um mwm\

TREiDS m nmm

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultursl Marketing Service

Agricultural Economics Division

Washington, D.C.

Agriculture Handbook No.iB7
N PREFACE

This 'bulletin represents the joint effort of several economists in the

Consumption Section of the Agricultural Marketing Service, vdth the aid of

AMS livestock and meat specialists. Primary responsibility for drafting the

body of the report was Gertrude Gronbech's. She received technical

assistance from Thomas J. Lanahan, Jr., who in turn worked in cooperation

with Marguerite C. Burk in writing the technical appendixes. In planning

and preparing the bulletin, the authors benefited from suggestions made by

marketing personnel of the Federal and State Extension Services, whose

assistance they desire to acknowledge.

July i960

For sale by the Superintendent of Docvunents, U. S. Government Printing Office,

Washington 25, D. C. - Price 40/
CONTENTS

Pa^e

Summary 1

Section I. Trends in meat ?onsuniption 3

Trends for kinds of meat 3

Increases in demand for meat k

Supply factors related to meat consumption 5

Meat p2X)duced for home use 7

Changes in retail prices 8

Trends in retail value 8

Section II. Variations in household meat consumption 10

Possible effects of timing of 1955 survey on these variations 11

Influence of distribution of population on averages 12

Variations in consunçtion of all meat 12

Variations in consuBÇtion of kinds of meat I5

Influence of home production on variations in consumption I9

Variations in the value of meat consumed 20

Section III. Regional structure of the U. S. market for meat 22

The market for all meat 22

The maricet for each kind of meat 23

Conçarison of regional shares of production and of the market 2k

Section IV. Meat consumption outside households 27

Kinds and cuts of meat 28

Special marketing services 28

Section V. Inçlications for future meat consiançtion 29

Changes in consunçtion patterns 29

Summary of projected economic framevork for 1975 to I960 30

Projections of food and meat consumption 03^

Indications of further changes in meat purchases and marketing 3I

Tables ^j^

Appendix A. Data on meat consumption 41|.

Appendix B. Information on prices, income, expenditures, and

population j-^

Appendix C. Use of meat consumption data in analyses 53

Bibliography ^

- i
GUIDE TO FIGURES AND TABLES

Fifflre No. Title Pa^

1 Meat consumed per capita 1^

2 Beef and pork production and population g

3 Meat and all retail prices o

^ Regions used in survey ( United States) n

5 Distribution of household population by urbanization, spring I955 I3

6 Meat consumed in U. S. households grouped by income, week of spring I955 ik

7 Kinds of meat consumed, spring 1955 I5

8 Regional differences in beef consumed at home (per person) I6

9 Regional differences in pork consumed at home (per person) I7

10 Pork and beef consumed in U. S. households grouped by income, ^/eek of

spring 1955 18

11 Regional differences in value of meat consumed at home (per person) 20

12 Regional shares of housekeeping population and household expenditures for

meat, spring 1955 23

13 Regional shares of animals marketed, meat produced and purchased, I955 25

Table No.

1 Per capita meat consumption, by kinds, and population, I909-58 3I1

2 Quantity of meat used per person, by region, urbanization, and income,

spring 1955 35

3 Quantity of beef used per person, by region, urbanization, and income,

spring 1955 36

h Quantity of pork used per person, by region, urbanization, and income,

spring 1955 3Y

5 Retail value of all meat, beef, and pork used per person and percentage of the

United States average, by region and urbanization, spring I955 38

6 Retail value of ell meat, beef, and pork used per person, by urbanization and

income, spring 1955 39

7 Quantity of all meat, beef, and pork purchased per person in farm households,

by region and income, spring I955 kO

8 Distribution of households and of members of housekeepirg families, by region

and urbanization, spring I955 kl

9 Distribution of households and of members of housekeeping families, by region

and income, spring I955 tó

10 Distribution of members of housekeeping families in first quarter 19i|-2 and

spring 1955^ t)y urbanization and income hi

- ii -
MEAT CONSUMPTION TREIŒ)S AND PATTERNS

Consioiiiption Section

Statistical and Historical Research Branch

Agricultural Economics Division

SUMMARY

Major research findings on meat consumption in the United States already

published are summarized in this report for use hy Extension personnel, market

researchers in the food industries, and others concerned with market

development.

Covered in the five sections of this report are: (l) Description of

historical trends in meat consuinption and related economic changes; (2) variations in household meat consumption by region, urbanization, and income as

revealed by special surveys; (3) analysis of the regional structure of the U, S.

market for meat based on household survey data; {k) some informs.tion on meat

consumption outside private homes; (5) implications for future changes in meat

consuiiçtion. Tables and appendixes provide data and technical information for

further analysis.

As background, here are some indications of the importance of meat for

agricTilture, the food marketing industry, and consumers. Almost a third of

the total cash receipts from farming comes from the sale of meat animals. The

meat packing industry is one of the major food manufacturing industries,

ranking second only to bakeries in the number of employees and thiixi in the

value added by manufacture.

For the consumer, meat ranks high as a food in terms of expenditures,

consumer preferences, and nutritive content. A fourth of the money households

spend for food to be used at home is for meat. In addition, some households

produce meat for their own use, amounting to a fifth of the value of all homeproduced food. Very little infonnation is available on the use of meat other

than in households. However, expenditures for meat by people living in

institutions as vrell as for meals in restaurants, in-plant feeding, and other

such meals away from home undoubtedly represent a significant part of the total

food bill.

Per capita consujirption of meat today is about the same as it \;aG 50 years

ago, but is much higher than in the mid-1930's. Meat consumption has increased

since the 19.30's concurrently with rising consumption of dairy products, e^^s,

poultry, and processed fruits and vegetables. Greater purchasing power has

resulted in increased meat buyiMij. Leat supplies during the past quarter

centuiy have increased faster than population.

Certain rigidities in the livestock industry lead to cyclical patterns

of supply around the general trend. Tlie pork production cycle is about

k years in length. The cattle cycle has shortened somewhat in the last half

century; it now runs about 9 or 10 years. These cycles matei'ially

supplies of meat for civilian consujirption.

o.frect
- 2 -

Future advances in technology that result in reduced perishability of

meat could cause cyclical and seasonal fluctuations in supply to te reduced by

changes in stocks. The flow of meat into distribution would follow more

closely the somewhat steadier trend in consumer demand for meat.

Variations in the consumption of meat are greater among regions of the

country than among urbanization categories — urban, inral nonfarm, and farm.

But per person averages of meat consumption differ still more among households

grouped by income than among either regions or urbanizations. Urban and farm

households used about the same amount of meat per person in spring 1955 in the

3 regions outside the South. Meat purchases vary much more among urbanization

categories than do meat consumption rates. The effect of home-produced

supplies on rural puix:hases is reflected here.

The influence of level of family income on meat consumption is not the

same for each kind of meat; it is less for pork than for other meats. But even

in the case of pork, family income strongly influences choice of cuts.

Among regions, the range in the values of meat used per person in spring

1955 was greater than was the range in quantities used. The South consumed

less meat per person and used less expensive meat. Meat used per person in

households grouped by income also differed more in value than in quantity used.

Relative to the size of population, the Northeast and the V/est constitute the two largest markets for meat for household consimption, and the South,

on this same basis, the smallest market. In terms of expenditures, the

Northeast has a smaller share of the market for pork and a much larger share

for veal, lamb and mutton than for beef or for all meat. Unlike the other

regions, the South's share of the inarket for pork is much larger than its share

of the market for other meats.

In the Northeast, about three times as much of each kind of meat is

bought as produced. The South imports pork and also hogs for slaughter to

supply more than half its demand for pork.

No comprehensive information on meat consumption outside private homes

is available, though it is kno\/n that about I8 percent of the food sold to

U. S. civilians is handled by eating places. V/e do not know how much of this

total is meat or any other commodity.

A recent set of projections of per capita utilization of farm commodities;

from I95ÍÍ to 1980,includes an 11 percent increase per capita for all farm foods,

12 percent for food use of livestock products, and 16 percent for meat animals.

Increases in per capita purchases of food and of meat products are likely to be

somewhat greater than the projected increase for food from all sources, including home-produced supplies. Greater pressure of demand on beef than on

pork supplies is expected. Stronger demand for higher grades and better cuts

might lead to a -neater price spread ajuong cuts and grades of meat. This is

likely to encourage further improvement of livestock.
- 3 -

SECTION I. TRENDS IN MEAT CONSUMPTION

This section deals with historical trends in average quantity, retail

prices, and retail value of meat consumed, and relates them to major changes

in meat supplies and consumer demand.

Consumption of meat per capita is about the same now as 50 years ago,

but much higher than in the mid-1930's (fig. l). l/ The general trend in

average consumption was downward from about I910 until the 1930's. In I935

consumption fell to the lowest point on record, II7 pounds per person (carcass

weight), the result of drought and emergency slaioghter in preceding years.

After 1935 the trend was upward. The highest rate since I908 was set in

1956 -- 167 pounds. Following 1956, cyclical swings in meat production reduced

average consumption, but it increased again in 1959.

Along with an increase in meat consumption since the mid-1930's came

the rise in per capita consumption of other livestock products — dairy

products, eggs, poultry — and of processed fruits and vegetables. In contrast,

consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables, potatoes, sweetpotatoes, and cereal

products has decreased, particularly after World V/ar II.

Trends for Kinds of Meat

In general, per capita consumption of both beef and pork decreased from

the early 1900's to the mid-1930's, then began to increase. However, beef and

pork consumption often fluctuated from the genral trend in opposite directions.

In the 1950's the trend in pork consumption was downward, that of beef upward.

Per capita consumption of pork today is about the same as it was 50 years

ago. It dropped sharply after the severe drought and reduction in hog numbers

of the mid-1930's, then increased, reaching high levels during World II and

the postwar years. Since 1946 the general trend has been do\mward, but

recently supply, and therefore consumption, started to increase again.

1/ Historical data on annual consumption are given in table 1. (Tables begin

on page 3^.) Additional information may be found in Agr. Handb. 62 Consumption

of Food in the United States, 1909-52 (¿) ,* table 8, carcass weight; table 28,

retail weight; and table ^k, supply and distribution data, including production and foreign trade, Statis. Bui. 230 Livestock and Meat Statistics 1957 (7)

and Vol. 5 of Agr. Handb. II8 Consumption and Utilization of Agricultural

Products (IX). National Food Situation (10) and Livestock and Meat

SjLti^^tion (6) regiaarly report current meat consuniption data.

* Numbers in parentheses refer to citations in the Bibliography, which

provides detailed references.
- Il

MEAT CONSUMED PER CAPITA

POUNDS

150

100

Lamb and muHon

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

^CARCASS WEIGHTS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEO. 42S-«0(3) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

Figui^ 1

In contrast to the rate of use of pork, per capita consumption of beef

increased sharply in the mid-1950's. The consumption rate for beef has

recently leveled off to a point slightly above that of 50 years ago, but there

are some indications that it may climb again in the 1960's.

Average consumption of veal and lamb and mutton, which are much less

important in the total meat picture than beef or pork, increased fix^m the

1930's through World War II, then decreased. Veal consumption experienced

somewhat more of a comeback in the mid-1950's, but dropped sharply during the

last few years. The supply of veal from dairy calves has fallen as the niimber

of milk cows has declined.

Increases in Demand

for Meat

The increase in per capita consumption of meat since the 1930's occurred

during a period of increasing employment and rising incomes. Greater purchasing power encouraged increased purchases of meat, and meat supplies rose

faster than population grew.

Demand for meat has risen concurrently with increased consumption of

such meat substitutes as poultry, eggs, and cheese. Increased demand for nieat

has been reflected not only in the average number of pounds consumed per capita)
- 5 "

but also in stronger demand for better quality and in higher prices paid,

especially for beef.

After 1935, feeding of grains increased, and production of the higher

grades of beef gained in iutportance. Contributing to upgrading the beef supply

was the decline in the relative number, and since World War II in the actual

number, of dairy cows. This reduced the proportion of steers frx)m dairy herds

and increased the share of beef type, which grade higher than dairy animals.

In the late 1920's less than a third of beef production was fed beef, which

supplies most of the higher grades. By the end of World War II the top three

grades — Prime, Choice, and Good — amounted to half of the beef supply. For

1956 the proportion was 58 percent.

Increased demand for higher grades by retailers as well as consumers

has been encouraged by several developments. Large-scale buyers such as chain

stores can now order by grade specification more easily than they can by

inspection, the prevailing practice in the past. Retail stores favor higher

grades of beef in order to capitalize on the established reputation of the

higher U. S. grades and to avoid occasional complaints about toughness, more

lilœly to occur in the case of lower grades. Retail stores also appreciate

that in the self-service meat counters, which are increasing in use, better

grades maintain their appearance for a longer period of time than the lower

grades do. People are also eating away from home more often than formerly,

and this has probably contributed to increases in demand for higher grades of

beef. 2/

Sup-ply Factors Related

to Meat Consumption

Since meat is perishable and imports and e:>cports are relatively small,

each year's civilian consumption is roughly equal to current domestic production minus procurement for the Armed Forces. Imports seldom provide a sizable

addition to supply.

Several developments that have facilitated the increase in meat production are: Technological and organizational ijirprovements in production of feed,

meat animals, and meats; demand for related livestock products such

as dairy products and wool; improvements in marketing; and technological

changes in freezing facilities.

How producers respond to demand depends in part on feed supplies and

livestock prices,current and expected. But as they respond to demand, certain

rigidities in the livestock industry lead to a cyclical pattern of supply around

2/ For further discussion of grades see Williams, Willard F. and others

Ecpnçmic Effects of U^ S^ Grades for Beef (112) and an address by John C. '

Pierce, "Beef Grades and Standards -- Past and Present" (^ô) .
- 6 -

the general trend. Short-term fluctuations in supply occur within cyclical

patterns for both beef and pork. ^ Supplies depend on the stage in the

cycle, whether in the expanding or declining phase (fig. 2).

Certain characteristics of the livestock industiy affect the timing and

degree of changes in supply in response to changes in demand. Hog production

shifts with the price of feed illative to the expected price for hogs. Although

it is less so now than some years ago, the demand and supply situation for fat

still ha^ some influence on hog production. Since it is relatively easy for

fanners to expand or contract the number of hogs raised, market conditions

affect production relatively quickly. Year to year variations in com production have less effect on pork supply than formerly, as com is now

available from Government suiplus stocks. Pork supply follows closely the

number of pigs saved, with a 7- to ^-TûontYi lag. The pork production cycle is

about k years in length.

BEEF AND PORK PRODUCTION

AND POPULATION

% OF 1900-1909

50

0

Beef and veal

1900 1920 1940 1960

U. i. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. 7689-40(3) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

Figure 2

¿/ Brelmyer, Harold F. "Problems and Probable Trends in Adjusting Livestock

Production to Changes in Food Habits" (iiO), "Emerging Phenomenon: A Cycle in

Hogs" (2^, and "Observations on the Cattle Cycle"(Jii)- See also pp. 1^10 of

"Review and Outlook," Livestock and Meat Situation. Aug. I958 (I08).
- 7 -

In the cattle industry^ high investment per head and the long life span

and single "births of cattle make a longer range outlook more important for

cattlemen than for most farmers. Furthermore, many cattlemen have few or no

alternative enterprises to which they can shift. However, they do have some

lee^vay with regard to the time of selling cattle for slaughter or further

feeding — from the weaning of a calf up to a year or more later. Another

factor in "beef and veal production is the demand and supply situation for dairy

products, which influences production of cow beef and veal from dairy herds.

In short, these characteristics of the cattle industry lead to relatively slow

changes in supply, with prices tending to move inversely to supply.

Supplies of beef and veal are subject to a longer cyclical pattern than

pork. The cattle supply cycle now runs 9 or 10 years in length. It is

shorter than it was earlier in the century, and there are signs that it may be

still further reduced. Slaughter for consumption follo^>rs a pattern similar to

the cattle supply cycle, but with a few years* lag. Slaughter tends to show

wider variations than number of cattle on hand, since slaughter is curtailed

while herds are being expanded and increases sharply when herds are being

reduced.

The sheen industry is undergoing some changes that are causing supplies

to decrease. Large range flocks in the West are decreasing in number, because

farmers are shifting from sheep to cattle raising, since cattle require less

labor. However, the number of farm flocks in other regions in recent years

has increased, thus offsetting somewhat the drop in supplies from the West.

The increase has been feasible through improved control of disease and insects.

Farm flocks make use of land and feed not otherwise utilized by farm operations

in these areas. The supply and demand situation for wool influences lamb and

mutton supply to some extent, though not as much as in the past. Short-run

changes in the sheep industry are fairly easy to make; hence relatively fast

changes in supply are possible, though not as fast as with hogs.

Supplies of lamb and mutton have varied a great deal in the past but not

in a clear-cut cyclical pattern.

Meat Produced for

Home Use

Not all meat comes from commercial supply. As farmers produce much meat

for their own use, the decrease in the number of farmers has resulted in less

total production of meat for home use. However, the average quantity of homeproduced meat per person living on farms is greater now than 20 years ago.

This is due to increased use of beef, and this in turn has been related to

greater availability of freezing facilities in recent years. Home production

of pork dropped, especially after World War II, but it still exceeds the

quantity of beef home produced.
- 8 -

Changes in Retail

Prices

Retail prices of meat move up or down as supplies become plentiful or

scarce in relation to demand. Population growth, together with higher purchasing power, has caused a gradual increase in total demand for meat.

Producers have tended to respond to this upward trend, hut supplies have not

consistently matched the gradual increase in demand. When production rises

more rapidly than demand, prices must drop to move supplies. When meat production does not keep pace with demand, prices rise. Thus, price changes

reflect changes in supplies relative to strength of demand.

Although the per capita supply of meat increased after the 1930's,

demand was strong enough to raise retail prices of meat even faster than the

general price level. By the mid-1950*s P^i* capita supplies were the highest

since 1908, and meat prices declined sharply, while the general price level

was holding fairly constant (fig. 3)* hJ After 195^ when supplies declined,

meat prices advanced faster than the general price level, reaching a peak

early in I958.

Prices of beef and pork followed about the same upward trend during the

19^0's. Since then demand for beef has been strong enough to raise beef prices

more than pork prices, even with a decrease in supply of pork and an increase

in the supply of beef.

Trends in Retail

Value

The retail value of all jneat consumed is estimated by valuing the

average quantity of meat at average retail store prices. ¿/ Thus, the trend

in the retail value depends on changes in both quantity consumed and retail

prices, which may be in the same or opposite directions, either at different

rates of change or at the same rate.

From the mid-1930's to the late 19l|0's the retail value of meat per

capita was increasing both in current dollars and in constant (1947-^9)

dollars. The per capita consumption of meat increased steadily, pork going

up at an earlier stage in the period and beef at a later stage. Measured in

y Data for 19^^7-58 reported in Agricultura.1 Outlook Charts 1959 (18, p. 81).

Current data on retail price index for meat given in Livestock and Meat

Situation (6) and on the Consumer Price Index and retail price indexes for

food groups in National Food Situation (¿g) . The retail price index data for

meat beginning in 1935 are given in Bur. Labor Statis. Bui. 1254

Ifetail Prices of Food 1957-58. table 3 (l¿). '

¿/^ata given in Livestock and Meat Situation, July I959 (n p 27). See

Appendix A for related information. '
- 9 -

MEAT AND ALL RETAIL PRICES*

% OF 1947-49

60

40

20

0

Meat prices

Price Index

iiliiiiiliiliiliiLliiliiliiliiliiliiliiliiliiliihiliiliil.iliiliilii lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

1947 1949 1951 1953 1955 1957 1959

^BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS PRICE DATA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. 6054-60(4) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

Figure 3

1947-^9 dollars, retail prices rose veiy rapidly after July I9U6. The

sharpest increase in per capita retail value of meat in both current and

constant dollars during this period was in 19tó-l+7 after removal of price

controls, when both the quantity of meat consumed and relative retail prices

of meat increased.

