MEASURES and PROCEDURES

for ANALYSIS of

U. S. FOOD CONSUMPTION

Agriculture Handoooic No. 206

..R^'^.-.;*

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Economic Research Service

Economic and Statistical Analysis Division

Washington,DC.
PREFACE

A considerable body of information on U. S. food consumption has been developed

by the U. S. Department of Agriculture during the last 25 years. Estimates of annual

data on per capita consumption of all major foods and several overall measures of food

consumption, published regularly by the Agriciatural Marketing Service prior to April

1961, are now issued by the Economic Research Service. In earlier publications such

estimates and appraisals of the results have been described.

This bulletin goes one step further: (l) It considers the concepts underlying

alternative economic measures of overall food consioniption, both through time and among

major population groups at one point in time; and (2) it describes special procedures

developed for analysis of problems related to food consumption.

The research on fanrnretail price spreads and marketing services, to which

reference is made in this bulletin, was also transferred from the Agricultural

Marketing Service to the Economic Research Service under the April I961 reorganization

of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. The Statistical Reporting Service received

the responsibilities of the former Agricultural Estimates Division of AMS, including

reports on current crop and livestock production and farm prices.

Noted at appropriate points in the text are recognitions of several contributions to the handbook made by members of the staff of the Consumption Section,

Statistical and Historical Research Branch, and by others now in the Economic

Research Service.

June 1961

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C. - Price 60 cents
CONTENTS

Page

Chapter 1. Introduction 1

1.1 Content and plan ^

1.2 Organization of the reference system 2

Chapter 2. Ways of Looking at Food Conßuiic)tion 3

2.1 Commodities covered 3

2.2 Meanings of food consunçtion and their relationships to level of

distribution ^

2.3 Sources of food • 7

2.k Broad categories of use and users • 7

2.5 Distribution channels to civilian consumers 7

2.6 Marketing services sold with food 8

2.7 Variations in food consumption among population groups at one

point in time • 8

2.8 Changes in food consuii^)tion through time 0 9

2.9 Consumer acceptances^ preferences, and food habits 9

Chapter 3« Economic Measures of Food ConsuDçtion 10

3.1 Time series of quantities of food consumed 10

3.2 Time series of supplier values • • • • 15

3*3 Time series of retail values 19

3*^ Time series of market values 20

3.5 Marketing services sold with food — time series 23

3*6 Department of Commerce series • • 25

3*7 Federal surveys of food consumption » 26

3.8 Business cross-section food surveys 33

3*9 Special isurveys for market development research 36

3.10 Retail store data 36

Chapter k. Introduction to Procedures for Analysis of U. S. Food Consumption ... 53

k»l Organizing data for use in analysis • 53

4.2 Use of graphic analysis in studying relationships 6I

4.3 Alternative combinations of consuiiç)tion rates and population

distributions • 63

k.k References to standard statistical procedures j6

4.5 Methods for analysis of changes in the market value of all food 76

Appendixes

A. Comparison of household survey and time-series commodity coverage 85

B. Procedure used in estimating market value .of all food and some

by-product data 87

C. Checks on 1955 survey data and guides for comparison with other data 93

D. Cross-section indexes of per person food consumption 96

E. Guide to some related time series of economic and social statistics IO8

Literature Cited and Other References 112
MEASURES AM) PROCEDURES FOR AI^ALYSIS OF IL S^ FOOD CONSUMPTION

By Marguerite C. Burk

Agricultural Economist

Economic Research Service

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION

The primary objective of this bulletin is to assist market research workers in

choosing among alternative economic measures of U. S. consunçtion of all foods

combined. The selection of economic measures often materially influences (l) the

trends and patterns of consunçtion ascertained, (2) findings concerning the reasons

for historical changes and variations, and (3) appraisals of future trends and needed

adjustments in food production and marketing. A second objective is to aid research

TOrkers in selecting and applying appropriate procedures to the analysis of variations

in food consuBçtion.

All parts of the conqplex structure of United States food production, marketing,

and consunçtion are changing. The nation's investment of resources in agriculture

and in food marketing necessitate ever greater effort to majcimize efficient adjustment

to change. Such efforts must start from knowledge of directions and rates of change.

Because this country apparently can produce all the food that U. S. consumers may want

in the foreseeable future, with only minor exceptions, the key problem in the adjustement process is forecasting ^at foods and what food marketing services the people in

this coiintry are going to want to consume next year, 5 years from now, 10 years off,

and so on.

1.1. Content and Plan

The knowledge on which forecasts of food consuniption must rest has been growing

with changes in the structure, but perhaps not fast enough or disseminated widely

enoxigh, to meet present-day needs. In the last decade, meanings of consunçption have

proliferated, as have terms to describe them and data to measure them. Clarification

and delineation of alternative meanings of food consumption to be found in chapter 2

of this handbook provide a basis for more precise macroeconomic analysis of variations in food consumption.

Details of the construction of some familiar time-series measures of overall

quantities and value of food are provided in other publications, l/ They are reviewed

briefly in chapter 3 of this handbook, as are newly developed measures, in order to

provide a coordinated appraisal of historical statistics on quantities and values of

all food consumed by U. S. civilians, measured at the supply level, the retail level,

and the final market level.

