon Table 26, p. above computations is the link relative method. The method used in the Seasonal Variation of Egg Eeceipts, San Francisco Fig. 24. — There has been a marked tendency during the past few years for a lessening in the seasonal fluctuations indicating a greater proportionate production during the fall and winter months compared with the summer months although increase of storage facilities at centers of production have had some influence especially during the past five years. Data from table 27, p. 60. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 61 Daily receipts and prices of eggs. — The daily receipts of eggs on the San Francisco market are quite evenly distributed among the six days of the week with the exception of Monday, which is naturally the day of largest arrivals. During 1925 shipments arriving on Monday constituted 19.95 per cent of the week's total. Receipts on Daily Variation in Eeceipts and Wholesale Prices of Eggs at San Francisco, 1925 (In per cent of total for week) Per cent Per cent Fig. 25. — Eeceipts on the San Francisco market were fairly evenly distributed during 1925 — Monday and Tuesday being the days of heaviest receipts — Wednes- day the lowest. During the year higher prices prevailed on Tuesdays. Differences between the other days of the week were negligible. Data based on Daily Market Reports, Butter, Eggs and Cheese. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, San Francisco. the remaining days of the week were: Tuesday, 17.20 per cent; Wednesday, 14.83 per cent; Thursday, 16.06 per cent; Friday, 15.04 per cent ; Saturday, 15.20 per cent. Daily fluctuations in prices of extras were slight. Tuesday apparently for 1925 was the day of highest prices. Prices received were: Monday 16.7 per cent of the week's total, Tuesday 17.0, Wednesday 16.6, Thursday 16.6, Friday 16.6 and Saturday 16.5. 62 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Eeceipts of Eggs at Markets in the United States, 1901-1925 Thousands Fig. 26. — New York has been the principal egg market of the country since 1916, with Chicago second in volume of receipts. A general upward trend has taken place in all of the markets although there is considerable variation from year to year. Data from table 28, p. 63. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 6)3 TABLE 28 Eggs : Annual Receipts at Seven Leading Markets in the United States 1891-1925 (Thousand cases) Year Boston Chicago Cin- cinnati Mil- waukee New- York St. Louis San Francisco Total Averages: 1891-1895 722 913 1,155 1,518 1,879 2,197 2,991 4,467 289 362 419 509 91 113 140 180 2,114 2,664 3,057 4,046 557 852 1,001 1,305 166 194 305 335 5,818 1896-1900 7,296 1901-1905 9,068 1906-1910 12,360 1901 1,041 1,053 1,165 1,123 1,395 1,710 1,595 1,437 1,417 1,432 1,442 1,580 1,589 1,531 1,758 1,650 1,502 1,604 1,659 1,648 1,823 1,970 1,944 1,827 1,833 2,784 2,659 3,279 3,114 3,116 3,584 4,780 4,569 4,558 4,844 4,707 4,557 4,594 4,083 4,896 5,453 5,679 5,050 4,617 4,154 4,155 4,684 5,009 4,679 4,498 493 465 338 377 421 484 589 441 520 512 605 669 595 462 812 854 184 177 704 1,396 1,642 1,703 1,727 550 600 128 115 129 166 160 188 177 208 160 179 175 137 191 225 193 209 135 181 263 219 167 155 183 184 173 2,909 2,744 2,940 3,216 3,478 3,981 4,262 3,704 3,904 4,331 5,022 4,724 4,714 4,882 5,585 4,858 4,357 5,027 6,078 5,158 6,579 6,821 7,156 6,894 6,542 1,023 826 960 1,216 980 1,023 1,289 1,440 1,396 1,376 1,737 1,395 1,398 1,474 1,493 1,522 1,373 935 1,874 1,906 2,406 2,256 2,715 278 285 335 320 307 137 379 347 340 470 588 639 573 620 630 575 716 667 698 757 811 838 855 760 747 8,655 1902 8,147 1903 9,147 1904 9,532 1905 9,858 1906 11,106 1907 13,071 1908 12,146 1909 12,295 1910 13,193 1911 14,276 1912 13,700 1913 1914 13,654 13,277 1915 15,367 1916 15,120 1917 13,945 1918 13,639 1919 16,822 1920 15,237 1921 17,584 1922 18,428 1923 19,591 1924 1925 Sources of data: 1891-1923 furnished to the author by the U. S. D. A., Bureau of Agricultural Economics; 1924-1925 for New York, Boston, and Chicago based upon compilations made by the author from the New York Produce Review and American Creamery. 1924-1925 figures for Cincinnati fur- nished to the author by Cincinnati Produce Exchange. 1924-1925 figures for Milwaukee furnished to author by the Milwaukee Produce Exchange. 1924-1925 figures for San Francisco furnished by the U. S. D. A., Bureau of Agricultural Economics, San Francisco office. Receipts of extra and pullet eggs. — At the present time, no specific division is made between the receipts of pullets and extras at the principal markets. It has been possible, however, to obtain records from certain large receivers, which will be of interest and value. The following are the receipts of one large southern California concern, segregated into extras, pullets, and pewees : 64 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 29 Segregated Egg Receipts of Southern California Concern, 1918-1925 Percentage of receipts Year Extras Pullets Pewees or No. 3's 1918* 81.9 79.6 77.7 79.6 78.5 78.4 77.8 73.7 17.3 18.9 20 5 18.9 19.7 19.7 20.2 23.3 82 1919** ; 1 5 1920 1 8 1921 1 5 1922 1 8 1923 1 9 1924 2 1925 3 * Two weeks' receipts missing. ** One week's receipts missing. Source of data: Information furnished to the author. Although these are only a portion of the eggs received, some idea at least of the percentage of the various grades produced in the vicinity can be obtained (table 29). These figures are also of interest, because of the decrease in the percentage of extras and the increase in pullets and pewees. This latter increase may be due to an aug- mentation of certain flocks or to the faulty feeding of mature birds.* In addition, more careful grading is now practiced than in former years. At times in the past dealers refused to accept very small and off-eggs, which are at present received. Heavy culling is more common at present than formerly. Records have been obtained for partial receipts at San Diego. The percentages there vary slightly from those at Los Angeles. The same general tendencies, however, are evident. The receipts are in the main from the same producers during the three years. TABLE 30 Partial Eeceipts of Eggs by Grades, San Diego, 1923-1925 Year Per cent of receipts Extras Pullets Pewees or No. 3's 1923 81.4 75 76.9 17.4 22.9 21.1 11 1924 1.2 1925 1.9 Source of data: Information to the author. * Information from E. B. Easson, Specialist in Agricultural Extension, resigned. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 65 In addition to the receipts in central California segregated by months as in table 32, two additional firms have given the author a partial record of their segregated receipts. For the year, March 1, 1925, to February 28, 1926, one of these, a Petaluma receiver (not included in table 32), reports the following: Extras Pullets Pewees or No. 3's 71.5% 24.1% 4.4% Another concern has kept records since January 1, 1926, and for the first four months of 1926 the receipts were as follows : TABLE 31 Partial Eeceipts of Eggs by Grades by San Francisco Concern, 1926 Per cent of receipts Month Extras Pullets Pewees or No. 3's Checks Total January 77.9 78.2 75.2 72.8 20.2 20.0 22.1 24.1 1.7 1.7 2.5 2.9 .2 .1 .2 .2 100 100 100 100 Total (4 months) 75.7 21.8 2.3 .2 100 Source of data: Information to the author. From the above compilations and from table 32, a general idea of the segregation into grades can be obtained. One of the most illuminating tables (table 32) available is that giving the segregation of receipts from certain groups of producers in central California. The volume of these perhaps indicates that the records were representative of the central portion of the state. The receipts are segregated into clean extras, clean pullets, dirty extras, dirty pullets, and others (firsts and thin shells, and No. 3's). Bakers and checks were not obtained for the monthly periods in table 32. Of the 618,873 cases (18,566,190 dozens) received in the above grades in 1923, only 79 per cent were classed as clean extras and pullets. Over one-fifth received were dirty extras, firsts, thin shells and No. 3's. The clean extras amounted to less than 60 per cent of the total (57.8 per cent). Considerable variation exists among the different months of the year. It will be noted that of the clean extras and pullets, the former are relatively more plentiful in January, February, and March, while pullets are relatively far more numerous during the last four months 66 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 32 Partial Monthly Eeceipts of Eggs from Producers in Central California Segregated According to Grades, 1923-1925 Receipts in thousand cases Per cent of receipts Month Clean Extras Clean Pullets Dirty Extras Dirty Pullets No. 3's or Pewees Firsts, and Thin Shells I II III IV V VI VII VIII 1923 January February March 48 55 68 73 86 56 59 38 32 32 30 40 57.3 62.4 65.2 60.2 63.3 64.0 57.3 53.3 45.3 45.6 45.1 48.8 17.8 15.9 17.7 18.5 22.2 20.7 20.0 20.6 23.0 30.5 32.5 27.5 18.8 16.9 11.5 13.8 9.7 10 4 14.4 14.8 12.7 8.3 11.2 15.0 4.9 3.6 3.4 4.8 2.2 2.1 3.4 4.1 4.4 4.5 5.4 6.0 11 1.0 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.9 3.3 5 5 12 6 10.4 5.5 2.6 .1 .2 5 April 6 7 9 July 1 6 1 7 2 October 1.7 .3 .1 Total 619 57 8 21.2 13.1 3.8 3 5 .6 1924 January 43 57 69 90 65 53 56 38 41 29 32 45 55.2 56.9 57.9 54.0 52.5 53.2 52.9 53.2 48.7 44.3 46.5 51,2 20.8 19.2 19.6 19.3 21.7 22.7 22.2 20 4 23.2 29.2 29.2 22.5 18.1 18.5 16.1 18.2 16.5 15.3 15.6 13.9 11.9 11.7 12.8 17.7 4.7 4.2 4.2 5.4 5.7 5.3 4.5 3.8 3.7 5.6 7.2 6.8 12 1.2 1.7 2.4 2.8 2.9 4.2 8.1 11.9 9.0 4.3 1.8 .5 .7 May .8 .6 July .6 .6 .6 .2 December Total 618 52.2* 21.4* 15.8* 5.0* 3.7* 1.9* 1925 50 66 104 84 79 83 56 51 57 39 41 61 56.5 53.9 56.7 53.0 51.2 52.3 48.5 46.7 44.7 43.1 42.9 43.8 17.7 16.1 18.2 17.9 19.4 20.2 21.2 19.9 23.4 30.2 30.1 22.8 19.5 23.7 18.8 21.6 20.4 17.8 16.9 15.9 13.2 11.7 14.4 22.1 5.2 5.1 4 4 5.5 6 1 5.3 5.8 5.2 5 5.9 7.8 8.8 1.1 12 1.7 1.9 2.6 3.8 6.8 11.7 13.5 8.9 4.7 2.4 .2 April .1 .3 .6 July .8 .6 .2 .2 .1 .1 Total 770 49. 7t 20. 3t 18. 3t 5.6| 4.4f 17t * In addition to monthly receipts segregated above a total of 9,713 cases of bakers' eggs were received during 1924. The percentages were therefore computed on the basis of 627,423 cases— the total receipts of bakers being included in column VIII total percentages. t In addition to monthly receipts segregated above, a total of 11,642 cases of bakers' eggs were received during 1925. The percentages were therefore computed on the basis of 782,033 cases— the total receipts of bakers being included in column VIII total percentages. Source of data: Unpublished data furnished to author. All computations by the author. [BUL. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 67 of the year. Largely on account of this fact, pullet eggs are relatively lower in value during the fall months (table 20, p. 45 and fig. 18, p. 45). The winter months naturally account for a certain proportion of dirties; nevertheless, the number at other times of the year is surprising. Rainfall was of longer duration and of greater magnitude in the spring of 1925 than in the spring of 1924. This condition is reflected in the percentage of dirties. The months of September and October stand out as the months of high numerical and high per- centage receipts of No. 3's. Managerial measures increasing the pro- duction of clean extras during the fall and winter are financially remunerative to the producer. Statistics for 1924 and 1925 are not encouraging, as the percentage of clean extras and pullets dropped from 79 per cent of the total receipts in 1923 to 71 per cent in 1925 ;* clean extras dropped from 57.8 per cent to 50.4* per cent of the total, while the dirty extras were 36.8* per cent as numerous as the clean extras in 1925 (com- pared with 22.6 per cent in 1923). More careful grading is respons- ible in part for the results in table 32. These tables are worthy of the most serious and careful thought by those interested in California's poultry industry. EGG SHIPMENTS California's interstate egg shipments. — Imports from other states and foreign countries started in the fifties, while the out-of-state ship- ments are of comparatively recent origin. It was not until the winter of 1911-1912 that the agricultural pressf stated, "The state is having a new experience in egg shipments. During the week four cars of eggs have been exported to the frozen East." From this small begin- ning, shipments and exports have increased to large proportions. Unfortunately, data are not available for the earlier years of this movement. In 1925 interstate shipments totaled 1195 cars, the largest on record, although for the past five years, the tendency has been for shipments to increase only slightly. Markets for California eggs. — The larger proportion of California eggs is marketed east of the Mississippi River. The Bureau of Agri- cultural Economics reports the destination of cars loaded in the state and over 95 per cent of these were unloaded east of the Mississippi during 1925 (interstate shipments). * Percentages computed without taking account of bakers' eggs in order to make data comparable with that for 1923. t California Cultivator, February 14, 1912. 68 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 33 Eggs: Monthly Interstate Shipments from California, 1923-1926 (Thousand cases — i.e., 000 omitted) January February... March April May June July August September October November. December. 1923 1925 1926 Source of data: Computed by the author on the basis of the Daily Market Reports on Butter, Cheese, Eggs, and Dressed Poultry, issued by the San Francisco Office, Bureau Agricultural Economics. The shipments represent between 95 and 100 per cent of the total interstate shipments. All figures subject to revision. TABLE 34 Eggs : Interstate Shipments from California, 1925 (Cars) Destination Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total Per cent of total 119 155 4 3 45 43 2 2 19 22 3 17 18 15 4 22 34 2 3 56 11 3 42 9 1 < 1 57 100 93 1 116 7 1 2 841 142 39 12 3 1 9 31 6 1 6 1 5 12 4 32 2 4 2 21 71.7 12.1 3 3.3 1 1.0 1 .3 1 .1 2 4 4 3 2 3 6 3 .8 Illinois 3 1 2 5 1 1 1 2 1 1 2.7 .5 Ohio .1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 .5 .1 1 3 3 8 .4 1.0 4 1 .3 Florida 1 1 1 2 4 5 8 1 9 1 2.8 1 .2 3 .3 1 2 1 1 .2 3 7 4 4 1.8 130 163 101 50 56 70 77 58 70 123 130 146 1,174 Source: Computations by author based upon mimeographed Daily Market Reports on Butter, Cheese, Eggs and Dressed Poultry, issued by the San Francisco Office, Bureau Agricultural Economics. The shipments are for 1,174 cars out of a total of 1,195. All figures subject to revision. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 69 There has been a marked tendency for a wider distribution of California eggs during the past two years. During 1923 these were unloaded in ten states, while in 1924 this number increased to twelve. In 1925 shipments were made to nineteen different states and the District of Columbia. There has been during the past year a considerable movement into the Southern States (Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Virginia, Maryland, Alabama, Tennessee), together with an increase to certain of the Middle Western States (Missouri, Michigan, Illinois, Nebraska and Ohio). These two movements have also been accompanied by a wider distribution of eggs from this state on the north Atlantic seaboard (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Pennsyl- vania), (table 34, p. 68), although the tendency has been more marked in increasing shipments to the middle west. New York is the most important out of state market for California eggs and during 1925 took approximately 70 per cent of the interstate shipments table 34, p. 68). New Jersey was the second market, its receipts from this state being approximately 12 per cent of the total interstate shipments. New T Jersey should be considered as part of the New York market as eggs are often unloaded in New Jersey terminals. Efforts are being made in a number of markets outside of New York to develop a demand for a white egg of highest quality. Shipping districts for eggs in California. — The principal points of origin for interstate shipments are Petaluma, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego, Modesto, and TABLE 35 Eggs: Interstate Shipments from California Points, 1920-1925 (Cars) Origin 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 San Francisco 214 744 38(Misc.)* 70 45 114 615 20 32 38 103 694 53 13 18 18 73 639 62 21 3 17 29 8 63 Petaluma 889 Santa Rosa 98 35 Oakland 3 70 Los Angeles 25 San Diego 5 Modesto 5 1 Riverside 1 Total 920 1,111 819 899 852 1,195 * The 38 cars represent shipments from Santa Cruz plus other California points not listed. Source of data: 1920 U. S. D. A. Crops and Markets, 1922, p. 526; 1921-1925, mimeographed Daily Market Report on Butter, Cheese, Eggs and Dressed Poultry, San Francisco. No. 12, 1926. 70 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Oakland (table 35, p. 69). Indications point to a decrease in eastern shipments from the large cities of the state and a corresponding increase in the shipments from points nearest production centers. This has come about through the development of cold storage facilities in production centers, the necessity for applying processing as soon after laying as possible, and the saving of time and expense in ship- ments. All of these factors make for a shipping product of higher quality. Obviously, the decrease in eastern shipments from the larger centers of population may be accounted for by the increasing popula- tion of these cities. Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Sacramento espe- cially stand out in connection with the increase in cars loaded for interstate shipment. Egg shipments from Petaluma. — Petaluma far outdistances every other shipping point in the number of eggs shipped. From 1900 to 1921, the rate of increase was very rapid; from 1921 to 1925, it has been proportionately less rapid than during the war and pre-war period. • A study of the graph (fig. 28, p. 72) gives a very clear indication of the relatively large spring and the small winter and fall shipments. This variation is more noticeable in the 1910-1914 period than in the 1921-1925 period. The season of above-normal shipments coincides with the period of low prices, while the season of below-normal ship- ments coincides with increased prices. Such a condition is what might naturally be expected because of supply and demand. Similar reasoning might indicate that there would be little benefit to the poultryman in bringing about an equaliza- tion of production throughout the year. However, since California's contribution to the egg supply of the United States is not a prime factor in setting the price level, and since there is little likelihood of any such equalization in the largest producing areas of the country because of the greater seasonal changes in climate, advantage would accrue to the California poultryman from an increased fall and winter production. Egg shipments are somewhat indicative of production in the Petaluma district, and a realization of the advantage of higher fall and winter production is expressed by the marked difference in the curves. Whereas, the peak of shipments in 1910-1914 was 160 per cent of normal ; in 1921-1925, it was only 128 per cent. For the former period, "low" was 57 per cent normal; for the latter period, 80 per cent. The significant point is not so much the lowering of the high peak, as it is the raising of shipments in those months in which a high price obtains. Moreover, this has not been accomplished at the [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 71 expense of lowering the yearly production ; as the latter, on the con- trary, has been on the increase. The real explanation is that a re-distribution of the production has caused the change in shipments, advantageous to the producer. Some of these changes have been Shipments of Eggs, 1905-1925, and Poultry, 1905-1923, from Petaluma Thousand Dozr&n £ggs Darren Poul-hry too, ooo 75,000 50,000 Z5.00Q lO, OOO %500 2,500 /poo Pou/-rrt/-p i i / / / / „ /l ' 1 ^Eggs 1 ""***' ^C^-Z^ KV^ / y— — i/ V ,4C-S Fig. 27. — In 22 years shipments of eggs from Petaluma have increased from 3,407,333 dozen eggs to over 30,000,000. More rapid than the increase in the egg shipments has been the phenomenal increase in the shipments of poultry since 1919. Data for poultry shipments for 1924 and 1925 is incomplete. Data from table 36, p. 72, and table 64, p. 108. brought about by the availability of increased storage facilities at Petaluma. For five months in the 1921-1925 period the relative seasonal varia- tions of shipments were below those of the 1910-1914 period, while in one month they were practically the same and in six months higher. These facts indicate a relatively higher production in July, August, September, October, November, December, and January. 72 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 36 Eggs: Shipments from Petaluma, 1903-1925 Year Thousand dozens Year Thousand dozens 1903 3,407 3,493 3,867 4,334 4,423 5,313 7,159 7,288 8,134 1912 10,232 10,465 9,432 11,681 13 102 1904 1913 1905 1914... 1906 1915 1907 1916. . 1908 1917.. 15 552 1909 1918.. 16,046 16,047 22,224 1910 1919... 1911 1920.. Indices of Seasonal Variation in Shipments of Eggs from Petaluma, 1910-1914 and 1921-1925 — 19IO - 1 m f y .^.^-^ \ 1/ X^/5 Z/ - /9Zi ^\ ^^ /I / Cv^ -g- .- 1 Fig. 28. — The graph shows the variation throughout the year in the shipments of eggs from Petaluma for the five-year periods of 1910-1914 and 1921-1925. The heavy horizontal or normal line represents shipments which would be uniform throughout the year and deviations above the line show an increase above normal shipments while deviations below the line show a decrease from the normal. A study of the graph gives a very clear indication of the large spring shipments and the relatively small fall and winter shipments. This is more noticeable in the 1910-1914 period than for the 1921-1924 period. The season of above normal shipments coincides with the period of low prices while the season of below normal shipments is coincident with that of increased prices. Data from table 38, p. 73. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 73 TABLE 37 Monthly Egg Shipments from Petaluma, 1921-1925 (Thousand dozens — i.e., 000 omitted) Month 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1,899 2,329 3,246 3,378 3,164 2,583 2,152 1,906 1,620 1,540 1,544 1,594 1,858 2,386 2,781 3,169 3,119 2,785 2,342 1,973 1,621 1,947 1,614 1,727 2,071 2,862 3,131 2,653 2,644 2,586 2,364 2,196 2,017 2,101 2,351 2,256 2,339 2,845 2,966 3,063 2,471 2,231 2,271 1,991 2,114 2,438 2,351 2,593 2,360 2,685 3,016 2,578 2,158 2,476 2,597 2,061 2,406 2,492 2,423 2,847 2,737 2,910 2,612 April 2,667 June 3,251 July 2,495 Total . . 26,054 27,321 29,202 29,672 30,099 Source of data: Furnished to author by the editor of the Petaluma Weekly Poultry Journal. TABLE 38 Eggs: Seasonal Variation in Shipments from Petaluma, 1910-1914 and 1921-1925 Month 1910-1914 1921-1925 72.3 121.0 153.9 160.3 138.8 109.6 94.9 93.9 69.6 65.2 57.3 63.2 90.3 110.7 124.4 128.4 120.3 108.6 July 99.3 87.0 80.0 83.3 81.0 86.7 100. 100. Source of data: Computations by the author on the basis of the monthly shipments of eggs from Petaluma furnished by the Petaluma Weekly Poultry Journal (Table 37; 1910-1914 monthly figures in possession of author). Both sets of indices were computed by the link relative method. On the basis of 100 for each month the shipments during April of the period 1910-1914 were 60.3 per cent above the average of 100, etc. The New York market. — The New York market has been by far the most important eastern market for all Pacific Coast eggs including those from California. During 1925 eggs from thirty-two different states, located in every geographical division of the United States (table 39, p. 74) were received on this market. The largest part of the supply came 74 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION from the Mississippi Valley states. During 1925 the states in which the larger portion of New York's receipts originated were: Illinois, TABLE 39 Eggs: Eeceipts at New York City by States of Origin, 1925 (ThousancFcases — i.e., 000 omitted) States Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov Dec. * 3 o H Per cent of total Arkansas 1 48 3 77 2 62 1 17 1 16 1 11 1 27 1 56 10 456 3 80 10 1258 568 924 197 74 118 13 70 246 364 56 216 688 4 1 324 19 54 244 14 189 25 41 92 375 5 90 45 20 I 26 24 23 37 44 6.6 Connecticut 4 7 1 79 30 31 23 9 10 10 2 170 68 73 36 20 17 12 10 8 6 101 48 91 14 3 11 2 6 27 17 2 15 65 5 4 3 2 4 1.2 1 Idaho 56 15 9 9 3 6 5 4 3 18 2 15 45 251 117 172 30 19 19 1 12 41 77 15 29 104 182 85 130 17 5 15 13 40 29 2 28 100 150 79 152 22 5 12 1 10 43 35 8 22 96 89 42 100 10 2 9 1 7 25 21 3 12 47 72 31 97 9 1 6 60 28 44 9 3 4 24 8 13 6 1 3 1 3 13 1 10 19 25 16 13 11 2 6 1 1 4 22 2 16 32 18.3 8.2 13.4 2.9 1.1 1.7 2 Massachusetts 4 6 43 5 20 44 1 2 19 54 10 30 73 2 5 25 19 1 11 38 4 10 16 5 8 26 1.0 3 6 5 3 8 3 1 10 North Carolina 1 North Dakota Ohio 6 1 5 11 11 8 9 14 26 7 6 27 1 60 15 7 19 32 1 11 5 4 62 4 33 3 30 1 4 18 17 1 16 6 4 55 6 34 3 23 50 30 29 23 18 1 5 10 1 2 5 10 4 7 3 2 32 2 11 1 27 3 22 2 20 1 2 4 5 1 2 8 11 1 4 g 3 5 2 10 41 8 6 9 39 1 2 3 4 4 2 2 8 4 Utah 2 5 35 2 14 30 1 18 6 1 1 8 30 1 20 5 2 1 5 26 4 23 2 3 23 1 2 26 4 1 36 10 3 59 6 1 3 5 4 West Virginia .1 1 3 2 9 4 3 4 1 5 3 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 1.3 Parcel Post .7 3 Totals— 1925 325 301 386 335 314 550 410 447 425 476 872 717 981 919 999 1115 1082 924 1160 1012 871 970 1163 993 742 838 789 796 784 681 550 599 596 592 525 490 429 527 427 517 427 405 416 381 440 328 361 377 337 362 208 221 270 226 251 320 259 272 242 260 6894 6542 7156 6821 6579 1924 1923 1922 1921 * Since all figures are not given in thousands, totals for years may not exactly equal sum of ship- ments for various months. Source of data: Mimeographed sheet issued by U. S. D. A., Bureau Agricultural Economics, New York Office, 1926. Iowa, New York, Indiana, California, Washington, Missouri, Ohio, Minnesota, Pennsylvania (see table 39). "While California competes not only with every other state and foreign country shipping eggs to New York, the more direct competi- [BUL. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 75 tion is with those sections producing a white product which com- mands a premium over the brown and mixed lots (table 40, p. 76). The two outstanding competitors of California on this market are (a) those states near to New York City (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and the New England states) — table 40, p. 76, and (6) the Pacific Coast states of Washington and Oregon. The states of Utah and Idaho are grouped with Washington and Oregon in the discussion of this. competition. There has been a steady increase in the receipts from the Pacific Coast (plus Utah and Idaho) both in quantity and in the percentage of the total receipts (fig. 30). Table 41, page 77 shows the total yearly receipts from the Pacific Coast states. The average prices received represent those for white eggs and brown or mixed eggs. The heaviest shipments of eggs to New York occur during the seven months, February-August, inclusive. During these months 76 per cent of the receipts arrive (76 per cent, 1925; 76 per cent, 1924; 76 per cent, 1923 ; 77 per cent, 1922 ; 75 per cent, 1921 ; 75 per cent, 1920). The bulk of the shipments of Pacific Coast eggs, both in quantity and percentage especially during the past two years has been received from October to March, inclusive (table 43, p. 79). During 1925, two-thirds of the Pacific Coast receipts (66 per cent) arrived during the winter half year (1924, 70 per cent). The receipts from California have followed the same general seasonal variation as those from the remaining Pacific Coast area, although the percentage of receipts from California during the winter half-year has been slightly higher than the above mentioned (1925, 71 per cent; 1924, 78 per cent). Oregon and Washington especially have had less of a seasonal variation in interstate shipments, maintaining relatively higher levels during the summer months. The shipments from Cali- fornia during the fall and winter are high in comparison with actual egg production. Many eastern buyers store eggs in the spring for shipment in the fall and winter. Fresh eggs are used in the fall as local buyers store their own supply in the spring. Oregon and Washington produce relatively far more eggs for export than Cali- fornia. Receipts at producers associations in the two former states indicate a more even production throughout the year. During the past year (1925-26) there has been a material increase in New York's supply of white eggs from the Pacific Coast. Not- withstanding the influx of this greater quantity, both actually and relatively to the total supply, the price obtained for them showed an 76 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION average gain over 1924 as compared with that of western firsts (table 41, p. 77). The greatest premiums of Pacific Coast whites over western firsts are usually obtained in the period July to November, this excess being especially noteworthy in November, because arrivals of white eggs on the New York market from points nearby are relatively small at this time. TABLE 40 Eeceipt of Eggs, New York City, from States near to New York City, 12 Months Ending February 28, 1923-1926 1925-26 1924-25 1923-24 1922-23 State Thousand cases Per cent Thousand cases Per cent Thousand cases Per cent Thousand cases Per cent 681 214 255 74 111 10 44 49.0 15.4 18.3 5.3 8.0 .8 3.2 621 215 255 73 113 6 51 46.5 16.2 19.1 5.5 8.4 .5 3.8 655 210 246 69 127 5 58 47.7 15.3 17.9 5.0 9.4 .4 4.3 507 158 265 53 90 45 5 14.2 23.8 5.0 8.2 Pennsylvania Delaware New England 4 32 .4 2 9 Parcel Post Total 1,389 100 1,334 100 1,370 100 1,109 100 Source of data: From February and March numbers of the New York Dairy Produce Review and American Creamery. Seasonal Variations in the Interstate Shipments of Eggs from California, Thousands 1923-1926 1 i \£ \ /r i V v I9Z5^ \ / i i X s o^ /9Z6 19Z4 A ^ y s / > *v\ C^ *>£' "^x" wl .-'i **, /' ""^ ..»* < *-* ' I9Z3J N \ './ ~*~' "^ s: c e « ^ o 1 } H * 19Z4- 19Z5 Fig. 32. — California's northern competitors are increasing their interstate shipments more rapidly than California. Tables 42, p. 77, and 44, p. 83. Ship- ments from all three states tend to be larger in the fall and winter months. The increases from Oregon and Washington in the winter of 1925-1926 were quite striking. The tendency during April, May, June and July for 1925 and 1926 has been for Washington to hold shipments to a relatively higher level than California. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 83 Prices of eggs on the New York and San Francisco markets. — There is a close correlation between the prices of Pacific Coast extras on the New York market and those of extra eggs on the San Francisco market,* although grades at New York are not strictly comparable with those at San Francisco. The classification on the former market TABLE 44 Carlot Movement of Eggs from Washington, Oregon, and California to Eastern States, October, 1924-October, 1926 Washington Oregon California 1924: Cars Cars Cars October 45 2 78 November 70 9 78 December 89 14 122 1925: January 81 19 130 February 74 21 165 March 1-28 60 9 96 March 29-May 2 81 24 55 May 3-May 30 85 14 51 May 31-June 27 67 7 54 June 28-August 1 77 82 August 2-29 49 6 55 August 30-October 3 54 13 81 October 4-October 31 64 15 110 November 1-28 88 24 122 November 29-December 31 147 45 170 1926: January 1-30 136 46 167 January 3 1-February 27 94 19 142 February 28-March 27 80 29 114 March 28-May 1 88 45 118 May 2-May 29 91 22 65 May 30-July 3 106 34 112 July 3-July 31 65 3 60 August 1-August 28 61 8 80 August 28-October 2 101 21 157 October 3-30 Ill 29 126 Source of data: Daily Market Reports on Butter, Cheese, Eggs and Dressed Poultry, issued from San Francisco Office, Bureau Agricultural Economics. Note that since Mar. 1, 1925, the periods have not been calendar month periods. All figures subject to revision. is by the general reputation of the brand, or the opinion of the trader, rather than by an official inspection. Two other grades of white eggs on this market are also shown in figure 33 for the period, January, 1922-December, 1924. Beginning in January, 1925, the grade ' ' Firsts to extra firsts ' ' covers the two former grades of ' ' Extra firsts" and "Firsts." The range between the high and low quota- tions for Pacific Coast eggs is considerable. The adoption of uniform standards throughout the country would greatly facilitate studies of this nature. * r = .954 for period January, 1922-March, 1926. 84 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION ^ m * $ 9° •uor U ^ & £ pi - +00 r/fi so o± 3£ !f> /»//»/■»$$ ^~ n/nr^ ^ e8 ^ *H ** •-jd\/ o ~ ^C? ^3 X |2 O o /oV O 0 ^6£ *y w cm ^ ud\/ 33.— A c From 1925 the 'UOf* Fig. markets, while in [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 85 TABLE 45 Monthly Wholesale White Egg Prices at New York- Eggs, 1922-1926 (Cents per Dozen) -Pacific Coast White Month 1922 Ex- tras Extra Firsts Firsts 1923 Ex- tras Extra Firsts Firsts 1924 Ex- tras Extra Firsts Firsts 1925 Ex- tras Firsts to Extra Firsts 1926 Ex- tras Firsts to Extra Firsts January February... March April May June July August September October November. December., 52.75 47.50 34.75 36.25 36.25 38.62 38.87 43.62 57.00 75.50 79.12 66.12 51.12 45.87 33.12 34.37 32.62 36.12 35.62 39.25 53.50 71.00 73.37 64.00 47.62 43.87 30.25 31 12 30.62 31.25 31.25 34.50 48.12 65.12 68.25 61.12 52.62 44.25 39.25 37.87 38.00 37.12 38.87 44.37 52.62 68.00 74.25 61.25 50.50 42.87 37.87 36.12 35.50 34.25 36.00 42.62 48.75 63.25 69.75 58.25 48.37 41.50 36.37 33.12 32.75 30.25 32.75 38.75 44.75 58.25 65.25 55.12 51.00 44.75 33.12 35.00 34.87 37.75 39.87 47.50 58.50 71.62 76.25 67.12 49.12 42.87 30.87 32.75 32.25 34.25 36.87 44.62 54.87 66.12 71.37 63.87 46.87 39.87 28.75 30.25 30.00 31.12 33.50 40.50 49.00 58.75 64.62 61.12 63.26 47.04 39.57 39.42 40.50 43.10 46.34 47.87 58.39 72.10 75.48 59.09 61.52 44.80 36.16 36.34 37.58 40.25 42.26 43.61 49.73 64.25 64.85 54 45.69 41.21 38.16 38.23 38.64 40.01 40.2 45.52 54.58 42.47 38.47 35.03 34.78 37.81* 37.05* 40.54* 50.1* * Prices for Extra Firsts, Firsts not quoted. Source of data: From March issues of the New York Produce Review and American Creamery. Quotations are on New York grades. Preference for white and brown eggs* — The preference for while or brown eggs in a city is perhaps dependent to a great extent on the type produced by most of the nearby henneries. The "nearbys" are usually advertised on the market as being the finest eggs available; then, those from a distance which most closely resemble "nearbys" are preferred as against the distant eggs of a different type. Poultry production in the vicinity of Boston was started in the early days, when specialized henneries were not thought of, and such American breeds, as Wyandottes, Plymouth Rocks, and Rhode Island Reds, were developed as representing the ideal breeds. The center of activity for such breeds was in the New England territory. Since the ' ' nearby ' ' eggs in Boston were browns, no egg could be represented as being a ' ' nearby ' ' unless it was brown ; consequently, Boston began to prefer the brown product, and has continued to do so. Along with the preference for the brown shell has continued a preference for a distinct "eggy" flavor and for yolks of considerable color, as an indication of richness. Later in the development of poultry husbandry, when the industry was taken up intensively in New Jersey and on Long Island, great * Letter from Earl W. Benjamin, General Manager and Treasurer, Pacific Egg Producers, New York City. 86 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION henneries were operated, and the White Leghorn was soon recognized as the most efficient egg-producing breed. New York's supply of "nearbys" was largely white-shelled, and nothing but these could be represented as "nearbys" there. New York developed preference for white-shelled eggs, with the mild flavor and light colored yolk usually found in the product of specialized henneries. Florida markets prefer white shelled eggs for a similar reason. Many other markets, such as Philadelphia, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Chicago, have no particular preference, but fluctuate from one to the other, according to the type which is being pushed forward as the finest in that particular market. COLD STORAGE HOLDINGS Shell eggs. — Refrigeration not only has brought distant areas within reach of the large centers of consumption but has aided mate- rially in the distribution of poultry products throughout the year. Eggs start into storage in the spring of the year (fig. 34, p. 87). The seasonal variations in storage holding during the ten years (1916- 1926) for the nation indicate that on March first the stocks in storage are almost nothing — 0.2 per cent of the normal August first holdings. The storage movement for the country begins in March; by April first, the stocks constitute 4 per cent of the normal yearly storage, as of August first. By far the larger amounts (over 70 per cent) are stored during April and May, the months of the largest receipts on the nation's markets. In June, also, there is a considerable move- ment into storage which continues through July although withdrawals are also made during this month. The peak of the storage holdings (when considering only the first day of each month) is August first. With the decline in receipts on the markets of the country, storage eggs are withdrawn. The outward movement assumes larger propor- tions in October, when fall receipts are becoming less, and in November and December it is at a maximum. During these two months between forty and fifty per cent of the eggs reported in storage on August first are withdrawn. The out-of-storage movement continues during January, a month of relatively low production and receipts, but it is not as great as during either November or December. During February storage removals are normally small although they are sub- ject to relatively large fluctuations, since the product cannot very well be carried over into the next storage season. At times high levels of winter storage holdings act as a drag upon the market since the [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 87 Seasonal Variation in Cold Storage Holdings of Shell Eggs, United States, 1916-1926 OKI* ns IZb 73 SMI o Fig. 34. — On March first of each year storage stocks of shell eggs are normally depleted. During the months of April and May over 70 per cent of the eggs are normally placed in storage. The peak of the holdings is approximately August first. Although there is a decline in holdings from August first to March first, withdrawals are greatest during October and November. Data from table 49, p. 91. TABLE 46 Cold Storage Holdings of Eggs in the United States on the First Day of Each Month, 1915-1926 (Thousand cases — i.e., 000 omitted) Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1915 5,683 5,600 6,436 6,265 7,685 6,372 7,210 9,608 9,883 8,778 9,863 9,563 5,019 4,868 5,837 5,369 6,858 5,295 6,269 7,924 8,737 7,409 8,606 8,035 3,687 3,985 4,638 3,812 5,087 3,838 4,380 5,726 6,645 5,267 6,320 5,885 2,788 1916 1,508 920 1,300 740 1,542 408 889 1,311 1,927 1,050 1,677 458 149 200 130 342 43 179 213 500 81 574 35 7 20 26 29 43 13 13 44 21 75 264 190 344 320 122 1,926 950 453 569 1,240 857 2,327 2,105 2,957 3,278 2,135 4,909 4,648 3,737 3,563 4,872 3,717 4,593 4,922 5,499 6,098 5,143 6,844 8,056 7,890 6,875 7,712 7,215 5,574 6,617 6,554 7,659 6,747 7,534 9,811 10,222 8,685 9,482 9,127 6,060 6,895 6,568 7,850 6,872 7,605 10,161 10,509 9,267 10,024 9,845 2,146 1917 2,948 19i8 2,071 1919 3,341 1920 1,824 1921 2,403 1922 3,257 1923 4,028 1924 3,102 1925 3,780 1926 Sources of data: Years 1915-1924, U. S. D. A. Yearbook 1924, p. 1000. Subsequent figures from monthly issues of The Agricultural Situation, Bureau Agricultural Economics. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Cold Storage Holdings of Eggs in San Francisco, 1922-1926 Thousands Coses 4 * \ / -I9Z3 I9Z5-J (I9Z4 / 4 I t J / / / t s s \ > V V f / 1 1 1 A * >^>9ZZ L *> \ •A 1 i / / / / 'A S \ \f \ / / // It : f V \ i \ \ \ /J It// '19Z6 \ ft II 1 . N Fig. 35. — In general the seasonal variation at San Francisco follows the varia- tion of the nation as a whole except that stocks are depleted earlier than in the nation as a whole and the into storage movement is relatively more important during March. The early spring in California accounts for this difference. Data from table 47. TABLE 47 Cold Storage Holdings of Shell Eggs, San Francisco on the First Day of Each Month. January, 1922-November, 1926 (Thousand cases — i.e., 000 omitted) Date 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 17 1 2 14 1 13 Feb 1 1 1 Apr. 1 51 115 165 185 186 168 138 74 24 45 93 131 163 179 161 129 88 47 29 64 96 120 132 123 94 55 24 30 67 95 119 132 133 112 72 39 28 56 87 July 1 105 118 Sept. 1 Oct. 1 107 83 Nov. 1 52 Dec. 1 Source of data: Daily mimeographed market reports on Butter, Cheese, Eggs and Dressed Poultry from Bureau Agricultural Economics, San Francisco Office. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 89 new storing season starts on the first of March. On March 1, 1926, the holdings amounted to 75,000 cases, a figure three times as great as the five-year average (1921-1926) for the same date. Normally, large holdovers exert a depressing effect upon the market. Weather conditions greatly affect production throughout the entire country and must always be reckoned with. While the statements above are true with reference to the normal movements during the ten years, 1916-1926, monthly holdings vary from year to year. The variation during the first month of storage activity is quite marked (table 46, p. 87). Likewise, during the months of December, January, and February there is considerable variation, as the storage season draws to a close. Holdings for California points follow in general the variation for the country as a whole. On account of the early spring the storage season begins and ends earlier in the year (compare tables 46 and 47). Seasonal Variation in Holdings of Frozen Eggs, United States, 1920-1925 Fig. 36. — The movement of frozen eggs differs somewhat from that of shell eggs in storage. The holdings of the former fluctuate less and are not reduced to the zero point but increase after the flush season of egg production in the spring. The high point is reached in September. Data from table 49, p. 91. Cold storage holdings of frozen eggs. — In the larger centers of concentration, there always will be found a considerable number of dirty or weak and cracked eggs, which cannot be shipped. These are often broken out of the shell and frozen solid in order to make ship- ment possible and to check deterioration. Since the quantity of the frozen eggs in storage is far less than the holdings of shell eggs, and 90 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION since they can be held over from one season to another, the fluctua- tions are not so great. The stocks, therefore, are never reduced to the zero point. The normal low point is in April. There is an increase after the flush season in the spring and the high point is reached in September. A gradual decrease then occurs until the low point is reached. The imports of frozen eggs are of considerable importance (table 71, p. 122). Net Cold Storage Movement and Trade Eequirements of Eggs, Five Cities, 1924-1925 Fig. 37. — The etched portions of the diagram above the O line represent the trade requirements of the San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston and New York markets. From August to February these markets draw upon cold storage holdings to supplement the receipts during these months. The markets do not require all of the receipts during the period of high production — March to July — and eggs are placed in storage. Trade requirements during 1924 and 1925 were lighter during the summer months. Data based on calculations (weekly) from Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 91 TABLE 48 Frozen Eggs in Storage on the First Day of each Month in the United States, 1920-1926 (Thousand pounds— i.e., 000 omitted) Month 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 19,286 16,394 13,836 11,039 10,529 13,939 17,388 20,055 21,901 23,584 20,461 29,945 27,325 24,927 22,363 20,873 21,730 26,822 27,737 27,952 27,408 26,656 26,114 22,899 19,260 16,209 12,193 10,473 14,154 18,273 23,328 27,855 34,516 33,545 30,523 26,233 22,787 18,517 14,603 10,311 12,921 20,730 29,666 36,192 37,280 43,836 40,424 36,004 32,070 27,683 23,106 20,736 23,707 29,956 33,565 35,184 34,128 31,006 26,633 22,100 21,303 16,289 11,364 11,353 19,579 29,544 38,379 42,855 47,099 44,299 45,314 39,336 33,796 29,267 March 24,174 21,844 25,656 34,251 July 45,075 51,810 52,630 50,754 44,986 Sources of data: Years 1920-1924 furnished to author by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 1925-1926 obtained from the monthly issue of the Bureau Agricultural Economics Agricultural Situation. Frozen Egg classfication 1926: Whites 25%, Yolks 25%, Mixed 50% (approximate percentages). TABLE 49 Seasonal Variation in Cold Storage Holdings of Shell and Frozen Eggs on the First Day of each Month. United States, 1920-1925 Indices of seasonal variation Month Shell eggs I Frozen eggs II January 28.96 4.91 .43 9.47 80 05 152.21 189.79 196.53 186.59 162.76 119.15 69.19 95.78 February 80.98 March 65.69 April 57.65 69 09 June 90.23 July 113.82 August 129.14 September 136.93 October 133.08 November 121.85 December 106.27 Average 100.0 100.0 Source of data: Columns I and II computed from Tables 46 and 48 by the method of link relatives. Data in Column I based on holdings, March, 1916-Feb., 1926; II on holdings Jan.. 1920-Dec, 1925. 92 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION PRICES AND PURCHASING POWER OF CHICKENS United States. — The trend of farm prices for chickens in the United States has been upward since 1910. Reference to figure 38 will show that the relative chicken prices and the "All Commodity Index" are fairly close together until 1916, when the latter began to climb more rapidly. The greatest distance between the two indices was in 1917. Conditions were more favorable during the next three years, and in 1921 chicken prices remained higher than all commodity prices during the depression. Since 1921 the purchasing power of chickens in the United States has been above 100. It should be noted that the base used in computing the chicken price relatives is August, 1909-July, 1914, while the "All Commodity Index" used is based upon the period January, 1910-December, 1914 (columns I and II, table 50; column III based upon calendar years 1910-1914). TABLE 50 Relative Wholesale Prices and Purchasing Power of Chickens in the United States, 1910-1925 Relative prices Purchasing power Year I II III* 1910 103 100 98 1911 94 99 98 1912 96 95 96 1913 104 102 102 1914 106 106 105 1915 103 100 101 1916 116 90 93 1917 145 80 84 1918 181 92 98 1919 207 99 99 1920 220 - 96 94 1921 182 122 120 1922 166 110 108 1923 164 105 104 1924 167 110 110 1925 177 109 110 * Based upon calendar years 1910-1914. Source of data: Relative price from the Bureau Agricultural Economics Supplement to the Agri- cultural Situation, June, 1925, and subsequent numbers of the Bureau Agricultural Economics Agricul- tural Situation. Purchasing power computed by dividing relative price by all commodity index (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Prices and purchasing power of Leghorn hens, small broilers and fryers at San Francisco and Los Angeles. — It is difficult to compare the trends in prices and in purchasing power of Leghorn hens, small broilers, and fryers on the California markets with the chicken prices in the entire country. While the statistics for the relative prices of chickens in the United States are based on weighted figures, this is not possible for California because of a lack of sufficient data on produc- tion and receipts. For local price studies on poultry, Leghorn hens, small broilers, and fryers have been selected, as they are perhaps of [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 93 most interest to the California poultry-man. Prices are based on the wholesale quotations at Los Angeles and San Francisco throughout the year. Hence, the average price per year is the average of twelve monthly averages although a large percentage of one grade may be sold from the farms during three or four months of the year. Data are comparatively incomplete for San Francisco on account of changes in the methods of reporting quotations. For monthly prices, the reader is referred to tables 51 to 57. s> CO \* 9> 5> Kelative Prices of Chickens and All Commodities, United States, 1910-1925 5^^to^!ovsb-$S>8 2) 2> g> O) 9> §> Si 240 Z30 zzo zto 200 190 /SO 170 160 150 140 130 120 tto too 00 80 Fig. 38. — In the United States as a whole the relative prices of chickens and all commodities index were not far apart from 1910 to 1915. In 1916 the all commodities climbed more rapidly than the chicken prices. In the depression in 1921 the former declined more rapidly than the latter. Since 1921 the purchasing power of chickens in the country as a whole has been favorable.* Data from table 50, p. 92. * Equation for the line of trend is y = 98.56 + .177 x, origin January 1, 1918. fir/Ct All * Tna 7omn locfh ■/es~- // \ /l / 1 / / 1 1 1 \\ \\ 1 1 / \ \ \ \ I \ \ 1 1 1 / \ \ V / / \ »^ ^~ t " / / / i / 1 h- r P, -fee i/'cke Tnd, ns C( ex 1.5.) 1 i i * / / / / \ \ /' / ^ s jS \ > S "^ f \ Sect >lar Trer d Pur Chi, chat -ken ing 5 (L Pow s/~ N / / Pur. Chic Pot, kent /er , r (U. 5.) 1 — "~" ' I ■ 7== ^. I — f " ' 1 94 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION h 9 h ? 1 ,rl 0> £ 0) B?