During the 1950's the trend in per capita retail value of meat in

constant dollars leveled off. Although consumption of beef increased, this

has been offset in the total retail value of meat, not only by reduced consumption of pork but also by declines in the prices of both beef and pork

relative to the general retail price level.

Increases in the retail value or meat per capita have been at a slower

rate than the rise in disposable income per capita since the late 1930's,

except immediately after World War II.
- 10 -

SECTION II. VARIATIONS IN HOUSEHOLD MEAT CONSUMPTION

This section summarizes major types of information about variations in

meat consumption at home among private households. Information from a survey

of household food consumption can provide a cross-section view of how meat

consumption varies among population groups in a selected time period. One

set of such cross-section data -- or, preferably, several sets — can be

related to national averages to study reasons for past trends in consuoiption,

to describe the structure of the U. S. market for meat at certain times, and

to develop ideas about future changes in national averages and in patterns

of consumption for areas within the country. 6/

One such cross-section view is supplied by data from the Survey of

Household Food Consumption in the spring of 1955* Reports from this survey

contain household average quantities and values for individual items consumed

in a week of spring by households grouped according to region, degree of

urbanization (urban, rural nonfarm, or farm), and family income level, jj

Per person averages have been calculated from the published household data. 8/

These variations in meat consumption provide a basis for studying

relationships between (l) average consumption of selected popiilation groups

and (2) certain characteristics of these groups, such as income level, urbanization, and region. The observed patterns of meat consumption yield clues

to the probable influence of these economic and social factors on overall

averages for meat consumption and, therefore, on trends in meat consuniption.

Other social and economic factors affecting consuniption rates, but not

separately measurable with consumption data now available, include family

composition, occupation, national origin, and past levels of income and

consumption. Also, refrigeration facilities in households and supplies of

meat available in accessible markets have a bearing on the kind and quantity

of meat used.

6/ Technical aspects of how closely averages computed from the survey data

match the national averages derived from disappearance data are discussed in

Burk, Marguerite C. and Lanahan, Thomas J.,Jr. "Use of 1955 Food Survey Data

for Research in Agricultural Economics," Agr. Econ. Res.. July 1958(ij6^ pp.89r90)'

jJ Basic quantity and value data for individual commodities published in

ßurvey Reports 1-5 (^ . Figure k delineates the regions. Urban households

lived in communities of 25OO population or more and in suburbs of large

cities. Rural nonfarm households lived outside urban areas but were not

operating fanns. Farm households included only those operating farms.

8/ Information for this section developed from Breimyer, Harold F. and

Kause, Charlotte A. Consumption Patterns for Meat, AMS-2U9 (itl), and Lanaiiaii,

Thomas J., Jr. "A Review of 1955 Survey Data on Household Meat Consunrption,"

National Food Situation, Apr. 1957 (¿l) . Tables 2-7 contain most of the per

person data used here. Technical notes describing their derivation and

giving guidance for further study are provided in Appendixes A and C.
- 11 -

REGIONS USED IN SURVEY

(UNITED STATES)

U.S. OfPARTMCMT OP AORICULTUlf NEC. 3éo»-5«(M) ACfflCULTUKAL HARRETINO SERVICE

Figure 4

Possible Effects of T-îminp;

of 1955 Survey on These Variations

Before beginning a review of how meat consuniption varied in the spring

of 1955^ we must consider briefly how the timing of that survey could have

influenced the observed variations. First, there is the matter of

seasonality. From a review of data on seasonal variations in meat purchases

of city households in 19^*0 and from data on apparent total civilian consujnption of meats by month, it appears that household meat consutiiption in the

spring, generally, and in the spring of 1955, in particular, was representative of the annual'rate. 9/

2/ Food Consimption of Urban Farm'lies in the United States (spring 19^) ^

Agr. Inf. Bui. 1S2 (28, p. 102) ; Seasonal Patterns of Food Consumption, City

Families, 19U8, Spec. Kept. 3, Food Consumption Surveys of 19Í4O-Í1-9 (2^, p. ^);

uonsumption of ComoDoercially-Produced Meats by Months," Livestock and Meat

Situation, A\ag. I956 (¿¿, pp. 2^-kk) ; Charting the Seasonal Market for Meat

Anima.]s, Agr. Handb. 83 (21, p. 32).
- 12 -

Next, there is the question of how far we can generalize from these

1955 data in describing consimiption patterns of recent years and in projecting

changes for the next few years. Most economists agree that food consumption

patterns change quite slowly. At the time of the household food consumption

survey in the spring of 1955^ civilian consumption of meat per capita was

still increasing cyclically and was about 5 percent above the average for the

1950's. Meat supplies were plentiful, somewhat outrunning consumer demand,

even though demand was relatively strong. Retail meat prices were in the

later stages of a decline that had begun in September I952 and continued until

the spring of I956. In view of current expectations of a comparable meat

supply and demand situation in the 1960's, relationships derived from the I955

survey seem to provide a satisfactory operating basis for analysis of meat

consumption changes of this period.

Influence of Distribution

of Population on Averages

Overall average consumption depends on both the per person averages for

subgroups within the total population and the proportion of the total

population falling within each subgroup. Statistics on the proportions of

the U. S. housekeeping population in each region, urbanization, and income

category are given in tables 8 and 9. Figure 5 highlights the variations in

relative importance of each urbanization from region to region.

Three examples indicate the importance of these population distributions

to any study of variations in meat consumption. Households with higher

incomes use more meat per person than those in lower income groups, so the

proportion of the population in each of the income groups is significant in

the average consumption of an entire urbanization or region. The most

striking variation by urbanization is the purchase by nonfarm households of

practically all the meat they use, whereas farm households buy only about half

of the quantity they use. Average quantity of meat purchased per person by

the population as a whole is much closer to that of the nonfarm than of the

farm group since nonfarm greatly outnumbers faim population. National averages are also affected by regional distribution of the population. Average

U. S. farm meat consumption per person reflects the fact that almost half the

fann population lives in the South where farm meat consumption is much less

per person than in the other regions.

Variations in Consumption

of All Meat

Variations ainong urbanization categories in the consumption of meat are

less than variations among regions. But the range of per person averages

among households grouped by income is greater than the differences among

either regions or urbanizations. 10/

10/ Data given in table 2,
- 13 -

DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD POPULATION

BY URBANIZATION, SPRING 1955*

United States

Northeast

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

1^1 Urban ^^^^ Rural nonfarm Lv!v!v/J Farm

^FIGURES REPRESCNT PERCENTAGE OF AREA TOTAL,

NEC. 7688-60(3) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

Figure 5

Regional Variations,- In I955 the North Central Region and the West

used about 10 percent more meat per person than the average for the country

as a whole. The South used about I5 percent less. The average for the Northeast was about the same as that for the United States.

The low average for the South reflects a relatively large proportion of

low-income people and, generally, a lower level of meat consunrption per person

across the whole range of incomes. The latter is influenced by (l) the larger

average sizes of family, (2) relatively low supplies, of meat from home production and in commercial markets in recent decades, (3) shortage of refrigeration facilities relative to needs now and in the past, and {k) lags in

adjustment of rates of meat consumption to recent increases in income, in

urbanization, and in meat supplies.

Variations Among Urbanization Groups.- Urban and farm households used

about the same quantity of meat per person in each region, except the South.

In the South, urban consumption averaged a third larger than that of the farm

population. Since the South has almost half of the farm population, lower

meat consumption on southern fanns made the U. S. farm average lower than the
-11^ -

urban average. The much lover consiimption rate among southern inral households than among urban ones stems from two factors. One is the generally

smaller quantity of meat used per person at the several income levels by both

farm and rural nonfarm households, the difference being greater among the

lower income groups. Second, a much higher proportion of the rural population

is in the lower income groups, which use less meat per person.

In the amo\mt of meat purchased per person, there is moire difference

between the farm and nonfarm pop-ulation, since home-produced meat amounts to

about half the meat used in farm households. In the spring of 1955, the

rural nonfarm group bought almost twice as much meat, and the urban more than

twice as much, per person as the farm group.

Southern farm households bought less meat per person and also used less

home-produced meat than those in the other major farm area — the North

Central Region. 11/

MEAT CONSUMED IN U. S.

HOUSEHOLDS GROUPED BY INCOME

Week of Spring 1955

4

3

. PER PERSON -

- -

All sources ^ - -S8SS

Purchased

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

100 500 1,000 5,000

AVERAGE DISPOSABLE MONEY INCOME PER PERSON IN 1954 ($)

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MEG. 7691-60(3) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

Figure 6

11/ Tables 2 and 7 contain data for such analyses. Annual data on home

production given in Table 3 of Survey Report 12 {^ .
- 15 -

Variations With Income.- Households in higher income groups used more

meat per person than those with lower incomes (fig. 6). Rural nonfarm households with incomes under $2^000 had a lower average per person than either

farm or urban households at this level of income. Also, rural households in

the South \>rith incomes under $2,000 consiamed less meat than those of conrparahle income level in the other regions.

The quantity of meat -purchased varies more from the lower to the higher

income groups than the amount of meat used from all sources, including homeproduced supplies and meats received as gifts or payments in kind (fig. 6).

This is due in large part to the fact that the low income groups include a

large proportion of farm households; these buy only about half of the meat

they use. Within the farm population, higher-income households use not only

more purchased meat but also more home-produced meat per person than those

with lower incomes.

Variations in Consumption

of Kinds of Meat

Excluding their content in l\ancheon meats, beef and -pork accounted for

about 80 percent of all meat used in the spring of 1955. For the United

States as a whole, beef was a little more important than pork (fig. 7).

KINDS OF MEAT CONSUMED, SPRING 1955

Sautog«

^INCLUDES BEEF AND PORK AS COtáPOHEHTS OF LUNCHEON HEATS.

POUNDAGE DATA FROM HOUSEHOLD FOOD CONSUêAPTION SURVEY.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. 6037-60 (3) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

Figure 7
- 16 -

However, this varied among regions. The South used 50 percent more pork than

beef, vhile the other regions consumed more beef than pork — from 25 percent

more in the North Central Region to 60 percent more in the West.

Luncheon meats, made largely from pork and beef, coniprised another

12 percent of all meat used. Veal, lamb and mutton, and variety meats

accounted for 9 percent. Veal and lamb and mutton were of much more importance in the Northeast than in the other regions. Lamb and mutton \rere also

more significant in the West than in the North Central Region; very little vas

used in the South.

Regional and Urbanization Differences,- The

quantity of each kind of meat

used per person varied more

among regional and urbanization groups than total

quantity of meat used.

Household consumption of beef

differed more than that of

pork. The West and North

Central Region used the most

beef per person — 80 to 90

percent more than the South.

The northeastern average was

close to that for the vhole

country (fig. 8). 12/

REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN BEEF

CONSUMED AT HOME *

(Per Person)

u. s.

Average

?^íf»¿ ;•••: }^^

NE. N. C. SOUTH WEST

AS PCKCEHTACe OF U. J. AveHAGE ROUMOAGE. SPRING »»55.

U. >. OePARTHENT OF ACRICULTUBE NEC. 7*87-*0 ( 3 ) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

Purchases of heef were

twice a^ large per person in Figure 8

the V7est as in the South.

Although households in the

North Central Region consumed more beef per person than those in the Northeast;

average purchases in the two regions were ahout the same. The Northeast^ vith

a smaller proportion of farm households, depended more on purchased supplies.

Variation among regions in household consuaiption of beef per person was

greater in rural than in urban areas in the spring of 1955. The urban population used a little less beef per person in the South than in other regions,

but the southern rural population consumed less than half as much as the rural

average outside the South.

In the case of pork> households in the South and the North Central

Region in the spring of 1955 used about a fourth more per person than those

in the West and Northeast (fig. 9) . 1¿/ Farm households in the South and the

12/ Based on table 3.

13/ Based on table k.
- 17 -

REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN PORK

CONSUMED AT HOME*

(Per Person)

SOUTH WEST

A5 pencenTAce or u. i. *vei»Ace ^OUMDACB. SPHIMC »»SS.

U. Í. DEPARTMENT OF AGOICULTURE HEC. 7Mé-»0(3) ACHICULTUBAL MABICETIHC SERVICE

Northeast cousumed about the

same amount per person as the

average for the country as a

whole* Those in the North

Central Region ranked first,

using 50 percent more pork per

person than those in the West,

where production of hogs for

sale or for home slaughter is

of much less importance.

Consumption of veal and

lamh and mutton per person

varied more fix)m region to

region and from rural to urban

areas than either "beef or

pork. Households in the

Northeast consumed more of

these meats per person than

those in the other regions.14/

Southern averages were the smallest. The West used more lamb and mutton per

person than the North Central Region. Among urban households, those in the

North Central Region ranked second in the use of veal. The rural population,

neither buying nor home producing much, consumed considerably less lamb and

mutton per person, and also less veal, than the urban group.

Consumption of luncheon meats varied less per person from one regionurhanization group to another than was the case for any of the other kinds

of meat. The North Central Region used a little more per person, and the

South a little less, than the other regions. And rural nonfarm households

used a little larger quantity than either urban or farm households. Practically

all luncheon meats are purchased.

Differences Amonio; Income Groups.- The influence of the disposable money

income level on consmnption is not the same for each kind of meat, being less

for pork than other meats. However, even for pork, income is an important

factor in the choice of cuts. 15/

Figure 9

ikj The high consumption level for lamb and mutton in the Northeast apparently reflects heavy consumption by its relatively high proportion of foreignbom, or of natives with foreign or mixed parentage, who come from the high

lamb- and mutton-consuming countries of Europe and the eastern Mediterranean

area.

15/ More detailed discussion of variations in purchases of individual cuts

of meat is not given here hecause of the voluminous character of such detail.

But some examples of such analyses are in Breimyer and Kause Consumption

Patterns for Meat (J4l, pp. 25-28) .
- 18 -

Higher income households used much more beef per person than those vith

lover incomes (fig. lO) . l6/ The difference in heef consumption between households at lower and higher income levels was greater in the South than in the

other regions. It was also greater ajnong rural nonfarm than among farm or

urban households.

PORK AND BEEF CONSUMED IN U. S.

HOUSEHOLDS GROUPED BY INCOME

Weeic of Spring 1955

LB. P

2.0

1.0

ER PERSON

-

^^ ^MMl

Pork

——^^^%^^——

^T

.8 ^^^^ V

-^^^^^^^^^ tt^^l

.6

.5

.4

^^^^^^^^^ beet

- -

- -

1 II II II 1 II'

100 '500 1,000 5,000

AVERAGE DISPOSABLE MONEY INCOME PER PERSON IN 1954 ($)

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 7692-60(3) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

Figure 10

Households \n.th higher incomes used more per person of higher priced

cuts^ such as steaJc and roasts, but less beef for stewing and boiling, than

did those in lower-income groups. The middle-income groups consumed more

ground beef than those with lower or higher incomes.

In contrast with the variability for beef, the quantity of TPork used

per person in the United States in the spring of 1955 varied little with

income level (fig. lO) . Among the regions, only in the West, where average

pork consumption was less than in the other regions, did the quantity used

per person increase in the upper range of incomes.

16/ Data in tables 3 and 1+,
- 19 -

Differences among income groups in the use of pork are not the same for

the urban and the faim population. In the farm category for the country as

a whole, households with higher incomes consumed a little more pork per person

than those with less to spend. Higher income urban households used relatively

less, choosing more loin but not as much sausage or salt pork. In rural areas

lower income households bought less pork per person but produced no more for

their own use than did higher income households.

Although higher income households consumed about the same amount of

ham and less sausage per person than did lower income households, they paid

more per pound for what they bought in the spring of 1955^ probably buying

both better quality and more marketing services. For example, in the North

Central Region urban households with incomes above $10,000 paid l6-| cents

more per pound for sausage and 29 cents more for ham than those with incomes

of less than $2,000.

Households with higher incomes also made more use of veal per person.

Its use was of most importance among urban households, mainly in the Northeast

and North Central Region.

The quantity of lamb and mutton consumed increased more than any other

meat among households from the low to the higher income groups. Lamb and

mitton are eaten most extensively in urban centers of the Northeast and the

Viest. Rural households, which constitute a high proportion of the lowerincome groups, use little lamb and mutton.

Middle-income households used a little more luncheon meat than did

those in higher or lower income groups.

Influence of Home Production

on Variations in Consumption

In the spring of 1955^ households bought about 90 percent of the meat

they consumed. Except for small amounts received as gifts or as pay, the

remaining 10 percent was meat produced for home use. Urban households produce practically none, and rural nonfarm households only a little. Rural

nonfarm households in the South and the North Central Region have more homeproduced meat per person than those in the other two regions.

Home production supplied about half of the meat used by the farm population in the spring of 1955* ^^ "the North Central Region, where production

for home use of both pork and beef is extensive, such supplies \reTe a larger

share of the meat used in farm households (almost 60 percent) than in the

other three regions. The proportion was least in the South — about

h^ percent.

In the two regions with the highest proportion of rural population, the

North Central Region and the South, home-produced meat was a greater share of

the total meat used than in the two regions that are more urban. Home production ranged from about 12 percent of the meat used in the North Central

Region and the South to 3 percent in the Northeast.
- 20 -

Tlie Worth Central Region ranlœd first in the proportion of beef and also

of pork supplied by home production. In this region both cattle and hog production for sale are important enterprises. Furthermore^ five out of six farm

households had freezing facilities for storing the meat. For farm households;

home production of beef in the spring of 1955 ranged from two-thirds of the

total used in the North Central Region to less than half in the South. Homeproduced supplies of pork furnished almost 6o percent of all pork used in farm

households in the North Central Region^ 50 percent in the South^ and only

about 33 percent in the West.

Farm households with higher incomes not only buy more meat but use more

home-produced meat than those with lower incomes, llore of the higher income

farm households have freezing facilities. This makes it easier to store homeproduced meat^ particularly beef^ which does not lend itself to curing and

storing without refrigeration. Much of the home-produced meat is a byproduct

Df livestock production for sale rather than production for home use only,

rhe very low income farm groups include fewer households that raise livestock

for sale and^ therefore^ fewer that have home-produced meat. Thus^ low-incoine

farmers in 1955 tended to produce for their omi use less of the meat they

consumed than those with higher incomes.

Variations in the Value

of Meat Consumed

The retail value of meat consumed obviously depends upon the quantities

used and prices per pound. JjJ Prices vary with kind of meat, cut, quality;

amounts and costs of marketing services included in the purchase, and the

general relationship of supply of each of the foregoing to demand in each area.

Reff:ional Differences.-

Among regions, the range in the

values of meat used per person

was greater in the spring of

1955 than the range in quantities used (fig. 11). Tlie

region which consunaed the least

meat per person, the South,

also used less expensive meat.

Therefore, the value of meat

consumed there was lower, relative to other areas, than

the quantity. The Northeast

used more expensive meat.

Thus, values there, relative to

the other regions, averaged

higher than quantities.

REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN VALUE OF MEAT

CONSUMED AT HOME *

( Per Person )

u. s.

Average

N. E. N. C. SOUTH WEST

^ as UnCtHTAOt OF U. S, AVffffACC. SPRING »»55.

U. S. OEPARTMEMT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. 76l3-*0(3) AGRICULTURAL MARK ETIHC »»'"C^

17/ Value data given in tables

retail prices paid by households

spring 1955 survey.

Figure 11

5 and 6. Home-produced meat is valued at

of the same urbanization and region in the
- 21 -

The Northeast and the South provide an interesting contrast in the value

of meat compared to the quantity used. Households in the Northeast consumed

only a fifth more meat per person in the spring of 1955 "than those in the

South, hut the retail price of the meat averaged almost a third more and the

value half again as much. Average consimption at home in the Northeast included a larger proportion of the more expensive meats — heef, veal, and

lamb — and a smaller proportion of pork, a less expensive meat. Expensive

cuts were used more, too. Average beef consumption among households in the

Northeast was half again as much per person, and its value almost twice as

much. These households used less ground heef and more beef steak. Also the

Northeast has a higher proportion of the higher income population, who buy

better grades, as well as better cuts, and more marketing services. Although

households in the Northeast consumed only three-fourths as much Dork per

person as those in the South, the value was as great, because more loin and

less sausage and salt pork were included.