To reveal the detailed structure of overall food consumption, cross-section

data from several surveys of food consumption by U. S. households are meshed with some

of the time-series data in terminology and summarized in chapter 3.

1/ As in Agr. Handb. II8 Ma.ior Statistical Series of ^le U^ Sj^ Department of

Agriculture (21^), Agr. Handb. 62 Consumption of Food in the United States, 1909-52 (6),

and Agr. Handb. 9I Measuring the Supply and Utilization of Farm Commodities (12) .

Numbers in parentheses refer to item numbers in Literature Cited and Other

References, beginning on page 112.
Chapter k provides descriptions of several procedures developed for use with

overall measures of food consuii5)tion in analysis of historical changes in crosssection differences. Reference to some familiar methods supplements the new material.

Procedures described here are those used to obtain operational answers to practical

problems, rather than to derive theoretically elegant measurements of economic

relationships.

Several appendixes supplement information given in the main body of the text.

1.2. Organization of the Reference Scheme

The system of numbering text sections, tables, and figures has been adapted from

technical works on statistics and economics to expedite cross-referencing in this

handbook and to contribute to its usability as a reference work. The first digit of

each text section number (¿.1.2.2.), table number (¿.2), and figure number {k.l)

refers to the number of the chapter in which it is given. Appendix references begin

with a capital letter, as B.l. The second digit is a text reference indicates a major

section of the chapter except for appendix references in which the first digit pei^

fonns this function. (Examples: 3.2 and B.2 both refer to second major section of

chapter 3 or the appendix) . Headings of these major sections of the chapter are included in the table of contents along with the page number on which each begins.

Numbering of subsections follows the same system.

To help the reader become thoroughly familiar with the standard literature on

food consumption, an abbreviated identification is used for each major reference, as

well as the number assigned to it, in Literature Cited and Other References, at the

end of the handbook. Example: Agr. Handb. 62 (6) refers to Agriculture Handbook

No. 62, Consumption of Food in the United States. 1909-52 (and its annual supplements),

which is number 6 in Literature Cited and Other References.

A coding system is also used for time series pertaining to quantities of food

and food marketing services and to value data. A kind of road map for this system

is provided in exhibits A and B of chapter 3-
- 3 -

Chapter 2. WAYS OF LOOKING AT FOOD CONSUMPTION

From an economic point of view alone, food consumption involves a complex of

interrelated ideas. Certain complications arise from the variety of possible ways in

which the subject may be considered. Others arise from the fact that many of these

aspects are not mutually exclusive. A first step in clarification of the subject is

the careful delineation of the different ways of looking at food consumption.

Aspects requiring clarification before an analysis of a problem in this area is

begun include: (l) Commodity coverage; (2) choice among meanings^ of food consunçtion—

quantity, quality, and value; (3) levels at which food consumption's measured within

the marketing system; {k) coverage in terras of both sources and uses; (5) channels

through which food reaches consumers; (6) kinds and amounts of marketing services

bought with food; (7) variations in food consumption among groups in the pop\ilation

at one point in time; (8) changes through time and (9) food consumption as differentiated from consumer acceptances, consumer preferences, and food habits.

2.1. Commodities Covered

This handbook is primarily concerned with all foods combined, with little attention given to the commodity sectors. The commodities included are those customarily

consumed as human food in the United States, encompassing fishery products and spices

as well as farm products. Alcoholic beverages are not generally classified as food

by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. In some sets of data, however, expenditures

for alcoholic beverages are not separated from those for food. Wherever this occurs,

particular note is made of the exception.

2.1.1. Food Commodities and Food Use

All commodities with any food use may be described as food commodities; or one

may limit the coverage to commodities used primarily for food. For example, agricultural economists often refer to food grains, meaning wheat, rye, and rice, as opposed

to the feed grains ~ com, barley and oats. The first group ~ food grains — is

used in this countiy primarily for food, whereas only relatively small quantities of

the second group — feed grains — go for food. This handbook uses the terms in the

more inclusive sense, that is, all commodities consumed as food by U. S. consumers.

2.1.2. Nonfood Commodities and Nonfood Use

Agricultural commodities that never are used for food can be readily identified

as "nonfood commodities." But nonfood use of food commodities introduces complications.

Food commodities may be used directly and wholly for nonfood purposes, such as the

feeding of whole grain to livestock. Or food and nonfood products may be joint products of food commodities, as in the case of flour and bran from wheat. 2/

Ordinary wastes and losses in distribution may or may not be considered as food

use of food commodities. From an economic standpoint they represent use of agricultural resources instead of alternative use of marketing resources to reduce their

occurrence. Some of these wastes and losses may therefore he regarded as a part of

food consumption. This is particularly evident if consuniption is to be measured at

2/ This problem is considered at length in Agr. Handb. 9I (l2), pp. I5-I6, 2Í+-26.
- 4 -

the farm level. At the retail levels hovever, allowances for wastes and losses are

usually made tp exclude them from the measure of food, counting them statistically

with nonfood use of food commodities,

2.2. Meanings Qf Food nnnsun^pt-^^n and Their Relationshins

jtû Level QÍ PÍgtrn?UtlQft

Concepts of quantity, quality, and value provide alternative meanings of food

consumption that hear economic importance. The significance of each term appears

superficially to be single, hut actually every one is quite complicated. This section

points out some of the conçplications that make satisfactory definitions elusive, particularly those related to distribution levels. Oiie tenii "consunçtion" must he

considered first.