^ rd ^ ^gg-S'A Si § 1 ^ . - • d ^ 03 t- 5 •^,£5 TO ^ • 9 _ n S ° rt »h SS .5P"S ."B TO O 5 ^^2 0^0 rrt Ej ti n * O o c3 oo TO £ *» C •"* h to ., Qj . © O § ^ rt, w o ^ m c bc.S d w s§ J3 t! P W-w J3 P-. '•* -3 § - W2 Gj r> ^H -p.h a) ^ OS BO 4J Cj TO * Vi a S g5 . I o> d goo • m ■■ O b'O Pn cs -d 2 § kX>2"£ XiJcH ft Ci bJD 96 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION The increase in the poultry flocks of the state has been confined almost entirely to Leghorns. Unquestionably, an enormous increase has taken place in the volume of Leghorn hens, small broilers, and fryers sent to market. This increase in volume is reflected in the relatively small increase over pre-war prices, which have prevailed during the past three years. The purchasing power of poultry in California does not compare favorably with that in the United States as a whole. The data available offer some interesting comparisons of prices, however. From 1905 to 1920 broilers commanded a higher average yearly price on the Los Angeles market than fryers. In 1920 this position was reversed and fryers were quoted higher. Again in 1923 broilers reached a higher average. This lead was maintained until 1924 when both averages moved together for a year. During 1925, however, fryers declined rapidly. Poultrymen would do well to take cognizance of this variation. During the period for which data are available, Leghorn hens show a relatively lower price than either fryers or broilers. The calculations for seasonal fluctuation (table 59, p. 104) are based on a six-year period for which complete data are available. A casual inspection of figure 39 reveals the fact that espe- cially since 1917 have seasonal fluctuations in price been marked when compared with the years 1907-1917. The great activity in culling during the past few years undoubtedly has had much to do with the decided drop during the summer months. Unlike the trends for chicken prices for the country as a whole, the purchasing power of both Leghorn hens and broilers has been down- ward on the Los Angeles market. The downward movement started in 1916 and only once since that time (1921) has the purchasing power been favorable. Leghorn hens held up better in purchasing power than broilers until 1923 when broilers were at an advantage. This condition prevailed during 1924, but in 1925 the relative prices for Leghorn hens again exceeded that for broilers. The quotations given for Leghorn hens are for No. l's. Unfortunately, the hens sold are not all No. 1 's. The results show that with this particular grade there has been but little improvement in returns to the grower — although 1926 (first nine months) shows a decided improvement. For all hens sold, however, there has been an improvement in the returns during the past three years. Owing to the work of improving breeding stock primarily through the activities of the accredited hatchery, the per- centage of off -grade hens tends constantly to decline.* * Information from M. A. Schofield, Los Angeles, Oct. 30, 1926. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 97 Comparative quotations are also difficult to give on Leghorn hens because the weight requirements on the Los Angeles Produce Exchange vary from year to year and may vary from month to Price Index and Purchasing Power, Broilers and Leghorn Hens Los Angeles Fig. 41. — From 1910 to 1914 the prices of Leghorn hens and broilers were fairly constant. In 1915 while the relative prices of both hens and broilers declined the purchasing power of both declined still more rapidly. In spite of the fact that the relative prices of both hens and broilers increased from 1915 to 1919 the prices were not favorable to the poultryman as the purchasing power declined. 1921 was a favorable year for the poultryman as the purchasing power went above 100. Since 1921 there has been not only a decline in the relative price but also a decline in purchasing power. Data from table 53, p. 99. month. Three or four years ago (1922-1923) off-grade hens sold for as low as 11 cents per pound. At that time 27 per cent of the hens received on the Los Angeles marked weighed less than 3 pounds, some as low as 2.5 pounds. At the present time the percentage is much 98 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION lower and this has produced more favorable returns to the grower owing to a lesser quantity of off-grade product. The demand for Leghorn hens in Los Angeles is much improved compared with 1922 and 1923. f Although the complete data for fryers are not available, an inspection of figure 39 indicates that fryers have undoubtedly followed broilers fairly closely. On account of a change in the method of reporting the wholesale prices of poultry at San Francisco, comparable quotations on small TABLE 51 Monthly Wholesale Price Quotations of Broilers, Los Angeles, 1910-1926 (Cents per pound) Month 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1925 Jan Feb Mar... Apr May June .... July Aug Sept Oct 24.7 25.7 30. 30. 26.2 18.8 16.7 17. 17. 24.8 24 *24.9 25.7 27. 27.7 22.9 18.3 15 5 15. 14 16.7 19.2 21 5 21 5 22.2 25. 27. 32. 23.5 19. 18.3 19.5 18.6 22.3 25. 25.3 23.1 27.6 27.5 27. 29.4 25.1 20.1 25 4 20.5 20.7 24 5 25. 25.2 26. 23. 30. 30.2 27. 22.2 15 4 16.2 19 4 21. 23 5 25.2 26. 26. 27. 28.2 20.4 15.2 17. 17. 19.2 21.2 23 2 25. 25.7 28.5 31.2 25.2 21.4 17.1 14 5 15 8 19 8 23. 23.2 24.1 24.7 29.4 33.3 28.4 20 8 21 1 18.6 19.6 25.2 30.7 32 3 34 2 34.4 35.6 36 2 33 4 26.7 27.2 28.1 32 2 34 5 37 39. 39. 41 5 42.4 46. 35 3 32.9 25.6 26.9 27. 32.4 40.6 44 .7 38. 32 40 41 31 28 25 27 31 36 40 41 43 9 6 7 1 5 7 5 2 9 1 43 5 52.2 41.8 31. 24.4 24.9 27.6 30.8 35.5 39.2 40. 39. 34.7 37.5 41.5 28 5 29.2 24.7 26.7 25.9 32. 36. 36. 30.5 30. 36.7 39.4 33. 25.9 26.6 25. 29.8 34.7 39. 39. 35.2 33.6 38.5 39. 32. 29. 26.6 26.5 29.7 33. 34.2 35. 27. 27. 33. 33. 26. 22. 21.1 21.5 27.2 36. 37. 36. 30. 29.2 29.0 35.5 38 30 5 26.8 25.2 24.0 27.4 24 4 35.5 Dec Av 23.2 24.8 23.7 22.1 22.5 26.5 33.6 36.1 35 35.8 32. 32.9 32. * Estimate. Source of data: Weekly quotations have been obtained from the California Cultivator. The monthly quotation has been computed by the author from the arithmetic mean of the weekly quota- tions. The average for the year is a simple arithmetic mean of the twelve monthly quotations. broilers and fryers are available since 1912 only, while the quotations on Leghorn hens are comparable only since 1918. The prices on the San Francisco market show the same general trends as those at Los Angeles. From 1912 until 1919, prices for small broilers were above those for fryers ; since 1919, there has been an alternating movement between small broiler and fryer prices of from one to two years' duration. Leghorn hen prices have shown less of a tendency to fluctuate during the past three years than from 1918 to 1922. With 1913 as a base, the relative prices of fryers and small broilers show a decline (table 58, p. 103). Leghorn hen prices would undoubtedly show the same movement if data were available. t Information from M. A. Schofield, Los Angeles, California. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 99 TABLE 52 Monthly Wholesale Price Quotations of Fryers, Los Angeles, 1910-1926 (Cents per pound) Month 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June .... July 19. 20.5 28. 28. 24. 17. 22. 27. 23.7 24. 20.8 17.0 13.7 12. 13. 12.8 14.5 16.2 19.7 22. 25. 23.7 22.7 22.2 19 5 18.6 17.9 17. 17.3 20. 20.7 22.2 24 5 27. 26.5 21.7 20.5 19.9 20. 24. 24.8 27. 23. 18.2 15. 17.4 16.5 19.2 20. 20. 22. 22.4 24.5 24.4 19.2 17. 15.7 15.8 16. 15.2 18. 18. 24 .2 25 28. 25.6 24. 17. 15 4 16.7 20. 20.2 20.7 22.8 26.9 32.6 31 5 26.2 24.7 22. 22.8 23. 26. 27.5 27.5 27.8 32.5 33. 36. 31 6 30.5 31. 30. 30. 32. 33. 33. 35 35.7 42. 42. 35. 30 5 30.2 25 5 29.2 31.4 33. 35.6 35. 38.7 40. 40. 39.2 32.7 32. 32. 33.6 34.7 38.5 40. 40. 50. 55. 48. 42.5 35. 32.2 27.8 29.5 30. 30. 32.5 35 38. 45. 40. 34 4 30. 31.7 29.2 28.7 27.5 26.4 26. 32.7 28. 34 2 37.7 40. 34. 31 5 28.7 25. 25. 28. 29.5 30. 32. 37.2 38. 38. 35. 32. 32. 28.5 25. 25. 30. 29.2 27. 31.3 33. 33. 28. 25.6 24. 24. 24. 24. 24. 24. 26.8 30.0 35.0 40.0 40.0 32.0 36 27.0 24.4 Sept Oct. . 17.5 25.0 26.2 Dec Av. ... 20.2 19.2 21.2 26.1 31.7 33.8 36.4 37.7 31.0 31.8 Source of data: Weekly quotations have been obtained from the California Cultivator. The monthly quotation has been computed by the author from the arithmetic mean of the weekly quota- tions. The average for the year is a simple arithmetic mean of the twelve monthly quotations. TABLE 53 Monthly Wholesale Price Quotations of Leghorn Hens, Los Angeles, 1910-1926 (Cents per pound) Month 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 23.2 24.5 23.3 23. 20.5 16. 15. 15 5 18. 18.6 19.5 19. 1925 1926 Jan Feb 18.7 19.4 20. 20. 17.6 15 6 16 16.9 17.7 17. 17.6 17 1 16. 16.7 18.2 18.9 14.2 13.7 13.5 14.1 14 5 14 5 14.1 13.5 14 1 14. 15. 15 2 15. 13. 13.5 15 5 16.1 16.1 16.6 16.1 15. 14.7 15. 15.7 16.4 15.7 15 3 15. 15 4 16.7 16.5 16.6 17. 19.2 20. 19.5 17.5 15.7 16.2 16. 16.3 16.1 16.5 16 5 16.5 15.2 16.5 16.6 16.5 14.4 13.7 13.9 14.1 15. 15.9 16. 16.7 16.2 16.5 18. 17.5 17.4 13.5 14.7 16.3 16.5 16.7 16.6 18.6 20. 22.5 20.7 17.1 16.7 12.5 15.6 14.6 21.2 23.3 23.7 24.7 26.5 31. 31. 33.2 35.1 34.7 30.6 27.8 26.5 29.4 31.6 32 5 32.6 31.3 34.7 35. 35. 34.2 29.4 22 5 21.8 24.2 26.9 29.3 33.7 30. 34. 35. 35. 25.9 22.7 21.9 19.1 25.8 25 1 27. 25. 26. 27. 27. 27. 25.7 22.2 18.2 17.2 17. 19. 22. 24.8 20. 24. 25.5 23 24.7 22.2 19.6 18.1 18.8 22.5 21. 22 5 23. 19. 20.3 22. 22. 22. 18. 16.5 16.2 21. 22.2 24.4 23.5 23 6 23.6 22.0 24.8 Apr May June . July Aug Sept Oct 24.9 23.4 21.9 22.5 25.2 27.3 29. 29.5 25.5 23.7 20.3 19.1 19.5 21 3 23.2 Dec... Av 17.8 15.2 15.0 15.7 17.2 15.4 16.4 18.9 25 5 29.7 26.9 22.3 22.1 19.7 Source of data: Weekly quotations have been obtained from the California Cultivator. The monthly quotation has been computed by the author from the arithmetic mean of the weekly quota- tions. The average for the year is a simple arithmetic mean of the twelve monthly quotations. 100 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 54 Wholesale Prices and Purchasing Power of Broilers and Leghorn Hens, Los Angeles, 1904-1925 All Commodity Index I Leghorn Hens Broilers Year Price per pound II Relative price III Relative value IV Price per pound V Relative price VI Relative value VII 1904 87.2 87.8 90.2 95.2 91.8 98.7 102.7 94.7 100.9 101.8 99.9 102 6 129 180.3 197.7 210.1 230.2 149.6 151 5 156 5 152.4 162.0 13.6 13.8 13.7 13.8 12.9 15.7 17.8 15 2 15 15.7 17.2 15.4 16 4 18 9 25 5 31 3 29.7 26.9 22 .3 22 1 19.7 20 6 84 85 85 85 80 97 106 94 93 97 106 95 101 117 158 1C4 184 166 138 137 122 127 96 97 94 89 87 98 103 99 92 95 106 93 78 65 80 92 80 111 91 88 80 78 1905. 17 4 17.6 19.8 20.3 22 3 23.2 21.5 23.1 24 8 23.7 22.1 22 5 26.5 33.6 36.1 35.0 35.8 31.9 32.9 32.0 29.2 75 76 85 87 96 100 90 99 107 102 95 97 114 144 155 151 154 137 141 138 126 86 84 89 95 97 1906.. . 1907.. 1908 1909 1910 97 1911 1912 1913 1E14 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 95 98 105 102 93 75 63 73 74 66 103 91 90 91 78 Sources of data: Column I, Bureau of Labor Index converted to a 5-year base (1910-1914), published in the Supplement to the Agricultural Situation, June, 1925, pp. 54-62. Columns II and V, computed from arithmetic mean of weekly wholesale quotations in the California Cultivator. Columns III and VI, average 1910-1914 = 100. Columns IV and VII, relative prices deflated by the All Commodity Index. The term relative value is used to denote purchasing power. TABLE 55 Monthly Wholesale Price Quotations on Small Broilers, San Francisco, 1912-1926 (Cents per pound) Month 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 28.4 31.2 34 31.7 23.2 18.5 20.3 23.7 23.7 22.2 23 1 22.4 25.9 26.4 30.9 31.5 28.7 21.7 22.9 24.7 24.5 24 .2 25.7 28.1 27.5 28.0 32 5 31.2 23.9 19.2 19.1 19.2 20.7 21.5 22.5 26.4 24.5 26.0 28.5 28.6 24.1 20.4 21.5 27.1 27.2 23.1 35 6 33.6 27.2 31 .2 37 42 33.2 23.0 21.0 20.5 21.6 26.4 27.5 27.0 27.0 29.0 31.5 35.2 36.6 28.3 23.5 23.9 27.1 30.1 33.4 41 .6 41.0 31.8 45.4 51.6 50.0 41.6 38.4 34.2 38.8 43.4 47.0 47.2 47.2 44.7 46.6 51.7 52.6 38.1 34.6 30.2 32.9 32.0 31.1 36.3 41.0 36.8 38.4 45.6 47.5 40.1 30.7 29.0 33.4 39.5 47.6 55.1 60.1 51.6 53 4 61.9 52.0 34.1 28.4 26.6 31.5 34.3 39.0 48.7 49.3 37.9 41 4 36.5 37.7 40.9 30.0 28.5 23.7 24.5 26.5 28.5 29.5 34.0 27.5 31.4 45.7 42.4 37.0 26.7 22.0 23.6 26.0 33.0 36.1 35.2 34.5 36.1 40.1 43.0 36.4 27.7 26.1 26.5 29.2 36.2 37.6 37.7 39.1 38.1 38.5 37.6 29.1 21.7 22.0 24.7 28.4 36.2 34.7 34.9 33.6 33.8 36 3 36.1 28.0 23.6 22.8 July 25.6 27 5 34 9 36 6 Average 25.2 26.3 24.3 28.1 44 1 38.7 43.2 30.7 32.8 34.6 31.6 Source of data: Weekly quotations have been obtained from the Pacific Rural Press. The monthly quotation has been computed by the author from the arithmetic mean of the weekly quotations. The average for the year is a simple arithmetic mean of the twelve monthly quotations. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 101 Seasonal Variations in Wholesale Prices of Broilers, Fryers, and Leghorn Hens, Los Angeles /so 140 130 IZO /to 100 90 80 j S* \~~ < f^ryt ?rs 19/5 - I9Z 5" £»-< V Broilers I9i5-/&Z5-' / ' 4 • Han hori S 191 7 9 ~/9a ' 5 \ v.. ***s» X \, — — "■•■ — s N ~> » • ^ ^f~*" — s.. ^ nC. . — ~-- -•*~' TO 60 n - ■■ r - Fig. 42. — Leghorn hens are comparatively low in price during the months of June, July, August, and September. The high indices have been in February and March. The effect of the large number of broilers on the market can be noted especially from April to September. The volume of fryers come to market later than the broilers and the low indices occur from June to January. Data from table 54. TABLE 56 Monthly Wholesale Price Quotations on Fryers, San Francisco, 1912-1926 (Cents per pound) Month 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 35.4 33.9 34.7 40.6 37.5 30.4 27.5 26.4 29.7 27.6 28.0 23.4 31.8 1926 January 20.0 22.5 29.5 26.9 21.1 19.0 21.1 23.0 21.0 20.4 20.5 18.1 21.2 22.7 25.7 26.4 27.7 23.4 23.3 24.5 24.0 22.0 18.5 19.6 21.0 22.2 25.5 25.0 25.2 21.9 20.5 19.5 20.1 19.2 18.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.9 24.2 28.1 24.1 22.2 22.9 20.5 18.2 22.4 22.3 22.2 24.5 28.9 34.4 2.8.0 26.5 21.5 21.0 23.9 22.7 21.0 21.9 25.7 25.6 30.2 36.5 34.4 29.0 27.5 27.3 28.6 28.0 30.2 30.5 35.2 39.7 45.6 51.2 49.2 40.4 39.0 36.6 38.4 32.6 37.2 35.0 40.0 41.7 46.5 51.3 50.5 39.0 35.3 32.2 30.7 32.0 32.7 33.3 37.6 43.6 52.9 56.5 51.3 39.5 32.5 38.4 41.2 38.5 39.9 40.6 40.5 45.9 50.5 52.5 48.7 41.7 35.2 33.2 31.5 31.5 31.0 31.0 31.0 33.4 41.9 40.7 47.5 44.2 37.0 30.8 27.0 26.2 26.0 24.1 24.2 34.1 34.7 38.0 37.6 32.4 31.2 29.1 28.9 25.9 24.2 24.0 27.8 30.1 38.5 43.6 41.1 33.1 29.5 28.0 29.2 25.0 30.1 30.2 32.3 31.3 35 1 38.4 37.1 35.8 30.5 29.5 26.8 28.9 27.9 February March April May June July August September Average 21.9 23.3 21.5 22.0 24.7 29.5 40.0 38.8 42.7 39.4 34.2 30.4 Source of data: Weekly quotations have been obtained from the Pacific Rural Press. The monthly quotation has been computed by the author from the arithmetic mean of the weekly quotations. The average for the year is a simple arithmetic mean of the twelve monthly quotations. 102 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 57 Monthly Wholesale Price Quotations on Leghorn Hens (Large), San Francisco, 1918-1926 ' (Cents per pound) Month 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 January 37.5 38 4 39 .0 40 3 37.0 34.5 29.2 30.0 30.5 31.5 31.6 32.1 37.7 40.3 40.8 41 5 34 24.4 23.4 26.2 27.5 30.2 32.5 32.7 37.4 36.0 35.0 28.7 24.5 23 9 23.4 27.9 29.0 28.9 28.7 28.5 27.4 27.2 24.0 22.0 21.8 20.2 18.9 17.0 18.6 21.0 22.1 22.1 21.7 21.8 19.9 20.2 22.1 18.2 18.0 17.1 19.0 21.2 23.2 22.2 21.9 21.6 22.0 22.2 21.2 17.9 17.1 17.2 19.2 20.7 21.0 23.0 23.1 23.0 22.7 22.7 23.4 23.0 22.4 21.1 21.9 23.7 25.0 24.8 22 8 February 23 4 March 23 8 April 24 1 May 28.5 26.4 27.0 29.7 32.4 34.1 36.5 33.1 24 4 23 5 July 22 5 21 5 23 1 23 5 November December 34.3 32.6 29.3 21.9 20.4 20.4 23.1 Source of data: Weekly quotations have been obtained from the Pacific Rural Press. The monthly quotation has been computed by the author from the arithmetic mean of the weekly quotations. The average for the year is a simple arithmetic mean of the twelve monthly quotations. Seasonal Variations in Wholesale Prices of Small Broilers, Fryers and Large Leghorn Hens, San Francisco /SO mo 130 /SO no /oo 90 s / ^^-<: 1915 - /9 IS >•/ \ Srrra// Bi /9I5 - /9i. ■otters ^ , \ \ ^ ■ ^ ^ Large L Hens 19 eghorn 9 - I9Z5 \ -»^^_ x^-"""*" *"^" .**'" .<•" *»^« _.-^ ^^^ — — — T n _^ } ! \ I I Fig. 43. — Large Leghorn hens have less of a range in quotations than either small broilers or fryers. June, July, August, and September are the months of comparatively low prices. Small broilers show a considerable range of variation, being 25 per cent above the normal year's quotation in March and over 27 per cent below in June. The peak in the quotations for fryers is in April while the low point comes in October. Data from table 59, p. 104. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 103 TABLE 58 Wholesale Prices and Purchasing Power of Small Broilers and Fryers, San Francisco, 1912-1925 All Commodity Index I Small broilers Fryers Year Price per pound II Relative price III Relative value IV Price per pound V Relative price VI Relative value VII 1912 99 100 98 101 127 177 194 206 226 146 149 154 150 159 25.2 26.3 24 3 27.2 28.1 31 8 44 1 38.7 43.2 41.4 30.7 32.8 34 6 31.6 96 100 92 103 107 121 168 147 164 157 117 125 132 120 97 100 94 102 84 68 87 71 73 108 79 81 88 76 21.9 23.3 21 5 22.0 24.7 29.5 40.0 38.8 42.7 39.4 34.2 30.4 32.3 31.8 94 100 92 95 106 127 172 167 183 169 147 130 139 136 95 1913 100 1914 94 1915 94 1916 84 1917 72 1918 89 1919 81 1920 81 1921 116 1922 99 1923 84 1924 93 1925 86 Sources of data: Column I, All Commodity Index, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1913 = 100. Columns II and V, see Tables 55, p. 100, and 56, p. 101. Columns III and VI, 1913 = 100. Columns IV and VII, relative prices deflated by the All Commodity Index as modified for 1913. The term value is used to denote purchasing power. Seasonal variation in price — Leghorn hens, small broilers and fryers. — On the basis of wholesale quotations for seven years at Los Angeles, March stands out as the high month for Leghorn hens, and July as the low. From October to May the price has been above normal and from June to September, below. The decline continues from March to July, being greatest from May to June. The culling season brings large numbers of hens to the market during the summer months. A gradual increase in the relative price occurs from July to November, when a secondary peak is reached, December being lower than November. From November to March there is another increase. These indices show what has happened, and should not be regarded as infallible guides to the future (fig. 42). Wholesale prices on Leghorn hens at San Francisco show the same general seasonal tendencies as those at Los Angeles although the peak month is February. The range in variation has not been as great at San Francisco as it has been at Los Angeles (table 59, p. 104). There has been a tendency during the past three years (1923-1925) for the range of variation throughout the year to lessen. There has been but little variation from October to May although a greater decline can be noted during May and June. This may be due perhaps to the practice of early culling. The four low indices — June, July, 104 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION August, and September — vary less than formerly. A tendency for higher indices in November and December as compared with February and March can also be traced. April stands out as the high month for fryers on the San Francisco market. The decline is rapid until Jury when it slows down slightly but continues until the low point is reached in October. A gradual increase occurs until the peak month of April is reached. A slight rise in the prices of November over December is discernible — similar to that which occurred with Leghorn hens (table 59). TABLE 59 Indices of Seasonal Variation in Broiler, Fryer and Leghorn Hen Wholesale Quotations Los Angeles San Francisco Month Broilers I Fryers II Leghorn hens III Broilers IV Fryers V Leghorn hens VI 106.2 120.9 124 1 98.6 83.5 77.0 76.1 83.4 97.3 109.8 114 2 108.2 98.1 114 1 124.3 123.5 108.1 97.0 90.4 83.2 84.3 88.9 92.5 95.6 109.3 112.9 113.6 109.3 100.0 84.4 79.1 84 5 96.4 102.4 106.1 102.0 108.2 123.8 125.1 101.5 81.1 72.6 78.2 86.5 97.2 106.4 114.4 105.0 93.6 102.8 117.9 130.1 123.8 104.1 93.6 89.6 89.0 83.0 . 86.5 86 .0 110 3 111.1 108.4 105.9 100.6 June July August 89.2 84.8 86.5 92.8 October November December 100.4 105.2 104.8 Average 1000 100.0 1000 100.0 100.0 1000 Source of data: Columns I, II, IV, V for years 1915-1925; III, VI— 1919-1925. All computations by author based upon Tables 51, 52, 53, 55, 56 and 57. Median link relative method used. In general, the Los Angeles variations over the eleven years, 1915- 1925, follow the same course as those for San Francisco except that the low months (August and September) and the high months (March and April) are apparently earlier. A comparison of the indices for the past three years, 1923-1925, with those for the first three, 1915-1918, shows but little tendency to change except during July when a higher index occurs. There has been a slight tendency for the indices to be lower during the last three months of the year. Prices of small broilers are more subject to seasonal variation than those of either Leghorn hens or fryers. On the San Francisco market, the high month is March. A rapid decline takes place from the high [BUL. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 105 point in March to the low in June. A gradual rise then occurs, and a secondary peak is reached in November. After a decline in December, the indices ascend to the peak of the year in March. The Los Angeles indices are most closely correlated to those for San Francisco. December, however, shows a higher seasonal index than January on the former market, while the reverse is true on the latter (table 59, p. 104). During the past three years, prices for small broilers have declined to comparatively lower levels during April, May, and June, while in September and October, the indices are noticeably higher. POULTRY RECEIPTS, COLD STORAGE Receipts of live poultry. — The statistics on live poultry receipts are rather unsatisfactory, especially with reference to receipts from local points on account of the increase in the use of motor trucks for transportation. The receipts from eastern points, while evidently fairly accurate with reference to the number of cars received, are not segregated according to the grades of poultry. During 1925 thirteen states and Canada supplied 817 cars of live poultry to California. One state, Nebraska, supplied 530 cars or 61 per cent of the total (fig. 44). Five hundred twenty-four cars were shipped into the state during the six months from September to February, inclusive, the larger shipments entering during the months of relatively high prices in California. Over one-half the total number of cars (432 out of 817) were destined for the Los Angeles market (table 61, p. 107). Nebraska and Texas furnished 72 per cent of the total receipts on this market from out-of-state points. Of the 293 cars billed for San Francisco, 235 or 80 per cent had their origin in Nebraska (table 62, p. 107), while 81 of the 91 cars shipped to Oakland originated in the same state (table 63, p. 108). Reliable statistics for arrivals from California points are not available. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics reports 177 less- than-carload lots, but owing to the use of trucks this figure is undoubtedly too small. The 1924 statistics show that 250 cars from eastern points were shipped to San Francisco — 171 cars from Nebraska and 49 cars from Texas accounting for the bulk of the shipments. During the same year, 218 cars were reported from California. 106 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Receipts of Live Poultry, California, 1925 Fig. 44. — California imported live poultry from 13 states west of the Mississippi Eiver. The above chart shows the number of cars originating in each state — Nebraska 530, etc. Data from table 60. TABLE 60 Number of Cars of Poultry Shipped into California Monthly from Eastern States During 1925 03 o 03 o3 CI o g jo o 03 o3 03 03 (O a 03 03 O m a a 3 o 71 03 03 I 0) 03 a o -a 3 Q 3 03 -a a 1 o >> "o3 o O h- 1 W i s fc fe o W H p ^ H 2 2 1 6 3 36 2 i 8 60 2 1 4 33 13 53 2 2 2 1 26 18 l 22 ?(8 53 49 3 1 3 18 16 41 3 2 1 1 2 i 3 1 24 27 2 1 3 2 2 3 41 July 38 2 3 39 1 5 1 51 8 2 3 4 70 1 3 6 97 3 5 10 1 4 2 3 2 3 5 10 1 5 2 70 81 88 2 1 4 4 2 1 4 19 88 1 106 1 2 140 1 44 14 9 41 i 18 530 2 14 9 127 5 817 Source: Unpublished data furnished to author by California State Dept. Agriculture. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 107 TABLE 61 Cars of Poultry Shipped to Los Angeles Monthly from Eastern Points During Year 1925 o a j3 o o -C o3 03 O en cS C o3 03 O 01 09 c c i S3 o 0} 03 03 Ch X o o 03 S O X o 03 O M 03 Q o m en 03 CD X 03 & a 1 o >> 3 o Eh 2 1 5 3 17 1 l 7 37 2 2 12 12 28 2 2 1 1 13 6 l 20 17 37 April May June 26 2 3 2 9 17 3 1 2 3 11 1 2 3 2 28 July 2 1 1 9 1 2 2 18 2 18 1 5 1 27 3 1 1 4 31 1 3 3 47 2 2 6 1 4 2 1 3 4 10 30 37 27 2 1 4 4 2 1 3 15 44 3 2 54 December 1 69 Total 30 10 2 33 1 15 213 2 14 9 97 4 2 432 Source: Unpublished data furnished to author by California State Dept. Agriculture TABLE 62 Cars of Poultry Shipped to San Francisco Monthly from Eastern States During Year 1925 -8 03 U o O o X 03 T3 03 O Ol 03 Ol a 03 M 3 o Ol Ol in 03 is 03 03 H J3 03 P "3 e1 1 1 1 1 2 1 19 21 11 5 14 7 14 15 28 27 32 42 1 1 2 8 5 23 25 14 April 13 1 20 7 July 1 1 16 3 18 September 5 1 2 2 3 39 1 2 30 November 1 1 4 36 December 4 2 52 Total 10 4 7 8 3 235 25 1 293 Source of data: Unpublished data furnished to author by California State Dept. Agriculture. 108 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 63 Cars of Poultry Shipped to Oakland Monthly from Eastern States During Year 1925 Canada Colorado Nebraska Texas Total No repo No repo 1 rt. rt. 1 3 2 7 2 6 4 6 11 13 11 19 3 2 February March 2 April: 10 4 6 July 4 6 11 14 15 19 Total 1 4 81 5 91 Source of data: Unpublished data furnished to author by California State Dept. Agriculture. TABLE 64 Dozen Poultry Shipped from Petaluma 1903-1923* (Thousand dozen— i.e., 000 omitted) Year Thousand dozen Year Thousand dozen 1903 33 1911 81 1904 32 1912 84 1905 39 1913 89 1906 40 1914 84 1907 39 1915 80 1908 83 84 1916 1917 106 1909 90 1910 76 1918 57 Month 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 2 2 3 5 9 15 33 14 9 11 7 7 4 3 2 5 9 24 13 36 56 50 16 22 7 7 14 26 48 63 67 81 57 39 32 36 43 49 29 33 119 116 151 120 131 48 97 49 35 52 46 62 104 207 July 169 96 48 36 73 34 Total 116 240 478 985 963 * 1924, 1925 incomplete. Source of data: The figures have been published at intervals by the Petaluma Weekly Poultry Journal. The editor of the Journal has furnished the author with the above figures. [BUL. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 109 Comparatively complete statistics of poultry shipments from Petaluma indicate but little change during the ten years 1910-1919. Beginning in 1920, shipments increased very rapidly — almost doubling from 1919 to 1922 (fig. 27, p. 71). As previously stated, the statistics after 1923 are unreliable and hence are not given. The five months — May-September, have been the months of largest shipments. Dur- ing 1922 and 1923, the bulk (1923 over 50 per cent) of the ship- ments were made in May, June, and July. Variations in the number of dozen poultry shipped are given in table 64, p. 108. Information as to the ultimate destinations of these shipments are unfortunately not available. Dressed poultry ; receipts; cold storage. — Although most poultry is marketed alive by the producer, the dressed poultry market is becom- ing of more importance both in eastern and California markets. In 1925, only 13 per cent of the 4,801,000 pounds of dressed poultry received at Los Angeles originated in California, while more than one-half (52 per cent) of the 5,615,000 pounds arriving on the San Francisco market had its origin outside of the state (fig. 45) . Records from other cities and towns within the state are not available. Con- siderably over one-half of the receipts on the two largest California markets arrive during two months of the year— November and December. During the remainder of the year they are much less and fairly uniform. A large proportion of the receipts during November and December are no doubt turkeys. During the months of excess receipts, the markets of the country are over-supplied for immediate needs and the surplus is placed in storage. The cold storage holdings of dressed poultry in the United States are heaviest from December to May as will be seen from the following indices of seasonal variation (fig. 47, p. 111).* January 161.5 July 61.9 February 170.1 August 55.5 March 151.5 September 52.1 April 120.0 October 54 May 87.1 November 67 June 73 December 103.5 Data available for four markets (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago) for 1924 indicate that California was a minor factor in supplying them with dressed poultry. Only 528,000 pounds of the * Falkner, II. D., Method used in determining seasonal indices. Mills, F. C. Statistical methods, pp. 323-326. Computation from figures in table 67. 110 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Dressed Poultry Receipts, San Francisco and Los Angeles, 1924-1926 /soo /zoo 800 400 moo H80O {ZOO 800 aoo ^-To-f-al Los Angeles » L Los Ange \ Receipts /es 1 -from 1 \ Ca/i-Forni m~*~ m ■* ^J /s;£4 /^^5- /9;6<0 Fig. 45. — The dressed poultry receipts are especially characterized by violent seasonal fluctuations, largely due to the holiday trade in November, December and January. California furnished less than 48 per cent of the receipts arriving at San Francisco in 1925 and only 13 per cent of the Los Angeles receipts. Data from tables 65, p. 112, 66, p. 113 and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. D. A. Cold Storage Holdings of Poultry, United States, 1917-1926 \ 4 V V J J- V I \r T [ •Secc /or- T -&nd IZO no /oo 90 30 70 eo 50 40 30 zo /9I7 I9IB 1919 I3ZO 1991 19Z?. I9Z3 192.4- Fig. 46. — A decided increase in storage holdings of poultry has taken place since 1917. Data from table 67, p. 115, show January, February and March are the months of largest holdings. A decline to the low point of the year in either September or October then comes about. During the months of October, November and Decem- ber the holdings accumulate rapidly. Equation of line of trend y t= 59.1 + 0.35 x, origin at Jan. 15, 1922 ; x unit = 1 month. Equation for line of trend of annual data y — 61.0 + 4.2 x, origin 1922. Seasonal Variation in Cold Storage Holdings of Poultry, U. S., 1917-1926 I9Z5 /9Z6 Fig. 47. — Holdings are at the low point on September first. The peak is reached on February first. During November and December the largest amounts are placed in storage. Data from p. 109. 112 UNIVERSITY OP CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 179,362,000 pounds, arriving on the New York market in 1924 orig- inated in California (459,000 of the 170,257,000 in 1925). The first nine months of 1926 show an increase in the shipments of dressed poultry arriving from California on the New York market. The receipts January-September (inclusive) amounted to 528,000 pounds. The disposition of the poultry meat from the White Leghorn is one c_ "*." 7 t:V"!»is of California's poultry industry. TABLE 65 s of Dressed Poultry at San Francisco During 1925 (Pounds) k ■ OS Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July 501,267 29,221 311,367 23,000 35,877 29,619 47,931 20,828 25,583 87,579 55,008 250,590 14,983 67,000 168,701 36,553 24,000 54,855 30,100 214,706 25,634 11,422 29,228 132,088 24,000 38,714 23,558 28,365 7,771 24,603 82,884 13,549 24,749 1,465 27,320 37,059 6,202 29,058 87,473 67,775 6,927 19,961 5,846 868 1 25 816,880 765,905 850,396 517,467 942,984 749,130 270,375 285,159 176,182 216,132 328,701 162,889 187,397 153,700 184,571 430,833 264,775 241,950 256,183 1324 400,043 1J23 246,696 States Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total 116,420 12,415 85,237 6,287 82,185 57,678 373,652 168,482 679,649 233,867 2,707,884 ; 632,933 - ■ • 146,683 27,320 48,573 81,720 197,820 51,585 161,189 31,210 21,108 648,207 51,585 •| | 380 1,913 85,054 439,604 M . k a 127,517 M ■ 29.506 58,385 49,352 - 1 •• 16,471 3,592 15,661 13,335 11,374 45,526 15,822 29,746 166,801 27,737 20,000 464,331 268,123 Wv 20,000 .; 1925 To 176,598 165,345 133,545 120,520 225,886 114,780 247,249 281,162 147,712 783,984 1,339,413 1,136,099 1,590,966 1,299,510 1,768,953 5,614,604 1924 6,452,283 1923 5,912,903 "ource of data: Mimeographed sheet from U. S. ( iscu Office. D. A., Bureau Agricultural Economics, San Fran- [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 113 TABLE 66 Eeceipts of Dressed Poultry by States at Los Angeles During 1925 (Pounds) States Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July 129,541 11,578 569 167,270 341 24,456 145,347 42,981 993 1,450 12,386 56,660 5,465 765 37,151 38,664 596 379 31,266 57,697 27,702 190 224 3,625 5,611 1,127 1,291 13,290 39,368 14,880 150 1,112 22,500 8,359 5,748 73,223 2,155 34,273 995 9,804 7,239 3,087 14,199 3,865 326 2,120 89,138 7,138 35,129 35,176 29,907 19,494 35,674 4,481 229 22,166 1,162 3,253 6,621 75,255 1,350 4,428 3,520 3,431 7,761 3,458 2,552 1,610 515 32,098 29,402 28,026 634 8,767 1,299 8,730 480 984 25,796 Utah 8,100 4,110 289 34,337 Wyoming 25,026 Total— 1925 552,582 251,327 256,634 203,067 134,692 149,384 109,908 1924 States Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total 34,834 21,411 82,162 238 78,944 132,604 29,308 28,691 75,250 18,083 39,183 192,129 780 623,356 Arizona 169,881 2,237 9,024 30,000 2,349 104,106 514,896 Idaho 20,030 Illinois 68,737 19,788 27,602 44,244 Kansas 58,018 70,708 330,293 5,295 52,587 28,124 38,378 18,407 127,576 625 65,657 71,593 900 103,228 4,340 103,929 7,466 65,561 45,522 173,249 86,329 306,027 156,380 1,033,443 Montana 85,884 Nebraska 192,011 Nevada 60,201 2,105 6,688 7,823 3,412 1,129 4,961 10,481 7,910 4,347 88,658 2,968 155,350 89,953 New York Oklahoma 526,325 Oregon 160,755 29,000 28,603 464,582 260,612 Utah 28,993 36,123 38,150 72,776 Wyoming. 112,541 112,541 Miscellaneous 25,026 Total— 1925 167,704 183,790 160,754 337,551 315,771 179,454 1,008,982 939,177 1,489,997 1,653,640 4,800,802 1924 Note: These figures were not compiled before August 1, 1924. Source of data: Mimeographed sheet from U. S. D. A., Bureau Agricultural Economics, San Fran- cisco Office. 114 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Cold storage holdings of poultry in the Pacific Area. — Data are now available giving the cold storage holdings of the various kinds of poultry in the Pacific area. The records of the period from January 1, 1924, to date indicate that the high points of broiler hold- ings occur during September, October, and November, while the low Cold Storage Holdings of Poultry in the Pacific Area (by Groups) 1924-1926 Thousand Fig. 48. — The peaks arid troughs of the holdings of the various groups of poultry in the Pacific area do not coincide. The heaviest holdings during 1924 and 1925 were broilers, followed by turkeys and fowls. The broiler holdings accumu- late beginning in June or July and the peak is reached during the following three or four months. Turkeys are placed in storage beginning with November while the peak is apparently reached in March. The into-storage movement of fowls starts in the summer and culminates in January. Data from table 69, p. 116. Current data in Monthly Supplement to Crops and Markets, U. S. D. A. holdings are found during April, May, and June. Broilers constitute the largest holdings in storage at any one time during the year. Turkeys come next in importance to broilers — the peaks being in March and April, and the low points in October and November. Fowls* give evidence of a high point in December — and of a low point between May and October, the data available not clearly indicat- ing the low points (fig. 48). * "Fowl" refers to mature female chickens, that is, hens. [BUL. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 115 Cold Storage Holdings of Poultry, San Francisco, 1923-1926 V \ // W \* =7^ ^ -/ -\ / -X •->L / ■\ \ V X / ^sr / Fig. 49. — Cold storage holdings of poultry are generally heavier on the San Francisco market from December to May. During the months of heavy receipts the markets are over supplied for immediate needs. The excess is placed in storage at this time and is later drawn upon to supplement the receipts of the spring and summer months. It should be noted that even during the months when holdings are low, October and November, a considerable supply is on hand in storage. Data from table 68, p. 116. TABLE 67 Poultry Cold Storage Holdings on the First Day of each Month: United States, May, 1917-October, 1926 (Million pounds) Month 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 65 68 57 44 27 19 18 19 23 30 44 71 109 120 110 93 71 56 49 41 33 30 33 55 88 92 78 61 41 31 25 22 21 23 31 49 79 81 79 62 47 35 27 21 20 26 35 65 104 103 89 68 51 39 35 31 28 26 30 52 100 122 114 95 75 57 49 41 34 33 40 63 93 99 93 76 52 39 35 34 34 40 55 88 134 138 131 109 83 68 59 54 48 44 54 87 111 108 95 73 53 43 37 36 39 45 67 64 60 54 56 47 52 50 July September October November December Average 40.4 66.7 46 8 48.1 54.7 68.7 61.5 84.1 Sources of data: Years 1917-1924, U. S. D. A. Yearbook 1924, p. 995. Years 1925- Agricultural Economics, monthly issues of The Agricultural Situation. from Bureau 116 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 68 Cold Storage Holdings of Poultry at San Francisco on the First Day of Each Month. February, 1923-November, 1926 (Thousand pounds — i.e., 000 omitted) Date 1923 1924 1925 1926 813 1,046 1,348 1,139 915 961 1,067 1,182 1,134 1,091 1,003 1,255 1,297 1,477 1,533 1,354 870 885 1,032 904 797 619 657 641 975 Feb. 1 1,593 1,693 1,230 1,004 1,038 1,047 1,103 890 677 534 774 958 1,317 1,115 924 Apr. 1 856 July 1 967 952 Sept. 1 988 Oct. 1 684 Nov. 1 610 Dec. 1 Source of data: Mimeographed daily market reports, Butter, Cheese, Eggs and Dressed Poultry, issued by the Bureau Agricultural Economics, San Francisco Office. TABLE 69 Poultry Cold Storage Holdings on the First of each Month in the Pacific Area. January, 1924-October, 1926 (Thousand pounds — i.e., 000 omitted) 1924 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 535 411 399 644 351 404 414 433 1225 542 252 395 535 1721 331 121 329 536 1409 279 124 249 418 1108 211 358 212 386 914 217 841 155 414 737 220 1318 132 453 552 254 1670 114 552 356 309 1803 121 672 182 314 1905 227 734 117 302 1632 426 912 476 428 1925 1519 587 1166 835 459 1284 643 967 1071 522 1067 618 847 1297 396 804 505 721 1293 354 644 346 482 1095 250 683 256 415 872 236 1134 177 263 774 347 1318 129 197 591 369 1556 119 238 508 388 1142 96 260 265 359 1046 220 382 174 345 969 294 416 360 323 1926 Broilers Fryers Roasters Fowls Turkeys Miscellaneous. 699 83 57 337 309 564 681 411 280 397 33 232 479 1344 247 175 28 191 391 1177 207 115 11 164 221 997 406 17 104 232 865 149 156 1095 34 76 404 737 199 1491 44 53 294 594 1647 57 95 498 504 206 238 210 1463 65 82 494 405 Source of data: Monthly Supplement, Crops and Markets, U. S. D. A. [BUL. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 117 PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF POULTRY The apparent annual consumption of poultry per capita in the various industrial sections of the United States, according to investiga- tions conducted by the United States Department of Labor in 1918- 1919 * were as follows : Total 5.41 Hens 4.78 5.83 5 02 4.65 4.04 4.56 Other poultry .63 South Atlantic States 6.41 5.60 .57 .58 5.19 .54 5.08 1.04 South Central States 5.06 .50 The Western States have a low per capita consumption of poultry compared with the United States as a whole. Especially noticeable is the low per capita consumption of hens and the high per capita consumption of other poultry. The per capita consumption of poultry in rural districts is, from indications, eight to ten times that of the industrial centers. Surveys! of the United States Department of Agriculture indicated that the per capita consumption of poultry among 800 northern rural families was 45.4 pounds, while for 150 southern rural families the consump- tion was 58.0 pounds. Canada as a whole showed the following per capita consumption of poultry during 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924.J (Pounds) 1921 1922 1923 1924 Chickens 6.37 6.16 6.32 Turkeys 35 .51 .66 Ducks 09 .15 .16 Geese 16 .26 .26 Total 6.97 7.08 7.40 7.54 * U. S. D. A. Yearbook 1924, -p. 1126. t U. S. D. A. Bulletin 410. Value to farm families of food, fuel and use of houses. + Information furnished to the author by the U. S. D. A., B. A. E. 118 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION EXPORTS AND IMPORTS Almost every county in the United States reported poultry to the census enumerators in 1920 ; hence, every state is a potential com- petitor of California. It is highly probable that poultry is kept in almost every inhabited section of the globe. Not only on account of competition in the domestic market but also on account of possible markets abroad should California poultry men be interested in the international poultry situation. If the poultry industry of the United States continues to expand more rapidly than the demand for its products, it will be imperative to seek a foreign outlet. Although the total foreign trade of the United States is of small importance com- pared with the domestic production, it is of particular interest to the poultryman of California not only because this state faces the second country of the world in the present production of poultry products (China), but also because of the fact that its main market faces the continent of Europe. Because of the different forms in which the exported and imported eggs are moved, together with changes in schedules and lack of infor- mation as to the quality of each grade of product, it is impossible to compare the quantities exported and imported. A comparison of values, however, can be made. The value of the exports of poultry products in 1925 amounted to $9,469,632* while that of the imports totaled $10,523,758,* giving an excess of a trifle over one million dollars in imports. For all practical purposes the country in 1925 was just about self-sufficient. In kind and value, the exports and imports of the United States in 1924 and 1925 were as follows: TABLE 70 Exports of Poultry Products from the United States, 1924-1925 Quantity Value 1925* Quantity Value Eggs in the shell — dozen Egg products — pounds Poultry — live, pounds Poultry and game, fresh — pounds 28,117,102 504,803 805,996 3,996,417 $7,437,595 76,205 364,611 1,173,595 24,998,502 301,158 712,390 5,101,561 $7,533,820 45,062 343,091 1,547,659 *1925 figures subject to revision. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 119 Table 70 — (Continued) Imports of Poultry Products into the United States, 1924-1925 Eggs in the shell — dozen Whole eggs, dried— pounds Whole eggs, frozen— pounds Yolks, dried — pounds Yolks, frozen — pounds Egg albumen, dried— pounds.. Egg albumen, frozen — pounds Poultry, live— pounds Poultry, dressed— pounds Poultry, prepared— pounds 383,155 ,082,515 ,162,340 ,107,418 ,605,554 ,767,865 996,071 ,778,977 ,630,061 469,964 $115,618 961,136 911,544 893,979 582,312 2,203,154 119,945 337,139 434,542 308,543 608,768 1,455,031 12,530,948 5,683,462 5,800,380 4,189,231 4,328,034 2,071,739 2,773,995 366,040 $162,817 768,601 1,837,407 1,378,945 959,016 3,339,321 541,518 440,481 857,436 238,216 * 1925 figures subject to revision. Sources of data: Mimeographed sheet issued by Dept. Commerce, Washington, D. C. Foodstuffs 'Round the World, World Dairy and Poultry News, Jan. 29, 1926. The main export from the United States is shell eggs, and although the quantity in 1925 was less than in 1924, there has been a steady upward trend since 1895 — more pronounced since 1910. During the first six months of 1926, the exports of shell eggs far exceeded the totals for similar periods for 1924 and 1925. It will be noted that the imports of shell eggs were practically negligible in both amount and value (see fig. 50). They have varied in quantity and, in fact, have never assumed any considerable importance since 1896-1897 when exports exceeded imports. This situation has prevailed during every year since that time. During the past few years shell eggs have gone principally to Cuba, Mexico, Argentine, Canada, Panama, the United Kingdom, and several smaller countries in Central and South America. Argentine, during the spring months of 1926, was taking increasingly large amounts from this country. Alaska and Hawaii are of especial importance to the Pacific Coast, as each of these non-contiguous parts of the United States have received approximately one and one-half million dozens during the three years 1922, 1923, and 1924. The largest amounts of shell eggs have been imported from China, Hong- kong (British Colony) and Canada. The foreign import trade of the United States during the past few years has been centering around various egg products, as a reference to table 71, p. 122, will show. The rapidity of advances made in the uses of eggs and the multiplicity of products have made the tabulation of statistical material difficult. For purposes of comparison, it perhaps will be best to group these various products. Whole eggs dried, whole eggs frozen, yolks dried, yolks frozen have been placed in one group, while egg albumen dried and egg albumen frozen have been put in another. The greater part of these products is imported during the second half of the year. China and Hongkong are the sources of these imports; imports recorded 120 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Exports and Imports of Shell Eggs, United States, 1870-1925 Thousand* /,ooo Fig. 50. — There has been an upward trend in the exports of shell eggs since 1880. If the egg production continues to increase more rapidly than domestic consumption the United States must find markets for the surplus. The imports of shell eggs have been quite irregular. Since 1914 there has been a tendency for a decline, and since 1922 the imports have been negligible compared with the exports. Data from table 71, p. 122. Equation of line of trend of exports log y — 5.95725 + .07000787 x, origin 1897. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 121 Imports and Exports of Eggs other than Shell Eggs, United States, 1910-1925 Povndsr- eopoOjOoo 20,000,000 /o,ooo,ooo T,50O,OOO 5,000,000 A ,000*000 3,000,000 2,000,000 /, 000,000 TfOyOOO 500,000 400,000 300,000 £00,000 \ roo,ooo Im por-fs ana Dr^eZ? o-f Ybtks, \s-f-c i^NL * / l Frx >zer. / if I t I/npo'-fs / \ V ■ Exports o-f Alnumen \^ o-r Yo/As ^L I 5 Fig. 51. — Although there has been a pronounced upward tendency in the imports of frozen and dried yolks and similar products, there is considerable variation from year to year. There has been no pronounced trend in the imports of egg albumen in various forms. The exports of egg products are almost negligible. Data from table 71, p. 122. 122 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 71 United States — Imports and Exports of Eggs, 1866-1925 Imports Exports Year Shell eggs Yolks, dried, frozen, etc. Albumen Shell eggs Yolks, canned, etc. Albumen 1866 Dozens Pounds Pounds Dozens 72,114 31,642 19,604 4,055 814 5,017 5,148 15,683 23,749 34,119 29,633 32,591 94,265 91,740 85,885 80,146 146,776 360,023 295,484 240,768 212,202 372,772 419,701 548,750 380,884 363,116 183,063 143,489 163,061 151,007 328,485 1,300,183 2,754,810 3,693,611 5,920,727 3,692,875 2,717,990 1,517,189 1,776., 632 2,475,884 4,952,063 6,968,985 7,590,977 5,207,151 5,325,936 13,276,060 Pounds Pounds 1867 1868 1869 74,585 13,270 287,949 4,905,423 5,065,577 5,601,175 4,351,810 4,903,771 5,048,271 6,053,649 6,022,506 7,773,492 9,578,071 11,929,355 15,279,065 16,487,204 16,098,450 16,092,583 13,936,054 15,642,861 15,918,809 15,062,796 8,233,043 4,188,492 3,318,011 1,791,430 2,705,502 947,132 580,681 166,319 225,180 135,038 126,520 384,070 368,482 496,825 352,303 241,034 231,859 231,939 288,650 818,267 1,573,394 1870 1871 1872... 1873 1874. .. 1875 . 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 . .. 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 .. 1903 1904 .. . 1905 . 1906 .... 1907 . . 1908 1909 . 1910 869,923 433,405 1911 . Source of data: Years 1866-1924 furnished to author by U. S. D. A., Bureau of Agricultural Econ- omics. Year 1925 furnished to author by Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, U. S. Dept. Commerce. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY Table 71 — (Continued) 123 Imports Exports Year Shell eggs Yolks, dried, frozen, etc. Albumen Shell eggs Yolks, canned, etc. Albumen 1912 Dozens 973,053 1,701,153 5,668,398 1,872,852 759,673 1,179,047 1,244,826 1,247,355 1,708,701 3,062,601 1,019,170 412,149 383,155 608,768 Pounds 43,822 228,305 3,420,412 8,571,758 7,669,350 16,268,379 6,752,453 24,890,621 29,022,577 17,898,019 18,239,074 16,252,800 15,957,827 25,469,821 Pounds Dozens 18,962,168 17,668,575 21,019,166 22,323,205 28,266,443 19,886,079 20,938,278 38,789,470 26,841,772 33,291,287 34,620,050 30,659,262 28,117,102 24,998,502 Pounds Pounds 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1,421,883 1,531,659 1,700,377 1919 1920 9,111,462 4,638,529 6,569,546 7,046,299 3,763,936 8,517,265 1921 1922 .. 704,625 328,487 504,803 301,158 13,242 1923 1924 1925 Sources of data: Years 1866-1924 furnished to author by U. S. D. A., Bureau of Agricultural Econ- omics. Year 1925 furnished to author by Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, U. S. Dept Commerce. as coming from England are doubtless trans-shipments of Chinese products. Since 1910 there has been a most decided increase in the first group (see table 71, p. 122 and fig. 51, p. 121). The imports of egg albumen have not shown a pronounced trend although 1925 showed the highest importations since 1920. The exports of egg products are negligible when compared with the imports. Imports and exports — California ports. — Frozen and prepared eggs and egg products are the most important poultry products entering the ports of San Francisco and Los Angeles. During 1924 frozen products amounted to three million pounds with a value of approxi- mately five hundred thousand dollars. The total value of imports of poultry products from abroad in the California customs districts was $835,504 in 1924, while the exports amounted to $179,147. The largest amount of the latter consisted of eggs in the shell. Tariff The present tariff on eggs and poultry is as follows : Par. 711. Birds, alive : Poultry, 3 cents per pound : all other valued at $5 or less each, 50 cents each; valued at more than $5 each, 20 per centum ad valorem. * Par. 712. Birds, dead, dressed or undressed: Poultry, 6 cents per pound ; all other 8 cents per pound ; all the foregoing, pre- pared or preserved in any manner and not specially pro- vided for, 35 per centum ad valorem. 124 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Par. 713. Eggs of poultry, in the shell, 8 cents per dozen ; whole eggs, egg yolk, and egg albumen, frozen or otherwise pre- pared or preserved, and not specially provided for, 6 cents per pound ; dried whole eggs, dried egg yolk, and dried egg albumen, 18 cents per pound. The above is from the Tariff Schedule of 1922. INTERNATONAL TRADE IN EGGS AND EGG PRODUCTS Foreign trade in eggs and egg products was greatly disturbed by the World War, and trade channels are still changing most rapidly. Indications point to a resumption of the pre-war aspects of the trade. The trade of Russia, Germany, and Austria Hungary was particularly upset. The discussion in this publication will center around a Fig. 52. — The number of poultry in the United States is larger than in any other country of the world. China ranks second. • Courtesy IT. S. D. A. Photo from Yearbook, U. S. D. A., 1924, page 378. description of the efforts being made toward the resumption of the pre-war trade, and in addition point out the increasingly intense com- petition on the world markets. It is also worthy of note that pro- duction in many countries contributing to the export trade is develop- ing along modern lines. The largest exporters of shell eggs before the war were Russia, Austria Hungary, China, Denmark, Italy, and the Netherlands. Places of minor importance were held by Argentine, Egypt and the United States. The two outstanding importers of shell eggs were Germany and Great Britain, although Belgium, France, Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway during the five years before the war imported them on a considerable scale. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 125 1 c 63 u 00 -u M 4) M . 4> CO 01 o CO J* Q g if c X to X CC -t cc oc CO 2 a O oc »o 3 c o 00 OS IC > o & T3 d> G 9 o CO OS »H Ol M O r-- CO CO 00 CO i— I ■«*< t^ ra N "5 OO ^h i-i ec ■* lO H (M Tt> CM O0 U5 h CM" CO CM ^ ^ ^ rH lO to lO CO CM CO_ i-H to" CO T3 G G O Pm O 00 CM iH lO ^H t^ *< as to oo r-H (M as CO o to to o o (N O^ CO_ l-H -t a; O cj a to A n CU CO u ji "o Q CO o (M to o o to CO to to cm" co to CM as o co to 1^ CO °°» ^*<" to co co co O •"# oo •* co oo_ to" oo" cm >o t^ as o as cm co to oo O co «q i-* T^" lO" 1-J r-l CO CO -a c G O P4 CO OO co" o o lO CM CO CO to" to CM OO PS CO to to o o CM CO as -H CO <— 1 CO ^H O O fr- o» »-T as" CM i-i (M M «5 ■* N O t- m ■* ih i-T ^h" as -^ Tf as o a s O Q OS >0 CM OO OS OS CM CO i-h OO CM i-l «5 OOOOOOOsasOOtOTtllOCOOSi— 1 N 18 ■# - t CO OS i— I OS CO i— I 00 ao o>oo3Tji05^-iT»<-H(Mcoo-*oo>ot^->*icor— 10 n o ■* m o n n h n a n ■* -^ u; o> io n h q n h -h r* cq 1-1 TJH* o" ^ -H i-H 1-1 B N Tj< CO l^- t— CO C G O CO O — i CM ^ <— " O CO CO CM rt uq to" H 115 H t- iOSC0C0t^C0C0OOOS-*fT to" cm" ■-? as" cm" cm" oT co O CO G S3 G t 1 OJ t 3 a; c > cr — c 01 -C a V > 9 c c X c a — a X a t § CO £ c 61 c T3 D S3 a c or g T C C CO o o a A G c a 9 2 T O a S b B H Ol c 5 « £ - r c" — -.- a c 93 C K ~ c cc T G J G — £ d n I X a PQ a "5 £ 99 c to CC J2 c C 03 -z a T c a a. 'C C 3 I-i i > to oa o Q os co oc sc 5 O c CO t- CO © CM co" to xs d p o Ph o CO o -* lO o >o" OS o oo CO OS ■* o CM lO 00 CO co § 00 © «5 13 og d CO bO b£ W to "3 03 CO rjT co co r- oo ■<*< O © O as iq CM o 03 CO O "5 OO CO CO y-< cm" co CM 33 CO (0 CI > o a d d 6 to O Q CM ■* CO CO N 00 K) •* t-h CO >-l 00 O O CM CO © CM rH lO 00 O CM CO CO T^ CO r-( lO t^ CO ^H ■* .« o O r~ — i CO c©_ co •o •a d o Pm © t^ O 00 CM b- CO Tj< IO •* i—l OS i-i CM «S 1^- i— 1 CO ■* ■* CN O iC CM ^i _< rt o ■* 0O CO N N i< "* CO co CM CM CO CM rt O rH co CM_ CO t3 d •+3 q OO lO oo iq co" to d 3 O Ph o CO as CO o •<*< CM CO CM CM CO CO OS co" >> o a 0) 3 -2 Q M rt CO T-l © CM rH ©_ © oo co © t^ CO CM a p e 1 i < e PC 'E PC cc X % C c s E ct p e c -g - S. PC a P. > r g c ;l C > cc X c j T PC 2 X 1 1 C5 t- 0! X f « > b e c 1 c c c C b c ) T c "■ ) g > ? a — b P ' P c i a P 7 a T P 7 "3 a P ": .; — '2 p. a < .; ! 1 a C < c 'p d a c. : X 'I ,0 'e c t p a 1 < 1 • « r a c c c f s. X •- T PC i a c p ! c •> ) "3 c [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 12' or* feira bO oo M o Q OS 00 -- CM en CO go -a a o Ph CO o o "0* "5 o Eggs, frozen or prepared "o Q r- oo CM —l co o* to T3 d O Ph OO CO CD O lO CM O* CM* co co CO CO to O P o o CM O CO* T-" o CM T3 C o Ph o o o o o o OO* CO co CO a 03 btr* oq (-. o Q CO o OO OO O —1 •«*i oo oo oo" -*< CO CD CM OS OO CO t^ 00 CM* -5 d o Ph s ON 00 OO o oo CM CO o ,-H Ttl i-H CM lO o o o CO CO co" >) CD |g "o "# -<*< Tti O ■* O H^ CO "~1 T ~ < °. l °- Co" i-i" i-« CM O) 05 00 00 O) O0 H cm ■>*< oo co o oo r- ■* ■* oo n n oo to CM* CM* >0 UTS oo oo CM CO 73 c3 T3 O Ph GO "3 Q id OO CM o us OS »o oo oo co °l °. —* o* CO CM rt CO eo oo" GO -a o Ph CM 03 CO* CO OO »-l 03 CO 1-H ■* CM CM ■** O CO 00 CM CM CD > o p-i 03 "o Q 05 o CM »o OO 00 o HO O "0 O «5 ^H OO lO CO »-i »o en O CO j CM* O* oo co o ■* "H O 00 OO 00 ^H 00 42 s O Ph CM CO O CM CM 00 CO tj< co o o io ■* O N IN ii H OO ra N r^ CM* 00* rt* CO IC —I rt OS CO 00* CM t*i £ o E 't t E 1 E > c c- E t I I c > C! b = II 1 > + Of X c q a |z » i c . r p. c c z a X c 1 , i XL a B c (- 1 £ j ■ I 1 1 'E 1= ) i E n 1 1 5 c .1 1 < c ~ c 1 X c E - E c T E j 1 ) ) 3 ! J ) B c c e: g E £ c ll c 1 a X c -g c ± PC c I i x. X PC ■» -3 3 128 UNIVERSITY OP CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION CO bBT3 hfl CO p OS -H CM CN o OO OO 35 r> o» eo en 00 CO C o Ph O CM 1-H CM © ^H © <* on © O -*" (4 o C-73 a>

> bD a bfl— Q -h o os •<*< -o< i- io IO ■* t~-T »n" CM co 00 CO in" CO a CD SJ o Q O CM CO © CO in °l ^ ^ o m" « CO «-h CM o CM in 00 co CO (- "o . P » Kl !D ># O m ,-H i-H CM_ ■* CM_ 00 CO us oo o CO 73 d O Ph en co oo oo CM -f co -^ CM CM O ©" co" co" CM O0 CM CO eft cr CO id c3 0> -73 >i F-i CO b a o Q OO CO CO oo CO «o CO CM en •*£ CM j 1 M<" CO CO 73 d O Ph — < 00 O O co r-- 00 ^H CO o ■>*" co" OS <"H CO o o" CO > o PL, CO is o R : CO CM m © N "5 OO CO e» co CO CO 73 a D O Ph : 00 •* in N : ^H y-l CO l^ CM ^H o oo OS oo" c : h i c .S c c a a c c b c T I T c I ) a "I < T . c B 7 ! > > b CO P "3 d JS ., bO b .a > c h Ti S d bC b£ Q SO CO CO OS u; a CO a d o Ph 429 994,892 750 o_ co" os OS 'C T3 C a d bB bfl H co 03 "o Q 67,713 3,600 2,118,076 9,241 4,524 m co" o CM_ cm" CO d 3 O Ph 61,164 4,000 2,685,914 11,587 5,200 m CO 00 CO t^ cm" 73 e a CP a o CO N o CO O >, bB bB CO s o P 46,344 2,328 533,573 67 eo cm" oo m CO T3 a 3 178,640 14,784 3,411,630 500 m in in" o CO CM OS E c "C b C T a 'c ) a K c — C b C c J* b 1 c a rj c C b 1 6 C ) £ c C ( ) [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 129 Since the war, countries exporting eggs in considerable quantities have been China, Denmark, Russia, the United States, Italy, and the Netherlands. The outstanding importing nation since the war has been the United Kingdom, although Germany is apparently increasing her imports steadily. Of special importance to the United States have TABLE 74 Eggs in Shell International Trade, calendar years, average 1909-1913, annual 1921-1923 (Thousand dozen— i.e., 000 omitted) Average 1909-1913 1921 1922 1923 preliminary Country Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Principal exporting countries: 2,351 11 5,417 6,358 317 3,557 3,336 9,564 26 Austria-Hungary 91,561 270 2,243 2,899 4,104 19,542 ( 2 )1,701 19,148 6,341 4,732 37,215 228,279 6,867 387 4,207 19,747 190,015 177,163 25,542 34,340 3 33,482 29,360 12,108 11,521 148 139 86 tt 316 1,047 3,063 4,413 6,583 16,353 11,847 2,038 53,277 4,089 2,637 14,685 105,305 98,393 54,007 871 392 9,738 33,291 137 5,444 234 414 98,498 61,258 324 13,363 13,087 34,620 1,181 3,619 788 1,403 91,754 66,602 35 Italy 2,534 1,392 1,019 9,506 8,141 11,006 26,711 194 3,621 964 412 5,414 6,623 13,173 19,874 30,659 Principal importing countries: 5,356 2,900 Cuba France 8,920 675 1,451 ( 3 )944 6,588 1,069 28,983 1,150 30,763 93 4 3,781 48 2 977 28 4,522 2,519 14,633 135,670 3 814 (») 38 1,828 3,092 17,623 200,487 Sweden 1,127 2 Total 19 countries... 641,609 337,095 231,306 212,033 218,812 238,019 281,952 265,700 (') Less than 500 dozen. ( 2 ) One year only. ( 3 ) Eight months, May-December. Source of data: U. S. D. A. Yearbook 1924, p. 1000. been the imports of Mexico, Cuba, Canada, and the Argentine (seasonal imports in the spring). In the exportation of egg products, China occupies the dominant position. Available statistics indicate that China has increased her exports six-fold since the period 1909-1913. Great Britain and the United States have received the bulk of these imports, although Germany is again appearing on this market. Some idea of the world situation can undoubtedly be obtained from a description of the 130 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 75 Eggs Not in the Shell International trade, calendar years average 1909-1913, annual 1921-1923 (Thousand pounds— i.e., 000 omitted) Average, 1909-1913 1921 1922 1923 preliminary Country Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Principal exporting countries: 1,100 188 17,217 64,545 94,455 100,387 Principal importing countries: 526 1,967 11,214 381 (*)6 426 3,225 4 291 2,037 7,582 202 3,014 195 42,609 22,537 9 26 ( 2 )556 27 486 5 453 ( 6 ) 557 3,860 9,717 1,056 3,247 318 41,875 24,809 2 15 1,362 6 796 12 452 718 5,764 6,417 949 2,833 52 1,350 Italy 1 Netherlands 3,582 (')255 ( 5 ) ( 4 ) ( 5 ) 54,060 23,300 328 Total, 10 countries 15,443 21,066 78,467 66,107 85,439 97,818 93,323 105,700 f 1 ) Three-year average. ( 4 ) Less than 500 pounds. ( 2 ) Eight months, May-December. ( 5 ) Not separately stated. ( 3 ) Two-year average. ( 6 ) Expressed only in value. Source of data: U. S. D. A. Yearbook 1924, p. 1001. developments which have been taking place in certain sections. Brief discussions of some of the advantages which certain sections of Europe possess in poultry raising are also given in a recent publication* of the United States Department of Agriculture. TABLE 76 Imports and Exports of Eggs by Countries, Canada, 1924 and 1925^ Imports- -Dozens Exports- -Dozens 1924 1925 1924 1925 4,920,819 236 59,654 2,577,400 120,426 2,363,170 233,008 62,925 2,143,090 144,206 260,255 Total 4,980,709 2,721,606 2,716,604 2,466,270 *Not including Alberta. Source of data: Mimeographed sheet issued by Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D. C. Food- stuffs 'Round the World, World Dairy and Poultry News, March 12, 1926. * Pierce, H. C. The poultry and egg industry in Europe. U. S. D. A. Dept. Bui. 1385:1-7, 1926. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 131 Canada. — No economic study of any product can fail to take Canada into consideration. It has been alternately on the export and import list in poultry products. During 1924 and 1925 it was the market for considerable quantities of eggs from the United States. The production of eggs on farms increased even more rapidly than that of poultry. A total of 224,778,867 dozen in 1925 was reached, an increase of nearlj^ six per cent over the 212,648,865 in 1924. The west- ern provinces have shown the greatest progress, mainly because of the tendency there towards the diversification of agriculture. In 1918, there were only about 13 million head of poultry in the western prov- inces, but in 1925 this number had been increased to more than 20 million. Thus, where they were once dependent upon imports, they are now engaged in a considerable export trade. Poultry of all kinds are increasing rapidly as will be seen from the following table : TABLE 77 Canada — Kinds of Poultry on Farms, 1901, 1911, 1918-1925 Year Number of chickens Number of turkeys Number of ducks Number of geese Total number of poultry 1901, Mar. 31 16,651,000 29,773,000 31,334,498 31,786,000 28,287,000f 34,341,000 39,928,000 41,356,000 42,885,000 585,000 863,000 1,062,000 840,000f 806,000f 1,199,000 1,590,000 2,105,000 2,348,721 291,000 527,000 884,000 778,000f 651,000f 762,000 958,000 1,046,000 1,236,820 396,000 630,000 879,000 803,000f 762,000f 880,000 947,000 961,000 1,088,000 17,923,000 1911, June 1 31,793,000 1918 34,160,000 1919 34,645,000 1920 30,506,000 1921, July 15 37,185,793 1922, July 15 43,930,562 1923, July 15 45,469,292 1924 47,538,139 1925 48,133,969 t Not including Alberta. Sources of data: Statistics for 1901, 1911, 1918-1924 furnished to author by U. S. D. A., Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washington, D. C. Year 1925, mimeographed sheet from Dept. of Commerce, Foodstuffs 'Round the World, World Dairy and Poultry News, Mar. 24, 1926. Mexico. — A remarkable development within recent years has been the increase in exporting eggs from the United States to Mexico espe- cially since 1918. This increase is due partly to Mexico's decrease in production brought about by revolution, and partly to the difference in seasons of the two countries. In the large central plateau of Mexico, the season of greatest production is during December, January, and February. During the spring and summer — the rainy season — fewer eggs are produced, whereas the production in the United States is then at its height, Exports to Mexico in 1924 were 5,848,000 dozens. 132 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 78 Canada — Imports and Exports of Eggs, 1900-1925 Imports, Exports Year dozens dozens 1900 10,187,906 1901 11,363,064 1902 11,635,108 1903 559,236 7,404,100 1904 972,249 5,780,316 1905 306,567 3,655,651 1906 485,229 2,937,777 1907 666,574 2,921,725 1908 1,186,204 1,365,890 1909 1,146,041 552,850 1910 893,324 106,650 1911 2,469,927 92,164 1912 7,552,248 203,231 1913 13,240,111 147,419 1914 11,274,036 124,002 1915 4,534,611 3,592,899 1916 3,783,952 7,898,322 1917 3,038,843 5,167,343 1918 4,274,452 4,896,793 1919 1,755,122 733,445 1920 5,977,480 6,000,528 1921 5,341,936 6,579,853 1922 9,637,303 4,399,534 1923 8,319,662 3,613,531 1924 4,980,709 2,716,604 1925 2,721,606 2,466,270 Source of data: Furnished to author by U. S. D. A., Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washing- ton, D. C. TABLE 79 Imports and Exports of Shell Eggs, Argentine, 1921-1924 (Dozens) Exports, Imports, Year dozens dozens* 1921 4,750,935 12,382 1922 2,428,935 356,125 1923 2,594,748 2,141,365 1924 4,555,298 3,378,478 * The imports were converted into dozens from pounds at the rate of 9 eggs to the pound. Source of data: Information furnished to author by Dept. of Commerce. TABLE 80 Exports and Imports of Shell Eggs by Countries, Argentine, 1924 Exports by countries (1924) Imports by countries (1924) Dozens Dozens* United States 6,300 United States 2,664,548 United Kingdom 4,503,798 Italy 446,773 Italy 33,750 Uruguay 102,505 Netherlands 8,120 Germany 82,672 Spain 3,330 England 80,951 Brazil 943 Chile 41 Denmark 45 4,555,298 3,378,478 * The imports were converted into dozens from pounds at the rate of 9 eggs to the pound. Source of data: Information furnished to author by Dept. of Commerce. [BUL. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 133 Argentine. — Details of the exports and imports of eggs during 1924 show that the movement both in and out of Argentine surpassed the 1923 volume. In 1924 the exports of eggs from the United States to Argentine more than doubled those of 1923. Customs officials state that all the eggs imported into the Argentine in 1 924 went in free of duty. This trade is of especial interest since the exports to Argentine are made in the spring (April- June) at the time of flush production in this country. Other South American countries. — Statistics with reference to other South American countries are not important. Chile has imported small quantities of eggs from the United States. Central America and the West Indies. — Of the Central American republics, Panama has been the most important receiver of eggs from the United States although other nations have at times taken varying amounts. The West Indies have been important customers of the United States, Cuba especially being a large importer. Effect of European climate on poultry production and quality* — - "It may be safely stated that if Europe, especially northern Europe, had the same ranges in temperature as the central United States, at least 10 per cent of their eggs and 50 per cent of their dressed poidtry as now handled during the summer would spoil before they could be marketed. ' ' In the United States, the January mean temperatures range from 10° to 30° F in the extreme northern section; 30° to 50° in the central sections; and 50° to 60° in the far southern sections. In Europe, on the other hand, the January temperatures average from 30° to 50°, except in Russia, which is much colder. "The July temperatures in the central United States, the section of greatest poultry and egg production, average from 70° to 90° F. The corresponding temperatures in northern Europe are from 50° to 70° and in southern Europe, below a line drawn through northern Italy and upper Yugoslavia, the corresponding temperatures are from 70° to 80°. "When it is considered that a point between 68° F and 69° F is the temperature at which a fertile egg will commence to develop an embryo, even though it subsequently dies, and that at a temperature of 90° blood will form in a fertile egg in three days, thus rendering it unfit for food, these temperature figures become especially important. * Pierce, H. C. The Poultry and Egg Industry of Europe. U. S. D. A. Dept. Bui. 1385:1-7, 1926. 134 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION They show that in the egg-producing centers of the United States, during the summer months not only are the average temperatures con- tinually above the physiological zero of the egg (68° F-69° F) but in vast areas they range around 90° and above, resulting in the rapid spoiling of fertile eggs. The larger portions of continental Europe, however have an average temperature of 50° to 70°, exceeding the physiological zero by only 2°, at which temperature germinal develop- ment is very slow. Even in southern Europe, the maximum average temperature of 80° is 10° less than that of central and southern United States. " These lower summer temperatures explain why it is possible for the Europeans to gather and ship their eggs in the summer without refrigeration. They also explain why it is possible for poultry to be dressed in northern Europe, cooled without refrigeration, sold on the market without additional cooling, and reach the consumer in fair condition within three or four days after killing. "The climate of Europe also indirectly affects the number of poultry produced in the same manner as it does the poultry production of the United States — that is, through its influence on the production of corn. In the United States the poultry production is the heaviest where the corn production is the greatest. This is also true in Europe. The largest exporting poultry section of Europe is the lower Danube Basin, including part of Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Rumania, and adjacent Russian territory. This is also the main corn- producing section of Europe, as corn is not produced to any extent in any other section except in small areas in northern Italy and south- ern France. Corn is produced only in areas where there are warm nights, long growing seasons, and adequate rainfall. Thus, we may expect that the exportable poultry surplus in Europe will continue to come mainly from the lower Danube Basin and Russia. "The egg supply will probably also increase in this area and in the sections of Europe adjacent to the large markets, such as Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, France, and Ireland. In these countries interest in the keeping of poultry for egg production is developing more and more rapidly, and the flocks of poultry can be expanded even though a large part of the feed supplies must be purchased from abroad." United Kingdom. — Since the war, the United Kingdom has been the world's largest importer of eggs, only 50 per cent of those con- sumed being produced at home. Eleven per cent are imported from the Irish Free State and only 2 per cent from other British possessions, foreign countries furnishing the British markets with 37 per cent of [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 135 TABLE 81 England's Imports of Shell Eggs by Countries, 1922-1925 (Ten thousand dozen — i.e., 0000 omitted) Source 1922 1923 1924 1925 5,735 774 902 650 319 319 460 1,260 1,057 337 6,757 478 1,285 1,435 1,338 415 420 1,209 1,113 240 3,345 378 1,632 6,045 301 731 1,235 60 422 54 1,624 1,033 135 4,687 271 3,682 5,836 212 Poland 1,068 Holland 1,692 232 Italy 525 75 1,161 1,101 88 4,567 496 1,352 246 5,170 Total 13,662 20,046 20,279 21,974 Source of data: "Landbrugsraadets Meddelelser" 3, 1926. Copenhagen, Denmark. United Kingdom- TABLE 82 -Imports and Exports of Eggs, 1900-1925 In shell Out of shell Year Imports Dozens Exports Dozens Imports Pounds Exports Pounds 1900 168,820,780 170,717,767 189,667,950 198,488,940 191,925,918 183,142,918 188,740,583 185,679,000 182,100,666 177,104,333 183,441,333 190,578,917 190,850,500 215,799,500 179,048,083 102,460,250 66,063,750 49,224,000 26,564,166 56,443,916 70,605,083 105,575,000 136,616,666 200,459,416 202,790,000 219,740,000 1,810,960 5,648 7,570 28,000 59,841,824 45,284,000 58,174,929 52,929,520 62,322,000 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 . 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 14,547,872 1921 15,565,648 1922 9,870,400 1923 11,054,848 1924 1925 Sources of data: Years 1900-1923, Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom, brugsraadets Meddelelser," 3, 1926, Copenhagen, Denmark. 1923-1925. "Land- 136 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION the imports. The imports by countries are given in table 81, p. 135. Almost every exporting country in the entire world ships a portion of its product into the United Kingdom. The most striking feature of the import position is the severe reduction in supplies from Russia as compared with the years before the war.- The tendency now, how- ever, is upward. This deficit has been made up by several parts of the former Russian Empire — Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Esthonia, and Finland — together with Denmark, Egypt, and Holland. Among countries which were insignificant contributors before the war, but are now relatively important sources of supply, are China, Belgium, Argentine, Morocco, Canada, South Africa, the United States, and Norway. In addition to the falling off in Russian offerings, there has been a decline of 3 or 4 per cent in imports from Italy, while those from Prance, Germany, and Austria-Hungary, which amounted to 10 per cent of the imports in 1913, have practically disappeared from the British market. Of the quantities of eggs not in the shell, 97 per cent of the supplies (1924) were received from China, the British authorities estimating the number of eggs represented by this trade in 1924 at about 750,000,000. Ireland. — Irish eggs have found a desirable outlet on the English market, and the Irish Free State is contesting with Denmark for the leading place on this market. TABLE 83 Denmark— Number op Poultry— 1888, 1893, 1898, 1903, 1909, 1914-1925 Year Chickens Turkeys Ducks Geese 1888 4,592,000 5,856,000 8,767,000 11,555,000 11,816,000 15,140,000 32,000 41,000 52,000 644,000 724,000 803,000 214,000 1893 230,000 1898 211,000 1903 1909 792,000 1,021,000 119,000 1914 1915 1917 12,288,000 9,884,000 12,134,000 14,395,000* 17,803,000* 19,184,000* 20,029,000* 20,084,000* 20,093,000* 1918 1919 1920 . 1921 1922 1923 51,000 793,000 283,000 1924 1925 ♦Includes South Jutland Province where poultry amounted to 408,000 in 1920 and 618,000 in 1921. Sources of data: Years 1888-1922, information furnished author by Bureau of Agricultural Econ- omics, Washington, D. C. Years 1923-1925, "Anvendelsen af Landbrugsarealet og Kreaturholdet," 1925. Copenhagen, Denmark. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 137 Denmark. — With an area but 10.6 per cent of that of California, Denmark has built up an egg export trade which should attract the attention of every poultryman. The total number of chickens in the kingdom is not large, numbering approximately 20,000,000. TABLE 84 Denmark — Imports and Exports of Eggs, 1900-1925 (Fresh, Preserved and Unspecified) Imports Exports Year Shell eggs, dozens Whites and yolks, pounds Shell eggs, dozens Whites and yolks, pounds 1900 3,098,830 5,275,563 4,587,760 5,443,116 5,974,761 5,713,105 5,081,463 3,443,196 2,158,247 2,793,222 1,922,756 2,207,912 2,234,911 2,053,585 1,796,595 1,124,955 235,491 27,646,617 31,866,492 36,401,669 38,737,972 35,675,683 34,552,951 32,940,012 33,508,836 35,422,458 32,010,365 33,937,462 35,850,233 32,025,886 37,870,152 38,103,976 40,159,894 40,095,396 36,982,354 27,312,907 28,220,034 45,515,179 54,004,506 61,256,050 66,475,000 69,373,333 67,223,333 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 406,308 611,556 556,000 521,388 532,631 386,246 409,615 383,821 83,113 1910 1911 2,205 1912 20,723 1913 6,834 1914 18,960 1915 212,082 1916 21,605 1917 2,645 1918 441 1919 2,167 94,663 85,663 414,150 577,500 380,294 629,413 290,568 557,323 5,512 1920 1,323 1921 9,480 1922 : 1,543 1923 1924 1925 Sources of data: Years 1900-1923, information furnished author by Bureau of Agricultural Econ- omics, Washington, D. C. Years 1924-1925, "Landbrugsraadets Meddelelser," 21, 1925. Copenhagen, Denmark. The exports during the past few years have numbered over sixty million dozens annually, of which England has taken the largest part. It is safe to say that this export has been built up on quality based upon a most careful system of grading and packing. Germany. — Before the Great War, Germany imported even larger amounts of eggs than the United Kingdom. The yearly average for 1909-1913 was 228,279,000 dozens while for Great Britain it was 190,015,000 dozens during the same period. Since the close of the war, the imports appear to be rapidly regaining their former importance. 