Urban-Rural Differences.- Urban average value of meat consumed in the

spring of 1955 was almost 30 percent higher per person than that of rural

nonfarm and kO percent above the farm average.

This difference between the urban and the rural average values was

greater than for the quantities consumed. The urban population includes a

higher proportion of high-income households \^o use more of the expensive

cuts. The higher average price per pound of meat in urban areas most likely

covers more services. And for rural people, pork, which is less expensive

than beef, veal, or lamb, is a larger share of total meat used.

Differences Among Income Groups.- The value of meat used per person

also differed more, for households grouped by income, than the quantity used.

The higher income population not only consumed more meat per person than

those with less income but they had more expensive kinds and cuts.

As was the case for quantity of beef cons\:imed per person, there was

more variation among income groups in the value of the beef used than in that

of pork. The value of beef steaks varied more than other beef cuts.

Althoiagh higher income groups used no more Dork per person, the value

of what they consumed was greater. From the lower to the higher income groups

there was more variation in the value of loins and hams than of the other

pork cuts.

Since there is less difference in cuts and quality of veal and lamb and

gmtton than in those of pork or beef, differences in the quantity used among

households of varying income had a closer relationship to differences in value.

Households with higher incomes used much more of these meats than those in

the lower income groups, hence their values were also much greater.

In regard to luncheon meats, middle-income households consumed a little

more per person than did others, but higher income people paid more per pound.
- 22 -

SECTION III. REGIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE

U. S. MARKET FOR MEAT

In a study of the aggregate market for meat, it is reasonable to

generalize from purchase patterns for household consimiption (described in

section II). Housekeeping households include ahout 9^ percent of the total

population. This section considers how the several regions share in the

market for meat and how these shares compare with each region's contribution

to commercial production.

The market for meat is considered here in terms of both quantity and

expenditures, using data from the 1955 Household Food Consuarption Survey. 18/

In terms of expenditures, a region's share of the U. S. market depends not

only on (l) its share of the population and (2) whether its people buy more

pounds or less per person than the U. S. average, but also on (3) whether

they pay more or less per pound than U, S. average prices. Regional shares

of meat purchased in the spring are considered to be Drepresentative of

regional shares for the entire year. Because consumption patterns change

slowly, shares of the market indicated by 1955 data are described in the

present tense.

The Market for

All Meat

The market for meat, in terms of aggregate expenditures, is far greater

in the Worth Central Region and the Northeast than that in other regions —

each has about a third of the total (fig. 12). The Northeast has a smaller

population and uses less meat per person than the North Central Region, but

it buys most of the meat it uses and pays more per pound.

Relative to size of population, the Northeast and the West are the best

markets for meat. On this basis, the South is the smallest market. It uses

and buys less meat per person, and a larger proportion of the less expensive

kinds and cuts. Although its population is about the same size as that of

the North Central Region, its share of the U. S. market is a third less.

The South's share of the market for meat in terms of expenditures is

less than its share of the quantity purchased, but the opposite is the case

in the Northeast.

Comparison With the Market for All Foods.- The regional distribution of

the market for meat is similar to that for all food. However, the Northeast

has a little larger share — the South, a little smaller share — of the

market for meat than for all food.

18/ Averages loer household ^iven in table 10 of Survey Reports 1-5 (¿2) were

multiplied by number of households in the weighted sample, table 1, to derive

aggregates. The aggregates for each region were then divided by the U. S.

aggregates to derive regional shares.
- 23 -

REGIONAL SHARES OF HOUSEKEEPING

POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURES

FOR MEAT, SPRING 1955*

POPULATION

EXPENDITURES:

All meat

30 '¿d32 :::1I

32 'immm/yArmm^,

Pork

Beef

Veal

27 ;34 y///M-WM^&

34 m^<^mm^^m.

mmmmmíímmsm

Lamb, mutton 58 19 ^'tiiiii»ii;iiiii

N. E. B888a N. C. ^^ South

*F/CC/RES REPRESENT PERCENTAGE OF U. S, TOTAL,

West

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. 7684-60(3) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

Figure 12

Although the Northeast is an excellent market for meat, it is an even

better market for such meat substitutes as poultry and fish. With only

27 percent of the population, the Northeast's share of the United States

market is 32 percent for meat; 35 percent for poultry; and 39 percent for

fish and shellfish.

The Market for Each

Kind of Meat

A region's share of the market varies among the kinds of meat. In

terms of expenditures, the Northeast has a smaller share of the market for

pork and a much larger share of the market for veal, lamb and mutton than

for beef or for all meat. The North Central Region is important in both the

beef and pork market, but less so in the market for veal, lamb and mutton.

The South takes a larger proportion, and the V/est a smaller share, of the

pork sold than for other meats.

Beef.- The North Central Region and the Northeast have the two largest

shares of the beef market. Relative to population, the Northeast and the

West are the best customers. Even though the South has almost three times as

many people as the West, it spends in the aggregate only a fifth more for* beef.

Again, the South has a larger share of the market measured in quantity than in

expenditures, since the South uses a larger proportion of the cheaper cuts.
- 2l| -

Pork>- The North Central Region is the best market for pork, even better

than would be expected from the size of its population. Although the South

is relatively a better market for pork than for other meats, its share of

expenditures for pork runs an eighth less than its share in the U. S.

population. Southern households buy about the same aggregate quantity of pork

as households in the North Central Region, but they pay less per pound,

indicating the purchase of cheaper cuts and lower quality. The Northeast,

though smaller in population and using less pork per person, spends as much

for pork in total as the South.

Veal.- The Northeast accounts for almost half of the market for veal,

even thoiigh it has only a little over a fourth of the population. The North

Central Region ranks second with a fourth of the market, but the West is a better

market relative to its population. The South's share is only half as large

as its share in the population.

Lamb and Mutton.- A few large urban areas comprise a major part of the

market for lamb and mutton. Rural groups use little and buy still less. The

Northeast is the market for almost 60 percent of the lamb and mutton, a

proportion twice as large as its share in the population. The West spends

almost as much for lamb and mutton as the North Central Region, even though

its population is only a little more than a third as large.

Comnparison of Regional Shares of

Production and of the Market

A region's share of the quantity of meat sold in the U. S. is related

to its share in the population and national income. But its share of the net

marketings of meat animals or of commercial slaughter depends on the location

of the livestock and meat industries and may be very different from its share

of the market (fig. 13)»

Net marketings of meat animals refer to animals sold by farmers in a

given area, less live weight of those purchased for breeding stock or further

feeding. Commercial slaughter is the next step in the flow of meat fix^m

producers to consumers and refers to quantities of meat produced by commei*cial

establishments in a given area. This excludes farm slaughter. Actual purchases by consumers represent the final stage in flow of meat into consuoiption.

These differ from slaughter because there are changes in stocks from time to

time, and trade in meat is carried on between regions.

Measured in quantities of meat purchased, the North Central Region is

more important in the market for meat than any other region. The North

Central Region is also a larger producer than any of the other regions, and

it has a greater surplus of each kind of meat. 19/ In addition, substantial

19/ '^Surplus" refers to excess of total slaughter for sale over total purchases for consumption in the region.
- 25 -

REGIONAL SHARES OF ANIMALS

MARKETED, MEAT PRODUCED

AND PURCHASED, 1955*

Meat animal marketings* ^^Ê^mm ^^

: !•!•! ! »!•!•!•! ^

Meat production'

Meat purchasedIE g ^ííáéíí^:

Œ1 ^^iiaeß^^

II mil

:vi'2>H

•13-

•:13:

Hog marketings

Pork productionPork purchased '

Cattle and calf marketings

Beef and veal production

Beef and veal purchased

Sheep and lamb marketings*

Lamb and mutton production

Lamb and mutton purchased •*

South ^3 West

* FIGURES REPRESÊHT PERCENTAGE OF U, J. TOTAL. BAJEO ON L/Vf HEIGHT OF NET ANIMALS

MARKETED AND POUNDS OF MEAT PRODUCED COMMERCIALLY IN THE YEAR, AND THE QUANTITY OF

PURCHASED MEAT CONSUMED AT HOME BY HOUSEHOLDS IN SPRING, 1955.

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 7690-60(3) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

Figure 13
:::o -

numbers of hogs ai^ sent to other regi as for slaughter. But the North

Central Region Imports sheep from other regions for laoib and mutton production.

In contrast^ the Northeast purchastc about three times as much of each

kind of meat as it produces. Purthenaore^ even its small meat production

depends in large part on meat animals from other regions.

The South is another deficit supply area for meat. It buys both pork

and hogs for slaughter to supply more than half of its demand for pork, which

is larger than its market for other meats. At the same time, it has a surplus

of cattle and sheep. The South included Texas and Oklahoma in the I955 Survey

of Household Food Consumption (fig. k).

The West has a surplus of sheep, lamb and mutton, and some beef and veal

but a deficit of hogs and pork.

Ho^ and pork production is highly concenLrated in the North Central

Region. The other regions buy both pork and hogs for slaughter for their

pork supply.

Cattle and beef and veal are more widely produced than hogs and pork.

The North Central Region and the West produce a surplus of beef; the South,

a surplus of cattle for slaughter but not of beef for consumption.

As for shee-p and lamb and mutton, the V/est markets more sheep than the

North Central Region, but the latter accounts for almost half of the commercial slaughter. Both regions have a surplus of lamb and mutton. The centers

of lamb and mutton consumption are largely in heavily populated metropolitan

areas. According to a study of lamb consumption in I95U, New York and

California each accounted for much more of the lamb and mutton market than

any of the other States. 20/ These two accounted for a little less than half

of the total U. S. shipments for consumption.

20/ Doty, Hariy 0., Jr. Distribution of Lamb and Mutton for Consum-ption in

¿M ILL äsL (J2^ P- 5) and Lamb Availability and Merchandising in Retail

Stores (80, p. 7).
- 27 -

SECTION IV. MEAT CONSUMPTION OUTSIDE HOUSEHOLDS

There is no conçrehensive information on meat consumption outside

private homes. Although about l8 percent of the food sold to U. S. civilians

is handled by eating places, including public and private institutions, we do

not know how much of this total is meat or any other commodity. 2l/ It is

difficult and costly to collect information representative of the heterogeneous

food service industry — restaurants of all kinds and sizes, business

establishments that serve meals to employees, schools that serve lunches,

hospitals, and all sorts of institutions serving meals to residents.

Since the two sectors of this market that have been surveyed (described

below) make up only a small part of the total, most analyses must be based

on patterns of purchases and consiimption in private households. Such a procedure assumes that use of meat at home by the 9k percent of the civilian

population living in housekeeping households is generally representative of

total meat consunçtion, including meat in meals consumed away from home by

the housekeeping population and in all meals consumed >:^ people living in

nonhousekeeping quarters such as hotels and rooming i.cu :s and in institutions.

We have no way of knowing to what extent lower rates of meat consuniption in

institutions with minimum budgets may offset high meat consumption in

elaborate restaurant meals.

The two sectors of away-frorar-home eating which have been comprehensively

surveyed are employee food services in large manufacturing plants and lunches

served in public schools. The survey of manufacturing plants, which was conducted in 1956, revealed that meat accounted for 21 cents out of each dollar,

spent for food, conçared with 25 cents of the household food dollar. 22/ The

school lunch study found that meat accounted for ik percent of the value of

food used, — this included both purchased and donated supplies. 2^7

An indication of range in shares of food outlays allocated to meat by

institutions was derived from case studies of 16 non-Federal institutions

conducted in 1952. 2k/ The proportion for lean meat, poultry, and fish

ranged from 21 to 31 percent, and the range for lean and fat cuts of meat

apparently was from about I8 percent to 28 percent. No comprehensive study of

food consunçtion in institutions for the whole country ha^ yet been made.

21/ Overall estimate based on annroximate retail values of all civilian food

sold and of food consumed away from home. For further information, see Burk,

Marguerite C. "Significance of Current Developments in Food Statistics" (VB>

pp. 7-8).

22/ Lifquist, Rosalind C. Buying Practices and Food Use of Employee Food

Services in Manufacturing Plants (35t pp. 7-8) .

2^/ Anderson. Kenneth E. and Hoofnagle, William S. The Market for Food in

Public Schools (¿U, p. 3) •

' 2k/ Hoof nagle. William S., Dwoskin, Philip B., and Bayton, James A. The

Market for Food In Selected Public and Private Institutions (87) .
- 28 -

Commercial eating places constitute the largest sector of the eatingplace market. They include street restaurants; hotel dining facilities;

restaurants and lunch counters in department stores^ variety stores, and drug

stores; and other counter and fountain types of food services. While no comprehensive survey has been made of this sector, we do have the findings of a

small number of case studies in Minnesota in 1950. Twenty commercial

eating places in Minneapolis were studied. They reported percentages of food

purchases allocated to meat, ranging from 7 percent in a fountain-lunch

establishment to kO percent in a high-priced establishment specializing in

fine steaks. 25/

Even though no conclusions concerning meat consumption patterns away

from home can be nailed down, some information about kinds and cuts of meat

and special marketing services required by eating places is available from

representatives of the food service industry and from meat dealers doing

business with them.

Kinds and Cuts of Meat

Places serving more expensive meals are likely to emphasize beef,

especially the better cuts and grades. They also serve lajnb and veal and the

more expensive cuts of pork. On the other hand, those catering to children

or the luncheon and snack trade, or those serving less expensive meals, use

more hamburgers and frankfurters. Meals outside households probably include

less of the breakfast meats such as bacon and sausage. In the inyplant feeding study referred to earlier, beef and pork represented the bulk of the meat

purchased, with luncheon meats ranking next, as is the case for meat used in

households. Veal MQLS the most important of the minor meats. Plants in the

Vfest used the most beef and the least pork, and the Northeast, though using

only small amounts of laüib, used more than the other regions. In the school

lunch program beef ranks first. 26/ More than twice as much beef as luncheon

meat is used, and four times as much beef as pork.

Special Marketing Services

Since eating establishments buy meat in larger quantities than do

households, their purchasing practices differ. Except for the smaller eating

places, most of the meat is bought from wholesalers and packers, although

commonly in retail cuts. They often buy by specification, including grade

and other characteristics. To save labor, they tend to buy meat in portionsize cuts or in prepared foods. For some, frozen meats may best suit the

needs. For in-plant feeding services, referred to earlier, most meat was

purchased at wholesale but in the form of retail cuts, and I5 percent of the

money spent by the plants for these cuts went for portion-size cuts.

25/ Sartorlus, Lester C. and Burk, Marguerite C. Eating; Places as Marketers

of Food Products, Mtg. Res. Kept. 3 (^, p. 63) .

26/ Hoofnagle, V/illiam B. and Anderson, Kenneth A. "The Market for Meat in

the Nation's Schools/'Livestock and Meat Situation, May 1959 (¿3> P« 32)«
- 29 -

SECTION Y. B-rPLICATIOIíS FOR FUTURE IvíEAT CONSUI-IPTION

Some implications for future trends in meat consuniption can be dra^/rn

from analyses of historical trends and changes in patterns of consumption plus

projections of purchasing power and population changes. Major historical

trends in meat consumption are first reviewed. Next^ information on changes

in consumption indicated by two household food surveys is summarized. Brief

reviews of projections of the economic frameworh for 1975 3^^. 1930 and related

projections of overall domestic food use and neat consumption set the stage

for the final subsection — indications of future pa.t'cemj of meat purchases

and meat marketing.

Changes in per capita meat consumption in the last 25 years may be

summarized thus: Average consumption has increased substantially from the

low levels of the 1930*s for beef and pork^ returning to the high levels of

the years before Vforld V/ar I. There is evidence of greater increase in the

demand for beef than for pork. Consuniption of veal and of lamb and mutton

has averaged below the rates of the 1930's in several recent years.

Changes in Consimrption

Patterns

Data from nationwide household food consuniption sui-veys in spring 19^2

and spring 1955 tell us much about the changes in patterns of meat consumption

lying behind the changes in overall averages. 27/ Consumption rates for urban,

rural nonfarm^ and farm households all rose significantly, but the average

increase was greater for the miral than the urban population• All income

groups shared about equally in the increase, particularly for beef.

About three-fourths of this increase in meat consumption per person in

the United States was associated with the increase in the general level of

consuniption by households at each income level in each urbanization category.

^fost of the balance resulted fix)m the net shift in the population upward on

the scale of real income.

A major part of the increase in meat consumption per person between

19^2 and 1955 was in the consiomption of beef, particularly so for farm people.

Beef was more generally available in all markets, and the price was relatively

low in 1955^ encouraging buying. Higher consumption in farm households

included more home-produced meats per person as well as larger purchases.

The decrease in the number of farms during this period had something to

do with the increase in home production of beef per person on farms, for those

leaving the farm included a large proportion of low-income farmers, particularly in the South. This group used relatively little beef, and home produced

22/ Data for spring 19^1-2 derived from Misc. Pub. 55O, Family Food Consumption

in the United States, Spring 19i^2 (2¿) .
- 30 -

still less. 28/ Also^ the proportion of farms reporting the sale of cattle -

those most likely to have home-produced beef — ix)se from k3 percent in 1939

to 55 percent in 195^. 22/ The use of freezing facilities ~ locker plants

or deep freezers at home, or both — became more common in the years between

1939 and I95U, especially in higher income households. Many of these households raise cattle. The result has been the use of more home-produced beef.

Beef does not lend itself to curing and storing without refrigeration as

does pork. 30/

Consuniption patterns for pork and lamb and mutton apparently have

changed much less than those for beef.

Summa.ry of Projected Economic

Framework for 1975 to I980

A number of sets of economic projections for 1975 "to I98O have been

developed in recent years to evaluate prospects for food supplies and demand.

One of the most widely known was developed by Rex F. Daly. 31/ The most

recent overall economic framework was developed by the staff of Resources for

the Future, Inc. and used in the Land and Water Report of the Department of

Agriculture, made to the Senate Select Committee on National Water

Resources. 32/ These two sets of projections differ primarily in their

estimates of population growth, reflecting recent upward revision in projections by the Bureau of the Census. Daly used the top of the range of the

1955 Census projections of 230 million for 1975• This is 37 percent above

1956 (for 19-year period) . The Land and Water Report used a 29 to 60 percent

rrnge for the increase in total population from 1958 "to I98O. These yield

population estimates in I98O of 225 "to 278 mill ion.

Both sets of projections assume that the labor force and total employment \Tíll rise more rapidly than total population because a larger proportion

of the total will be in the working age group. All of the gain in employment

is assumed to be in the nonagricultural sector. Gains in productivity projected in the Lajid and Water Report indicate a greater rise in gross national

28/ Burk, Marguerite C, "An Economic Appraisal of Changes in Rural Food

Consimption^ " Jour. Farm Econ., Aug. I958 {k2.^ pp. 58I-582) .

29/ Orshansky, Mollie, "Changes in Farm Family Food Patterns" (62, p. 8).

30/ Burk, Marguerite C, and Gronbech, Gertrude, "Home Food Production:

Part II, " National Food Situation, July I958 {h6, p. k^) .

31/ Daly, Rex F. "Prospective Domestic Demands for Food and Fiber, " paper

submitted to the Subcommittee on Agricultural Policy, Joint Economic Committee

of the Congress (¿l).

32/ U. S. Department of Agriculture. Land and Water Potentials and Future

Requirements for V/ater (66) .
- 31 -

product than in total employment^ the increase ranging from 85 to l40 percent

above I96O. The low estimate for I98O would provide a 50 percent rise in

gross national product per capita from i960 to I98O. For the Land and Water

Report, the Department's staff assumed that the I960 price level would be

applicable for I98O and that recent price relationships among farm commodities

would continue.