2.2.1. Consumption

For economic analysis, "food consunçtion" means the quantities of food taken

from the market. To he precise, the time-series estimates of food consunçtion should

be described as measuring the approximate quantities of food moving through trade

channels into domestic consunçtion. Because of the relatively great perishability of

most foodstuffs, measures of these movements are considered to be relatively good

estimates of actual consumption in the economic sense, though their adequacy varies

widely.

Ordinarily, home-produced supplies of food are included in "consunçtion" or

"food use" along with those obtained through marketing channels.

2.2.2. Quantity

The meaning of the term "quantity" can be broadened to include "value" or

"expenditure." Yet, in referring to food, it is usually restricted to weight or

volume. When a person refers to queintity of food consumed,he generally means noTindage.

The poundage of a single food is an economically significant measure. But consideration

of the total poundage of all foods combined is coii5)licated by the need to distinguish

the different poundages as they leave the farm gate, the processor, the wholesale

produce dealer, or the retail store.

Quantity problems may arise even for a single commodity. The obvious example of

frozen concentrated orange juice and fresh oranges comes to mind. Should the poundage

of processed product or the weight of the reconstituted juice be added to the retail

weight of the fresh oranges? A total including the cans of frozen orange juice and

the i^tail weights of fresh oranges has little meaning. Should farm weight

equivalents of processed products be added to farm weights of oranges sold to consumers in fresh form? To handle such problems, a common denominator is needed. There

are at least four common denominators for food: (l) Pounds ax any one of several

levels in fresh or unprocessed equivalents; (2) content of a common ingredient such as

fat or calcium in dairy products; (3) food energy value measured in calories; and

{h) price-weighted indexes of quantity. An analyst's choice among these alternatives

must be based upon a clear understanding of what is being measured, and why. The

common denominator chosen must fit the attributes of food being studied in a given

problem.

2.2.3. Quality

A comprehensive definition of quality was developed a few years ago by a group

of food technologists, economists, statisticians, and home economists: "Quality is
- 5 -

the combination of attributes of a product that have significance in determining the

degree of acceptability of the product to a user, " ^

It is difficult to evaluate quality, for it may mean a type of food with less

waste than another, or food that is more mature, more tasty, or more tender, or more

costly to produce or to market or to buy than some other food, or food that contains

more nutrients that are particularly needed. Does a shift from canned to frozen

vegetables, or from potatoes to leafy, green and yellow vegetables represent an increase in food consiomption? Most people would agree that a shift in consuiiç)tion to a

line that is higher priced and that requires more production and marketing services,

represents an improvement in the quality of food consumed and, for certain analyses,

an increase in food consumption.

This leads some^at prematurely to one of the most difficult problems in

economic analysis of food consunçtion — the combination at the consumer level of

marketing services with food as produced by farmers or by fishermen. The addition of

some marketing services to foods (as in precooking, washing, grading, and so on) may

provide attributes desired by consumers; thus its quality is increeised. These two

elements are distinct to producers and to marketing agencies, but not to consumers.

In this handbook the distinction between feurai and marketing inputs is maintained,

with attention directed to the separate contribution of each.

Although nutritive value is an economically inçortant aspect of food quality,

it is considered only incidentally in this handbook. Those who are concerned with

inqproving the general level of nutrition of our population are likely to consider an

increeuse in consumption of foods with relatively scarce nutrients to be a desirable

increase in food consumption, even if it occurs at the expense of reduced consunqption

of foods high in more plentiful nutrients. Obesity is currently recognized as one of

the major problems of nutrition in this co\mtry. Some substitution of foods high in

protein, minerals, and vitamins for foods high in carbohydrate and fat content is

therefore preferable to net increases in total poundage of food consumed. Accordingly,

many nutritionists would view such shifts as improvements in food consunçtion. The

Institute of Home Economics regularly calculates the nutritive value of the per capita

food supply in terms of 11 nutrients and food energy. As yet, however, there is no

satisfactory common denominator for combining these nutrients into an overall nutritional index.

2.2.1*-. Value

Values of food consumed expressed in dollars are partic\ilarly useful for

economic analysis of variation and trends in food consumption, provided both value

concepts and matching data are carefully identified and conçarability maintained. For

example, the average ïnarket value of food consumption includes the value of all resource inputs by primary producers and all marketing inputs by processors and

distributors. But the average farm value of food consumed includes only the value of

productive resources used by farmers to provide cattle on the hoof, raw milk, and so

on. ¿/

Looking at the meaning of value in another way, we see that it is composed of

a price element in addition to a measure of quantity and quality. Introduction of

price reflects economic inputs on the supply side, as just described, and preferences

on the demand side.

3/ Page 117, Market Demand and Product Quality. (70) .

¿/ The division between farm and marketing inputs is indistinct at times but may be

based on ^o pays the bill,as for picking fruit ~ the farmer or the marketing agency.
. 6 -

For economic analysis of food consunqption, five different concepts of value need

to be identified: (l) Fam value, (2) retail value, (3) market value, (k) food expenditures, and (5) value of marketing services sold with food. ¿/ The meanings of

these terms, as indicated earlier in this chapter, are tied in with levels of the

distribution system and with particudar kinds of economic resources.