138 UNIVERSITY OP CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION During the first eight months of 1924, 56,824,250 dozens in the shell were imported. The imports of egg products from China are again assuming importance. In proportion to her population Germany has rather a small poultry population. Poultry in 1925 numbered 71,300,000, which is .5 per cent less than in 1924, and .8 per cent less than in 1913. The decrease has been in ducks and geese, as the num- ber of chickens in 1925 totaled 63,900,000, which is the same as for 1913, and an increase of .4 per cent over 1924. Germany is also an important exchange center for eggs coming from Russia, Austria, and Bulgaria. Some of the best German eggs are exported, lower grades from other foreign countries replacing those which are exported. Russia. — In the discussion of competition, Russia has all but been left out of consideration, yet in the few years before the Great War between 250,000,000 and 300,000,000 dozen eggs were exported, or more than 40 per cent of the total world exports. After the war other European nations increased their flocks and as a result exports have increased from a considerable number of nations comparatively insignificant in this trade before the war. In 1923, Russia again began to ship eggs. The potentialities of egg production in Russia are enormous. ^Information from government officials indicates that large areas of Russia are growing corn, and as a result there undoubtedly will be an increase in egg production. The rapid growth in the number of poultry kept in Russia is shown in table 85. TABLE 85 Poultry in Eussia, 1923-1925 (Thousands — i.e., 000 omitted) Year Chickens Geese Ducks Turkeys 1923 70,374 103,690 118,410 5,000 5,971 6,246 1,646 2,758 2,655 360 1924 507 ' 1925 659 Source of data: Landbrugsraadets Meddelelser 17: 255, 1926, Copenhagen, Denmark. During the past three years the U. S. Department of Commerce reports the following egg exports from Russia: Carloads 1922-1923 320 1923-1924 2,400 1924-1925 5,000 * Information to the author. Percentage of pre-war exports 1.3 10 21.0 [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 139 Expressed in tons, the following are the figures for calendar year egg exports :* 1923 6,200 1924 31,800 1925 59,300 The Department of Commerce states, ' ' During the first quarter of the 1925-1926 operative year, there were exported 2200 carloads of eggs, which constitutes 37.9 per cent of pre-war egg exports. Russian egg exports for the first quarter of 1925-1926 increased 89.9 per cent, compared with exports for the corresponding period of 1924-1925.' ' TABLE 86 Russia — Exports of Eggs, Egg Yolks and Egg Whites, 1900-1912, 1914, 1925 Year Eggs, dozens Egg yolks, pounds Egg whites, pounds 1900 145,234,084 162,250,000 185,750,000 231,254,250 229,396,833 249,462,666 236,097,583 217,302,083 215,709,833 237,061,416 249,847,000 306,837,416 283,083,333 1,648,739 1,256,227 1,336,181 221,012 1901 94,905 1902 144,452 1903 1904 1905 .. 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 . 1911 1912 1913 1914 282,988,250 87,250,580 1925 Sources of data: Information furnished author by Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washington, D. C. 1925, mimeographed sheet issued by Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D. C. Foodstuffs 'Round the World, Worlds Dairy and Poultry News, Oct. 22, 1926. The marked progress in the egg export trade during the first quarter of 1925-1926 is ascribed to the system of grading and assort- ing of export eggs put in practice for the first time in the Soviet export trade. As a result, the quality of Russian export eggs is said to improve continually, and in proportion as. egg exports increase, Soviet Russia's part in the world's egg trade is increasing. During 1924-1925, eggs imported from Russia constituted 7 to 8 per cent of the total English and over 10 per cent of the total German egg imports, while in the first quarter of 1925-1926 the share of Soviet eggs in the total London egg imports was already 17.7 per cent and 33.2 per cent of the total German. About 50 per cent of Russia's total export w r ent to Germany in 1924. * Landbrugsraadets Meddelelser 17:255, 1926. Copenhagen, Denmark. 140 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION The egg season in Russia starts in March (15th to 30th) and ends the last of May. The eggs produced during this season are the so-called spring or grass eggs, which are not very good for export pur- poses. The second season starts at the beginning of July and ends by September eggs and are especially fit for export. The eggs produced during this season are called "grain" Poland. — During the past four years Poland has become a com- petitor in the international egg market, as the statistics of exports show. In 1922 the country exported 7,490,000 dozen eggs; in 1923, 19,508,000; in 1924, 15,316,000; while during 1925, exports rose to 39,829,773.* At a recent meeting of the Poland State Agricultural Council, it was resolved to introduce egg standardization as a measure to increase Poland's competing ability abroad. Esthonia. — This Baltic State, formerly a part of the Russian Empire, has steadily increased its egg exports as is shown in table 87. TABLE 87 Exports of Eggs from Esthonia, 1923-1925 Number of eggs Exports to — 1923 1924 1925 54,200 3,393,200 23,900 690,100 7,200 3,246,200 4,067,700 1,805,200 820,000 6,403,700 2,280,300 5,547,100 324,300 1,400 Total 4,168,700 9,939,100 14,556,800 Sources of data: Mimeographed sheet issued by Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D. C. Food- stuffs 'Round the World, World Dairy and Poultry News, May 21, 1926. Latvia. — Another of the countries formed from the former empire of Russia — Latvia — plans to allow for export only fresh eggs weighing not less than 42 grams; and all exports before shipment will be examined by experts of the Chamber of Commerce.! Lithuania (part of former Russian Empire). — Eggs are the prin- cipal item of foodstuffs exported from Lithuania. During 1925, 64,976,000 eggs were exported compared with 84,700,000 in 1924. This drop was caused by internal complications. * Department of Commerce, mimeographed sheets, Foodstuffs 'Round the World, World Dairy and Poultry News, May 12, 1926. t U. S. Dept. of Commerce, mimeographed sheets, Foodstuffs 'Round the World, World Dairy and Poultry News, April 9, 1926. [BUL. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 141 France. — Before the war, France imported more eggs than were exported, but recently there has been a slight tendency for the exports to increase more rapidly. Belgium and Holland. — Both Belgium and Holland have been importers although Holland has been of importance as a trading center for eggs. Italy. — The Italian exports before the war had attained con- siderable volume. During the years 1922 and 1923, the exports were only half of those of the pre-war years. Hungary. — Although with an area much restricted as a result of the war, the export trade of Hungary is rapidly recovering. Exports of eggs in 1925 amounted to 21,010,000 dozens against 8,825,000 dozens in 1924. Poultry exports amounted to 21,051,500 pounds in 1925 as compared with 14,609,000 pounds in 1924. f Before the war the dual monarchy had a net export of approximately 90,000,000 dozen eggs. Roumania. — During 1926 (first six months) egg exports totaled 8,386,491 dozen compared with 3,558,681 in 1925. Bulgaria. — The estimated 1924 exports were 13,200,000 dozen eggs, compared with 7,920,000 dozens in 1923 and 26,400,000 in 1912. The Bulgarian exports in the past have gone mainly to Austria, Germany and France. Bulgarian eggs in 1924 were reported on the New York market. Egypt. — Northern Africa comprises an area which has contributed greatly to the international trade in eggs. Most important in the export trade is Egypt. The following table shows the quantity of eggs exported during the past ten years: TABLE 88 Exports of Eggs from Egypt, 1915-1925 Year Quantity, number 1915 245,644,000 1916 '. 235,369,000 1917 188,004,000 1918 83,620,000 1919 70,545,000 1920 67,113,000 1921 91,801,000 1922 160,252,000 1923 156,536,000 1924 204,184,000 1925 107,542,000* * First ten months. Sources of data: Mimeographed sheet issued by Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D. C. Food- stuffs 'Round the World, World Dairy and Poultry News, Feb. 26, 1926. t U. S. Dept. of Commerce, mimeographed sheets, Foodstuffs 'Bound the World, World Dairy and Poultry News, Sept. 10, 1926. 142 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA— EXPERIMENT STATION Evidence points to a further decline during 1926, owing to a restriction placed on exports during the first three months of the year, when they are normally larger than at other times. Nine-tenths of the total quantity of eggs exported from Egypt are shipped to England. Egyptian eggs enjoy a peculiar advantage by coming upon the market plentifully at a time of the year when pro- duction in other countries ceases. Algeria. — Exports from Algeria increased from 114,640 dozens in 1909 to 2,452,958 in 1919; 4,513,551 in 1924; and 4,835,423 in 1925.* Morocco. — During January and February, 1926, * 3,035,000 dozen eggs were exported from Morocco. Of these exports, 2,724,885 dozens were shipped to Spain, 220,460 to Great Britain, and 89,655 to France. South Africa. — South Africa and other countries of the Southern Hemisphere are of great interest because of the fact that eggs can be placed on the market when supplies of fresh eggs are short in the Northern Hemisphere. During 1925, South Africa exported 2,392,950 dozen fresh eggs,t principally to the British market. This was an increase of 104,160 dozens over the 1924 exports — a gain of 4 per cent. China. — Statistics as understood in the United States are not known in China. At best such as are available are mere estimates. Poultry farming has long been an important subsidiary industry among Chinese farmers. The following are the estimates of chickens and ducks in China, excluding five provinces, for the years 1917, 1918, and 1919.J ' ™ * ' ™ , Chickens Ducks 1917 278,705,514 65,137,039 1918 149,648,746 52,249,322 1919 128,550,301 41,397,434 According to various estimates, the average number of eggs from a hen per year is from 72 to 84. The annual yield throughout the country is, therefore, enormous. Exports were at first only in the form of fresh, preserved, and salt eggs. During the war these shipments were curtailed on account of the lack of transportation, but recovery was rapid in 1920 and 1921. During 1925, according to the Department of Commerce, the first nine months showed a decrease in the exports of shell eggs, 52,781,085 dozens against 57,938,250 for the corresponding period in 1924. On the other hand, egg albument and yolk showed an increase * Department of Commerce, mimeographed sheets, Foodstuffs 'Bound the World, World Dairy and Poultry News, June 2, 1926. t Department of Commerce, mimeographed sheets, Foodstuffs 'Bound the World, World Dairy and Poultry News, April 23, 1926. + Statistics on China furnished to the author in letters from the United States Department of Commerce. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 143 from 41,999,895 pounds during nine months of 1924 to 57,733,190 in 1925. Owing to the difficulties of transportation, indications are that the exports in products other than shell eggs have increased most rapidly. This has been especially the case with egg albumen and yolks, where a steady increase can be noted — the exports in 1908 TABLE 89 Exports of Eggs and Egg Products from China, 1924 Exported to — Eggs, fresh and preserved Thousands Eggs, frozen Piculs* Egg albumen and yolk Piculs* 122,301 6,342 3 118 11,422 15 709 22 117,437 3 4 27 4,756 1,626 92 644,093 33,010 2,273 74 8 52 66 508 221,622 221,285 9 475 1,295 3,329 54,126 14,664 45,129 6 1,467 146 24,563 1,102 86,850 21,590 2,970 284 168 Italy- 6,732 1,125 503 192 Total 944,253 252,392 457,948 *One picul=133H lbs. Source of data: Information furnished author by Dept. of Commerce. TABLE 90 Exports of Eggs and Egg Products from China, 1921-1924 Pieces (Eggs) Pounds Year Eggs, fresh and preserved Egg albumen and yolk Frozen eggs 1921 1,180,714,000 1,181,980,000 1,101,049,000 944,253,000 784,509,000 52,376,136 57,641,722 50,337,987 61,059,732 76,083,865 12,168,236 1922 36,812,841 1923 50,048,541 1924 33,652,300 1925 57,473,718 Sources of data: 1921-1924, Chinese Economic Monthly 3 : 8, information furnished author by Dept. 1926. of Commerce. 1925, The 144 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION being 8,450,589 pounds against 71,059,700 in 1924. The exports of frozen eggs have not shown such a steady upward trend but have been characterized by rather violent fluctuations. The average exports for the three first years available, 1914-1916, give evidence of approxi- mately 20,000,000 pounds of frozen eggs, while during the past three years, 1922-1924, there seems to be an increase of 100 per cent, or 40,000,000 pounds. TABLE 91 International Trade in Live Poultry, Average 1909-1913, Annual, 1921-1923 (Thousands— i.e., 000 omitted) Country Average, 1909-1913 1921 1922 1923, preliminary Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Principal exporting countries: 942 14 2,453 8,435 15 15 17 2,010 ( 4 ) 1,797 26 8,967 8,111 29,829 1,382 877 4,114 16,617 ( 2 ) 2,462 30 9,606 « 685 2 795 32 278 28 50 249 36 ( 3 ) 786 24 763 2 11,345 297 256 1,144 61 857 3,871 ( 3 ) 2,185 129 383 ( 3 ) 118 51 ^55 4 8 418 31 609 3,743 473 27 579 3,639 Italy 1 3,967 63 1,299 2 17,504 54 339 879 239 2,575 339 1,442 ( 3 ) 294 1 76 4 14 5,552 83 1,024 2,742 247 Principal importing countries: 2,158 21,252 25 115 987 1,170 1,041 Germany: ( 3 ) 36 5 18 Total reported in number .... 11,514 6,690 669 4,866 807 4,706 2,720 4,497 Total reported in pounds 52,420 28,009 14,294 2,745 23,988 4,391 28,930 5,982 i 1,000 pounds. 3 Less than 500. 2 Expressed only in value. * Not separately stated. Source of data: U. S. D. A. Yearbook 1924, p. 996. 6 Eight months, May-December. The destinations of the exports are given in table 89, p. 143. Japan and Great Britain are the most important foreign markets ; next are Hongkong and the United States. Although the production of eggs in China is undoubtedly enormous, it is small in comparison to the population. Australia. — On account of the reversal of seasons, Australia has been able to place eggs on the English market at a profit and expecta- tions are that increased quantities will be shipped to England in the future. Although Australian eggs must travel half way around the world to reach the English market, the prices obtained in 1925 were [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 145 more satisfactory than those on the home market. The exports to England are increasing. The Australian product is a white egg, as most of the chickens are White Leghorns. New Zealand. — Exports of eggs from New Zealand during 1923 amounted to 109,990 dozens which during 1924 increased to 200,070 dozens. No eggs were exported during 1925 on account of strike con- ditions. The poultry population of New Zealand in 1924 was approxi- mately four million. Japan. — Although the poultry industry is of recent origin, Japan- ese eggs have appeared on American markets. Japan, however, imports large quantities of eggs from China. TABLE 92 International Trade in Killed Poultry, Average, 1909-1913, Annual, 1921-1923 (Thousand pounds — i. e., 000 omitted) Country Average, 1909-1913 1921 1922 1923, preliminary Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Principal exporting countries: 371 232 0) 373 2,920 288 C 1 ) 9,854 1,649 1,211 1,162 12,296 6,019 0) 149 C 1 ) 1 1,997 957 37 3,012 866 418 95 24 227 4,196 8,818 89 1,644 876 5,334 2,335 502 288 159 C 1 ) 290 1,989 797 6,627 3,786 933 138 0) 902 2,837 914 3,659 1,029 44 3,672 792 68 7,560 11,141 Italy 4,075 1,653 Principal importing countries: 491 76 1,765 18,875 63 349 8,319 10,994 147 866 65 75 284 4,245 18,644 10 535 25 2 51 2 4 2 185 39 69 ( 3 ) 2 4 272 166 44 12 13 127 4,884 34,825 12 321 44,625 32,888 20,797 11,337 29,217 14,808 52,105 22,390 1 Not separately stated. 2 Eight months, May-December. Source of data: U. S. D. A. Yearbook 1924, p. 996. 3 Less than 500. International trade, Poultry. — The international trade in live and killed poultry is largely confined to Europe (tables 91 and 92). The United Kingdom, Canada, and Mexico import considerable quantities of poultry from the United States while Canada, Hongkong, and Argentine export considerable quantities to the United States. For a complete summary of the foreign trade for the United States during 1924, the reader should consult tables 72 and 73, pp. 125-128. 146 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION COST OF PRODUCING EGGS, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By M. W. BUSTER, Assistant Farm Advisor, Sonoma County L. W. FLUHARTY, Farm Management Demonstrator Data on the cost of producing eggs which is presented in the following pages of this bulletin covers a period of one year from November 1, 1924, to October 31, 1925 (a year of relatively high egg prices). This project was started for the purpose of conducting a comprehensive and accurate poultry survey and in addition to obtain data on costs and income from commercial poultry farms of different sizes and types. During a series of years it is hoped that the efficiency of various management factors on commercial poultry farms can be determined. The information gathered from this project, simply indi- cates valuable possibilities in this type of study. The results should not be regarded as final. Thirty-eight poultrymen in Sonoma County kept complete cost records on their poultry flocks. Each cooperator sent a monthly summary of costs to the farm advisor's office where they were checked for errors and omissions. This method of pro- cedure was followed in order to secure accurate information. SIZE OF FLOCKS The 38 flocks involved in this study ranged in size from an average of 144 to 5171 birds per flock. For the purpose of studying the rela- tion of size of flocks to profits and various other factors the records were divided into three groups. Group I includes all flocks with an average of less than 751 hens; Group II, flocks having from 751 to 1500 hens ; and Group III, those having more than 1500 birds. The size of the flock was based on the average number of hens throughout the year. Relation of size of flocks to profits. — From this study indications are that the size of the flock bears a direct relationship to the success of the poultry keeper. This factor is of special importance to those producers who depend upon poultry as the major source of income. The small flocks may be a profitable venture for the operator who devotes to its care only time not otherwise profitably employed (table 93). On the other hand, the medium-sized flock (Group II) appears to be too large for a minor enterprise, but too small for efficient management. This fact is apparent when net profits on all three groups are compared. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 147 The effect of size of business upon profits is again evident when a comparison is made of farm income from the three groups. The farm income from Group III is the only one which is fully sufficient to maintain a satisfactory standard of living for an American farm family. *TABLE 93 Relation of Size of Flocks to Profits on 38 Poultry Farms, Sonoma County, California. November 1924-October, 1925 Group I Group II Group III All farms 6 537 $2,330 14 1,051 $5,688 18 2,488 $10,879 38 1,651 $7,634 $2,769 2,254 515 1,100 959 $4,468 4,401 67 1,346 1,006 $10,918 9,400 1.518 3,373 2,728 $7,255 6,430 825 2,267 1,813 * Gross income includes income from all sources as itemized in Table 95. Total cost includes all expense as itemized in Table 96. Net income is the difference between gross income and total expense. Farm income is the gross income minus operating expense (operating expense includes all expenditures for feed, stock replacements, taxes, water and hired labor; operating expense does not include operator's labor or interest on investment). Labor income is the amount received by operator for his labor after 6% interest on investment has been deducted from the farm income. Relation of size of flock to investment. — Land, buildings and equipment constituted the largest items of investment on 35 of the 38 farms in the study. These items made up 71 per cent of the total investment; while feed, carried throughout the year, and stock, con- stituted the other 29 per cent of invested capital (table 94). TABLE 94 Average Investment in Land, Buildings, Equipment, Feed and Supplies, and Stock, on 35 Poultry Farms, Sonoma County, California. November, 1924-October, 1925 Group I Group II Group III All farms Number of flocks 6 537 12 1,048 17 2,506 35 Average size of flocks 1,669 Average investment Average investment Average investment Average investment Per farm Per hen Per farm Per hen Per farm Per hen Per farm Per hen Land 1741.66 658.33 152.50 104.80 673.11 $1.38 1.23 .28 .20 1.25 $1,550.00 2,154.16 672.08 66.88 1,245.18 $1.48 2 06 .64 .06 1.19 $2,964.71 3,151.47 1,368.71 193.68 3,200.09 $1.18 1.26 .55 .08 1.28 $2,098.57 2,382.14 921.37 134.97 2,096.64 $1.26 Buildings 1.43 Equipment .55 Feed and supplies .08 Stock 1.26 Totals 12,330.40 $4.34 $5,688.30 $5.43 $10,878.66 $4.35 $7,633.69 $4.58 148 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION This table indicates a less efficient use of capital in the intermediate sized flocks than in either the small or the large flocks. The investment in land, buildings, and equipment per hen is more than 40 per cent greater than for either of the other two groups. Fixed capital invested in these items was 77 per cent of the total investment as compared with less than 69 per cent for Groups I and III. Relation of size of flock to income. — The sale of market and hatch- ing eggs comprised 93 per cent of the total income on all 38 farms where records were kept (table 95).* TABLE 95 Eelation of Size of Flocks to Income on 38 Poultry Farms, Sonoma County, California. November 1924-October, 1925 Group I Group II Group III All farms 6 537 14 1,051 18 2,488 38 Average size of flocks 1,651 Amount Per cent of total Amount Per cent of total Amount Per cent of total Amount Per cent of total $2,478.79 86.87 145.13 14.36 43.68 89.6 3.1 5.2 .5 1.6 $4,082.65 46.16 214.79 26.82 97.66 91.4 1.0 4.8 .6 1.9 $8,730.26 1,483.27 421.99 65.12 216.90 80.0 13.6 3.9 .6 1.9 $6,030.91 733.33 301.94 43.00 145.62 83.1 10.1 4.2 .6 2.0 Totals $2,768.83 100.0 $4,468.08 100.0 $10,917.54 100.0 $7,254.80 100.0 The most important single source of income on all farms was from the sale of market eggs. In the first two groups, the sale of hatching eggs was of little importance, but in Group III receipts from hatching eggs comprised almost 14 per cent of the total. Relation of size of flock to expense. — All items of expense have been included in table 96 except the cost of marketing, i.e., delivery to market, grading, packing, inspection and commission. Cost of market- ing has been deducted from prices received at the market in order to get the net farm price. More than one-half of the total expense (53.8%) on all farms was for feed alone, while about one-fifth (19.1%) was for family and hired labor (table 96). The outlay for stock made up the next highest item (17.3%). Miscellaneous items such as water, taxes, insurance and * Eeliable estimates indicate that the income from eggs in White Leghorn flocks in Centra] California is from 85-87 per cent of the total income. Interview, E-. H. McDrew, Poultry Producers of Central California, Nov. 9, 1926. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 149 TABLE 96 Belation of Size of Flock to Expenses on 38 Poultry Farms, Sonoma County, California. November 1924-October, 1925 Group I Group II Group III All farms 6 537 14 1,051 18 2,488 38 1,651 Amount Per cent of total Amount Per cent of total Amount Per cent of total Amount Per cent of total $1,272.85 331.21 1.99 444.65 32.76 30.69 140.05 56.5 14.7 $2,254.44 687.01 53.56 938.74 66.18 61.03 340.01 51.1 15.6 1.2 21.3 1.5 1.6 7.7 $5,127.27 1,707.32 463.97 1,210.13 101.61 143.97 645.62 54.5 18.2 4.9 12.9 1.1 15 6.9 $3,460.27 1,114.15 239.82 989.28 77.69 95.53 453.20 53.8 Stock 17.3 3.7 19.7 1.5 1.4 6.2 15 4 1.2 Water, taxes, insurance Interest on investment 1.5 7.1 Totals $2,254.20 100.0 $4,400.97 100.0 $9,399.89 100.0 $6,429 94 100 interest on investment made up a little less than one-tenth (9.8%) of the total. The cost of feed comprises 70 per cent of the total cash expense when not figuring operator 's labor and interest on investment. Belation of size of flock to cost of producing eggs. — Feed, which is the largest single item of expense, was highest per hen but lowest per dozen eggs for small sized flocks (Group I). The comparatively low feed cost per dozen in this group is accounted for by the larger number of eggs produced per hen (table 97). TABLE 97 Relation of Size of Farm to Cost of Producing Eggs on 38 Sonoma County, California, Farms. November, 1924-October, 1925 Group I Group II Group III All farms 6 537 160 14 1,051 138 18 2,488 136 38 1,651 Average number of eggs per hen- 138 Per hen Per doz. Per hen Per doz. Per hen Per doz. Per hen Per doz. Average cost Feed Dollars 2.36 .62 Cents 17.7 4.6 Dollars 2.14 .65 Cents 18.7 5.7 Dollars 2.06 .59 .09 .67 .06 .26 .04 Cents 18.2 5 2 0.9 5.8 0.5 2.3 0.4 Dollars 2.10 .62 .06 .74 .06 .26 .05 Cents 18.2 Stock bought 5.4 0.5 .83 .06 .26 .06 6.2 0.4 2.0 0.5 .94 .06 .32 .07 8.2 0.5 2.8 0.5 6 5 0.5 Interest on investment, 6% 2.4 Other overhead 0.4 Total cost 4.19 31.4 4.18 36.4 3.77 33.3 3.89 33.9 150 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Those flocks with an approximate average of 1000 birds (Group II) had a labor cost higher than either of the other two groups. Appar- ently a flock of this size is too large to be handled as a minor enter- prise, but too small for efficient use of the entire time of the operator. Items of expense other than feed and labor were quite uniform for all sizes of flocks. Relation of size of flock to profits. — The gross income per hen was higher in the small flocks (Group I) than in the intermediate or large flocks because of the larger egg production per hen. On the other hand, the gross income per dozen was lower in the intermediate sized flocks than in the other two groups. *TABLE 98 Kelation of Size of Flocks to Profits on 38 Farms in Sonoma County, California. November 1924-October, 1925 Group I Group II Group III All farms 6 537 160 14 1,051 138 18 2,488 136 38 1,651 Average number of eggs per hen... 138 Per hen Per doz. Per hen Per doz. Per hen Per doz. Per hen Per doz. Average cost Dollars 5.15 4.19 .96 2.05 1.78 Cents 38.5 31.4 7.1 15.3 13.3 Dollars 4.25 4.18 .07 1.28 .96 Cents 37.0 36.4 .6 11.1 8.3 Dollars 4.38 3.77 .61 1.36 1.10 Cents 38.7 33.3 5 4 11.9 9.7 Dollars 4.39 3.89 .50 1.37 1.10 Cents 38.3 33.9 Net profit 4.4 12 9.6 * See footnote to Table 93. The total cost per hen was smaller in Group III because of lower feed and labor cost for this group. The average net income of Group I was much higher than that of either of the other two groups, as was also the farm and labor income per hen. A study of all factors indi- cates that the higher farm and labor incomes in Group I were due in a large part to the relatively large number of eggs per hen. The higher farm and labor income per hen for Group III over Group II was due to the more efficient management of the flock, particularly with reference to labor. Relation of size of flock to various management factors. — The average production of eggs per hen was smaller in the large sized flocks (Groups II and III) than in the smaller flocks. This difference in egg production maybe explained in part at least because (1) the small flocks were culled more heavily, and (2) their mortality was about 8 per cent less (table 99). [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 151 Although the amount of feed consumed per hen was heaviest in the small flocks, the amount of feed required to produce a dozen eggs was less because of the heavier egg production per hen. *TABLE 99 Relation of Size of Farm to Some Factors which Influence Profits on 38 Sonoma County, California, Poultry Farms. November, 1924-October, 1925 Group I Group II Group III All farms 6 537 14 1,051 18 2,488 38 1,651 160 43.8 34.6 12.8 42.7 45.6 76.3 5.71 36.3 4.34 138 37.8 136 37.3 25.9 20.9 42.5 43.1 73.4 6.31 37.0 4.32 138 Per cent production 37.8 Per cent culled 35 19 52 54 70 6 35 5 6 2 5 4 13 41 28.7 20.1 44.8 45 7 72.7 6.21 36 4 4.58 * Percentage culled is based on the number of hens sold for any purpose during the year, as related to the average number of hens in the flock during the year. Percentage mortality is the percentage of hens which died during the year as related to the average number of hens in the flock. Percentage replacements is the number of hens it would have been necessary to add in order to replace hens which died or which were sold during the year. Percentage added is the relation of the number of hens actually added to the original number at the beginning of the study. PRODUCTION AS RELATED TO COSTS AND PROFITS The 38 records were divided into four groups on a basis of the average number of eggs laid per hen for the purpose of making a study of the effect of quantity of production upon costs and profits. Those farms having an average production from 113 to 128 eggs per hen were included in Group I ; flocks averaging from 129 to 144 in group II ; those averaging from 145 to 155 in Group III ; and those from 145 to 180 in Group IV. Relation of number of eggs per hen to cost of production. — The relation of number of eggs per hen to feed cost per hen and per dozen is very marked. An increase in the average number of eggs produced per hen apparently increases the feed cost per hen, but decreases the cost per dozen (table 100). There was an increase of 33.6 per cent in average egg production between Groups I and IV which was accompanied by only a 5.4 per cent increase in cost of feed consumed. The total cost of maintaining a hen increased slightly as the average number of eggs per hen increased, but the range of increase from Group I to Group IV is small as compared with the increase in production. 152 UNIVERSITY OP CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 100 Belation of Number of Eggs Per Hen to Cost of Production on 38 Sonoma County, California, Poultry Farms. November, 1924-October, 1925 Group I Group II Group III Group IV All farms 10 1,980 122 12 1,675 136 7 2,135 149 9 875 163 38 1,651 Average number of eggs per hen 138 Average cost Per hen Per doz. Per hen Per doz. Per hen Per doz. Per hen Per doz. Per hen Per doz. Feed Dolls. 1.94 .53 Cts. 19.1 5.3 Dolls. 2.10 .54 .18 .84 .06 .29 .04 Cts. 18.6 4.8 1.6 7.4 0.5 2.5 0.4 Dolls. 2.21 .52 .28 .72 .06 .26 .07 Cts. 17.9 4.2 2.2 5.9 0.5 2.1 0.5 Dolls. 2.24 .68 Cts. 16.5 5.0 Dolls. 2.10 .61 .06 .74 .06 .27 .05 Cts. 18.2 5.4 0.5 .61 .05 .28 .03 6.0 0.6 2.7 0.3 .89 .06 .26 .06 6.5 0.4 1.9 0.5 6.5 0.5 2.4 0.4 3.44 34.0 4 05 35.8 4.12 33.3 4.19 30.8 3.89 33.9 Relation of number of eggs per hen to profits. — There was an increase of 153 per cent in net profits between the first and fourth groups of farms. This increase was much greater in proportion than the 33.6 per cent in average number of eggs produced per hen (table 101). TABLE 101 Eelation of Number of Eggs per Hen to Profits on 38 Sonoma County, California, Poultry Farms. November 1924-October 1925 Group I Group II Group III Group IV All farms 10 1,980 122 12 1,675 136 7 2,135 149 9 875 163 38 1,651 Average number of eggs per hen 138 Average cost Per hen Per doz. Per hen Per doz. Per hen Per doz. Per hen Per doz. Per hen Per doz. Dolls. 3.74 3.44 .30 1.07 .79 Cts. 36.9 34.0 2.9 10.5 7.8 Dolls. 4.37 4.05 .32 1.31 1.03 Cts. 38.6 35.8 2.8 13.9 10.9 Dolls. 4.99 4.12 .87 1.61 1.35 Clc. 40.4 33.3 7.1 13.0 10.9 Dolls. 4.95 4.19 .76 1.84 1.58 Cts. 36.4 30.8 5.6 13.5 11.6 Dolls. 4.39 3.89 .50 1.37 1.10 Cts. 38.3 33.9 4.4 12.0 9.6 Group III, which produced an average of 149 eggs per hen, showed an even greater net profit per hen than did Group IV, which had an average of 163 eggs per hen. This condition existed largely because of the higher labor cost in Group III. The relationship between [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 153 number of eggs per hen and both farm and labor income is also quite striking. An increase of 50 per cent in egg production was accom- panied by a 72 per cent greater farm income and a 100 per cent increase in labor income. Relation of number of eggs per hen to other factors in egg pro- duction. — The general tendency apparent in table 102 is for high egg production to be accompanied by heavy culling. TABLE 102 Kelation of Eggs per Hen to Some Factors which Influence Profits on 38 Sonoma County, California, Poultry Farms. November 1924- October 1925 Number of farms Size of flocks : Average number of eggs per hen Per cent production Per cent culled Per cent mortality Per cent replacements Per cent added Pounds grain and mash per hen Pounds grain and mash per dozen Average price of eggs Investment per hen Group I 122 Group II 12 1,675 136 Group III 7 2,135 149 Group IV 875 163 All farms 38 1,651 138 33.3 21.1 22.4 42.5 56.6 72.4 6.88 35.3 4.65 37.2 31.7 19.7 46.4 39.8 69.7 6.17 36.7 4.90 40.7 28.2 21.2 43.6 36.9 76.2 6.14 38.6 4.34 44.7 38.1 13.3 48.3 52.4 73.0 5.40 34.3 4.38 37.8 28.7 20.1 44.8 45.7 72.7 6.21 36.4 4.58 Many poultrymen believe that high egg production is accom- panied by heavy mortality. The table above indicates that such was not the case in this study, but that those methods of flock management which caused high egg production also maintained the health of the flock. This condition might also be brought about by heavy culling. This table also indicates that while the pounds of grain and mash con- sumed per hen did not vary greatly with numbers of eggs produced, that the quantity of feed per dozen decreased quite uniformly as number of eggs per hen became larger. HATCHING AND COMMERCIAL EGG FARMS Of the 38 cooperators in the study, 11 sold an average of 20 per cent of their total egg production for hatching purposes. Five of the hatching egg producers trap-nested their flocks and six of them did not. A tabulation was made of these groups in order to make a study of the relative cost of egg production (table 103). 154 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Feed cost, as might be expected in view of the greater egg produc- tion, was highest for the hatching egg flocks. The same condition holds regarding labor cost, which was 31 per cent larger for the trap- nested flocks than for hatching egg flocks not trap-nested, and 43 per cent larger than commercial egg farms. The total cost of keep- ing a hen in the trap-nested flocks was 11.4 per cent more than in flocks not trapped and 25.8 per cent higher than for commercial egg producers. TABLE 103 Factors which Influenced Cost of Production on Hatching Egg and Commercial Egg Flocks. November 1924-October 1925 Hatching egg flocks Commercial egg Trap-nested flocks Flocks not trap-nested flocks 5 2,303 147 6 1,626 143 27 1,535 135 Per hen Per doz. Per hen Per doz. Per hen Per doz. Dollars 2 19 .45 .51 .97 .06 .32 .09 Cents 18.2 3.7 4.3 8.0 0.5 2.7 0.7 Dollars 2.27 .50 .25 .74 .06 .27 .04 Cents 19.1 4.2 2.1 6.2 0.5 2.2 0.4 Dollars 2.03 .58 Cents 18.1 5.1 .68 .06 .26 .04 6.1 0.5 2.3 0.3 Total 4.59 38 1 4.12 34.7 3.65 32.4 Comparative profits on hatching egg and commercial egg farms. — Trap-nest breeders made a little larger net profit per hen than did either hatching egg producers not trap-nesting or commercial egg operators (table 104). • When the farm income is considered, the operators who trap-nested are but little better off than the commercial egg producers, while hatching egg producers not trapping made 11 cents per hen greater farm income. Farm income was smaller for trap-nest operators than either of the other two, because of the heavy investment in buildings and equipment. Had the management of the commercial flocks been such as to have produced as many eggs as did the trap-nest flocks, their farm income would have been $1.53 per hen. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 155 TABLE 104 Profits from Hatching Egg and Commercial Egg Farms Hatching egg flocks Trap-nested flocks Flocks not trap-nested Commercial egg flocks 5 2,303 147 6 1,626 143 27 1,535 Average number of eggs per hen 135 Per hen Per doz. Per hen Per doz. Per hen Per doz. Gross income Dollars 5 18 4.59 .59 1 39 1 06 Cents 43.0 38.1 4.9 11.6 8.9 Dollars 4.65 4.12 .53 1.50 1.24 Cents 39.1 34.7 4 4 12 6 10.9 Dollars 4.12 3.65 .47 1 34 1.08 Cents 36.6 Total cost 32.4 4.2 Farm income 11.9 9.6 TABLE 105 Chickens on Farms — Number by Divisions and States 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920 and 1925 Division and State 1890 1900 1910 1920 1925* United States 258,871,125 233,566,021 280,340,959 359,537,127 Geographic Divisions: New England 6,315,804 21,794,146 58,929,771 73,772,352 39,774,247 36,686,526 20,423,478 1,709,813 5,464,988 6,440,678 21,511,436 58,104,189 65,364,879 22,293,912 22,965,751 27,333,880 3,116,639 6,434,657 6,840,404 24,448,840 69,471,093 85,192,266 25,626,503 24,495,050 29,176,267 5,467,234 9,623,302 5,803,507 27,452,439 84,516,275 105,347,758- 36,407,610 34,091,878 39,919,045 9,524,240 16,474,375 8,138,168 Middle Atlantic 34,828,825 East North Central 89,652,590 West North Central 123,076,892 East South Central West South Central Pacific New England: Maine 1,411,185 934,322 789,278 1,623,605 482,370 1,075,044 8,421,667 2.990,698 10,381,781 13,659,359 12,307,903 21,463,525 5,852,690 5,646,294 1,564,853 870,461 806,451 1,625,269 500,618 1,073,026 8,964,736 1,993,594 10,553,106 14,269,525 11,103,006 16,600,728 8,033,531 8,097,399 1,704,900 903,413 911,730 1,709,934 392,704 1,217,723 10,232,498 2,320,439 11,895,903 16,850,099 13,216,024 20,563,850 9,698,401 9,142,719 1,403,284 771,233 799,797 1,455,193 253,607 1,120,393 10,414,600 2,534,371 14,503,468 20,232,637 16,754,293 25,120,643 10,913,645 11,495,057 1,900,008 New Hampshire 1,207,034 Vermont 941,014 Massachusetts 2,029,819 Rhode Island 361,393 Connecticut 1,698,900 Middle Atlantic: New York 13,408,720 New Jersey 4,113,622 17,306,493 East North Central: Ohio 20,927,460 Indiana 17,355,369 Illinois 25,738,132 12,578,979 13,052,650 156 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Table 105 — (Continued) Division and State West North Central: Minnesota Iowa Missouri North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Kansas South Atlantic: Delaware Maryland District of Columbia. Virginia West Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Florida East South Central: Kentucky Tennessee Alabama Mississippi West South Central: Arkansas Louisiana Oklahoma Texas Mountain: Montana Idaho Colorado Wyoming New Mexico Arizona Utah Nevada Pacific: Washington Oregon California 1890 448,831 201,706 785,848 804,388 ,292,866 395,368 ,843,345 900,212 ,430,859 10,543 ,576,260 ,197,447 ,507,593 ,873,798 ,357,934 919,601 ,740,559 ,062,139 ,252,044 ,631,784 ,264,427 ,246,907 388,427 ,523,717 233,660 231,547 710,942 73,694 60,596 57,224 279,983 62,167 779,972 ,180,765 ,504,251 1900 7,730,940 18,907,673 14,903,601 1,409,285 3,028,700 7,417,837 11,966,843 628,866 2,113,544 8,004 4,590,311 2,759,585 3,871,858 2,664,784 4,549,144 1,107,816 6,849,079 6,184,210 4,737,606 5,194,856 5,393,157 3,890,563 4,487,858 13,562,302 531,774 516,412 968,761 142,136 156,853 165,200 534,842 100,661 1,196,639 1,290,818 3,947,200 1910 10,293,843 22,691,641 19,910,221 3,095,026 4,924,349 9,010,945 15,266,241 785,591 2,650,750 7,405 5,684,703 3,106,907 4,566,428 2,694,970 4,890,069 1,239,680 8,000,457 7,341,469 4,589,660 4,563,464 5,182,670 3,259,087 8,014,938 12,719,572 922,540 1,012,431 1,644,471 324,984 509,890 252,657 673,662 126,599 2,204,114 1,753,224 5,665,964 1920 13,212,619 27,746,510 24,883,985 4,328,567 6,641,572 11,615,257 16,919,248 948,656 3,436,376 10,370 7,860,488 4,027,510 7,393,161 3,954,365 7,221,788 1,554,896 10,477,598 11,353,647 5,918,429 6,342,204 6,955,132 3,763,910 11,137,259 18,062,744 2,055,120 1,654,771 2,874,721 620,734 713,937 495,065 954,695 155,197 3,547,604 2,500,123 10,426,648 1925* 30,275,338 28,222,087 5,181,246 7,905,661 13,499,515 21,584,965 1,365,032 4,198,305 16,492 4,349,406 4,238,254 2,130,297 6,281,690 13,023,482 2,544,698 2,028,805 3,751,618 808,994 635,877 1,366,873 225,300 5,393,262 12,784,512 * Preliminary announcement, subject to correction. Figures for 1890 and 1900 relate to June 1; for 1910 to April 15 and for 1920 and 1925 to January 1. Sources of data: Years 1890, 1900, 1910, and 1920 from Dept. of Commerce, Bureau Census, Four- teenth Census, U. S. 5: 610, 1922. Year 1925 from preliminary data furnished author by Census Bureau. Remaining data for January 1, 1925, is being compiled by Census Bureau. [BUL. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 157 TABLE 106 Chicken Eggs Produced — Number by Divisions and States, 1909, 1919, 1924 Per chicken, 1924 (Dozens) Total Division and State 1909 1919 1924* Per chicken United States 1,574,979,416 1,654,044,932 1924* Geographic Divisions: New England 54,688,994 37,631,896 56,539,947 6.95 Middle Atlantic 159,465,468 151,453,438 216,632,168 6.22 East North Central 389,256,925 400,445,456 441,678,127 4.93 West North Central 442,167,894 474,591,975 South Atlantic 134,289,761 144,662,300 East South Central 127,308,625 138,152,110 West South Central 163,644,118 157,008,422 Mountain 35,233,191 49,993,154 Pacific 68,944,440 100,106,181 New England: Maine 14,876,215 9,977,349 13,612,813 7.16 New Hampshire 7,469,472 5,005,302 8,181,291 6.78 Vermont 7,001,897 5,166,689 6,371,751 6.77 Massachusetts 13,961,352 9,604,274 14,324,666 7.06 Rhode Island 2,862,246 1,536,858 2,274,701 6.29 Connecticut 8,497,812 6,341,424 11,774,725 6.93 Middle Atlantic: New York 71,191,449 62,175,162 87,167,262 6.50 New Jersey 14,590,530 13,280,104 27,417,182 6.66 Pennsylvania 73,683,489 75,998,172 102,047,724 5.90 East North Central: Ohio 100,284,261 102,377,143 112,893,410 5.39 Indiana 80,028,638 83,101,293 86,974,603 5.01 Illinois 99,118,224 105,757,907 113,020,993 4.39 Michigan 59,556,356 55,986,999 68,208,777 5.42 Wisconsin 50,269,446 53,222,114 60,580,344 4.64 West North Central: Minnesota 53,323,702 60,249,543 76,321,570 4 65 Iowa 108,662,882 120,697,319 133,776,386 4.42 Missouri 110,922,159 117,203,569 North Dakota 17,069,496 20,820,407 20,987,697 4.05 South Dakota 24,641,342 30,351,984 35,103,838 4 44 Nebraska 46,460,624 49,132,537 54,811,233 4.06 Kansas 81,087,689 76,136,616 93,144,604 4.31 South Atlantic: Delaware 4,395,100 3,908,463 6,380,888 4.67 Maryland 15,238,591 15,085,691 20,068,986 4.93 District of Columbia 51,062 42,932 68,788 4.17 Virginia 34,539,082 36,551,269 West Virginia 18,948,259 21,708,279 22,124,842 5.09 North Carolina 23,179,226 24,841,021 South Carolina 10,983,171 12,812,143 11,109,184 2 62 Georgia 20,606,219 23,181,939 Florida 6,349,051 6,530,563 9,576,984 4.50 East South Central: Kentucky 43,781,616 42,224,720 Tennessee 41,244,285 48,707,146 Alabama 21,945,662 23,436,979 19,462,863 3.10 Mississippi 20,337,062 23,783,265 158 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Table 106 — (Continued) Total Per chicken Division and State 1909 1919 1924* 1924* West South Central: Arkansas 26,486,526 28,168,285 Louisiana 14,423,023 13,136,046 Oklahoma 45,356,592 45,440,017 51,477,222 3.95 Texas... 77,377,977 70,264,074 Mountain: Montana .". 5,950,015 11,858,042 13,403,326 5.27 Idaho 6,433,840 8,604,809 11,707,941 5.77 Wyoming 2,070,799 3,165,743 4,336,912 4.81 Colorado 10,577,829 14,172,375 18,061,043 5.36 New Mexico 2,961,352 3,062,790 Arizona 1,731,872 2,524,832 3,740,638 5.88 Utah 4,644,829 5,709,076 9,016,514 6.60 Nevada 862,655 895,487 1,436,468 6.38 Pacific: Washington 16,373,740 21,356,576 42,058,319 7.80 Oregon 11,835,462 14,625,720 California 40,735,238 61,123,835 97,937,325 7 66 * Preliminary announcement, subject to correction. Figures for 1890 and 1900 relate to June 1; for. 1910 to April 15 and for 1920 and 1925 to January 1. Sources of data: Years 1890, 1900, 1910, and 1920 from Dept. of Commerce, Bureau Census, Four- teenth Census, U. S. 5: 680, 1922. Year 1925 from preliminary data furnished author by Census Bureau. Remaining data for January 1, 1925, is being compiled by Census Bureau. TABLE 107 *Chickens Baised — Number by Divisions and States, 1909, 1919, 1924 1909 1919 1924 United States 460,611,201 473,301,959 Geographic Divisions: New England 10,756,947 8,477,360 13,539,820 Middle Atlantic 34,070,656 31,059,165 East North Central 98,895,698 99,251,552 West North Central 118,998,060 126,762,874 South Atlantic 65,058,950 65,374,047 East South Central 55,683,712 51,071,455 West South Central 54,701,253 57,328,795 Mountain 8,431,522 13,037,295 Pacific 14,014,403 20,939,416 New England: Maine 2,554,902 1,908,466 2,837,654 New Hampshire 1,362,577 1,172,274 2,441,812 Vermont 1,246,613 1,015,742 1,339,275 Massachusetts 3,054,934 2,401,068 3,731,769 Rhode Island 569,809 433,668 519,211 Connecticut 1,968,112 1,546,142 2,670,099 Middle Atlantic: New York 13,393,599 11,872,644 New Jersey 4,328,628 3,522,776 5,491,704 Pennsylvania 16,348,429 15,663,745 East North Central: Ohio 22,776,881 22,458,227 Indiana 22,098,966 22,618,296 Illinois 31,058,772 29,893,565 32,203,811 Michigan 12,529,844 12,441,555 15,275,548 Wisconsin 10,431,235 11,839,909 14,204,678 [BUL. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 159 Table 107 — (Continued) 1909 1919 1924 West North Central: Minnesota 11,412,001 15,062,386 20,352,255 Iowa 28,970,482 31,076,091 38,184,909 Missouri 30,413,289 29,363,102 North Dakota 3,829,177 5,324,137 5,721,854 South Dakota 5,802,869 7,637,808 10,607,376 Nebraska 14,724,281 15,796,750 20,310,433 Kansas 23,845,961 22,502,600 29,064,067 South Atlantic: Delaware 1,401,446 1,204,793 1,582,186 Maryland 5,419,957 5,257,655 6,025,180 District of Columbia 13,850 14,103 10,192 Virginia 15,182,753 14,227,483 West Virginia 5,204,967 4,873,287 5,304,124 North Carolina 13,765,827 14,047,006 South Carolina 8,062,383 9,015,952 7,829,998 Georgia 13,706,397 14,588,012 Florida 2,301,370 2,145,756 2,766,369 East South Central: Kentucky 17,572,773 15,506,845 Tennessee 15,865,254 15,554,496 Alabama 11,382,815 10,179,698 9,527,321 Mississippi 10,862,870 9,830,416 West South Central: Arkansas 9,673,838 9,111,223 Louisiana 5,830,049 5,570,587 Oklahoma 15,336,955 16,817,261 19,670,036 Texas 23,860,411 25,829,724 Mountain: Montana 1,366,835 3,226,538 Idaho 1,588,794 2,250,489 2,539,708 Wyoming 494,768 893,857 1,121,118 Colorado 2,585,132 3,880,873 New Mexico 893,831 920,979 Arizona 374,241 569,325 Utah 946,647 1,107,446 1,644,266 Nevada 181,274 187,788 280,451 Pacific: Washington 3,610,589 4,860,217 7,051,472 Oregon 2,554,583 3,150,155 California 7,849,231 12,929,044 14,382,861 * The figures represent chickens raised to a marketable size. They do not include baby chicks. Figures for 1890 and 1900 relate to June 1; for 1910 to April 15 and for 1920 and 1925 to January 1. Sources of data: Years 1890, 1900, 1910 and 1920 from Dept. of Commerce, Bureau Census, Four- teenth Census, U. S. 5: 682, 1922. Year 1925 from preliminary data furnished author by Census Bureau. Remaining data for January 1, 1925, is being compiled by Census Bureau. TABLE 108 Chickens on Hand, California, January 1, 1920, 1925, and Value January 1, 1925 1920 1925 1925 Number Number Value State total 10,426,648 12,784,512 $12,557,940 Alameda 307,092 516,646 495,980 Alpine 767 919 1,048 Amador 22,443 21,341 24,329 Butte 109,815 113,130 113,130 Calaveras 23,061 22,272 25,390 Colusa 59.340 58,069 58,069 Contra Costa 127,436 158,461 152,123 Del Norte 4,662 8,626 9,057 Eldorado 26,526 32,053 36,540 Fresno 307,727 313,788 301,236 Glenn 123,297 105,952 105,952 Humboldt 69,122 103,005 108,155 Imperial 264,123 190,656 192,563 Inyo 20,946 22,870 26,072 Kern 125,180 160,017 153,616 Kings 131,184 112,175 107,688 Lake 29,506 31,011 29,771 Lassen 25,521 24,280 17,482 Los Angeles 1,307,976 1,788,369 1,806,253 Madera 58,463 79,530 76,349 Marin 195,712 288,807 277,253 Mariposa 10,362 9,920 11,309 Mendocino 83,144 112,545 118,172 Merced 166,959 185,996 178,556 Modoc 22,555 20,604 14,835 Mono 2,282 8,656 9,868 Monterey 101,514 157,579 151,276 Napa 123,535 179,244 172,074 Nevada 24,570 24,631 28,079 Orange 184,401 224,796 227,044 Placer 72,667 90,953 103,686 Plumas 6,291 6,928 4,988 Riverside 219,791 402,139 406,160 Sacramento 240,632 449,058 449,058 San Benito 64,878 56,673 54,406 San Bernardino 191,949 317,211 320,383 San Diego 392,359 640,260 646,663 San Francisco 3,191 San Joaquin 290,239 327,469 314,370 San Luis Obispo 85,459 136,947 131,469 San Mateo 57,258 30,883 29,648 Santa Barbara 67,838 75,865 76,624 Santa Clara 219,729 220,047 211,245 Santa Cruz 222,306 387,048 371,566 Shasta 39,406 44,954 42,257 Sierra 2,776 2,565 2,924 Siskiyou 37,423 39,449 37,082 Solano 94,273 94,049 94,049 Sonoma 2,986,883 3,244,125 3,114,360 Stanislaus 330,488 348,839 334,885 Sutter 82,672 80,690 80,690 Tehama 82,001 89,780 89,780 Trinity 9,048 6,834 6,424 Tulare 373,999 359,873 345,478 Tuolumne 18,020 25,268 28,806 Ventura 60,770 101,118 102,129 Yolo 88,446 96,584 96,584 Yuba 26,635 32,955 32,955 Source of data: Year 1920, Dept. of Commerce, Bureau Census, Fourteenth Census, U. S. 6: pt. 3, pp. 350-355. 1925 figures furnished to author by Census Bureau. TABLE 109 Chickens Eaised, California 1919, 1924; Value, 1924 1919* 1919t 1924f 1924 Number Number Number Value State total 9,267,144 12,929,044 14,382,861 $12, 808,329 Alameda 284,902 387,300 665,957 559,404 Alpine 373 544 1,139 1,173 Amador 17,602 22,617 15,878 16,354 Butte 99,988 131,877 129,194 111,107 Calaveras 24,137 31,334 24,299 25,028 Colusa 46,244 64,241 64,224 55,233 Contra Costa 84,287 125,539 174,941 146,950 Del Norte 3,178 4,503 8,686 8,686 Eldorado 24,707 35,706 41,861 43,117 Fresno 273,308 418,778 390,352 339,606 Glenn 100,141 139,975 139,009 119,548 Humboldt 44,224 68,850 135,246 135,246 Imperial 154,179 244,399 205,527 199,361 Inyo 7,250 23,592 29,431 30,314 Kern 93,049 147,208 202,582 176,246 Kings 124,502 160,265 144,257 125,504 Lake 27,711 34,843 40,376 33,916 Lassen • '.. 27,793 35,060 34,016 24,151 Los Angeles 1,245,012 1,571,943 2,028,010 1,967,170 Madera 44,033 76,243 101,719 88,496 Marin 145,689 174,308 334,150 280,686 Mariposa .". 8,874 12,168 12,152 12,517 Mendocino 76,305 98,923 141,357 141,357 Merced 112,965 189,350 202,178 175,895 Modoc 26,941 31,793 27,795 19,734 Mono 2,301 3,336 7,055 7,267 Monterey 65,618 101,107 182,634 153,413 Napa 121,547 171,538 181,753 152,673 Nevada 26,583 29,353 24,311 25,040 Orange 114,890 201,816 260,089 252,286 Placer 91,645 112,286 111,599 114,947 Plumas 5,949 9,952 9,588 6,807 Riverside 201,133 289,253 421,040 408,409 Sacramento 348,280 502,087 597,696 514,019 San Benito 28,826 56,818 60,243 50,604 San Bernardino 222,549 278,767 326,410 316,618 San Diego 376,187 477,055 747,183 724,768 San Francisco 8,036 10,264 San Joaquin 342,860 501,435 403,442 350,995 San Luis Obispo 62,794 96,587 147,081 123,548 San Mateo 46,949 67,842 37,245 31,286 Santa Barbara 56,012 82,001 75,637 73,368 Santa Clara 314,123 520,514 484,543 407,016 Santa Cruz 218,606 297,424 408,723 343,327 Shasta 33,375 46,968 80,153 66,527 Sierra 2,476 2,826 2,093 2,156 Siskiyou 33,232 42,412 37,240 30,909 Solano 70,096 107,952 100,068 86,058 Sonoma 2,512,179 3,461,706 3,111,116 2,613,337 Stanislaus 246,442 371,251 372,560 324,127 Sutter 67,293 85,634 86,580 74,459 Tehama 97,430 118,437 138,351 118,982 Trinity 7,662 10,019 6,718 5,576 Tulare 305,267 432,361 401,618 349,408 Tuolumne 14,738 20,675 29,513 30,398 Ventura 40,477 62,638 91,208 88,472 Yolo 67,976 100,317 106,049 91,202 Yuba 15,949 24,514 38,986 33,528 Source of data: Year 1919, Dept. of Commerce, Bureau Census, Fourteenth Census, U. S. 6: pt, 3. pp. 350-355. 