Prelections of Food

and Meat Consumption

Based on his economic framework and the assumption of continuation of

1956 domestic price levels for farm products, Daly projected, from I956 to

1975^ a 7 percent increase in per capita utilization of farm commodities for

domestic food. This amoimted to a 10 percent increase from 19514- to 1975. His

comparable projection for food livestock products was about the same. For

meat animals the projected increase under this price assumption was slightly

higher than for all food.

Daly also used an alternative price assumption based on I956 world

prices for major export crops. The second set of projections included an

11 percent per capita increase for all domestic farm food from I956 to 1975,

ll^ percent from 195^.

The projections for the Land and Water Report are extensions of Daly's

projections, but tied to I960 commodity price relationships. From I95U to

1980 these projected increases ajnount to 11 percent per capita for all farm

foods, 12 percent for food use of livestock products^ and 16 percent for meat

animals. Both sets of projections reflect greater pressure of rising demand

on beef supplies than on pork.

These projections apply to overall consumption, including home-produced

supplies. One study has pointed out the likelihood of substantially greater

increases in quantity of food purchased per capita, because of the expected

decline in home food production, but did not report projections for commodity

purchases. ^

Indications of Further Changes in

Meat Purchases and Marketing

Changes in income, degree of urbanization, and in meat production and

marketing will materially influence patterns of meat purchases. By patterns

we reier here to variations in consumption by population groups at a given

time and variations over time.

coE|!;Si"tg"p";8?). "'^ ^°'"°'^'' **^''^'''' °' °^^"= " " '^'•^ ^°°^
- 32 -

Changes in Real Income >- In the description of variations in the consnnrption rate of meat among income groups given in section 11^ it was noted

that households with higher incomes consume more meat per person than those

with lower incomes. Therefore^ the projected net shift of the population up

the real income scale will tend to increase the demand for meat. Such increases will likely be greater for families moving fixDm the lower end of the

range toward the level of 1955 average real income. Although higher incomes

for families currently in the middle and high income groups will mean some

increase in the quantity of meat purchased, the amount of money spent for

meat is likely to increase even more. Both types of change will resijlt in a

greater variety of meats being purchased, possibly increasing the demand for

veal and for lamb and mutton.

Another area of change is likely to be in the demand for more expensive

processing and other marketing services, as well as for the more expensive

meats and cuts and grades. This could lead to a further decline in the

Illative importance of pork. Meat-type hogs might gain an advantage over

other types. Stronger demand for better cuts of meat might lead to a greater

price spread among various cuts. The same phenomenon is likely to occur among

grades of meat. This would encourage further improvement of livestock.

Urbanization Shifts in Population.- Since the farm population depends

on the commercial market for only half of the meat it consumes, further shifts

in population from farm to nonfarm will step up the demand for commercially

produced and slaughtered meat. This will result not only from a concurrent

decline in home production, but from greater consumption of meat by those who

leave the farm to earn higher incomes.

Increased purchases with choices no longer restricted by meat available

from home production will lead to demand for greater variety in the kinds of

meat used. For example, low-income fanners who have been using home-produced

pork will substitute purchased meat when they move away from the farm to bettei

paying jobs in town. They will undoubtedly continue to consume pork, but they

are likely to use more of the other meats than they did while on the faim.

A shift of the population off the farm may also lead to more eating of meals

away fix)m home, and thus to larger expenditures for meat.

Potential Production and Marketing Changes.- Only brief reference can

be made here to possible changes in meat production and marketing which may

affect trends in meat consumption.

Improved quality of meat will influence competition among kinds of meat.

Increased emphasis on meat-type hogs may strengthen demand for pork. ^

Integration in hog production may smooth out fluctuations in supply and also

?h/ Engelman, Gerald and Gaarder, Raymond 0. Marketing Meat-Type Hogs,

M^tg. Res. Rept. 227 (8¿).
- 33 -

speed up the shift to meat-type hogs. '^ Present tendencies toward decentralization and specialization of slaughter may change price relationships

and reduce differences in meat consioniption among regions. Price relationships

among kinds and types of livestock may also be affected by nutritional

findings regarding animal fats.

Technological changes in marketing are also likely to affect meat

consumption. Any advance in the technique of mailing meat less perishable

would mean that cyclical fluctuations in supply could be reduced by changes

in stocks. The flow into distribution could follow more closely the comparatively steadier trend in cons"amer demand for meat. Some of the improvements

in the preservation of meat that may become practical are sterilization by

radiation, the use of antibiotics, dehydration, and new freezing techniques.36/

In addition to minimizing variations in supply, seasonal as well as cyclical,

new methods of preservation could cut down on shipping and storage costs.

This would increase the quantity and maintain the quality of meat moving to

small stores and to homes \7lth limited refrigeration facilities or none at all.

It would have the greatest impact in the South, or in isolated rural areas,

where perishability limits market supplies most. If new methods of preservation cost less than the saving in shipping and storage charges, total marketing costs would be lower.

Changes in preparation of meat to supply particular needs of customers

may also influence the market structure. I'lew equipment and materials are

coming into use for the prepackaging of meat. Portion-size cuts for

restaurant and home use are becoming more popular. New and varied forms of

processed meats may be expected, including fiozen portion-size cuts and

specialty products. 37/

Org;anizational changes in meat marketing may influence changes in meat

purchase patterns. In the displays of prepackaged meats now in common use in

supermarkets, appearance has an iraportant bearing on sales. Also mass

merchandising tends to promote the grading of meat and more extensive preparation of meats.

¿^ Engleman, Gerald, "Integration in Livestock Industry, " Marlietin.?; and

Transportation Situation, Nov. I958 (82, pp. 31-32).

^ Cook, Harold T. and Pentzer, W. T. "Antibiotics for the Preservation of

Food Products," Affiricultural Marketing, Jan. I959 (jS) .

Jl/ U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service, "The Outlook for Frozen Foods,"

Marketing and Transportation Situation, Oct. 195^ (105, Dp. 22-24, 29, and

3^-37).
31+ -

Table 1.—Per capita meat consumption, by kinds, and population, 1909-59 Xj

Carcass weight 2/ Retail weight 3/

\ PopuYear Lamb Lamb lation,

: Beef Veal and

mutton

Pork Total Beef

V

Veal

V

and

mutton

V

Pork Edible

offals Total July 1

5/

: Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Mil.

1909 : 7^.2 7.3 6.7 67.0 155.2 58.6 6,6 6.0 62.4 11.1 144.7 90.5

1910 : 70.4 7.2 6.5 62.3 146.4 55.6 6.6 5.8 57.9 10.3 136.2 92.4

1911 : 68.5 7.1 7.3 69.0 151.9 54.1 6.5 6.5 64.1 10.8 142.0 93.9

1912 : 64.6 6.9 7.7 66.7 145.9 51.0 6.3 6-9 62.1 10.3 136.6 95.3

1913 : 63.3 6.3 7.2 66.9 143.7 50.0 5.7 e.k 62.2 10.1 134.4 97.2

1914 : 62.0 5.8 7.1 65.1 140.0 49.0 5.3 6.3 60.5 9.6 130.7 99.1

1915 : 56.4 5.9 6.1 66.5 134.9 44.6 5.4 5.1^ 61.8 10.1 127.3 100.5

1916 : 58.9 6.4 5.8 69.0 140.1 46.5 5.8 5.2 64.1 10.6 132.2 102.0

1917 : 64.7 7.2 4.5 58.9 135.3 51.1 6,6 l+.O 54.8 10.3 126.8 103.4

1918 : 68.5 7.3 4.8 61.0 141.6 54.1 6.6 h.l 56.7 10.6 132.3 104.6

1919 : 61.5 7.8 5.7 63.9 138.9 46.6 7.1 5.1 59.4 11.0 131.2 105.1

1920 ': 59.1 8.0 5.4 63.5 136.0 46.7 7.3 4.8 59.1 10.2 128.1 106.5

1921 : 55.5 7.6 6.1 64.8 134.0 43.8 6.9 5.1^ 60.2 9.7 126.0 108.5

1922 : 59.1 7.8 5.1 65.7 137.7 46.7 7.1 it.5 61.1 10.0 129.4 110.1

1923 : 59.6 8.2 5.3 74.2 147.3 47.1 7.5 h.l 69.0 10.7 139.0 112.0

I92U : 59.5 8.6 5.2 74.0 147.3 47.0 7.8 U.6 68.8 10.5 138.7 114.1

1925 : 59.5 8.6 5.2 66.8 l4o.l 47.0 7.8 4.6 62.1 10.2 131.7 115.8

1926 : 60.3 8.2 5.4 64.1 138.0 47.6 7.5 4.8 59.6 9.7 129.2 117.4

1927 : 54.5 7.4 5.3 67.7 134.9 43.1 6.7 4.7 63.0 9.4 126.9 119.0

1928 : 4Ô.7 6.5 5.5 70.9 131.6 38.5 5.9 1^.9 66.0 9.0 124.3 120.5

1929 49.7 6.3 5.6 69.6 131.2 39.3 5.7 5.0 64.7 9.0 123.7 121.8

1930 ' 48.9 6.4 6.7 67.0 129.0 38.6 5.8 6.0 62.4 8.9 121.7 123.1

1931 • 48.6 6.6 7.1 68.4 130.7 38.4 6.0 6.3 63.7 9.2 123.6 124.0

1932 : 46.7 6.6 7.1 70.7 131.1 36.9 6.0 6.3 65.8 9.2 124.2 124.8

1933 • 51.5 7.1 6.8 70.7 136.1 40.7 6.5 6.1 65.8 9.3 128.4 125.6

193^ 63.8 9.4 6.3 64.4 143.9 50.4 8.6 5.6 59.9 9.6 134.1 126.4

1935 53.2 8.5 7.3 48.4 117.4 42.0 7.7 6.5 45.0 8.1 109.3 127.2

1936 60.5 8.4 6,6 55.1 130.6 47.8 7.6 5.9 51.2 8.4 120.9 128.1

1937 55.2 8.6 6,6 55.8 126.2 43.6 7.8 5.9 51.9 8.8 118.0 128.8

1938 54.4 7.6 6.9 58.2 127.1 43.0 6.9 6.1 54.1 8.5 118.6 129.8

1939 54.7 7.6 6,6 64.7 133.6 43.2 6.9 5.9 60.2 8.9 125.1 130.9

19^0 54.9 7.4 6,6 73.5 142.4 43.4 6.7 5.9 68.4 9.7 134.1 132.1

19^1 6C.9 7.6 6.8 68.4 143.7 48.1 6.9 6.1 63.7 10.1 134.9 131.8

19^2 6-1.2 8.2 7.2 63.7 140.3 tô.3 7.5 6.4 59.2 11.5 132.9 131.5

19^3 53.3 8.2 6.4 78.9 146.8 42.1 7.5 5.7 73.4 12.4 141.1 128.9

I9H 55.6 12.4 6.7 79.5 154.2 43.9 11.3 6.0 74.0 13.5 148.7 128.6

19i^5 59.4 11.9 7.3 66.6 145.2 46.9 10.8 6.5 61.9 12.6 138.7 129.1

19^6 61.6 10.0 6.7 75.8 154.1 48.7 9.1 6.0 70.6 11.3 145.7 138.4

19i^7 : 69.6 10.8 5.3 69.6 155.3 55.0 9.8 h.l 64.7 11.2 145.4 142.6

19^ 63.1 9.5 5.1 67.8 145.5 49.8 8.6 h.^ 63.1 10.3 136.3 145.2

I9U9 : 63.9 8.9 4.1 67.7 144.6 50.5 8.1 3.6 63.0 10.1 135.3 147.6

1950 : 63.4 8.0 4.0 69.2 144.6 50.1 7.3 3.6 64.4 10.1 135.5 150.2

1951 : 56.1 6.6 3.4 71.9 138.0 44.3 6.0 3.0 66.8 9.9 130.0 151.1

1952 : 62.2 7.2 4.2 72.4 146.0 49.1 6.6 3.7 67.4 10.2 137.0 153.4

1953 : 77.6 9.5 4.7 63.5 155.3 61.3 8.6 4.2 59.1 10.8 144.0 156.0

195^ : 80.1 10.0 4.6 60.0 154.7 63.3 9.1 4.1 55.8 10.6 142.9 159.1

1955 : 82.0 9.4 4.6 66.8 162.8 64.8 d>.6 4.1 62.1 11.0 150.6 162.3

1956 : 85.4 9.5 4.4 67.4 166.7 67.5 8.6 3-9 62.7 11.2 153.9 165.3

1957 : 84.6 8.8 4.2 61.5 159.1 66.8 8.0 3.7 57.2 10.5 146.2 168.4

1958 : 80.5 6.7 4.1 60.7 152.0 63.6 6.1 3.6

4.0

56.5 9.9 m 171.4

^m^l./: 81.6 5.7 4.5 68.3 160.1 64.5 5.2 63.5 10.2 174.4

1/ Civilian consumption only, beginning 1941. Excludes game.

2/ Approximately at wholesale distribution level. From table 8, Agr. Handb. 62 .1 Consumption of Food

in the United States, 1909-52, supplements for I956 and succeeding years (3).

3¡r"FrCTn table 2Ö, Agr. Handb. 62. -

kj All meat consumed per capita, including processed, in terms of fresh retail cuts. Carcass weight

(at wholesale) converted to fresh retail equivalents using the following average factors: Beef 79 percent; veal, 91 percent; lamb and mutton, 89 percent; lean pork, 65 percent of carcass weight of'pork; fat

pork (bacon and salt side), 28 percent of carcass weight of pork.

5/ Beginning in 194l includes only those eating out of civilian supplies. From table 53, Agr. Handb.62.

5/ Preliminary.
- 35

-

•P

•

o cvj OJ

H on ir-oo OJ^ PO

^ -Ät

VÛ

to '^\ oo VD Lr^ooO-:J-HOOno PO LTN

O <H vo

Q) l-^l

•

• •••••••

•

•••

•

^ PO c\j OJ

m oo ro on on-:t

m PO PO PO no

Xi c^ MDPOmu^rH

H CTNVOI^ ON

oH -d- CVJ ON OO LTN

+5

• ON VOCTNOOMDH (>.H 0J-:t

H t—

H LTN \J\^O !^

ii rJQ

1

•

• ••••••••

•

• ••••••

O

CO

C3I OJ OJOJOJOjrooJPOooon C\J

H OJ OJ CVJ CVJ PO CVJ

H

-P ÎHO

• C\J OJ t^CvJLrNMDH-:tOO

i LfN

HO i---^ ir-vo t-

^ -P -H -ûl

^ -=1- oo ro OJ OJ LTN L/^-Zt LTN CXH

^ l--,zi- PO PO i^-zi- rO C t5D h^l D • • ••••••• • • ^ <D <D PO on ooonoomroooon PO C\J PO PO PO PO PO no O «

51^

o po vo LTN Q\vo on CO -=! O oooNOoj-^rvoo

PO CVJ l>-vû

o 00 UAH

•

H PO u-N

H vo CVJ 00 oo o\

^ cd '^1

•

• ••••••••• •••••

O (U ^\

m OJ ojojnopopoojnn PO PO PO PO PO PO PO CVJ

Tí to

0) O)

• GO rHLTNOJl^OOPOOOO PO por—

00 Ovo pooooo

+^ -P

a

H ODr—ONONH PO^ CVJVO 00

o LTN C7No PO PO CVJ LTN OJ

ro OJOJOJOjnnpopopopo CVJ CVJ CVJ OJ no PO PO PO r-)-d-

:D CO

+5

• l^ OOJ-::t OMr-H-^-ct

O C7N OJ vo oo 00

co r^l OO not^co OJH-d- roo\Lr\ \s\ LTN PO Lf^ ON

<ü ^\

•

• ••••••••

•

•• .

:^ on POOJ OJ POPOPOPOPO-ct PO OJ no PO^

5

vo vo ON 00 t^ C?\H l^ ON

o CVJ voH ONOO voo

^ 00 CVJ -d^ C^ ON

H

m LTN t—OJ UAi/NONONO H-^ PO

O

í3 '^\

••

• •••••

•

O H^l OJ íHOJOJOJOJOJOOPOPO CVJ

HH CVJ CVJ CVJ CVJ ro

CO toO

•H

cd

^-^^

H Cd <+H

^ cd C! CQ j::

-p^o

• -H t-- 0J-^Hir\O-:tHC\jaj

G CTs

H vo vo rH PO OJ

^ -P -H o a tjû 31

S

PO 00

o POHm Lr\\s\^^

• •••••••• C!

•

LPv iH ON CVJ LPv • • • • •

H•

s O) (U ,o on OJ POPOPOPOPOPOPOPO

H en CVJ PO CVJ PO PO no

1

H

cd

51¿

•

fr

H 0\^ ON LTN t^OO vo en PO

^ PO CVJ PO t-- vo '^1 O H OJ OOO o H POOO H CT\ O OJ vo 00 ON -4-

u cd >-^I

•

•

•••••

o O) on OJOJnnojnopopoojno CVJ OJ no CVJ OJ CVJ no

TZJ to

(D 0)

m QJt^voO-=l- C--t--0OLrN

0-^ooa\HOJooc\jLfN

H 00 CQ no nooQ u^ LTN

l/^o tr— troH no

t^ LPs

-p -p

•

O 00

^O •H cd r^l • • •••••••• • • • D co

H^l no OJOJOJOJOOPOPOPOPO OJ HOJCVJOJnonononono ^ ^ O u O u

^-^ OJ >i 0)

10

> CVJ >1

%

0)u «M to

o

<fH to

o

o

^ cdO

ö

o rö

O

Ö

o Ti

üH oTl J3

o

to

^os to

G

to

o

Öo

3

u HOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOQ

^OOOOOO -vO

M Tí TJ

u

Hoooooo

^--^

HOQ)

H <D

OOOOOO

oo Qi O Pi ^ O O O O O O •vO

9o

UO

^d CVJ cn^ LTwûQOH -s

Ö1 1 1 1 11Io

DH OJ rn-=l- ifNVOoOH

I

Q) i

Q) •v*v*v.v^*sOO

TJ CVJ no-d- l/^vû00 r-{ -V Ö 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 O D H CVJ noxt LTNVO 00 r-{

Tí

<D

10 Fi :=! a:

bü

(D

tiü co

cd 0) u T^

0)

^

>

H

CÖ

o

/V (1)

no

no tä

^-^ cd

-P

U-N1

^

H

CO •H

-P co UO Tl

p.H

0)

O

Cï;

>^ to

<i> ;^ £ o ^

co (U

su cd o ÍH

'H (1)

-p>

PL- cd0

co

Ä

Ö -p oo

T>o Tí G <U

prn Tl

•H

Tí

>

H •H

•

G Tí to ^ ^. (Ü to X

•

9

1

$

0)

O

o

nr: •^ <üÜ

O tí

ir\H

o •H

LTN ÇJ

CTN (UÖ W)

H

H •H fl ^ H

Ö crt

U

^

•H -P 0)

U

-p

o

cd

^ «H Pi

H-> co cd d)

CÖ (Ü

u

Tí f) (U

-P

^

1

o

â

O

to

ÜÖtí

•H •H to

Oí

H Tí

:5

H î>iH

cd 0)

o

H tí si

•H

^

i

9 <D CH s G ^ H XI »^ *H Ö Tl ß to O H 3 (ü O CM Tí

Tl SX ::í

<D (U -^

H

to

3

LTN f)

cd o\ tí

pq

O

XI

HM

H 1^ OJÎOI

a>

p.
- 36

-

O

•H

tkû

<ü^

>.

.Q

•s

CO

CJo

COu

0)

•"N..-^

ftH

(D LTN ^ u^ O ON a H

?H tiO O C!