2.2.^.1. Farm value represents the total value of farm commodities in terms of

prices received by farmers. Farm value of food means the portion of the total faim

value of food commodities allocated to food use as contrasted with nonfood purposes.

(This leads back to the problem of joint products mentioned in 2.1.2.) The farm value

of food sold by farmers represents their returns for the food share of production of

raw materials used in food products. Farm value of food produced for home consunçtion is the value imputed to those supplies, using the farm prices of comparable foods

sold.

2.2.U.2. Retail value is the value of food priced at the retail-store level.

Here we include the resources supplied by primary producers in the forms of the raw

commodities and of the services supplied by marketing agencies from the producer level

through the retail level. By convention, retail value excludes the services of meal

preparation and serving supplied by eating places. In other words, it is the calculated value of all food consumed by civilians, assuming that all purchases were made

at retail store prices.

2.2.4.3. Although the term market value is also applied to the value of food

sold by fanners or retailers, in recent years it has been used to an increasing extent

by economists of the U. S. Department of Agriculture to represent the value of foods

at the prices paid by final consumers at several levels of distribution. Thus, market

value includes «n inputs of economic resources. It can be applied to those foods

bought directly from farmers or -vrtiolesalers, as well as to foods purchased as prepared

meals in eating places of all kinds.

2.2.4.4. Food expenditures are ordinarily taken to mean dollax outlays for food

by consumers, excluding the imputed value of home-produced food. 6/ However, the best

known set of data by that name, the Department of Commerce series, includes the value

of most home-produced food and excludes food bovight by business firms as meals for

clients. This exa2iç)le indicates the need of precise knowledge of the connotations of

a particular value concept and the apparently "matching data. "

2.2.4.5. The value of marketing services sold with food is the counteipart of the

idea of farm value of food alone. The value of all food services consumed include

those of assembly, transportation, warehousing, processing, \diolesaling, retailing^

and meal preparation and serving. Thus marketing services include the inputs of

labor, capital, and management beyond the farm level.

2.2.4.6. At this point a word about value in current dollars as opposed to

"real" value in constant dollars is necessary. Most value data are in terms of current dollars, that is, dollars spent within the time period to which they refer. But

economists are frequently concerned with "real" value, that is, value data adjusted

for changes in the purchasing power of the dollar. For some purposes, it is highly

¿/ Data matching these concepts are supplied in chapter 3; the description of the

measures may help clarify the concepts.

6/ Strictly speaking, escpenditures should also exclude the imputed market value of

payments in kind, such as employees' meals. But this would complicate study of the

flow of food through marketing channels since such food actually receives the same

services as meals sold. Therefore, it is included with meals sold to consumers.
- 7 -

desirable to convert current dollars to constant dollars or real values, that is, the

equivalents of values in a specified base period. This is usually done hy dividing

the current dollar figures by the pertinent price index of the Bureau of Labor

Statistics or of the Department of Agriculture.

2.3« Sources of Food

Extensive discussion of sources of food (e.g. domestic farm produced,imported)

properly belongs in a bulletin describing basic data on production or foreign trade or

in a bulletin on production economics. But since the coverage of the sources has considerable "bearing on economic analyses of problems in food consumption, the major

sources of U. S. food are enumerated here. (See table 3.3.) Full descriptions will

be found in three other handbooks. 2/ In brief, most of the U. S. food supply comes

from domestic farm producers. Some of it is consumed by the households of the farms

where it is produced, but most is sold. Many nonfarm households produce some farm

food commodities for their own use. Also, we import substantial quantities of farm

food commodities. Nonfarm foods include fishery products and the spices. These may

be produced in this country or imported.

^•^» Broad Categories of Use and Users

This handbook is concerned primarily with consumption of food by the U. S.

civilian population, but U. S. food commodities are also purchased by the U. S. Armed

Forces and for nonfood purposes by civilians and the military. Nonfood use includes

consumers* goods such as clothing, producers' goods for agricultural use such as for

feed, seed, and hatching, as well as industrial goods. The other broad category is

export, either through commercial channels or by the Government. Detailed descriptions of these categories are available in the three handbooks referred to in note 7»

2.5. Distribution Channels to Civilian Consumers

Distribution channels constitute an important aspect of food consumption because,

first, they provide a key to the marketing services supplied with food, and, second,

use of the several distribution channels is affected by different economic and social

factors. Identification of the distribution channels relevant to a partic\ilar problem

is a prerequisite to the choice among sets of data.

2.5.1, Home Production

Home production may be viewed either as a source of food or a distribution

channel through which food reaches consumers. By home production we mean the growing

or raising of crops and livestock for use in the household of the producer, the gathering of berries, or the catching of fish for use in the home. It is impossible to be

as precise as one would like in the use of this term. For example, the feeding of a

chicken after purchase for a few days before slaughter does not make the chicken homeproduced in an economic sense, but the fattening of a purchased steer for several

months is likely to be considered as home production. The example of feeding a steer

shows how easy it is to have double counting in agricultural statistics.