1925 figures furnished to author by Census Bureau. * Number actually reported, t Includes estimates. For purposes of comparison these columns should be used. TABLE 110 Chicken Eggs Produced, California, 1919, 1924; Value, 1924 1919* 1919t 1924f 1924 Dozen Dozen Dozen Value State total 57,659,313 64,123,885 97,907,325 $31,615,277 Alameda 2,392,395 2,480,104 4,310,378 1,379,321 Alpine 6,302 8,502 7,041 2,394 Amador 92,148 106,567 109,138 37,107 Butte 523,764 566,789 796,548 238,964 Calaveras 77,766 83,833 127,374 43,307 Colusa 188,591 224,225 449,802 134,941 Contra Costa 808,819 833,614 1,312,691 420,061 Del Norte 16,050 16,546 81,352 26,033 Eldorado 126,853 134,488 226,839 77,125 Fresno 1,388,220 1,579,412 1,835,974 569,152 Glenn 450,997 516,599 626.176 187,853 Humboldt 377,844 404,883 961,861 307.796 Imperial 766,949 957,793 876,636 298,056 Inyo 95,514 142,625 142,039 48,293 Kern 442,244 597,799 872,093 270,349 Kings 753,058 800,472 764,473 236,987 Lake 100,514 111,119 200,641 64,205 Lassen 121,565 124,682 122,930 40,567 Los Angeles 7,793,395 8,190,959 13,825,881 4,700,800 Madera 173,330 207,707 446,959 138,557 Marin 1,093,172 1,271,099 2,660,256 851,282 Mariposa 50,591 53,718 48,975 16,652 Mendocino 421,224 438,386 859,956 275,186 Merced 753,476 894,091 1,282,070 397,442 Modoc 123,518 127,175 119,029 39,280 Mono 9,281 10,647 69,713 23,702 Monterey 563,257 622,332 1,304,597 417,471 Napa 643,335 705,003 1,142,501 365,600 Nevada 144,310 146,912 160,668 54,627 Orange 967,747 1,233,742 1,749,587 594,860 Placer 370,572 389,880 707,796 240,651 Plumas 27,176 31,900 35,894 11,845 Riverside 1,120,579 1,237,544 2,660,149 904,451 Sacramento 1,218,376 1,285,391 4,787,856 1,436,357 San Benito 367,415 426,031 456,218 145,990 San Bernardino 943,471 1,043,234 2,045,377 695,428 San Diego 2,305,717 2,498,363 5,503,675 1,871,250 San Francisco 19,829 20,352 San Joaquin 1,183,000 2,837,234 2,238,251 693,858 San Luis Obispo 390.871 429,439 782,378 250,361 San Mateo 263,097 281,232 195,984 62,715 Santa Barbara 299,619 376,099 486,674 165,469 Santa Clara 1,109,532 1,252,590 1,528,667 489,173 Santa Cruz 1,523,711 1,733,236 3,654,120 1,169,318 Shasta 205,340 235,986 303,035 96,971 Sierra 15,603 15,746 11,707 3,980 Siskiyou 182,899 193,296 204,504 65,441 Solano 368,548 399,905 602,572 180,772 Sonoma* 19,684,744 20,480,588 26,313,098 8,420,191 Stanislaus 1,388,135 1,618,699 3,055,830 947,307 Sutter 362,042 394,394 535,378 160,613 Tehama 382,580 418,621 558,970 167,691 Trinity 43,514 50,532 36,869 11,798 Tulare 1,442,416 1,756,199 2,170,034 672,711 Tuolumne 72,209 77,375 148,348 50,438 Ventura 275,230 299,597 639,976 217,592 Yolo 520,829 571,525 569,556 170,867 Yuba 106,030 127,080 180,231 54,069 * Number actually reported. t Includes estimates. For purposes of comparison these columns should be used. t The number of eggs reported as produced does not equal the number of eggs shipped from l^etaluma, see Table 33. The author believes the Census figures are perhaps a little low. The above table, how- ever, is useful for purposes of comparison. Sources of data: Year 1920, Dept. of Commerce, Bureau Census, Fourteenth Census, U. fc>. 6: pt. 6, pp. 350-355. 1925 figures furnished to author by Census Bureau. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 163 TABLE 111 Net Wholesale Quotations, Fresh Extras, Los Angeles, 1910-1926 (Cents per dozen) Month 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 January February 37.8 27.3 25.0 26.0 26.9 27.6 32.3 35.8 42.5 45.8 49.8 40.8 36.3 31.0 23.2 23.1 23.5 25.2 29.0 34.2 37.8 45.3 47.4 42.5 33.8 26.8 24.6 24.0 20.8 26.0 28.8 31.5 38.8 43.6 50 39.2 34.6 26.1 22.6 21.3 22.1 24.5 26.6 32.5 37.3 44 1 50 43.6 43.2 31.8 23.2 25.1 25.8 27.5 29.8 35.0 37.7 48.8 47.2 46.6 34.2 27.9 22.3 23.9 25.0 23.8 27.5 32.0 36.0 43.7 47.8 40.4 36.0 29.0 22.2 24.5 25.6 27.3 28.0 33.4 39.0 48.0 50.8 41.8 37.7 29.7 March 27.1 April 32.5 32 9 33 1 July 35.6 41 3 47.2 54 8 November 56.0 52.5 34.8 33.2 32.3 32.1 35.1 32.0 33.8 40.0 Month 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 53.5 41.3 38.0 38.0 38.4 38.6 45.3 51.2 57.3 68.2 74.5 71.8 56.3 38.5 40.0 45.6 48.8 48.3 51.8 54.4 60.0 71.2 75.8 68.8 56.5 44.3 39.2 40.3 43.8 45.0 51.3 56.3 66.3 76.5 80.6 73.0 59.3 36.5 31.2 27.3 25.5 29.0 34.8 40.9 47.5 61.8 62.8 55.3 42.0 28.0 26.1 27.0 26.8 28.8 30.5 32.6 42.8 57.2 60.3 55.8 41.1 28.0 26.8 29.3 30.3 30.6 30.6 37.6 48.0 56.8 56.3 49.0 40.0 27.5 25.9 27.2 27.8 33.1 34.4 37.8 45.3 54.8 56.0 48.8 53.3 34.8 31.4 31.1 33.1 36.0 39.9 43.2 46.7 53.6 52.3 45.1 32.4 28.4 March 27.5 April 29.3 May 30.2 32.6 July 34.2 August 39.2 September 44.3 50.8 51.3 55.0 56.1 42.7 38.2 38.7 38.2 41.7 Source of data: Monthly figures are based on arithmetic average of Wednesday quotations appear- ing in California Cultivator. Computations involving use of wholesale prices are based upon the above table, except where otherwise noted. All quotations are net. 164 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION TABLE 112 Net Wholesale Quotations, Fresh Extras, San Francisco, 1910-1926 (Cents per dozen) Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Average 1910 32.5 26.9 21.6 24.5 25.3 27.0 29.8 35.1 40 6 46.6 54.5 41.1 33. 1911 31.6 25.8 18.7 19.5 21.4 21.7 25.9 31.1 38.3 45.6 49.6 39.5 30.7 1912 34.0 24.2 20.3 21.1 29.9 21.5 25 28.4 37.3 44.3 47.8 34.1 29 1913 19 18 19 21 24 26.8 32.0 38.9 48.7 55.6 44.3 31.5 1914 41.5 26.3 20.6 22.1 22.9 24.4 27.4 33.5 39.9 47.0 47.8 45.7 33.3 1915 29.3 22.3 20.8 21.9 23.1 22.6 25.2 31.0 36.2 46 3 51.8 39.7 30. 1916 48.6 31.7 1917 37.5 33.5 26.2 32.1 33.3 31.1 34.5 42.7 46.5 52.6 56.3 52.0 Month 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 57.7 38.6 36.6 36.4 36.7 39.0 43.7 50.2 57.4 70.0 75.6 81.4 56.6 37.6 38.5 43.8 47.2 46.5 49.5 53.4 62.5 72.5 78.7 71.6 57.7 45.0 39.1 41.2 41.9 43.1 51.8 55.5 67.2 76.9 80.0 69.2 55.1 34.1 30.1 25.6 23.1 26.8 37.3 41.0 47.5 59.0 59.7 50.6 35.3 27.4 23.5 25.2 24.8 25.8 26.4 30.0 44.5 58.4 56.4 48.5 37.2 27.7 24.7 27.2 28.3 27.8 28.7 37.6 46.6 55.8 51 2 44.3 36.4 26.6 22.8 24.6 25 1 30.0 32.4 35.7 45.9 51.9 51.9 47.4 46 8 28.6 30.1 29.5 31.7 34.9 38.4 40.9 45.6 53.9 53.1 43.9 33.6 26.0 26.6 27.5 May 28.1 June 30.9 July 33.5 38.1 43.6 50.2 51.9 54.9 55.7 40.8 35.5 36.4 35.9 39.8 Source of data: Monthly net wholesale quotations, computed by obtaining arithmetic mean of Wednesday quotations appearing in the Pacific Rural Press. Only net quotations were used, the dis- counts from January 1, 1918 to December 31, 1925 being deducted. All computations based on whole- sale prices at San Francisco are based upon the above table except where otherwise noted. [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 165 TABLE 113 Net Wholesale Quotations of Pullet Eggs, Los Angeles, 1917-1925 Month 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 34.2 27.1 25.3 28.5 29.4 30.6 32.5 37.0 38.6 43.8 49.8 47 5 50.7 39.8 35.7 36.0 36.1 35.1 42.6 46.5 50.0 56.8 64.3 66.2 53.3 36.7 36.5 43.4 47.0 44.3 45.4 50 .3 49.5 59.2 62.3 59.4 51.0 41.5 34.8 36.8 39.3 39.0 45.3 48.2 57.0 63.3 70.4 67.5 56.0 34.5 28.0 24.0 20.6 26.1 29.3 35.2 36.3 44.0 48.8 50.3 38.8 24.9 22.5 24.3 22.2 25.4 30.8 25.9 31.8 41.2 46.3 47.5 37.8 25.0 24.0 25.1 26.1 26.8 26.5 32.4 36.8 42.4 43.8 43.8 36.2 25.1 22.5 24.5 22.8 28.3 29.6 33.5 35.5 42.4 44.0 44.2 51.3 33.0 27.8 27.6 30.1 32.0 33.1 34.6 36.5 39.3 42.7 38.2 28 1 25.7 22.6 25.8 25.7 27.5 July 27.7 29.3 34.7 39.0 35.4 46 7 48.9 49.5 36.1 31.8 32.5 32.4 35.5 Source of data: Monthly quotations computed by author by using arithmetic mean of the weekly wholesale quotations in the California Cultivator. All quotations are on a net basis. TABLE 114 Wholesale Quotations of Pullet Eggs, San Francisco, 1911-1925 Month 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 31.3 21.0 19.0 18.6 17.7 17.1 21.8 23.8 30.8 32.5 39.8 28.5 26.4 18.5 16.1 17.1 18.0 22.3 23.1 26.1 31.8 39.8 48.8 43.1 39.1 24.8 18.5 19.6 21.0 21.9 23.4 27.5 33.1 37.6 38.1 36.4 29.4 20.9 18.1 18.6 20.3 19.8 22.8 25.9 31.7 38.3 43.3 34.2 30.9 24.9 17.6 19.3 20.3 22.4 24.8 28.7 33.1 41.3 39.6 34.3 35.2 27.8 25.1 28.9 30.1 29.3 31.8 39.0 43.6 44.8 52.0 45.9 53.5 February 38.8 March 34.9 35.2 18.6 18.3 20.9 24.7 27.8 35.9 42.6 33.6 35.0 June 35.9 July 41.1 47.0 52.8 October 61.3 62.3 72.7 25.2 27.6 28.4 26.9 28.1 36.1 47.5 Month 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 53.6 34.4 36.7 41.5 44.6 41.3 43 5 49.5 53.1 58.1 61.2 63.5 49.9 40.0 34.5 36.5 36.5 35.4 44.1 46.7 59.0 61.8 68.8 61.5 50.9 30.5 27.4 22.8 19.2 23.1 29.0 33.4 35.6 43.2 47.8 43.6 31.5 24.6 20.7 22.4 21.8 22.4 22.1 24.0 32.5 42.2 44 5 43.5 34.1 24.7 21.5 24.4 24.4 25.0 24.4 30.6 34.7 40.5 39.5 38.6 30.2 23.3 21.0 21.3 20.6 26.1 28.2 31.7 36.9 40.8 42.8 42.1 44.4 25.4 27.6 26.2 28.7 31.7 32.7 34.2 36.6 42.4 41.2 38.3 31.6 February 23.4 March 22.7 April 23.1 23.5 25.0 July 27.0 30.5 September 35.0 October 38.3 48.4 47.9 33.9 29.4 30.2 30.4 30.8 Source of data: Monthly quotations computed by author by using arithmetic mean of the weekly wholesale quotations in the Pacific Rural Press. All quotations since Jan. 1, 1918, were first reduced to a net basis. 166 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION pi ,Q a ^ a be g .5 « bc£ 2 ^> sx> Jh CSrtf — i— 1 g- . 05 pa ^ 0H «i Ph 03 »> bfi ® « 5 ft 'SrS^ 1— 1 H o 03 O OT3 O) TO ~ Sh hJ "=» & ft w W +a -H V ft o firs epoi n th fc © fH Q o H U p p o made th e in the flock w bC Ph pi - ■as E/3 i — l r& Ph — -a > Bl ~ a oj TJ •- 1 r/! o c u>> rt o oj S3 31 e3 U3 h^i to a) m^; I|l||.a Ph o3 -< c o.S ft 3SH 8 , BKa o3_Q £tJ orC «^ o 1 a ■ 3 bO >Z 00 *5 4) •PS ** S 5S O.C3 ag &.£• ■" -^ os o Kl IO » ^ 19 CO ■<* tO i-c 00 IN IO N N ^ IN M » mOWON CO tb IO io io CO U3 M 'f W N «5 O) tO t 00 H cq IN o lO^^MiO^iOO "5 IO ^N00U5 » IO U5 ^ OS S OO IO tO IO OS IO to to IO to 00 to 00 CO S OO s t>i o o OO i-H 00 (N CT) OS O 00 S rt O 5? 55 Pm ) 03 03 5 § « C3 55 ii'OilotaoS ojc3(hojooo;^ PS^^55»Ofe J V Is [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 167 a o a a m c bD—' 0> C •so 5 e in n N « m w CO CO CO CO CO CM -*c ll) CO CO 0,8 us O — I t^ 00 00 O M M o o CO 00 CO © O O CO CM i-H CM CO CO P-S.3& BT3 -a c3 01 c Oh cj S)c3 C.S" C Sj^Q Ctf-rt CD >3" o^ < c "o.S a bO >,« C a> 3 - >c * «5 CO CO © o © CO CM © oo oo © o US US CD O CM <* U5 U5 CO * cm" cm" cm co co CO CO H) CO U0 -^ l^ CO 1) co co <— i co .-H U0 t— US lO Ifl 11) CO w 00 00 —i CO »l) CO CM CM t* «5 Oi O) CM CM CM CM CM CO i-l »-l CO CO CO CO CO oo U) US CO CO CO o CO ©_ CO m<" t>T nS co" us us us S§ C .S ■» S» 2 • 2 .£? £ o S o r A .S « g eg o £ 3 S £ ■g Q | _ gj "£ 3 -o c r^ O o cu 03 S ^ w 55 M T3J (1 ~! d CJ ft 5 a ^j y d 0) u H a a -1 QQ m >> A sd 00 Cu S r, (0 ^J c • CO ll5»td»NMON ft, 8 115 N M lO o> m to tO tO tO tO 11) to to tONMONlOtON M^ttOlONXNO N IM M OO ffl U5 ■OCOlOINtJlONN CCMNOOtioCOIN j^ ■" CO ed fl o 0J > 6 ft, 8 —i CO O CM CO OS O OS OS OS lO »- ■* -H r-l OS OS OS CO &H 8 O to O O <-i H O W M O * « ^ H O! O •* ^H CO O CO i-i o o ft. 8 3 N SIN NNIN w h w n n co MnNCCMlQN^I (MCOOIOCOOSCOOS ^ T»l CM cmcmcocoos'— icsco cmo-^os^hos'^o ^ ~ 00 115 5 £ a, 8 3 Ol H 00 H Tf N O -H OS -^f CO O ^^ton^oioiio CMOOlt5t-~OSOt^ ~ 01 CO C3CC tt> s Q_j - .3 12 h s co .« r.' Pf3 3 = £- fc g 3 N 115 N O tO 115 ? ~ ~ CM C as »hT3 S R -^ G : -." •gas^ g b~ o> C Q - OOOO — OOS CM h lO M N t<3 M O tO CM* CM* rt" »-, .-," cm" CO i-T •^OOOCM-hOcMcOOOOO^H -Hasosr^tococMco-^CMt^- CM O CM ~ Sola's c § 3 fe.fl co £.S S co as 10 t^- t-h 1 ■»" co ^j -w c: N h co h n O to H o) 5 >£: M H M u S ^ H O ? p-p *< CO -Tj *rt M Jfl S -^ fl o^-ss-c-SS^sg^ "a o [Bul. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 169 TABLE 116 EGG EQUIVALENTS 1 doz. eggs in shell V/i lbs. liquid whole e 2\i lbs. liquid yolk 7 lbs. liquid albumen 12 chicken eggs (average U. S.) 12 guinea eggs 12 duck eggs 12 turkey eggs 12 goose eggs 20 chicken eggs (average French) 120 chicken eggs or a great hundred (English Domestic and Danish Domestic average) equal equal 1 lb. of frozen or liquid equal 1 lb. dried whole egg. equal 1 lb. dried yolk. equal 1 lb. dried albumen. 5G WEIGHTS equal \y % lbs. equal 17 or 18 ounces. equal 2 to 3 lbs. equal 2V 2 to 3 lbs. equal 4^ to 6 lbs. equal 1 kilogram or 2.2 lbs. 16 lbs. QUANTITY OF EGGS IN A CASE AND FREIGHT CAR 30 dozen eggs 400-500 cases 100 to 120 doz. eggs equal equal equal 1 case (American). 1 car (American). 1 case (English and Continental) MINIMUM WEIGHT OF FREIGHT CAR OF POULTRY AND EGGS Minimum car load (live poultry) Minimum car load (dressed poultry) Minimum car load (eggs)* equal equal equal 18,000 lbs. 20,000 lbs. 20,000 lbs. * Intrastate and certain southwestern states. Transcontinental — 26,000 lbs. Source of data: Furnished to author by U. S. D. A., Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washing- ton, D. C. 170 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION o EH Q a 8 IS tf «i ft « M H w Q fc «4 EH H o H 03 N s^ O O O O O O O o o o o o o o © ©_ © o_ o ©_ o 31 oo" oo" oo oo oo oo" 00 ft a 3 o a ft O O O O 0O «5 CO £ OO 00 00 OO (N * •* o ■*■*•* ^ •* 't ^ 3 hi o o o o o o o o i— I i-i ,— I i— 1 OS >0 CM -* H -H --H OS O O Hi g .2 O O O CO o o o o o o o o o o 03 o »o © >o o >o lO l-l iH l-l l-l o o oa 6% 0) ti b a G "S o o o © o o o ^ J-' 23 o o o o o o o o o ©^ © ©_ © o_ ©_ g3 ft I 1 '2 o T3 0) CO (N IM Ol IN N N N m V S3 O P b3 ft o © o o o o © s o o o o o o o o ro co co co co co co 3 ri CD fin J «5 lO lO IC lO lO O o ft »ra »o tf» »o 03 cni «-i lO lO tO lO ^ >C lO a o to o o o o o o o o o o o o o o © iO © to O © «5 05 Oi 03 Oi 00 05 t^ a P3 fl- 3 "S o o o o o © o rf -G o o o o o o o © ©_ ©^ ©_ ©_ © o on fat) 1*8 (O O tO ■>!<" ID (O (O CM CM CM CM CM CM CM w a ft o o o © o o o CO CO CO O CO CO CO o CM CM CM CO CM CM CM ft O O © O 0O lO CO o Hi OO OO 0C 00 CM >o -*t< p* ft h! S o o H ork, N. , Mass. elphia, . Fla rleans, fc, Mich o. Ill "$■ 03 •-* ri l> +? •« CD O -A -h >>>>>>>>.;>>>> G C fi fl c a 3 3 3 3 S 3 3 c cr c cr o" c o* a a a a a a a < < < >>.>>>>>>>>>> c c c a a c3 c3 c3 c3 c3 C CJ c3 o3 O* CT C O* C C O* fl C C C G CJ ej <3 o ■»}< CO Tf O O O co -* O Tt< «5 O «3 O ■* U5 Tf >)>>>>>>>>>>>> c3 c3 c3 c3 c3 & ci -33-3-3-3-3-3 O" CJ O" CT C O" O* c g c c a a a < < < < < < < tO CO O 1(3 * tO ■* fc i of • ,* ■! -a -3 § § ft ■^ << 3 ft ^ - o - "3 . T^ *T o >* S -5 -a o -s a 1 O " 03" HI! I 193 P 03 '•« 4) O -G S fc ft ft a 3 s r 2 fc Q o [BUL. 413 CALIFORNIA POULTRY INDUSTRY 171 INDEX PAGE Summary 3 The general situation 5 Importance of the industry 5 Importance of poultry in California 7 Geographic distribution of the poultry industry 8 Mississippi Valley 8 Northeastern States 10 Pacific Coast States 10 Rocky Mountain and Southern States 10 Development of the poultry industry 11 United States 11 California 15 Trend toward egg breeds in the Middle West 19 Poultry other than chickens 20 Prices and purchasing power of eggs 20 Egg prices and general commodity prices United States 20 Purchasing power of eggs, California 26 Comparative prices of eggs in certain cities 30 Purchasing power of eggs and other agricultural commodities, United States 32 Monthly index of purchasing power, San Francisco and Los Angeles 33 Seasonal variation in prices of extra and pullet eggs 35 The egg-feed price ratio 36 Egg-feed price ratio, Petaluma 36 Seasonal variation 40 Sources of California poultry feeds 42 Price relationships between grades of eggs 43 Relations between the quotations of pullet and extra eggs on the San Francisco and Los Angeles market 43 Seasonal variation 44 Per capita yearly consumption of eggs 47 United States...., 47 Comparison of United States with certain foreign countries 47 Egg products 48 United States standards for eggs 48 Commercial hatcheries in California 49 Receipts of eggs 54 San Francisco and Los Angeles 54 Daily receipts and prices, San Francisco 61 Pullet and extra eggs 63 Egg shipments 67 Markets for California eggs 67 Shipping centers for interstate movements 69 Shipments from Petaluma 70 The New York market 73 Comparative prices, New York and San Francisco 83 172 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION PAGE Preference for white and brown eggs 85 Cold storage holdings 86 Shell eggs 86 Frozen eggs 89 Prices and purchasing power of chickens 92 United States 92 California 92 Seasonal variation in prices, San Francisco and Los Angeles 103 Receipts of poultry, cold storage 105 Live poultry. California 105 Dressed poultry. California 109 Cold storage holdings, Pacific area 114 Per capita consumption of poultry 117 Exports and imports of poultry and poultry products , 118 The tariff on eggs and poultry 123 The international trade in poultry and poultry products 124 Foreign poultry statistics 131 North and South America (Canada, Mexico, Argentine and other South American countries) 131 Effect of European climate on poultry production and quality 133 European statistics (United Kingdom. Ireland. Denmark, Germany, Russia. Poland. Latevia, France, Belgium. Holland, Italy, Hungary, Roumania Bulgaria) 134 Africa (Egypt, Algeria. Morocco. South Africa) 141 China, Japan, Australia, New Zealand 142 International trade — poultry 145 Cost of producing eggs, Sonoma County, California. 1924-1925 146 Size of flocks 146 Production as related to costs and profits 151 Hatching and commercial egg farms 153 Appendix — Tables 155 STATION PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FOB FREE DISTRIBUTION No. 253. Irrigation and Soil Conditions in the Sierra Nevada Foothills, California. 261. Melaxuma of the Walnut, "Juglans regia." 262. Citrus Diseases of Florida and Cuba Compared with Those of California. 263. Size Grades for Ripe Olives. 268. Growing and Grafting Olive Seedlings. 273. Preliminary Report on Kearney Vine- yard Experimental Drain. 275. The Cultivation of Belladonna in California. 276. The Pomegranate. 277. Sudan Grass. 278. Grain Sorghums. 279. Irrigation of Rice in California. 283. The Olive Insects of California. 294. Bean Culture in California. 304. A Study of the Effects of Freezes on Citrus in California. 310. Plum Pollination. 312. Mariout Barley. 313. Pruning Young Deciduous Fruit Trees. 319. Caprifigs and Caprification. 324. Storage of Perishable Fruit at Freez- ing Temperatures. 325. Rice Irrigation Measurements and Experiments in Sacramento Valley, 1914-1919. 328. Prune Growing in California. 331. Phylloxera-Resistant Stocks. 335. Cocoanut Meal as a Feed for Dairy Cows and Other Livestock. 339. The Relative Cost of Making Logs from Small and Large Timber. 340. Control of the Pocket Gopher in California. 343. Cheese Pests and Their Control. 344. Cold Storage as an Aid to the Mar- keting of Plums. 346. Almond Pollination. 347. The Control of Red Spiders in Decid- uous Orchards. 348. Pruning Young Olive Trees. 349. A Study of Sidedraft and Tractor Hitches. 350. Agriculture in Cut-over Redwood Lands. 352. Further Experiments in Plum Pollina- tion. 353. Bovine Infectious Abortion. 354. Results of Rice Experiments in 1922. 357. A Self-mixing Dusting Machine for Applying Dry Insecticides and Fungicides. 358. Black Measles, Water Berries, and Related Vine Troubles. 361. Preliminary Yield Tables for Second Growth Redwood. 362. Dust and the Tractor Engine. 363. The Pruning of Citrus Trees in Cali- fornia. 364. Fungicidal Dusts for the Control of Bunt. 365. Avocado Culture in California. 366. Turkish Tobacco Culture, Curing and Marketing. 367. Methods of Harvesting and Irrigation in Relation of Mouldy Walnuts. 368. Bacterial Decomposition of Olives dur- ing Pickling. 369. Comparison of Woods for Butter Boxes. BULLETINS No. 370. 371. 372. 373. 374. 375. 376. 377. 379. 380. 381. 382. 383. 385. 386. 387. 388. 389. 390. 391. 392. 393. 394. S95. 396. 397. 398. 399. 400. 401. 402. 403. 404. 405. 406. 407. 408. 409. 410. 411. 412. 413. 414. Browning of Yellow Newtown Apples. The Relative Cost of Yarding Small and Large Timber. The Cost of Producing Market Milk and Butterfat on 246 California Dairies. Pear Pollination. A Survey of Orchard Practices in the Citrus Industry of Southern Cali- fornia. Results of Rice Experiments at Cor- tena, 1923. Sun-Drying and Dehydration of Wal- nuts. The Cold Storage of Pears. Walnut Culture in California. Growth of Eucalyptus in California Plantations. Growing and Handling Asparagus Crowns. Pumping for Drainage in the San Joaquin Valley, California. Monilia Blossom Blight (Brown Rot) of Apricot. Pollination of the Sweet Cherry. Pruning Bearing Deciduous Fruit Trees. Fig Smut. The Principles and Practice of Sun- drying Fruit. Berseem or Egyptian Clover. Harvesting and Packing Grapes in California. Machines for Coating Seed Wheat with Copper Carbonate Dust. Fruit Juice Concentrates. Crop Sequences at Davis. Cereal Hay Production in California. Feeding Trials with Cereal Hay. Bark Diseases of Citrus Trees. The Mat Bean (Phaseolus aconitifo- lius). Manufacture of Roquefort Type Cheese from Goat's Milk. Orchard Heating in California. The Blackberry Mite, the Cause of Redberry Disease of the Himalaya Blackberry, and its Control. The Utilization of Surplus Plums. Cost of Work Horses on California Farms. The Codling Moth in Walnuts. Farm-Accounting Associations. The Dehydration of Prunes. Citrus Culture in Central California. Stationary Spray Plants in California. Yield, Stand and Volume Tables for White Fir in the California Pine Region. Alternaria Rot of Lemons. The Digestibility of Certain Fruit By- products as Determined for Rumi- nants. Factors Affecting the Quality of Fresh Asparagus after it is Harvested. Paradichlorobenzene as a Soil Fumi- gant. A Study of the Relative Values of Cer- tain Root Crops and Salmon Oil as Sources of Vitamin A for Poultry. The California Poultry Industry; a Statistical Study. Planting and Thinning Distances for Deciduous Fruit Trees. No. 87. Alfalfa. 117. The Selection and Cost of a Small Pumping Plant. 127. House Fumigation. 129. The Control of Citrus Insects. 136. Melilotus indica as a Green-Manure Crop for California. 144. Oidium or Powdery Mildew of the Vine. 157. Control of the Pear Scab. 160. Lettuce Growing in California. 164. Small Fruit Culture in California. 166. The County Farm Bureau. 170. Fertilizing California Soils for the 1918 Crop. 173. The Construction of the Wood-Hoop Silo. 178. The Packing of Apples in California. 179. Factors of Importance in Producing Milk of Low Bacterial Count. 190. Agriculture Clubs in California. 199. Onion Growing in California. 202. County Organizations for Rural Fire Control. 203. Peat as a Manure Substitute. 209. The Function of the Farm Bureau. 210. Suggestions to the Settler in California. 212. Salvaging Rain-Damaged Prunes. 215. Feeding Dairy Cows in California. 217. Methods for Marketing Vegetables in California. 220. Unfermented Fruit Juices. 228. Vineyard Irrigation in Arid Climates. 230. Testing Milk, Cream, and Skim Milk for Butterfat. 231. The Home Vineyard. 232. Harvesting and Handling California Cherries for Eastern Shipment. 234. Winter Injury to Young Walnut Trees during 1921-22. 235. Soil Analysis and Soil and Plant Inter-relations. 236. The Common Hawks and Owls of California from the Standpoint of the Rancher. 237. Directions for the Tanning and Dress- ing of Furs. 238. The Apricot in California. 239. Harvesting and Handling Apricots and Plums for Eastern Shipment. 240. Harvesting and Handling Pears for Eastern Shipment. 241. Harvesting and Handling Peaches for Eastern Shipment. 243. Marmalade Juice and Jelly Juice from Citrus Fruits. 244 Central Wire Bracing for Fruit Trees. 245. Vine Pruning Systems. 247. Colonization and Rural Development. 248. Some Common Errors in Vine Prun- ing and Their Remedies. 249. Replacing Missing Vines. 250. Measurement of Irrigation Water on the Farm. 252. Supports for Vines. 253. Vineyard Plans. 254. The Use of Artificial Light to Increase Winter Egg Production. CIRCULARS No. 255. 256. 257. 258. 259. 261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 269. 270. 272. 273. 274. 276. 277. 278. 279. 281. 282. 283. 284. 285. 286. 287. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 293. 294. 295. 296. 298. 299. 300. 301. 302. 303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308. Leguminous Plants as Organic Fertil- izer in California Agriculture. The Control of Wild Morning Glory. The Small-Seeded Horse Bean. Thinning Deciduous Fruits. Pear By-products. Sewing Grain Sacks. Cabbage Growing in California. Tomato Production in California. Preliminary Essentials to Bovine Tuberculosis Control. Plant Disease and Pest Control. Analyzing the Citrus Orchard by Means of Simple Tree Records. The Tendency of Tractors to Riso in Front: Causes and Remedies. An Orchard Brush Burner. A Farm Septic Tank. California Farm Tenancy and Methods of Leasing. Saving the Gophered Citrus Tree. Fusarium Wilt of Tomato and its Con- trol by Means of Resistant Varieties. Home Canning. Head, Cane, and Cordon Pruning of Vines. Olive Pickling in Mediterranean Coun- tries. The Preparation and Refining of Olive Oil in Southern Europe. The Results of a Survey to Determine the Cost of Producing Beef in Cali- fornia. Prevention of Insect Attack on Stored Grain. Fertilizing Citrus Trees in California. The Almond in California. Sweet Potato Production in California. Milk Houses for California Dairies. Potato Production in California. Phylloxera Resistant Vineyards. Oak Fungus in Orchard Trees. The Tangier Pea. Blackhead and Other Causes of Loss of Turkeys in California. Alkali Soils. The Basis of Grape Standardization. Propagation of Deciduous Fruits. The Growing and Handling of Head Lettuce in California. Control of the California Ground Squirrel. The Possibilities and Limitations of Cooperative Marketing. Poultry Breeding Records. Coccidiosis of Chickens. Buckeye Poisoning of the Honey Bee. The Sugar Beet in California. A Promising Remedy for Black Measles of the Vine. Drainage on the Farm. Liming the Soil. A General Purpose Soil Auger and its Use on the Farm. American Foulbrood and its Control. Cantaloupe Production in California. The publications listed above may be had by addressing College of Agriculture, University of California, Berkeley, California. 15w-ll,'26