•H

C\J

^

PH

<H CO O

•V

CO

^

TJ Cl) H CD O >

Xi

CD :d 9 Ö O •H ^

»\ •\ Q)

C! O

O

CO

o

^

G

<ü •H

P.

n=l

^Ö

CL) .-d

Pi ^

Ö

(D

Ü

CO •H

;á -P

Cd

«M tSÍ

a> •HS^ O ^

>^

-p

•HPÖ

OfI m

(UH

-âEH

p

•

m ^- HcooNr-voooN -^ cvj on OJ trCO '^J Lf^ on o^on-=t h--^ ON ON tr- CO L/N MD OJ

0) h^l

•••••

•

:s

H

HHHHHH rH

OHHCVJOJHt^-ono

H

HHH CVJ

S

&

CO

^ -:!- CVJ-4- OJ MD

• 00 CT\CT\ONCM OJ-^VOOO VO -^ MD 00 trH

OÖ

d rO 1 •

• •••••••

••

o al

H

H <-{ r-\ r-{ r-{

* ' ' ' r-îHH

^ cdO cd

m

O t^-^H c^mO trg

H ON C\J L/^ on LfN

O on

-p ÎH -H

• rO LTN OO on

^ -:t VO LTN tr^ MO VO OJ LTN LTN LTN ^-

VD O-

^ -p tiû rû 1 u

•

• ••••••• cd•

• •••••

•

o 5Z! 0) ni

DH

H HHHHHHH Pm

H r-{ r-{ r-i r-\

H r-\

H

r^ (D cr; o1 ^ -p ON

H 0O00CT\MDPOt—m

^ -:iO C\J C\J -=i- OJ ^-

-p U) rÛ OJ |>- OJHCVIOJ-^OrO LTN C—MD MD LTN 00 u^ CVJ ^ cd H^l • • o (D rH HHHHHHH H r-\ r-i H r-A r-{ H H

n:i CO

<D (D -4- MD Lr\C5Q ON-:t 1>-C0

O t^

ONC^OH 0O-z^-^ L/NVO

cO 00 C3NMD 00 t^ CT\

4^ -P S2í -^1 CT) H ^- C3N H OJ LfN-^ '=t

•H cd h-^l

•

•••

3 -p

H HHHHHHH

H r-\ r-\ r-\ r-\ f-^

H CVJ

:D CO

-p oo onocoir-oonocooo CVJ 00 CVJ UA (^

co

^ VO vOnOHLTNVOt—

VOHH ON C7N 00 00 CD\

0) h^

••••••

H HHHHHHHOJOJ

HHH OJ

Ä Lr\ MD VO rn^ LTN POMD

OO on OJ CVJ 00 LTvCO

O

H

4^

• co -d-MD^-00OHC^JMD^- VO on^ -=! t— tro

H

d rQ 1 •

•

• •••••

•

O al

O

HHHHH ^^^_^_^

HH

CO coCO

•H

-p i H a Cd "ä ^q cd o tSJ OJ O on CVJ H 00 CTNOO (M O

CVJ CVJ^^:3^ LTNLTsMDVO

d

m

H C3NH ono

• •H LTN

O

^ CT\ on on \r\^S

u -^w

^

§

•ö••

od <D H^

H HHHHHHHHH

HAAAAH

12;

o

0) Cï:

¿

d

H

CD 1

éi^ . 00 VO 0\^ -cf C3N OJ

H -:t C^J -4-

C7\ -=t CJNCVJo

r^

rû OJ oqoNonHc\joj-:toj-4- C\J LTN

^ cd t-q

••

•••••

•

O 0)

H HHHHHHH

H

H r-{ r-\

H

Tj co

CÜ 0)

• LTN Lr\Li-\LfNVO-ClO C^OO C^

O OJ Lf\-zf on 1^ on on on OJ

-p -p -^1 OJ MDcO OH cT)^

^ ifwo

H

^ MD (DNO CVJ CVJ^ C7N LTN

•a^ 1-^ 1 •

•

••••••

••

H r^ r-i

H r-{ r-\ r-\ r-{

H r-\ r-K r-\ r-\

HH

D co

^ ÎH O U O

^

^-^

C\J

^

^ OJ onl s:

<u co

O

O

d^ fin co

o CH CO

O

o cd\>^ o H CJ 1 O ido

oÖ

OaO

8

C!H CO CO •N

o cd co co •\ ol

MO TJ

U HOOOOOOO

oooooooo

'd^

TJ

H CÜ

H eu

OOOOOO

8o V.^/' O P4 ^OOOOOO -sO o ft tj CD o o o o o •vO

X\ d) •\»N»\»».*\»sOO

Ä Q>^*s,^,,.vnOO

(D cu TJOJon-4-L/NM3COH »v CÜ <ü TJ OJ On-Cf LTWOOO

H -v

9

o

Ö1 1 1 1 1 1 1O

DH CVJ on^ LfNMDoOH 3Ö

a1 1 1 1 11 1 o

:DH OJ ^^ LTNMDOOH

O

Úog

w

w"

Tí

CÜ

(O

Cd

(d• on

on 10)

onH

>.-^ ;0

cd

m +5 H

eu

co (S)

-P •H U CO O

PTZJ

CÜH

«0

>5 0) J) 0

aj

0)

Ö bû o (d

•H

^

-P 0)

&^

13

CO 0)

cî^

op

o

>i

'd

^

o0 TJ

P^

^

^ •H H >

•

O •H UJ

rt rd

«

<üO i J i w »\ i 0

tí

LAo

Ü •H

LTNH

o

ClN

ö tlû

H CI) •H

^

H •H

C

P ?H •P

•H

5

^

^40

$ •\ «H

Cd

Pi

Q)

Où CO

^

Tí CÜ

f)

g +Í

4^

0

0

U

•S,

Ö

H ro •H CD

(1) TJ i H >iH H <D U H (rt d 'S H Ü d) $ ^ g 9

(1)¿ >i

Ü

^ «M

H

•H

^

a0

•dH

â

(Q

O <+4 'O

TJ

Cl) iî

^

H

rn rn lA

0

s

0H

tí H

>>: oTl'i^

euP
- 37

-

-p

•

H CO

o -:t OJ t— C^CXD OJ

Vu t^OONONONOLrN

00

H on -dH

üi ,û

O 00

O 00 VO ON

(ü i-:i

•

• •••••••

•••

••

:5

H

HHH

H

^H OJCVJMDOJHLTNOOJO 00 OJ -^

HO

H no o\

+3

• no PO^ 0O0J-:t OJ OOO

H

H

OH OJ -^

H u^ no

d

^

•

•

••••

••

•

o

CD

P

H HHHrHHHHHH

H r-i r-i r-{ r-\

HHH

•

H 00 ONVO 00 noVO CQ CÇ

on OJHHOJOOOO

g -=J- rH l^-

O

o on no ro

VO VO no

Xi

^ OJ cd oo -d- no -d-

^ -P tiO Í3

u

• t.

••••••••

OÜ (D

P

H

H r-{ r-i r-\ r-^ r-\ r-i r-i rH r-\ r-{ r-{ r-\

HHH

^ (ü rc; u1

X3 -P LTN

O OJt^OLTNHC^-J- VO -:t OO 0\ OOVO ON ON

4^W ,û ON 00 OOONCTNOOOOOO

H r-{

O rr) r-\ j:t r-\ 00

^ cd K^l

•

••••

•••

o <ü

d

H rH

H

HHHHHH

r-^

(U <u

• OO t^-H-4- ocn OOGNO OJ

OJOJHHOHHOH

H -:t r—

00 Lf^vOH

H -do

-P +^ -^1

H OJ

OH OJ OJ OJ no OJ -d- -d-

•H cd h-^l

••

••••

•••••

C -P

H HHHHrHHrHHH

H

H rHHH rH

H

H

H r-l

D CD

4^

O -4- OO^OO C3N0OOH OO VO 00 rH 00

CO

^

O GNOOcq O\00 ONO

O LTNO ON ON ON OJ

d) H^l

•••

:3:

HAAAH

-—N.—N .-A

r-{

Si LTN ONONf^OJ

o C^C—vo c^ OJ

OH \0 00 OJ LTN OJ

-P

• OJ CTNHoooJLf^OJnoOH OJ 00

O noH tr- OJ -d- ;^ r^l • • • • • • • • • o

CO

-il

CO§

•H

H r-\r^r-{rAf-\r-\r-{r-{

cd

H r-^ r-{ r-{ rH

H

H

HÖP «H

^ G3O

+3^ -H

• Cd OJ 00 ir\ [:^\o 0\ en (M

O a\ tí u^ -=1- MD

O

O LTN t^ '^1 t^ OJ HOJOJHHOJOOOJO o H r-{ r-{ r-\ rH H rH

^ -P W) l-ll •H

• tí

•

•••

•

OÖ (D

^ (UK

O

Cd

H r-\r-ir-Hr-\r-irHr-\r-ir-{

H

cd

H

HHH

H rH rH

^

ä« 1 , H

-P ü5

•

^

00 OJOLr\c^0JMDnn(3Mi^

S

O ON OJ l>- O O

LTNO VO -Si C7N 0000 c^C7^o^O Ooooo (3NrH O

?H cd H^l

•

•

•••

•••

O Q)

O

AA ' '

H

HH r-\

/^

r-\

Tj CO -dO ooOH-^-cl-OvOoo on rH rH -dO -dm no r-H j-

^^

•

•

OHOJHHHOJOH

H 00

O OJH

••••

OJH

••

OJ•

HH

••

•H cd Ö -P

V^

H r-\r-\r-ir-{r-\r-\r-ir-\r-{

H r-\ r-{ r-{

HHH

HH

o CO

U ÎH o U o

^

Income

.ollars )

2/

CVJ

>

O

OJ

CO

O

>O

o5

O

CQ

s•V

O

1CO

HOOOOOOO

o

CO

§

CO

OO

r-ToOO

OO

O

Ö

8 "^

v-^

»D

H 9^ ogoooooo

H d)

OOO

OO

O

Oo

O PH ÍH

oooooo ^o

O P<

hOOO

OO

O -sO •d o •^•s»s.s.x»sOO XI 0) »v -s »s .o o o (U 'dCVJOO-d-t/NVOOOH »v a> (Ü nil OJ no-d- LTNvo on r-{ ^ i o

tí 1 1 I 11 1 1o

DH OJ oo-zi- LfNVOoOH

3OO

tí11 1 11

OH OJ no-d- Lr\

1 1 O

VOOOH

w

w

W

ce

^

, cj

>--^ 4->

no

no •s

(D

LTN1

•H

CO

H

Tí

ro r-{

4^

U

u

^

o (D

0^

OJ

ÇC

O

>- s Si)

cd

CO

^

tí cd o

•H (Ü

-p^-p

CO rû

rio nd o OJ

Ti •H o > o •H

PH TJ

TH CO H cd

•

o

> CO

tí 0)

0> •N >«í

•

o

OH

$

i

m 0) <D

O

H tí

IPv ,û

O

H

L/N

^ tí bû

rH •H tí •\ •H n CO ^ -P

•H <D <u

U

C) -po

cd

-P^

fin

cd

P'

0)

cd

O

^

Ti CO <D

'f>

H

-po

^

H

cd

Ü

tí tí

•H •H CO

d) tí Tí > o >iH ^ d) o H CM tí 43

•H

o d)

^ :^

S

B

(U

o >i

o

^

^

H Xi

<u •H

g

s

1

CO

a;

o «M Ti

TJ^

d

<ü -d- rH

CO

u LfNO

.a^ ON

rH

tí

7:îI'S OJ í^
38

-

0)

(Ö-Pd

(Uo

a;

Co

oH

bû

(ÜU

O0 CO ON

TUo

<ü Xi ^ g M O O

.H (U

no cd a;

a3 »s 0 cd

«M cdd

a;^ -H

^> •^

CÖ cîo

-p CO -H

Cd (U -P

0) -p CÖ H Cl Ö

cd

id Tí^

«H -P3

o -H

tí n=(

OiD tí

^ cd H 0

Cd

-P

(ÜI

(DH

«MO

-p -p CV^ l/\ LTN OO 00 LfN C5N0Q

OJ ooO

^ MD VO OJ

CO

ü

H rH rH ON OJ ON C7N ON t--

ê

PH rH

H rH

HHHH

3) :Î

•

-p (iA (T) C^ ON CVJ OJ UA t— t-- vo-d- OJ

cd

^

Ü 1^ 00 VO u^ MD 00-^ -^ ON

o C3N00

U

o CL

H

(D CO >

cd

H tí cô ^ £Ö O

^->^ -H -p

O ON ONVD tr- MD OO-it 9^ mom

•

^ -P bû

o

HH CTN C7N r^ OJ

OO

o

Hoo

D

O tí <U ^ 0 pc;o.

H

H rH

HH rHHHHH

îVH CJ) O

(D

bû 1 ^ ^ -p

-p CO

p L/\

O ON rH 00 LTN l^-4- VO

^ VO-:dtí ^ cd Ü H OJ ONrH H OJ C7\ OJ c^ ONC^ o

0)

o0 ßH

H rH

H

H r-{H

fin

'ö CO

^^ -p

O CVJ trO

rH 00 CO

O -^ cs] cy\

o onvoH

•H cd

o

O

O rHOO c—

o

o ON (?N

tí -p PLH

H

H

H

H r-{

H

13 en

COH

-=1- O S^S s^ ir\vo OJ

ONo 00

on

VO ^53

0

O

•

•••

•

•••

•

•••

^

Q OJ OJ OJ

H

H

^

• VO

OH Vû t^ OJ-^ VO

VOm oo

LTN

H on L/^

P

H OO VÛ OJ

O

^ VO ir—VO LfN

:u

O

•

•••

•

••••

•••

o

Q rH rH

HH

COH tí

Ä cdO ON \D Osrn ON VOCO CTN on

^ t^ Q>

p ;H -HH ON

H t- (r- 00 ON t^ !>- I^- t^vo VO

(U ?H -p bO

O

•••••

•••

s

O tí0

Q

H OJHH

H í^

0K

cd

O

>

•

«

00 (T\H

O ITN-:* -^

^ cn^

o 1 ^ P

-P COH

H ^-O o\ ONÏ-- ON VO VO VO r-

^ od

O

•

••••••

••••

O0

P CVJ OJ

H OJ

^Ö CO

^^

• H

H

CO 8"ÏR:I VO

CO^ VO

^ VO vovo

•H Cd

O

•••

••••

•

•••

tí -p

P

H OJ

HH

tD CO

CO CO CO

nd tí tí tí

Ö

tíO

(ti -H EH .2

g

o

•H

B

o

•H

g

-P< -P Cd -P (d -p od

>* Cd

F

â cd '^-i P^ cd «M liá (d «M

-P tq

V

S t^ tí 9«

q isï

Öf^ CQ

d

•H -H •H

o&

q -H

Oo -H

O

'd tí

^

9Ö tí

m tí tí PM

G

Ö

O cd

h- Cd od cd

S r^

<

<^

Sd^

^

ÖH fil

rban

ural

arm

i^

o

^

'S35

^

cd cdâ

ä

H

DK fe

H

D« feH

D« Pm

^

^

^
- 39 -

Table 6.—Retail value of all meat, beef, and pork used per person,

households of 2 or more persons, by urbanization and

income, in a week, spring 1955 1/

.Income

(dollars) 2/

Households of 2 or

more persons 3/

Under 1,000

1-2,000

2-3,000

3-h,000

4-5,000

5-6,000

6-8,000

8-10,000

10,000 and over

Households of 2 or

more persons 3/

Under 1,000

1-2,000

2-3,000

3-h,000

U-5,000

5-6,000

6-8,000

8-10,000

10,000 and over

All

meat Beef Pork

Dollars Dollars Dollars

All urbanizations

1.81

.98

1.2I+

1.63

1.89

2.06

2.16

2.21

2.65

0.76 0.66

.33 M

M .56

.57 .6h

.66 .62

.81 .69

.88 .70

•95 .76

1.07 .71

1.27 .81

Ruxal nonferm

1.57

•76

1.03

1.42

1.1+7

1.77

1.84

2.06

2.27

1.96

.62

.21

.34

.48

• 57

•74

.70

.84

1.20

•98

.64

.36

.50

• 65

• 59

.72

.68

.80

.77

•71

All

meat

2.01

1.47

1.42

1.63

1.74

1.95

2.19

2.24

2.24

2.78

1.43

.96

1.27

1.52

1.54

1.73

1.73

1.66

1.87

2.34

Beef Pork

Dollars Dollars Dollars

Urban

0.87

• 51

• 51

.62

.71

.83

.97

1.00

1.07

1.32

Farm

.60

0.69

.67

.60

.62

.63

.67

.71

.77

.70

.83

.6i

.35 .47

.50 .57

.61 .66

•65 ..,^

.80 .64

•76 .68

.79 .61

.74 .76

1.21 .30

1/ Based on value data in 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey Report 1

(33j. The average value per household of quantities used from all sources

table 10, was divided by the average household size, table 3. Includes gaie

2/ 1954 family money income after income taxes.

3/ Includes households not reporting income.
- i^O -

Table 7.—Quantity of all purchased meat, pork, and beef used per person

in farm households of 2 or more persons, by region

and income, in a v/eek, spring 1955 l/

Income : United North -

(dollars) 2/ : States liortheast Central South West

Region

: Pounds Pounds Pounds

All meat

Pounds Pounds

Households of 2 or more

persons 3/ : 1.37 1.78 l.kk 1.19 1.65

Under 1,000 : 1.10 2.31 1.36 .93 ) 1.90 1-2,000 : 1.30 1.32 1.59 1.13

2-3,000 iM 1.66 1.36 1.U6 ) 1.78 3-^,000 : l.Ul l.il2 1.37 1.29

U-5,000 I.U3 2.03 1.^5 \.2.k Í 1.42 5-6,000 : 1.80 2.25 1.79 1.75

6-8,000 : 1.69 "1

8-10,000 : 1.38 r 1.95 1.57 1.73 2.00

10,000 and over 2.36 J

Pork

Households of 2 or more

persons 3/ .56 .62 .53 .57 .59

Under 1,000 .52 .61 .60 .50

1-2,000 .55 M .50 .55

2-3,000 .62 •72 ok .64

3-^,000 .57 .^k .5k .61

^-5,000 .53 .78 M .56

5-6,000 .69 .75 .64 .88

6-8,000 .63 "1

8-10,000 .57 \ .65 .57 .82 .69

10,000 and over : .88 y

Beef

Households of 2 or more :

persons 3/ .kk .65 .irô .34 1.66

Under 1,000 .3^ 1.13 M 23 y66 1-2,000 .ko .U8 .57 .33

2-3,000 .kl .tô .U2 .UO '..68 3-^,000 .k3 .50 .38 .37

^-5,000

5-6,000

.k9

.68

.71

.69

.1^3

.50 y.

6-8,000 .62 \

8-10,000 .33 ' .66 .51 .60 1.03

10,000 and over : 1.09 J

5 r33). The average used per household from purchased source, table 10, was divided

by -the average household size, table 3. ^2/ 1954 family money income after income

taxes. 3/ Includes households not reporting income.
- kl

•H

P,

0)

Q)

d)

:i HI o^ LTN

ON

O r-l

CO tlû

'H

Pu

0

(U CO

ÎHO

Tí -P

fl Cti

Cd 0)

•H

toÜ

TK cd H ;0

¿^0)

CO TJ o

«Hoao

•H

-P

•H

-P

CO

•HII

CO

(DH

cdo

•H

lau

0) U

>^

;0

O OJl

COw

0) »H

CHG tiû a -H O P

•H (U

+^ 0) ^ -^ O (D

PH CO O ;3 u o

CM^

CO Ho

(D

CQ::$O

CJHO

C! O

•H

-P

^1O

p^o

5o

COH

d

.d cdo

-p^ -H

od (Ü OI ^ -P

-P CO u cd G <U

TlJ CO

^^

•H Cd d -P D CO

-p

CO 5G

en H

d

4:3 CdG

-P ^i -H

^H -P tiO G d (U ^ (U DÎ o^ cd O (U

'd CO

0) a;

-p -p

•H cri d •P D CO

00 ON OJ 00

-p -p

0 oj CO ^- 0!) 0 H H

(D fi.