Information on home production is complicated by the fact that food received as

payments in kind for work done on another farm or as meals, or as gifts from family

and friends, may have been home produced or it may have been purchased. Operationally,

probably the best assumption is that such interchanges are offsetting.

1/ Vol. 5 of Agr. Handb. II8 (glf) ; Agr.~andb. 62 (6); and Agr. Handb. 91 (12).
- 8 -

2.5.2. Purchased Foods

Food commodities may be pvirchased from producers^ as at wayside stands^ or from

distributors at the wholesale or retail levels. The food may he bought by private

households or it may be bought by institutions and eating places. Purchased foods

ordinarily includes meals and snacks. The ternoi "eating places" is often broadened to

include institutions and to signify all places for eating food outside private homes.

Institutions include hospitals, orphanages, penal establishments, and the like.

2.5.3. Prepared Meals

Food may be sold to consumers in the form of prepared meals or snacks by eating

places, or it may be supplied without separate payment. For example, many eating

places furnish meals to employees as part of their pay. Institutions furnish meals to

inmates and patients, and travelers often receive meals along with other services of

air and water transportation agencies. Most meals and snacks are sold outright. Some

eating places also sell candy and ice cream, even prepeired dishes for off-premise

consuiiç)tion.

2.6. Marketing Services Sold With Food

The major types of marketing services sold with food are mentioned earlier, in

connection with their value. For economic analysis of food consuinption it is inçortant to separate the use of these services from the consunç)tion of food commodities as

primary products involving only farm or fishing resources — because economic and

social factors affect the two types of resources differently. Study of marketing

services boxight by consumers is within the scope of this handbook only insofar as it

pertains to the analysis of food consuiiç)tlon. 8/

2.7. Variations in Food Consumption Among Population

Groups at One Point in Time

Variations in food consumption at one point in time among groups in the population may refer to the quantity, quality, and value of food consiomed and to several

other aspects of food consumption. The patterns of consunçtlon among such groups of

consumers for individual foods and for the general level of all food consumed can be

expected to differ according to whether the food is eaten in private homes or away

from home in eating places, because of varying intact of certain economic and social

factors. Food at home may be subdivided according to source — purchased, home produced, gift or payaient in kind. Breakdowns of food away from home vary among sets of

data and are described in chapter 3.

For some economic analyses, it is iniportant to consider variations in food

consumption of the civilian population according to housekeeping status of the consumers. The definition of housekeeping households varies according to the purpose

for which the data have been collected. For exançle, the Census Bureau defines

households in terms of the residents of a dwelling unit. For the food surveys of the

Institute of Home Economics, a household is a group of persons who share food supplies,

and a housekeeping household is one in which at least one person had 10 or more meals

from household food supplies during the seven days preceding the survey interview.

The nonhousekeeping population includes the institutional population, as well as those

individuals and households that do not come within the definition of housekeeping

households. In this category are residents of hotels and rooming houses. A coiiç>llcation is introduced by the fact that some members of the Armed Forces live at home

8/ For further information,see vol. k of Agr. Handb. II8 (2^) and Misc. Pub. ^kl (2).
and all eat outside military establishments \aiile on leave. Another arises because

some service families obtain their foods from commissary supplies which are counted

with military takings. Such complications have been handled by special adjustments

where significant.

Other bases are often used for subdividing the U. S. civilian population, and

thus the food consumed. These include: (l) Region ~ the maJceup of regions varies

among censuses and according to problems being studied; (2) degree of urbanization —

whether urban, rural nonfarm, or fam; and size of city; (3) income — usually current total, including nonmoney or current money only, before or after tajees; {h) family

type according to number in the family and age and sex coiiÇ)osition; and (5) other

bases such as race, occupation, age or education of the head of the household or of

the housewife, and national origin.

2.8. Changes in Food Consumption Through Time

There are even more possibilities of variations in food consimçtion through

time than at one point in time. These include changes (l) in the quantity, quality,

and value of food consumed; (2) in their combinations and commodity coverage; (3) in

sources of food consumed; {k) in the relative importance of major categories of use

and users; (5) in channels through which food reaches consumers; 2/ (6) in all these

patterns of variations; (7) from those in one point in time to another point; and

(8) in marketing services obtained through given channels.

These changes in food consuiiç)tion through time may be considered in terms of

(1) aggregates for the whole country, (2) annual averages per capita, or (3) patterns

of consumption among specified groups in the population. In economic analysis of

food consumption, it is sometimes important to consider changes in the seasonality or

short-run variations from one year to another. A whole set of changes in food consxomption has to do with how relationships of food consuiiÇ)tion to economic and social

factors change through time. Thus, the concept or meaning of changes in food consumption through time encompasses the great variety of possible combinations.

2.9- Consumer Acceptances, Preferences, and Food Habits

Finally, reference is made to three other concepts of food relevant to analysis

of variations and changes in food consumption. These are consumer acceptances of

food, consumer preferences for food, and food habits. 10/ Consumer acceptances appear

to be fairly close in meaning to the idea of food consumption in terms of quantities

disappearing from the market in a given period, though the meaning of consumer

preferences is apparently broader than the quantity, quality, and value of food

actually bought or consumed. Probably some consumers from time to time buy some foods

of a type or quality that they would prefer not to buy if alternatives were available

in the market. It is true that some consumers may prefer some quality or convenience

factors not available to them. Food habits include not just the combinations of food

bought and used in a particular period, but the ways in which they are shopped for,

prepared in the kitchen, and combined into meals, and even the ways in which meals are

served. These elements are difficiJilt to measure quantitatively, but their descriptions often add much to one's understanding of the reasons for partic-ular changes in

food consumption.