:5

dG

•H

-P

Cd

Cvl

•Hd

cd

CO

0)

-p

Cti

-p

CO

OJ

00

HO

cd no

-PG

TJ

(D

+^

•Hdd

•HdG

•H

(U

CHG

(UOd

cduo

PH

(U

-p

cd

OJ oo

VOO

00O

PO

CO LTN OJ

OJ -=f -^

t^ ON 00

ON r-vû OJ OJ rn

VO^ OJ

cvj on ON

00 OJ

000 • • •

000

000

r-{ r~\ r-\ • • •

on CTN c^

LTNMD 00

OJ OO-cf

Li^ VO VU

(3N ON t^- c\j c\j on

O- Vu CO MD • • • •

ir^ cvj on ON

OJ on OJ o 000 • • • • o 000 o 000

H

Cd

-PG

-P

cd

(Ud

•HGU

bûdG

•H

-P

Cd

Csl

•Hd

cd•

CHO

(Uod

cd

-puG

p^

(D

Î>

•H

-P

Cd H

(D

0• 00H

on0 ^-

•••

0H 00

h- C\J

0 CO OJ

0

00H

LTN Lr\ ON

0

CD0

LTN ONMD • • •

CO LTN LTN

UA OJ -H

OoooooHOOOOooooo

-:t OJ -^ H -4- -dtr- C\J

OJ ON ON

c^ r— OJ

Lí^ OJH

H ONo

c\jo hI^ C\j

on OJ LTN o onvo

on rH VO o vo on

VO CVIH

H fH CO

on on c>n

[>- OJ

CVJ 00o

OJ voH

VO OJH

COdG

•Hp

Co

IS]

•Hd

cö

cd

CHdGd

dH

cd cd^

¿H3 cd

D er; fi^

(0dG

•H

-p

cd

IS)

•Hd

cd

cd

CHdGdH

cd

D oc

onl

on| I H

CO

-PO

<u

p;

;>. >

u:i

OJd

cd

CO

(DH

•PdG

CO

cd

pq

(D>

COdG

-p

P-:

COdGoGG

tn

TJHG

(D

COo

LTN

ONH

CiH

CHO

>i

JH

a?

LO

COOH

bû

0)

COdG

•H

-P

Cd d

cd

rHU

(D

X!

-PUG

CO

(D

•H

on

o on I

•H v_^ gG LTN d I G rH Ü

<UU

P^

<U

-P

CHG

(U

C<3 d

cd

CO

-pG

P,

o; (^

>^

(U>

COdG

•H

-p

9^

COdGo

'9.o

dH

T^

00

i^ XI > ^ 0

•H '<D 10 ^ CO zi

<ü cri

0

(-A PQ rrj

HI CvJl Lr\

C7N
k2 -

Tebip 9,—Distribution of households and of members of housekeeping families,

in region suad urbanizatjion^by income, spring 1955 l/

Urbanization,

household size,

195^ income after

income taxes

(dollars)

All urbanizations

One-person households

Households of two or

more persons - total

Under 1,000

1-2,000

2-3,000

3--^, 000

^-5,000

5-6,000

6-8, 000

8-10,000

10,000 and over

Not classified

Urban

One person households

Ho'jseholds of two or

more persons - total

Under 1,000

1-2,000

2-3,000

3-^,000

i+-5,000

5-6,000

6-8,000

8-10,000

10,000 and over

Not classified

RuraJ. nonfsLrm

One person households

Households of two or

more persons - total

Under l.,000

1-2,000

2-3,000

3-4,000

if-5,000

5-6,000

6-8,000

8-10,000

10,000 and over

Not classified

Farm

One person households

Households of two or

more persons - total

Under 1,000

1-2,000

2-3,000

3-4,000

U-5,000

5-6,000

6-8,000

8-10,000

10,000 and over

Not classified

Proportion of households

in area

United

States

Pet.

100.0

8.1

91.9

5.4

8.4

10.8

15.3

15.9

9.6

10.0

3.3

3.8

9.4

100.0

9.1

90.9

2.0

5.9

9.4

15.0

17.2

10.6

12.0

4.1

5.0

9.7

100.0

7.9

92.1

7.5

10.7

12.7

17.6

15.5

9.2

7.7

2.0

1.9

7.3

100.0

2.8

97.2

19.1

17.4

13.5

11.4

9.4

5.0

4.9

1.9

1.1

13.5

Northeast

North

Central

Region

South West

Proportion of members

of housekeeping families 2/

United

States

Northeast

North

Central

Region

South

Pet.

West

Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. p^ti; pJtT

100.0

7.8

92.2

2.2

4.8

8.7

16.0

18.2

11.9

11.4

3.3

3.3

12.4

100.0

8.7

91.3

1.2

3.8

7.7

15.9

i-8.9

11.4

11.6

3.8

3.9

13.1

100.0

5.8

94.2

4.1

6.5

n.o

16.2

17.5

14.4

11.7

2.1

1.4

9.3

100.0

2.1

97.

10.

13.

15.

16.

9.

5.7

6.2

1.6

2.1

17.6

100.0

7.8

92.2

3.4

6.5

8.6

13.4

18.0

10.4

12.8

4.5

5.5

9.1

100.0

7.9

92.1

1.2

3.7

6.8

12.6

19.2

11.6

15.5

5.4

7.4

8.7

100.0

10.2

89.8

4.7

10.

16.

17.

9.

9.

3.

3.3

6.9

100.0

2.7

97.3

11.1

14.1

14.1

11.8

13.6

6.9

6.8

2.9

1.4

14.6

100.0

8.1

91.9

11.6

14.9

15.2

16.5

11.2

5.9

6.1

1.9

1.4

7.2

100.0

10.4

89.6

4.5

12.4

15.7

17.8

12.5

7.2

8.6

2.7

1.9

6.3

100.0

7.4

92.6

13.7

15.3

15.3

18.3

12.0

5.4

3.9

1.1

1.1

6.5

100.0

2.8

97.2

29.3

22.0

13.4

9.0

5.1

2.7

2.9

.8

.4

11.6

100.0

9.7

90.3

1.7

5.5

9.5

15.0

17.1

11.8

9.7

4.4

6.5

9.1

100.0

10.8

89.2

1.6

3.7

7.9

12.4

17.4

12.7

n.i

4.7

8.2

9.5

100.0

7.3

92.7

0

9.1

15.4

23.6

17.3

10.0

6.4

2.7

1.8

6.4

100.0

5.3

94.7

8.0

12.0

8.7

16.6

14.0

8.7

6.0

4.7

2.7

13.3

100.0

2.4

97.6

5.1

8.2

11.2

16.8

17.5

10.8

10.9

3.8

4.2

9.1

100.0

2.8

97

1

5

9

16

19

11.8

13.3

4.8

5.9

9.1

100.0

2.2

97.8

6.3

10.3

13.9

19.8

16.9

10.9

8.3

2.3

2.1

7.0

100.0

.7

99.3

18.5

16.4

13.5

11.7

10.2

5.9

5.9

2.4

1.2

13.6

100.0

2.3

97.7

1.9

4.3

8.4

17.6

20.2

13.2

12.7

4.2

3.7

11.5

100.0

2.7

97.3

.8

3.5

7.1

17.4

21.3

12.5

12.9

4.9

4.4

12.5

100.0

1.7

98.3

3.6

5.4

11.4

17.8

18.9

16.3

12.9

2.3

1.9

7.8

100.0

.5

99.5

9.6

11.5

13.6

18.4

10.0

6.8

8.1

2.3

1.6

17.6

100.0

2.3

97.7

2.8

5.3

8.6

14.5

20.1

11.5

14.5

5.0

6.6

8.8

100.0

2.4

97.6

.9

2.9

e.e

12.9

21.3

12.4

17.6

5.8

9.1

8.1

100.0

3.1

96.9

3.4

6.8

9.9

19

20

11

11

3

3

6

100.0

.7

99.3

9.1

11.8

14.0

11.7

14.7

8.8

8.3

4.0

1.7

15.2

100.0 100.0

2.2 3.0

97.8 97.0

11.2 1.4

15.3 i^.T

17.0 8.7

18.4 16.8

12.0 19.5

6.8 Ih.i

6.3 10.4

2.0 4.7

1.3 7.4

7.5 8.8

100.0 100.0

3.1 3.5

96.9 96.5

3.9 1.1

12.2 2.7

17.2 7.6

20.9 14.3

13.7 20.2

8.7 14.4

9.1 12.0

3.3 5.1

1.9 9.7

6.0 9.4

100.0 100.0

1.9 2.3

98.1 97.7

n.o 0

15.9 9.0

18.3 12.4

20.2 24.6

13.0 18.4

6.3 16.9

4.1 6.5

1.1 2.8

1.1 1.7

7.1 5.Í*

100.0 100.0

.7 1.4

99.3 98.6

29.3 6.7

21.7 10.7

13.9 8.3

9.3 18.4

6.0 15.7

2.7 10.6

3.4 7.0

.7 6.1

.4 2.7

11.9 12.4

1/ Derived from 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey. Data for some inccme groups are combined in the "^

reports based on the survey because of sampling limitations. Based on tables 1 and 2, Survey Reports 1-5 (33)'

2/ Based on number and size of primary economic families. For further explanation, see ßlossarv of Surver

Reports 1-5 (33). ^ &- j
- ^3 -

Table 10.—Distribution of members of housekeeping families of

2 or more persons in first quarter 19^2 and spri.its 1955,

by urbanization and income l/

In first quarter 19^

•

In spring 1'^'55

fincóme at iinnual rate) : (195I+ income)

Family income \

in dollars 2/ ; • •

United

States

: Urban :

Rural ;

nonfarm \

Farm :

United

States

: Urban Rural

lonfarm \

Farm

Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. : Pet. Pet. Pet.

All : 100.0 57.9 21.9 20.2 : 100.0 f^A 0 28.6 12.5

In current dollars I a current dLI1«rs

Under 500 : 16.2 2.9 18.2 52.1 : } 5.7 1.8 6.9 21.6

500-1,000 : 12.6 8.9 19.3 15.8 •

1,000-1,500 13.1 11.0 21.1+ 10.1+ ;

(• 9.2 ó.' 11.1+ 19.1

1,500-2,000 13.5 ik.6 15.6 7.8 •

2,000-2,500

2,500-3,000 ) 21.9 /16.5

\12.8 V16.O 7.1^ 1 12.7 10.8 I'^.S 15.8

3,000-U,000

U,000-5,000 : } 15.7 22.6 8.0 l+.O .

19.0

19.7

^8.8

¿WS

'.1.8

.3.6

13.6

12.0

5,000-6,000

: y 7.0

^

12.2 13.'' ^¿.0 6.9

6,000-7,000 \ ,

7,000-7,500 '8.1+ '1.5 2.5 : \ 12.1+ 15.1 9.1 6.9

7,500-8,000 /

8,000-10,000 J / 1^.3 : • 2.6 2.8

10,000 and over : ; 2.3 ; : 1+.8 6., 2.3 1.3

In 1951+ dollars : "Pring 19^2 dollars

Under 500

500-1,000 ;)- 5 21 55 : 0

: 6 3

7

7

20

15

1,000-1,500

1,500-2,000 :}- 10 25 17 : 9

: 13 13

12

15

15

12

2,000-2,500

2,500-3,000 ;)^^ 15 21 11

:)" {3 18

16

1.1

9

3,000-1+, 000 : 16 20 15 6 : 17 20 1I+ 10

U, 000-5,000 : 11 15 8 1+ : 8 10 7 1+

5,000-6,000 : 7 10 1+ 3 : 3 h 1 2

6,000-7,000

= \o« : 1

7,000-7,500 : \ 88 12 3 2 = 2 2 1 1

7, 500-8,000 :J J

8,000-10,000 : h 6 2 1.5 : 1.5 2 1 1 '

10,000 and over : 5 Y 1 .5 : 1.5 2 1 3/

\J Distribution of family members in current dollars for first quarter I9U2 derived

from data in Bur. Labor Statis. Bui. 822 Family Spending and Saving in Wartime (25 )

and for spring 1955 from 1955 Survey Report 1, Food Consumption of Households in'^he

United Staté¿^ (33j« Distributions in terms of cîoTlars of other period derived by

graphic adjustment of cumulative curve of income-size distribution for change in price

level, measured by chajige in Consumer Price Index. 2/ Ilet money income in first quarter Y)h2. at annual rate; disposable money income in 195^. 3/ Negligible.
Appendix A

DATA ON MEAT CONSUMPTION

T\^ major types of information on meat consiimption are available. The

first is the annual time series of U. S. civilian meat consuniption "based on

disappearance data. This type of information is called "disappearance" data

because the consumption estimates are calculated by adding production, imports,

and beginning stocks and subtracting ending stocks, exports, and military

takings to deteimine supplies "disappearing" into civilian distribution

channels. They are referred to as time series because they are series of

annual aggregates or averages extending over a period of years. The second

type of data comes from surveys of household consumption. These are properly

descrTbed as cross-section data. Sometimes they are called family or household budget data even though they represent actual consumption and not

budgeted or planned consumption.

For each set of meat consumption data there are quantity and related

value statistics, as described below.

Time-Series Data

Data on the disappearance of meat into civilian consiomption are estimated

at approximately the 'wholesale level, in terms of carcass weights excluding

offals (hearts, livers, etc.). Production estimates are based on official

reports of federally inspected slaughter and voluntary reports on animals

slaughtered in other plants and on farms, obtained as part of the regular crop

and livestock surveys by the Agricultural Estimates Division, AMS. Net change

in stocks of meat held in commercial cold storage warehouses, primarily by

packers and wholesale distributors, are taken into account. Also we add the

carcass weight equivalents of imported me ats^and subtract exports.

The estimates of meat consumption per capita in table 1 include carcass

weight equivalents of quantities canned and otherv/ise processed.

Canned meat statistics cover only imported and federally inspected meats.

Per capita consumption of such canned meats is reported from time to time in

the Livestock and Meat Situation (6) and in table 28 of the annual supplements

to Agr. Handb. 62 (3) •

Further information on disappearance data is given in Agr. Handb. 62. Its

supplements contain revised statistics on the supply and distribution of each

major type of meat for each year beginning with 1909* Each issue of the

National Food Situation (lO) carries current data for the per capita series in

terms of primary distribution weights.

Retail weights of meat are estimated from primary distribution data for

the entire time series, using the following percentages to derive retail from

slaughter weights: Beef, 79; veal, 91; lamb and mutton, 89; pork excluding^

lard-- lean cuts, 65 and fat cuts, 28. These data are in table 1. The retail

weight series are published annually in supplements to Agr. Handb. fô.
- 45 -

Retail value of meat consumed per capita includes the value of homeproduced meat as veil as all meat sold. The series^ reported from time to

time in the Livestock and Meat Situation (6) y is calculated from the retail

weight data just described and weighted average retail store prices for all

beef^ all pork^ veal, and lamb and mutton computed by the Statistical and

Historical Research Branch, AMS. The price series for all grades of beef is

estimated by taking into account the cost to packers of aJ.1 live cattle, the

packer-wholesale price spreads, and the whole s ale-re tail price spreads for

choice grade meat. Details of this estimation procedure for beef may be found

in "Retail Price and Value for All Beçf, '^ Livestock and Meat Situation,

July 1959 (11) • The average retail price for all pork is developed from

Bureau of Labor Statistics retail price data for selected cuts using wholesale

price relationships ajnong almost all pork products other than lard.

The retail store cost of meat sold by farmers is estimated as part of

the statistical work on the farm-re tail price spreads for food products and on

the marketing bill. These data are described in Misc. Pub. 7^1 (¿^ PP- T^-Sl);

current data are given in the supplements to that publication and in the

Marketigo: and Transportation Situation (8) . Tliis series differs from the

preceding series on retail value of per capita consumption primarily by excluding home-produced and imported meat.

Uses and Limitations of

Time-Series Data

Time-series data have been developed for study of (l) changes in average

consumption of all meat and of major kinds of meat, and (2) changes in relationships between meat consumption and economic factors such as income and

price.

Being overall averages, they tell us nothing about changes in consumption which lie behind the averages, sucli as variations in consumption by

groups within the population and changes in the market structure. Furthermore,

they supply no information on variations among population groups in the consumption of major cuts of meat. For such information cross-section data must

be used.

Cross-Section Data

Several nationwide surveys of household food consiunption provide information on the quantities of each major cut and kind of meat consumed and/or

purchased by households grouped according to urbanization, income, area, and

sometimes occupation.. The major surveys were made in 1935-36, I9U2, I94Ö,

1951^ and 1955. Full references to the publications containing the survey,

data may be found in the Bibliography.

Problems encountered in using household survey data, and some limitations of data such as those provided by the I955 survey, are discussed in

"Use of 1955 Food Survey Data for Research in Agricultural Economics" (tô, pp.
- k6 ~

83-87 and 89-91) • Additional information may be foiind in the introduction and

appendixes of the several survey reports.

We have found meat consumption data from the 19^2, 19tô, and I955 surveys

to be the most usable. The spring 19^2 survey covered all housekeeping households subdivided by urbanization and income. The 19^*8 survey collected data

only from urban households of 2 or more members. The report on this survey

Agr. Inf. Bui. I32 (28, p. 88), provides a North-South break for broad food'

groups only. The I955 survey provided subdivisions into k regions, 3 urbanization categories, 1-person households and households of 2 or more, and by

income for households of 2 or more persons. Data for average consumption per

household for each subgroup indicate significant variations in consumption.

Kinds of Data

on Meats

The survey reports contain figures on consumption and purchases for

each major cut of each kind of meat in terms of average pounds of products and

retail value, and the percentage of households in the group using the item.

Some supplementary notes about the meat data from each of these three surveys

follow.

Spring 19^2.- The pork data in table 26 of Misc. Pub. 55O (2¿) exclude

fat cuts (bacon and salt pork) which are contained in table 27. The "other

meat" category of table 26 includes substantial quantities of home-produced

and canned beef and pork. Estimates of quantities and values of purchased

meats can be derived for rural nonfarm and fanri households by subtracting the

data on home production given in table 30 from the meat data in tables 26

and 27.

Spring 19^+8, Urban Only.- Data on purchased meats in table 36 of Agr.

Inf. Bui. 132 (28) include pork fat cuts. The statistics on quantity and value

of all meats consumed from all sources reported in table ^7 are not subdivided

by kind or cut. However, for urban households, data on purchased meat by

kind and cut (table 36) are a good indication of the subdivisions of meat from

all sources. 38/

Spring 1955.- The figures for meat consiuned by households in all urbanization categories combined pertain to supplies from all sources and from

purchased only, table 10 of Survey Reports I-5 (33). Urban consumption daxa

are not differentiated according to whether the meat was purchased — practically all urban supplies are purchased. However, purchases of beef and pork

are reported for rural households. Detailed data on purchases of major cuts

of beef and pork are included only for farm households. Some additional

subdivisions of these mral statistics are available upon request from the

38/ A special tabulation of urban data from the 19^-2 survey, excluding oneperson households, is reported in Agr. Inf. Bui. I32 (gg^ p. lOil-) .
- UT -

\J. s. Department of Agriciilture. Information on consumption of beef and pork

from home-produced supplies is reported for rural nonfarm and farm households

in table 22 of Survey Reports 1-5. Related data on home production of meats

in calendar year 195*^ are given in table 3> Survey Report 12 (^) .

Additional Calculations

Several major types of data can be calculated from the published

statistics obtained in surveys such as those for spring 1955« These include

per person averages, relatives to the U. S. average, shares of the food dollar,

shares of the household market, and distributions of the housekeeping

population. In calculations combining farm and nonfarm data from the 1955

survey, allowance must be made for the oversampling of the farm segment as

described on page 3, Sui^ey Reports 1-5 (¿¿) •

Per Person Averages.- Meat consioniption averages per person for a week of

spring 1955 (sind spring I9U2) used in this bulletin were derived by dividing

the published average quantities used per household by the average household

size for each group of households. For the I955 data, household sizes are

given in table 3, Survey Reports 1-5 (¿¿) . Average household sizes had been

computed by totaling the number of meals served in households in each group

and dividing by 21 {IS, pp. 87-88).