2J These ordinarily involve some changes in marketing se2nrices.

10/ For further discussion, see Meyers, Trienali "Predicting Market Acceptance,'

p. 1388 of Jour. Farm Econ.. Dec. I955 (63).
- 10 -

Chapter 3. ECONOMIC MEASURES OF FOOD CONSUMPTION

The objective of this chapter is to outline the sets of data available for

economic analysis of variations and changes in U. S. food consuinption. Reference is

made to major sets of data already published; also, some new measures are presented.

The review of cross-section survey materials encompasses the nationwide, all-food

studies made in the last 30 years. Enrphasis is on those survey data which have proved

useful to macroeconomic research by the Agric\iltural Marketing Service on changes in

food consumption. The data to be considered are largely from Government sources,

particularly the Department of Agriculture.

Five major types of statistics are described. These are time series, one-time

cross-section surveys, repeated or panel type cross-section surveys, special surveys

of use and preference, and estimates of retail store sales. The analyses that we shall

report draw mainly upon data from time-series and one-time cross-section surveys.

Before using any of these types of statistics, an analyst must make certain decisions

or choices with respect to concepts discussed in the preceding chapter.

3.1. Time Series of Quantities of Food Consumed

Consumption of all major foods by U. S. civilians in each calendar year is

estimated and published regularly by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) . These

estimates are often called disappearance data because of the way in -vdiich they are

derived. They are based on a great variety of information, originally conçiled for

other purposes, pertaining to supplies moving through trade channels for use by the

civilian population. This accounts for the several levels in distribution at which

the official estimates of consumption of individual foods are measured. Current

data in teims of these levels — designated "primary distribution weights" — are

published regularly for many commodities in the National Food Situation, a quarterly

issued by AMS. (13).

3.1.1. Derivation of

Consumption Estimates

3«1.1.1. Primary Distribution Weights.—Estimates of total civilian consumption

of major foods are derived as residuals from data on production, stocks, foreign

trade, and military takings. The annual supply of each food consists of production

(mostly as es^timated by the Agricultural Estimates Division, AMS) plus beginning

stocks (wherever reported by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, the U. S. Department

of Commerce, or trade sources) and imports. From this total are deducted feed,seed,and

other nonfood uses; exports and shipments; Government purchases for noncivilian users;

and ending stocks. The residual is considered to be total civilian consunçtion. Such

totals are divided by the number of people eating out of civilian supplies to derive

civilian per capita consuii5)tion

r 01 p<

.li/

For use in economic analysis, some of the primary distribution data on civilian

consumption per capita must be converted either back to farm weights or forward to

retail weights. A special procedure is applied to each commodity. As examples, the

primary distribution weights of meat are carcass weights \diere slaughtered; fresh

fruits and vegetables are in terms of farm weights; canned and frozen foods are reported in tenns of their processed weights at' the wholesale level of distribution.

A key to such details will be found in appendix A.

11/ Detailed descriptions of the estimating process for esuîh food item are given in

Agr. Handb. 62 (6). Brief descriptions are also available in chapter 3, vol. 5, Agr.

Handb. II8 (2k).
' - 11 -

3.1-1.2. Farm Weight Eguivalents.—Farm -weights are usually in terms the fresh

or raw products. Because the inedible portion of meat animals is so great, farm

weights of animals are rarely used in measuring food consumption, though logically they

they might be. For example, the farm weight of a steer may be 1,000 pounds, including

bones, blood, and hide; the wholesale distribution or carcass weight runs about

550 pounds; and the quantity of meat sold at retail averages about ^70 pounds.

For commodities that are mostly edible, such as fruits and vegetables, fresh

commodity equivalents of processed items are often used, sometimes referred.to as

"farm weights." If great precision is not required, such data are generally not difficult to estimate because reasonably adequate conversion factors have been obtained,

largely from trade sources. Processing yields from raw farm products vary slightly

from year to year, but, for lack of information, most of the factors are held constant

until changes become sharply apparent.

3.1.1.3- Retail Weights.—Conversions to retail weights from the primary distribution weights are necessary only for the so-called "fresh" foods, such as fresh meats

and fruits and vegetables sold to consumers in the fresh form. 12/ Consumption of

most processed foods is measured in terms of their processed weights and are thus

equivalent to retail weights. Because of lack of reliable data on some foods, such as

commercially baked goods and the newer convenience foods, the measurement of the flow

of these foods into consumption has to be pushed back to an earlier level in the distribution process. Thus, flour, fats, sugar, and eggs going into bakeiy products are

included in the consumption data with the quantities of these foods that consumers

buy as such.

Even if these estimates of retail weights of food consumed were precise, they

would still have certain limitations for the study of food consumption arising from

the very nature of averages calculated from disappearance data. They are national

average annual rates per capita derived without adjustment for changes in the composition of the population, such as age distribution. lj[/ They do not reveal differences

in consumption among seasons of the year; regions; urban and rural areas; or those due

to family size, family income level, and occupational differences; and differences in

consTomption in private homes as contrasted with eating in institutions and restaurants,

for example.