Such per person averages pertain only to a week's use of food at home

in the period of the survey by housekeeping households, whereas per capita

averages of the annual disappearance data, discussed above, cover consumption

over the whole year by the entire civilian population at home and away from

home in eating places of all kinds, including public and private institutions.

Relatives to Uj;. ^ Averages.- Percentages of U. S. average consunrption,

such as shown in figures 8 and 9^ compare, in relative terms, per person averages for population subgroups with those for the total population. Use of

these relatives simplifies the study of variations in consumption by omitting

constant reference to units, time period, and season* However, generalizations

from the relationships must be made with reference to the supply and demand

conditions at the time of the sujfvey.

Shares of the Food Dollar.- Comparisons of the value of all meat consumed (including that received without direct expense) with the value of all

food consumed at home, or comparisons of expenditures for meat purchased with

total expenditures for food at home, provide useful indications of the relative importance of meat in the household food picture. However^ several

pitfalls lie in the path of the unwary researcher. One is the difference

between consumption from all sources and from purchased supplies only. Another

is the inclusion of alcoholic beverages in the total money value of food at

home and the total food expenditures as reported in table 3 of Survey Reports

1~5 (¿2) • (However, separate data on alcoholic beverages are reported in

table 20.) A third is the fact that meat data apply only to consumption at
home^ but expenditure and money value data reported in table 2 cover food avay

from home as well as food for consumption at home. Finally^ tables 2 and 3

of Survey Reports 1-5 differ because table 2 applies only to the primary

economic family^ and data for table 3 were developed in terms of members of

households eating out of household food supplies. The meat data are on a

household basis and match up with the all-food data for home consumption

reported in table 3*

Shares of the Market.- The data on regional shares of the U. S. household market for meat^ and kinds of meat^ such as shown in figure 12,

were calculated by maJiing a percentage distribution of U. S. aggregate expenditures for household meat consumption in spring 1955 ajnong the regions.

Aggregates may be calculated by multiplying average expenditures per household

for each region, table 10 of Survey Reports 1-5, by the niomber of households

in the region, table 1 of the same reports (^) . Since the household market

accounts for the largest part of the total U. S. meat market, the household

survey data provide usable indications of the regional shares of the total

meat market.

More detailed measures of this sort can be calculated from the published

data, -- e.g., by urbanization group and income class in each region.

Distributions of Family Members.- The distributions of members of housekeeping families in spring 1955^ given in tables 8 and 9, were calculated by

making a percentage distribution of the aggregate number of persons in housekeeping families among the various population groupings. The aggregate nuniber

of persons in the families was derived by multiplying the number of households

by the average family size, tables- 1 and 2, Survey Reports 1-5 (^) . These

distributions differ slightly from those which may be calciilated in terms of

household members rather than family members. Distributions of the household

population, based on meals served at home in a week, among sex-age groups in

each region, urbanization, and income class are published in table 2 of Survey

Reports 6-10 (^) .

For many analytical purposes we mal^e use of percentage distributions of

members of only those housekeeping families of 2 or more persons which

reported their income for 195^* Such distributions may be readily calculated

from the data in table 9. They indicate how this population was distributed

by size of family income.

Uses and Limitations of

Cross-Section Data

At the outset, a word of caution must be given. Analysts using the

detailed data from the survey reports must recognize the decreasing degree

of reliability for progressively smaller groups of households and less

iurportant cuts of meat. Generalizations from such sample data involve
. 49 -

questions of reliability of recall, pioblems of sanrpling, and seasonality for

some items. These subjects merit much more extensive discussion than can

be included here.

Some uses of these cross-section data are indicated by sections II

and III of this bulletin, which describe and analyze variations in consiomption

among groups in the population and the regional market structure for meats in

general and for kinds of meat. Additional uses are described in the article

by Burk and Lanahan referred to above {jjd, pp. 93~98).

The major limitations of survey data stem from the fact that they

necessarily reflect the demand and supply situation for meats only at the

time of the survey. In addition, these data on meat consumption exclude all

meat eaten away from home. Among income and urbanization categories,

consuraption away from home may vary in somewhat different ways from consumption at home.
- 50 -

Appendix B

INFORMATION ON PRICES, INCOME, EXPEITOITURES, AND POPULATION

A brief introduction to the vast array of data on prices, income,

expenditures, and population i^ given in this Appendix. Further information is

available in publications cited in the Bibliography- In using these data,

differences in definition and coverage of individual series through time, and

differences between the time-series data and sets of cross-section data,

should be observed.

Price Data

The Bureau of Labor Statistics collects urban retail price data and

calculates the official Consumer Price Index, published regularly in the

Monthly Labor Review (l3) and in monthly press releases issued by the Bureau.

A monthly report, Retail Food Prices b^r Cities {ih), carries average prices

for cities, and indexes. For reference use, the major food subindexes and

the CPI are reprinted in the last table of the National Food Situatlon(lO) each

quarter. These indexes and the nonfood index are published in table 52 of

the annual supplements to Agr- Handb. 62 (3).

Farm price data are collected by the Agricultural Marketing Service.

The current information is published in the monthly report. Agricultural

Prices (2). Time series of prices received and paid by farmers are

summarized annually in Agricultural Statistics (16).

The AMS series on lann and retail value and the marketing cost of the

market basket for faim food commodities purchased by urban consiomers are

published currently in the Marketing and Transportation Situation (8) and

summarized in Misc. Pub. 7^4-1 and its supplements (¿) .

Income and Expendituire Data

The National Income Division of the Office of Business Economics, U. S.

Department of Commerce, prepares the official estimate of national income

and expenditures as part of its work on the national income accounts. The

periodic publication on national income, of which the latest edition was

entitled U^ S^ Income and Output (22), contains data for selected years on

total and per capita disposable personal income for the United States;

regions, and States. The complete per capita series for the United States

can be calculated from the published aggregates from this and earlier editions

entitled National Income (20). State data on personal income are published

in Personal Income by States Since 1929 (l)^ a supplement to the Survey of

Current Business, issued in 1956 but brought to date in the Survey of Current
- 51 -

Business (21) each year, usually the August issue. The Commerce series for

the United States on disposahle income per capita in current dollars^ in

191^7-1^9 dollars, and related indexes (computed by AMS) are published regularly

in table k9 of the supplements to Agr. Handb, 62 (¿).

Estimates of the distribution of families and unattached individuals

by size of income for selected years, 19^1f-56, are published in U^ S^ Income and

Output, table 11-11.

The Agricultural Marketing Service regularly prepares and publishes

estimates of farm income for the United States and for individual States.

This includes statistics on cash receipts by type of commodity. These data

are published regularly in the Farm Income Situation {k).

Time series of U. S. aggregate expenditures by type of product, 19^-57,

are published in table II-U of IJL S^ Income and Output. The Commerce total

personal consumption expenditure series is also published for reference purposes in tenns of aggregates and per capita averages in current dollars, 19^7-^9

dollars, and related indexes (developed by AMS) in table 50 of Agr. Handb. 62.

There are no true expenditure data for meats. This reflects the lack

of information on expenditures for meats outside housekeeping households.

Without a conçrehensive survey of foods served by eating places, it is

impossible to estimate the quantities and values of meats served as parts of

meals and snacks. However, tvo sets of value data are frequently used as

substitutes for expenditure data. One of these is the retail value of all

meat consumed, including home-produced supplies and meats consumed in

restaurants and the like. The second is the series on retail cost of

domestically produced meats sold to civilian consumers. Both series are

described in Appendix A.

For many analyses it is desirable to convert the value data for incomes

or expenditures given in current dollars to a constant dollar basis. By

making this conversion one may take out the effect of the change in purchasing

power of the dollar, insofar as possible. Allowance for change in the

purchasing power of the dollar is often made using the Consumer Price Index

for the general series on income and the Retail Food Price Index for food.

There is much to be said for using the Consumer Price Index as a general

deflator for all income and expenditure series, instead of individual price

indexes that tend to take out changes in the relationships of prices for

individual commodities or gixDups of commodities to the general price level.

In compariqg sets of survey data on incomes and expenditures, we have usually

found it desirable to adjust the value data by the Consumer Price Index.

However, such adjustments for the recent war period merit careful scrutiny

because of problems with price indexes during the years of price controls.
- 52 -

Population Data

Most time series on population are based on data developed "by the

Bureau of Census^ the major collector of population data. However, the

Agricultural Marketing Service maintains a separate series on farm population.

The Agricultural Marketing Service also prepares a series of estimates of the

population eating out of civilian food supplies, derived from Census data,

and publishes the series annually in table 53 of the supplement to Agr.

Handb. 62 (¿).

Population data pertinent to the cross-section surveys are regularly

published in reports on household surveys of food consumption and expenditures.

Urbanization and income-size distributions of members of housekeeping families

from the 19^2 and 1955 surveys are given in tables 8-10. The method of

calculating such distributions is discussed in Appendix A in connection vith

cross-section data.
- 53 -

Appendix C

USE OF Î4EAT COUSUIvIPTION DATA IÏÏ ADIALYSES

Meat consumption data are used in the study of changes in consumption

through time and in the study of variations at one point in time. Research

findings presented in this bulletin indicate the desirability of utilizing

both time-series and cross-section data in studies of historical changes. ^22/

Although no detailed guide to such analysis has yet been published^ an

operational approach and several types of procedures can be described.

Vfe begin by recognizing the basic fact that changes in meat consumption

reflect changes from the supply and the demand sides. Studies of changes in

meat supplies and their influences on consumption are reported from time to

time in the Livestock and Meat Situation (6) . A major statistical study in this

area is by Hildreth and Jarrett^ A Statistical Study of Livestocl: Production

and Marketing; (86) . Another major study of both the supply aspects and the

demand elements^ which relied principally on time-series data^ is '.working's

Demand for Meat (68). These studies^and professional reviews of them^ are

readily available to research workers.

Both of these publications were written before 1955 — they did not

include analysis based on the 1955 survey. Some guidelines are given here

for further research using fairly simple procedures for utilizing both timeseries and cross-section data. More detailed guides are in preparation for

later publication.

PixDcedures described are grouped under four topics: (l) Preparation of

data for analysis; (2) graphic analysis; (3) alternative combinations of consumption rates and population distributions; and {h) calculations and study of

income elasticities.

Preparation of Data

Some phases of preparation of data on meat consumption for analytical.

use are described in Appendixes A and B. In brief, it is often necessary to

convert published household averages to per person averages, to adjust dollar

values for changes in price level, to convert poundage data at one level of

distribution to equivalents at another — for example, retail weights back to

carcass weights, or to farm value equivalent. Often apparent inconsistencies

between two sets of data can be traced to variations in their coverage. An

example is encountered in using household survey data, in which nutritionists

sometimes prefer to group fat cuts of pork with fats and oils rather than

with meats.

30/ Burk and Lanahan article in A^r-. Econ. Res. (^40) > Breimyer and Kause

bulletin (ijO), and Lanahan article in the National Food Situation (¿2) • '
- 5^ -

Graiphlc Analysis

To supplement work with statistical data arranged in tabular form,

many analysts turn to graphic analysis. We frequently use logarithmic charts

of consumption per person for each income class plotted against average income

per person of families in that class for each urbanization category of each

region. These are called "Engel curves*" Graphic analysis often permits the

analyst to see the outlines of the forest and to avoid getting lost among the

trees of minor aberrations. Charts reveal the systematic variations in consumption data with such factors as purchasing power and degree of urbanization.

Sometimes they bring unexpected patterns to light and enable the analyst to

study and explain them by referring to other sets of data.

A general guide to the use of graphic analysis in the study of consumption is provided by Graphic Analysis in Agricultural Economics by Frederick

V. Waugh (6X) .

Alternative Combinations of Consumption Rates

and Population Distributions

Per person averages of meat consumption by subgroups of households

derived from the 19^2 and 1955 surveys provide opportunity for analysis of

effects of changes in key economic factors — income, urbanization, and the

catchall or residual element which we describe as changes in consumption

patterns related to income and urbanization. The familiar procedure of making

alternative combinations of values of two or more variables is sometimes

described as a reweighting procedure. It encoimters some of the problems met

in construction of index numbers, that is, applicability and interpretation

of fixed weights. Following is an outline of the pixDcedure for working out

the possible effect of changes in income on changes in U. S. average consumption of meat from spring 19^2 to spring 1955-

The analysis begins with (l) average meat consumption per person in

pounds, retail weight, derived from the 1955 survey data and given in table 2;

(2) income-size distributions of the housekeeping population in spring 1955

for each urbanization in the United States, derived from data in table 9;

(3) income-size distributions for the housekeeping population in spring 19^+2;

converted to distributions in terms of 195^ dollars, table 10; and (^4-) the

urbanization distribution of the housekeeping population in spring 1955 and

in spring 19^2, table 10.

The first step is the calculation of a weighted U. S. average for 1955

directly from the above data, using I955 average quantities per person for

each income class in each urbanization, the 1955 income-size distributions,

and the 1955 urbanization distribution.

The second step consists of calculating an estimated weighted average

for 19^2, using the I955 average quantities per person for each income group,

the 19^1-2 income-size distributions in terms of 195^ dollars, and the 1955
- 55 -

urbanization distribution. The difference between this average and the 1955

average calc\ilated in step 1 reflects the effect of change in income-size

distributions only.

Other combinations of income-size distributions, urbanization distributions, and income-class averages for quantity and value provide materials to

challenge the analyst's ingenuity.

Another use of the reveighting procedure is to derive working estimates

of consumption in subareas of a region, such as a State or metropolitan area.

If one assumes that the consumption average for households of given income

and urbanization categories found in the regional surveys are representative

of consumption rates of households in the particular State, one can recombine

these averages with estimated distributions of the population in the particular State by income class within each urbanization category.

V7e have found it very important to check such combinations with all

available data. For example, we have tested the income and urbanization

distributions developed for one State by comparing calculated estimates of

the market value of food purchased by consumers ^rith average retail food

store sales per person in the State in 195^^ ^nd in the region (Census data) .

If the calculated average for market value of food purchased in the State

bears a relationship to the regional average reasonably comparable with the

relationship between the State and regional food store sales data, we consider

our estimates to be adequate for pi^lirainary analysisIncome Elasticities

Economists and statisticians frequently calculate income elasticities

of quantities and values of food consumed, l/e have found it desirable in

many instances to use simple linear regressions in logarithms of both family

income per person and meat consuniption per person. \Je usually compute such

regi^essions for both the time-series and cross-section data and study our

results. One does not expect the elasticities to be the samie, because changes

in supply and consumption patterns through time affect the time-series

elasticities and not the cross-section ones. This subject is considered at

length in technical bulletins now in preparation and in a statistical article

already published. HoJ

hoj Burk, Marguerite C. "Some i^Jialyses of Income Food Relationships,"

Jour. Amer. Stat. Assoc, Dec. 1958 (1¿, pp. 919-921) .
. 56 -

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Statistical Soxirces

1. Time-series data

(1) Schwartz, Charles F., and Graham, Robert E., Jr. Personal Income

by States—Since 1929 > A supplement to the Siorvey of Current

Business"^ U. S. Dept. Com,, Office of Bus. Econ., 229 PP*> illus.,

195^:

(2) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Agricultural Prices. U. S,

Agr. Mktg. Serv., monthly.

(3) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Consumption of Food in the

United States, 1909-^2. (Issued by U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ., predecessor of U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv.) U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Handb. 62,

2^9 PP-^ illus., Sept. 1953.

Data superseded by Supplement for 1956, issued by U. S. Agr.

Mktg. Serv., 120 pp., Sept. 1957^ and by annual supplements

thereafter. Some data published ciirrently in the National Food

Situation (10). Agr. Handb. 62 superseded Misc. Pub. 09I Consumption of Food in the United States, 1909-48.

(U) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Fana Income Situation. U. S.

Bur. Agr. Econ. and Agr. Mktg. Serv., currently published 4 times

a yeeüT.

(5) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Farm-Retail Spreads for Food

Products. U. S. Dept. Agr. Misc. Pub. 741, 165 VV*] illus.,

Nov. 1957.

Some of the data published currently in the Marketing and

Transportation Situation (8). Misc. Pub. 714-1 superseded Misc.

Pub. 576 Price Spreads between Fanners and Consumers for Food

Products.

(6) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Livestock and Meat Situation.

U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ. and Agr. Mktg. Serv., currently published

7 times a year.

(7) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Livestock and Meat Statistics

1957. U. S. Dept. Agr. Statis. Bui. 230, 307 pp., illus., July

Ï95H, annual supplements.

(8) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Marketing and Transportation

Situation^ U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ. and Agr. Mktg. Serv., currentljT

published quarterly.
- 57 -

(9) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Measuring the Supply and

Utilization of Farm Commodities. U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Handb. 91,

114 pp., illTis., Nov. 1955.

Data superseded by Supplement for 1956, 52 pp., Oct. 1957, and

by annual siipplements thereafter. Some of the data for food

commodities published currently in the National Food Situation

(10).

(10) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. National Food Situation.

U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ. and Agr. Mktg. Serv., currently published

quarterly.

(11) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. "Retail Price and Value for

All Beef." Livestock and Meat Situation, J\ily 1959, PP. 23-2?.

Reprint available.

(12) U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Prices in the United

States, 1953-58—Price Trends and'indexes. U. S. Bur. Labor

Statis. Bui. 1256, 126 pp., iUus., 1959*

(13) U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Monthly Labor Review. U. S. Bur.

Labor Statis., monthly.

(ik) U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retail Food Prices by Cities.

U. S. Bur. Labor Statis., monthly.

(15) U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retail ^rices of Food 19^7-^8.

U. S. Bur. Labor Statis. Bui. 125^, 37 PP-, iHus., 1959«

(16) U. S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics. U. S.

Dept. Agr., annual.

(17) U. S. Department of Agriculture. Major Statistical Series of the

U. S. Department of Agriculture—How They Are Constinicted and Used.

U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Handb. II8.

(Each volume issued as a separate publication.)

Vol. k. Agricultural Marketing Costs and Charges. 35 PP»> 1957-

Vol. 5« Consumption and Utilization of Agricultural Products.

91 pp., Dec. 1957.

Vol. 8. Crop and Livestock Estimates. 2k pp., Oct. 1957.

Vol. 10. Market Mevs. In press.

(18) U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service

and Agricultxiral Research Service. Agricultural Outlook Charts.

Illus., issued each fall with statistical tables.

(19) U. S. Department of Agriculture, Production and Marketing Administration. Conversion Factors and Weights and Measures for Agricultural Commodities and Their Products. 96 pp.. May 1952.
- 58 -

(20) U. S. Department of Commerce, Office of Business Economics,

National Income, 195^ edition. A supplement to the Siirvey of

Current Business, U. S. Dept, Com., 21^9 PP-> iH^s., 1:^5^

(21) U. S« Department of Commerce, Office of Business Economics. Survey

of Current Business. U. S. Dept. Com., monthly beginning Aug.

1921:

(22) U. S. Department of Commerce, Office of Business Economics. U. S,

Income and Output. A supplement to the Survey of Current Business,

U. S. Dept. Com., 2I4-I pp., illus., 1958. " "

This is the I958 edition of the supplement formerly titled

National Income.

2. Cross-section data

a. 19^1 and spring 19U2 household survey data:

(23) U. S. Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics (now Institute

of Home Economics). Family Food Consumption in the United StatesSpring I9U2. U. S. Dept. Agr. Misc. Pub. 550, 157 PP*> 19^^.

This report contains food data obtained in the Study of Family

Spending and Saving in Wartime.

*

{2h) U. S. Bureau of Human :]utrition and Home Economics. Rural Family

Spending and Saving in Wartime. U. S. Dept. Agr. Misc. Pub. 520,

163 PP.^ J^e 19^3.

This information on expenditures end savings of rural families

and single consumers during 19lfl and the first quarter of 19'^2

was obtained in the Study of Faraily Spending and Saving in Wartime. Urban and some all urbanization group data published in

Bur. Labor Statis. Bui. 822 (25)>

(25) U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Family Spending and Saving in

Wartime. U. S. B\ar. Labor Statis. Bui. Ö22, 21Ö pp., illus.

Printed as House Document l^TA, 79th Congress, 1st Session, 19^+5«

This volume contains data on income, expenditures, and savings

obtained in the 19UI-U2 nationwide Study of Family Spending and

Saving in Wartime. Detailed tabulations for all U. S. families

combined and urban families separately are included, but much of

the detail for farm and rural nonfarm families was published by

the Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics in Misc. Pub,

520 {2k).
- 59 -

b. 19^7 and spring 191*8 data for three types of southern farming areas:

(26) Dickins, Dorothy, Gillaspie, Beulah, Moser, Ada M., et al. Family

Food Consumption in Three Types of Farming Areas of the SouiETZ

I. An Analysis of I947 Food Data. Mississippi Agr. Exp. Sta.,

State College,Miss., et äTI Southern Cooperative Series Biil. 7,

lk2 pp., illus., June 1950.

(27) Moser, Ada M., Dean, Willamay T., Gillaspie, Bexaah, et al. Family

Food Consumption in Three T^es of Farming Areas of the SoutE^

ÏI. An Analysis of Weekly Food Records, Late Winter and EarlySpring, 19^3~. S. C. Agr. Exp. Sta., Clemson, S. C, eï^&T.

Southern Cooperative Series Bva. 20, 207 pp., ill\is., Nov. 1951.

c. 19kd~k9 urban household survey data:

(28) Clark, Faith, Murray, Janet, Weiss, Gertrude S., and Grossman,

Evelyn. Food Consumption of Urban Families in the United States.

U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Inf. Bui. 132,20^ pp., illus., Oct. 1951f.

Final report on 19li8-i|-9 urban food surveys by Home Economics

Research Branch, Agr. Res. Serv.

(29) U. S. Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics. Seasonal

Patterns of Food Consumption—City Families, I9U8. Spec. Rept. 3,

based on Food Consumption Surveys of 1940-14-9, 17 pp., Feb. 1951,

d. 1951-52 North Central Region rural household survey data:

(30) Orshansky, Mollie, Blake, Ennis C, and Moss, Mary Ann. Food Expenditures. Preservation, and Home Production by Rural Families in the

North Central Region 1951-52. U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Inf. BIJI . 11 ^^

Ö6 pp., illus., Aug. 1956.

(31) Orshansky, Mollie, Le Bovit, Corinne, Blake, Ennis C, and Moss,

Mary Ann. Food Consumption and Dietary Levels of Rvirsl Families

in the North Central Region, 1952. U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Inf.—

Bui. 157, 210 pp., illus., Nov. 1957.

e. Spring I955 household survey data:

(32) Lavell, Robert J. "Introduction of New Regional Indexes for Food

Consumption Analysis." National Food Situation. Julv IQSQ üTí

17-39. Reprint AMS-3l^0 IJY, ' ^^*

(33) U. S. Depar-bnent of Agriculture. Household Food Consumption Survey,

Report 1. Food Consumption of Households in the United States

196 pp., illus., Dec. 19^6. ^^ ^*
- 6o -

Report 2. Food Coasumptlon of Households in the i^ortheast.

195 pp., illus., Dec. 1956•

Report 3. Food ConsiJmption of Households in the North Central

Region. 196 pp., illus., Dec. 1956.

Report k. Food Consumption of Households in the South. I96 pp.,

illus., Dec. 1956.

Report 5. Food Consumption of Households in the West. 19^^- pp.,

illus., Dec. 1956. ~~"

Report 6. Dietary Levels of Households in the United States.

68 pp., illus.. Mar. 19y/. ~~'

Report 7. Dietary Levels of Households in the liortheast. 68 pp.,

illus.. May 195T.

Report 8. Dietary Levels of Households in the North Central

Region. 6Ö pp., illus.. May 1957»

Report 9. Dietary Levels of Households in the South. 68 pp.,

illus., May 1957*

Reprot 10. Dietary Levels of Households in the West. 68 pp.,

illus., July"Í957.

Report 11. Home Freezing and Canning by Households in the United

States-—by Region. 72 pp., illus., Oct. 1957. '

Report 12. Food Production for Home Use by Households in the

United States—by Region. 80 pp., illus., Jan. 195Ö.

Report lU. Food Consumption and Dietary Levels of Households as

Related to the Age of Homemaker, United States—by Region.

134 pp., illus., Oct. 1959.

Report 15. Food Consumption and Dietary Levels of Households as

Related-to Employment of Homemaker, United States—by Region.

130 pp., illus., May I960.

f. Survey data on consumption outside households:

(31+) Anderson, Kenneth £•, and Hoofnagle, William S. Market for Food in

Public Schools. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg, Res. Rept. 37T>

5Ö pp., illuso, Jan. i960.
. 61 -

(35) Lifquist, Rosalind C. Buying Practices and Food Use of Employee

Food Services in Manixfacturing Plants > U. S. Agr. Mktg, Serv.

Mktg. Res. Rept. 326, 135 PP., iHus., J\me 1959-

(36) Sartoriuis, Lester C, and Biork, Marguerite C. Eating Places as

Marketers of Food Products, U. S. Bur, Agr. Econ. in cooperation

wltn mv. Agr. Econ., university of Minnesota. U. S. Bur. Agr,

Econ. Mktg. Res. Rept. 3^ II8 pp., 1952.

B. Analytical Studies with Reference to Meat Consumption

(37) Beik, Leland L. Consumer Demand for Meat. Pennsylvania State

University A. E. and R. S. 19, 73 PP-, Apr. 1959-

(38) Branson, Robert E. Consumer Market for Beef. Texas Agr. Exp.

Sta. Bui. 856, 28 pp., illus., Apr. 1957-

(39) Breimyer, Harold F. ''Outlook for Meat and Poultry Supplies."

Statement to National Association of Food Chains, Chicago, Illinois,

15 pp., illus., Feb. 16, 1959.

(ho) Breimyer, Harold F. "Problems and Probable Trends in Adjusting

Livestock Production to Changes in Food Habits.' Talk before

Interregional Livestock Production and Marketing Conference,

Ithaca, New York, 21 pp., illus., June I3, 1956.

(kl) Breimyer, Harold F., and Kause, Charlotte A. Consumption Patterns

for Meat. U. S. Dept. Agr. AMS-2U9, 37 pp., illus.. May 195Ö.

{k2) Burk, Marguerite C. "An Economic Appraisal of Changes in Rural

Food Consumption." Jour. Farm Econ. XL:3:572-590, illus.", Aug.

1958.

(U3) Burk, Marguerite C. "Significance of Current Developments in Food

Statistics." Presented to session of American Marketing Association, Cleveland, Ohio, I6 pp., June I8, 1959.

{kh) Burk, Marguerite C. "Some Analyses of Income-Food Relationships."

Jour. Am. Stat. Assn. 53:905-927^ illus., Dec. I958.

(^5) Burk, Marguerite C. and Gronbech, Gertrude."Home Food Production:

How and Where Important." National Food Situation, Apr 1958

pp. 3h-h7. "

(i^6) Burk, Marguerite C. and Gronbech, Gertrude. "Home Food Production:

Part II, Livestock Products, Historical Changes and Future Prospects." National Food Situation, jiiiy I958, pp. 32-52, illus.

Reprint available.
. 62 -

(14-7) Burk, Marguerite C, and Lanahan, Thomas J., Jr. "Review of U. S.

Food Expenditure Patterns, Spring 1955." National Food Situetion,

Nov. 1956, pp. 32-1^7.

(U8) Burk, Marguerite C, and Lañaban, Thomas J., Jr. "Use of I955

Food Survey Data for Research in Agricultural Economics." Agr,

Econ. Res. X:3:79-98, July 1958. Reprint AMS-262.

(U9) Burk, Marguerite C, and Sherr, Harry. * "Some Highlights of the

Urban Household Market for Food." National Food Situation,

Apr. 1957, pp. 24-38.

(50) Daly, Rex F. "The Long-Run Demand for Farm Products." Agr. Econ,

Res. VIII:3:73-91, illus., July 1956. Reprint AMS-I30.

(51) Daly, Rex F. Prospective Domestic Demands for Food and Fiber.

Reprint from Policy for Commercial Agriculture—Its Relation to

Economic Growth and Stability, papers submitted by panelists

appearing before the Subcommittee on Agricultural Policy, 85th

Congress, Joint Economic Committee, pp. IO8-II8, Nov. 22, 1957»

(52) Daly, Rex F. "Prospective ?Jeeds for Food and Fiber." In Land,

pp. 1^66^73, illus., U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Yearbook, 195&:

(53) Hoofnagle, VJilliam S., and Anderson, Kenneth E. "The Market for

Meat in the Nation's Schools." Livestock and Meat Situation,

May 1959, pp. 31-33.

(5U) Kause, Charlotte A. "Consumption of Commercially-Produced Meat

by Months." Livestock and Meat Situa^tion, Aug. 1956, pp. 29-^^+.

(55) Kolmer, Lee, Gartner, Joseph, and Kutish, Francis A. Consumer

Marketing Handbpok—I. Meat. Iowa State University, ^ pp.,

illus., Nov. 1959*

(56) Lanahan, Thomas J., Jr. "Food Consumption of Households in the

riortheast." National Food Situation, July 1957^ VV* 16-29.

Reprint AMS-3^0 (6).

(57) Lanahan, Thomas J*, Jr. "A Review of 1955 Survey Data on Household Meat Consumption." National Food Situation, Apr. 1957;

pp. 51-68. Reprint AMS-3^0 (1).

(58) Lavell, Robert J. "Food Consumption in the North Central Region."

National Food Situation, Apr. 1957^ PP. 39-50. Reprint AMS3^0 (2).
. 63 -

(59) Lavell, Robert J. "Food Consumption in the South," National Food

Situation, Feb. 1957, PP- 29-^^0. Reprint AMS-3^0 (SX

(60) Lavell, Robert J. "Food Consumption in the West," National Food

Situation, Oct. 1957, PP. 22-29. Reprint available.

(61) Miller, Earl E. "Changes in Demand for Pork Products." Livestock

and Meat Situation, May-July 1953, PP* 1^-19, iHus. Reprint

available. (Revised data in Sept. 1959 issue, pp. I3-I7.)

(62) Orshansky, Mollie. "Changes in Farm Family Food Patterns." Presented at 1957 Agricultural Outlook Conference, reprinted in

Agricultural Research Service, Farm Family Spending in the United

States, U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Inf. Bui. I92, pp. 7-13, illus.,

June 1958.

(63) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. "Farmers* 'Production of

Meat for Home Use." Livestock and Meat Situation, Mar. 1958,

pp. 23-26, illus.

(614-) U. S. Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics. Meat Selections

of City Families. U. S. Dept. Agr. Commodity Summary 1, 9 PP«,

illus., Aug. 19^9-

(65) U. S. Bureau of Human [nutrition and Home Economics. Meat: Variations in Consumption and Interrelationships with Other Foods.

U. S. Dept. Agr. Commodity Summary 11, 31 pp., illus., Apr. 1951.

(66) U. S. Department of Agriculture. Land and Water Potentials and

Fut\ire Requirements for Vater. A report to the Select Committee

on National Water Resources, United States Senate, Dec. 1959.

Committee Print 12, 73 pp., illus., i960.

(67) Waugh, Frederick V. Graphic Analysis in Agricultural Economics.

U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Handb. 12Ö, 69 pp., illus., July 1957.

(68) Working, Elmer J. Demand for Meat. Cooperative Research Project,

Institute of Meat Packing, University of Chicago and Dept. of Agr.

Econ., University of Illinois, 136 pp., illus., 195^.

C. Studies Relating to the Production and Marketing of Meat

(69) Barton, Glenn T., and Rogers, Robert 0. Farm Output—Past Changes

and Projected Needs. U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. inT. Bui. 162, 4^^ pp.

illus., Aug. 1956.

(70) Breimyer, Harold F. "Emerging Phenomen: A Cycle in Hogs." Jour.

Farm Econ. XLI:U:760-768, illus., Jov. 1959.

(71) Breimyer, Harold F. "Federal Grading of Meat—Its Economic

Meaning." Livestock and Meat Situation, July 1959, pp. 18-22.
. 6li -

(72) Breimyer^ Harold F. ''How Vertical Agriciiltin-al Business Integration Will Affect the Livestock Industry/' Remarks at Southern

Farm Forum, New Orleans, Louisiana, 6 pp., Jan. 22, 1959•

(73) Breimyer, Harold F, "Next Stage in the Cattle Cycle." Livestock

and Meat Situation, Aug. 1957^ PP- 16-19•

(7^4-) Breimyer, Harold F. ''Observations on the Cattle Cycle." Agr.

Econ. Res. VII:1:1-11, illus., Jan. 1955-

(75) Breimyer, Harold F. "100 Million Cattle? A Review of Projections

and Methods of Making Them." Statement for the Western Farm

Economics Meeting, Estes Park, Colorado, 25 pp.^ illus., July

26, 195^.

(76) Breimyer, Harold F. "What is Ahead for the Cattle Business?"

Talk before the ^iebraska Stock Growers Association, Lincoln,

Nebraska, 9 pp., illus., June 12, 1959•

(77) Breimyer, Harold F., and Kause, Charlotte A. Charting the Seasonal

Market for Meat Animals. U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Handb. 03, ^6 pp.,

illus., June 1955-

(78) Cook, Harold T., and Pentzer, W.T. "Antibiotics for the Preservation of Food Products." Agricultural Marketing, Jan. 1959^

pp. 16-17^ illus.

(79) Doty, Harry 0., Jr. Distribution of Lamb and Mutton for Consumption in the U. S. U. S. Dept. Agr. AMS-93^ 12 pp., illus.,

Feb. 1956.

(80) Doty, Harry 0., Jr. Lamb Availability and Merchandising in Retail

Stores. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Res. Kept. 207, ^0 Dp.,

illus., Jan. 1958.

(81) Engelman, Gerald. "An Economist Looks at Meat Grading and Consumer

Studies." Statement to the Conference on Consumer Studies and

Meat Quality, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, 1^ pp.;

illus., Sept. 9, 1957.

(82) Engelman, Gerald. "Integration in the Livestock Industry."

Marketing and Transportation Situation, Nov. I958, pp. 29-35-

Reprint AMS-2Ö2.

(83) Engleman, Gerald, and Gaarder, Raymond 0. Marketing Meat-T^pe

Hogs —Problems, Practices, and Potentials in the United States

añd"CañaIa: U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Kes. Kepx. ¡¿'¿V^

49 pp., illus., Apr. 1958.
- 65 -

(Qk) Gaarder, R. 0., and Kline, E. A. "What Do Consumers Want From Pork?'

lova Farm Science, 11:6:6-8, illus., Dec. 1956. Iowa State College

Reprint 6Ö6.

(85) Gaarder, R. 0., and Kline, E. A. "What Kind of Ham Do People Want?"

Iowa Farm Science, 12:9:9-10, illus,. Mar. 1958. Iowa State

College Reprint FS-T^T*

(86) Hildreth, Clifford, and Jarrett, F. G. A Statistical Study of

Livestock Production and Marketing. New York: John Wiley and

Sons, Inc., 156 pp., illus., 1955*

(87) Hoofnagle, William S., Dwoskin, Philip B., and Bayton, Jajnes A. The

Market for Food in Selected Public and Private Institutions.

U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Res. Rept. Ö4, 3Ö pp.. Mar. 1955*

(88) Miller, Earl E. "Beef Production, by Class and Grade, 19^5-56."

Livestock and Meat Situation, Jan. 1958, pp. 17-21, illus.

(89) Miller, Earl E. "Beef Production by Grade—Revised Data." Livestock and Meat Situation, Mar. 1958, pp. 21-22.

(90) Miller, Earl E. "Canned Meat Output by Regions." Livestock and

Meat Situation, July 1956, pp. 19-21, illus.

(91) Miller, Earl E. "Geography of Livestock Production and Slaughter."

Livestock and Meat Situation, Aug. 1956, pp. 20-28, illus.

(92) Miller, Earl E. "Meat Production by States." Livestock and Meat

Situation, Mer. 1956, pp. 13-20, illus. Reprint pvailrble.

(93) Miller, Earl E. "Outlook for Sausage Meats." Livestock and Meat

Situation, May 1959> PP* 21-23, illus. (Included in each issue

beginning May 1959*)

(9^) Motts, George N. Marketing Handbook for Michigan Livestock, Meats

and Wool. Michigan State University Agr, Exp. Sta., Spec. Bui.

^2b, 79 PP.^ illus., Aug. 1959-

(95) Phillips, Victor B., and Engelman, Gerald. Market Outlets for

Livestock Producers. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Res. Rept. 2l6,

24 pp., illus.. Mar. 1958.

(96) Pierce, John C. "Beef Grades and Standards—Past and Present."

Remarks before National Beef Industry Conference, Lafayette,

Indiana, 6 pp., Oct. 19, 1959*

(97) Rhodes, V. James. "How the Marking of Beef Grades Was Obtained."

Jour. Farm Econ. XLII:1:133-1^9, Feb. I96O.
- 66 -

(98) Rhodes, V. James, iíaumann, H. D., Kiehl, Elmer R., Jaenke, E. A,

"Consumer Aceptance of Lean Pork." Jour. Farm Econ, XLII:l:l8-

3^, Feb. i960.

(99) Riley, H. M., and fCramer, R. C. What Consumers Are Saying About

Prepackaged Fresh and Frozen Meats. Michigan State University

Agr. Exp. Sta. Spec. Bui. 406, 20 pp., illus., Dec. 1955.

(100) Stevens, Ira M., and Fox, R. L. Improving Livestock Marketing

Efficiency. U. S. Dept. Agr. Farmer Coop. Serv. Gen. Rept. 39,

k2 pp., illus., Jan. 1958.

(101) Toothman, James S. Survey of Distribution Practices for Prepackaged Frozen Meat. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Res. Rept. I37,

23 pp., illus., Sept. 1956.

(102) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Beef Marketing Margins

and Costs. U. S. Dept. Agr. Misc. Pub. 7IO, 35 pp., illus.,

Feb. 1956. Current information in Marketing and Transportation

Situation (8).

(103) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Lamb Marketing Costs and

Margins. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Res. Rept. 159, 35 pp.,

illus., Apr. 1957. Current infonnation in Marketing ajnd Transportation Situa.tion (8).

(lOU) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Livestock Market News.

Weekly Summary and Statistics.

(105) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. "The Outlook for Frozen

Foods." Marketing and Transportation Situation, Oct. 1956,

pp. 17-^3*^ Reprint AMS-15^.

(106) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Pork Marketing Margins and

Costs. U. S. Dept. Agr. Misc. Pub. 7II, ^à pp., illiis., Apr.

Î95ÏÏ:

(107) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. "Prospect for Hogs,"

Livestock and Meat Situation, May 1958, pp. 1U-I8.

(108) U. S. Agriciiltural Marketing Service. "Review and Outlook."

Livestock and Meat Sitiiation, Aug. I958, pp. U-10, cattle cycles.

("Review and Outlook" appears in each issue.)

(109) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. "World Meat Production and

Consumption." Livestock and Meat Sitiiation, Jan. 1958^ PP* l^-l^*

(110) U. S. Department of Agriculture. Beef—Facts for Consumer Educe.-

tion. U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Inf. Bui. Ok, 21 pp., illus., '^

Sept. 1952.
- 67 -

(111) U. s. Department of Agriculture. Pork—Facts for Consumer Education. U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Inf. Bui. 109, 22 pp., illus.,

Jan. 195it.

(112) Williams, Willard F., Bowen, Earl K., and Genovese, Frank C.

Economic Effects of U. S. Grades for Beef. U. S. Agr. Mktg,

Serv. Mktg. Res. Kept. 29Ö, 199 pp., illus., Jan. I959.

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : I960 0-554724