3»1.2. Quantity Measures

for All Foods Combined

Consuiiç)tion of individual foods may be combined by adding pounds or values of

the quantities of individual foods.

3.1.2.1. Total Poundage.—Problems in measuring and interpreting the total

poundage of all foods combined are discussed in the preceding chapter. The variety of

weights that can be used for major food items indicates the necessity for care in

deteimining the level at which total poundage is to be measured. Even though the

author and many other economists have not found a series on total poundage to be a

useful economic measure, such a series on a per capita basis is regiilarly prepared

and published in table 38 of the annual supplements to Agr. Handb. 62 (6). It is a

12/ Retail weights exclude approximate wastes and losses in distribution and represent the basis on which they are purchased by consumers in retail stores.

13/ No directly comparable data are available on regional. State, or local consunç)-

tion because of lack of information on distribution of supplies within the country.
- 12 -

byproduct of the work on retail weights for individual foods and major food groups

preparatory to the estimation of the nutritive value of the per capita food supply and

the calculation of the price-weighted indek of per capita food consunçtion at the

retail level.

For economic analysis of most prohlenis "bearing on the consumption of all foods

combined, a price-weighted index is much more desirable. Several intexes prepared by

the U. S. Department of Agricxilture make use of prices in a given base period and

changing quantities to derive measures of ¿Lows of farm products in constant dollars

either at the farm level or at the retail ijevel.

3.1.2.2. Index Qf Supply-Utilization — Farm Level.---The master index of supplyutilization of farm commodities measures the annual flows of such commodities from

broad categories of source into broad categories of use and users, ik/ This index

was designed as a tool for analyzing changes in supply and use of all agricultural

commodities as a coordinated "vdiole, and for relating developments in one group of

commodities or source of supply or channel of distribution to the whole flow. The

measure combines detailed statistics on the supply and distribution of each commodity

on the basis of equivalent farm value, using the corresponding 19^7-^9 average

price. 15/ It includes overall changes in the use of faim commodities in xmprocessed

forms and of major products processed from them.

The major advantage of the master index and its subindexes is that, somewhat

like a jigsaw puzzle, they can be put together and taken apart. Each subindex can be

related to every other. For exainple, because information on foreign trade is integrated with data on domestic production, it is possible to analyze the extent of our

self-sufficiency in farm commodities and the significance of foreign demand for products of American farms. The subindexes also provide means for appraising the

significance of major factors contributing to changes in the supply and utilization of

faim products in the past and for making projections for the future.

Several limitations on the usability of this index result from its basic

structure. As average prices for 19^7-^9 are used throughout the series, the indexes

do not measure changes in value resulting from price changes or from the addition of

more marketing seanrices to the unprocessed farm commodities.

As previously indicated, the index includes farm commodities used for feed and

seed as part of crop production, and again as part of the value of marketings of livestock products — thus, it measures "gross flow."

Finally, the basic concept of flow is another limiting factor. The index

measures the total flow of farm commodities in each year; it does not indicate how

much is available at any one time within the year.

The subindex of total food use by civilians measures the amoimt of farm resources used each year in the form of food by the civilian population of the United

States. It is affected by shifts in the pattern of consumption from lower-farmpriced go higher-farm-priced commodities, as from potatoes to broccoli, insofar as

they involve more or less faim resources. But shifts from fresh to processed foods

2¿¡J See 2.3 and 2.Í4-.

1¿/ A modified Laspeyres formula, in \rtiich changing quantities and fixed prices are

combined, is used to derive the index. This formula provides a measure of changes in

quantities based on the illative economic inçortance of each commodity. The index is

described in Agr. Handb. 9I Í12) .
- 13 -

do not affect the sublndex "because all foods are measured as vinprocessed commodities

in terms of farm-value equivalent. This index includes only farm-produced foods and

excludes fish and spices. It covers the period 192if to date. l6/

A per capita index of civilian food use of farm commodities has been confuted

from the total index by means of estimates of the population eating out of civilian

supplies. Accordingly, this index is measured in terms of quantities and prices at

the farm level. Hovever, it reflects reported changes in stocks from the "beginning

to the end of each year, even at -wholesale levels of distribution. The series,

identified as PFft-la, 17/ is given in table 3.1. An alternative series, PFQ-lb, includes only foods sold by farmers for civilian use equivalent to purchases by

consumers, thus excluding all home-produced quantities in the disappearance data.

For handy reference, the code numbers and 1955 data for these and other AMS per

capita quantity and value series axe arranged in exhibit A, which eniphasizes the differences in definition and coverage among the series.

Several alternative series mea>suring per capita use of foods according to source

of supply axe given in table 3.2. All exclude domestic marketing services and apply

to food alone. The series for all domestic farm foods (PFQr^a) and domestic farm

foods sold (PPft-4b) vere derived from per capita index of civilian food use of farm

commodities (PP^la) from all sources and the series for all farm foods sold (PFQ-lb)

by subtracting the values of imported farm foods. An index to measure approximately

the per capita use of all inçorted foods including fishery products was also constructed (PFQ-5) . 18/ For some analyses an index of civilian food use of all foods

(both domestic and imported farm commodities and fishery products) is needed. Therefore, another pair of indexes was confuted — PFQ-6b for those sold and PFQr6a

including foods sold (or bought) and home produced. Comparison of these series with

the basic series for farm foods only (PFQ-la and PFft-lb in table 3.I) shows that the

addition of fishery products has negligible effect on trends and most year-to-year

changes.

3.1.2.3. Index of Per Capita Food Consumption ^^ Retail Level.—The index of

per capita food consumption was developed from the per capita quantities for individual foods to describe overall changes in food consumption from year to year, and over

a period of years (PFQ-2) . It primarily measures changes in quantity though it also

reflects certain changes in quality of foods consumed, such as the shift from lowerpriced to higher-priced foods. It does not reflect price changes as such, because

I9I4.7-I1.9 prices are used throxaghout. 19/

The index was designed to measure changes in the total quantity of food consumed per person at the retail level. It assumes that all food moves through retail

stores. This is as close to the actual consumption level as price weights can be

16/ Current data are published in the annual supplements to both Agr. Handb. 62 (6)

and Agr. Handb. 9I (12) .

17/ The code represents the initial letters of £er capita food quantity — No. la.

^ From data on farm values of inçorted farm foods in 19^7-^9 prices (derived from

the value aggregates of the supply-utilization index) and from edible weights of imrported fishery products priced at the 19^+7-1^9 average import price per pound; spices

were not included.

19/ The Laspeyres formula is used. Details are given in pp. 132-159 of text of

Agr. Handb. 62 (6). Subindexes for commodity groups are published each year in the

statistical supplement to that handbook.
IkEadilblt A.—Guide to AMS per csqplta food quantity and value aeries i/

: Per ceiplta Per capita value data 2/

quantity

(Indexes : Supplier Retail Market level : Esq^ndltures

Item ;

lQit7-ltQ=100^ level ^/ : 3/

! Code ; 1955 • Code Code ; 1955 ; Code : 1955 : Code ; 1955

Dol. Pol. Dßl^

Food — supplier level !

Domestic fana food commodities

Sold PFQ-Ub 107 (TFV-1) PFV-6 285 PFV-13b 311

Home produced (TFV-2) (TFV-7) (TFV-2)

All sources PFQ-Ua 101 PFV-12b 325

Imported

FfeLim (TFV-3)' 1

Fishery products [

Total ! PKl-? 101 ) (TFV-8)

Fishery products [

U. S. (TFV-U) j

Tbtal

Domestic and iBÇorted

Farm foods

Sold ! PF^lb 106

All sources : PF^la 101

Fazm foods- and fishery

products

Sold : PFEi-6b 106 PFV-llb 363

All sources : PF^6a 101 (TFV-5) PFV-lOb 377

All food at retail level k/ : PFH-2 102 PFV-9 362

Marketing services ¿/

With domestic farm foods i PF^7 106 (TFV-15a)

With all food : PFÍI-3 104 (TFV-lifa)

Conqposlte quantity Index of all

foods used plus all marketing

services : PPft-8 103 PF^lOb 377

In this table the following Initials are used:

quantity; and ^ for value •

]J References to tables for data In other years

£ for food; J for total; £ for per capita; £ for

and to text sections for description of series:

FF(t-la 3.1 3.1.2.2

PIQ-lb 3.1 3.1.2.2

PP«r2 3.1 3.1.2.3

PIQ-3 3.1 3.5.2

PF^lfa 3.2\

PIQ-Ul) 3.21

PIQ-5 3.2} 3.1.2.2

PP»r6a 3.2 [

PPQ-6b 3.2 >

PÎQ-7 3.2 3.5.2

PBQ-8 3.2 3.1.2.1»

rav-i 3.3 3.2.1.3

TPV-2 3.3 3.2.1.1f

TFV-3 3.3 3.2.2

WV-h 3.3 3.2.3

TFV-5 3.3 3.2.U

TFV-6 3.h 3.3.2

PIV-6 3A 3.3.2

TPV-7 3A 3.3.3

Code Table Sectlçn

TFV-Ô

TFV-9

PFV-9

TFV-lOa

TFV-lOb

PFV-lOb

TFV-llb

PFV-llb

TFV-12a

TFV-12b

PFV-12b

TFV-13b

PFV-13b

TFV-lUa

TFV-ll^i

PFV-lltóL

TFV-15a

TFV-15d

PFV-15d

g/ Code for total valiie data given for those series for \dilch per capita data are not published.

^ Subserles ¿ excludes retail sales taxes and tips, b Includes them. ¡¡J Includes all food and those

marketing services between farm and retail level. ¿/ IhcludlDg services of eating places along with

others to final market level.

3.^ 3.3.3

3.1» 3.3.3

3.U 3.3.3

3.5, 3.6 3.»».3.l

3.6 3.'*.3.1

3.6 3.U.3.1

3.6

3.6 3.^.3.3

3.7

3.7 3.U.3.2

3.7

3.71

3.7) 3.»».3.'*

3.8 3.5.1.1

3.8 Í

3.5.2

3.8 3.5.1.2

3.81

3.81 3.5.2
- 15 -

constructed. Use of retail prices as weights resiilts in combining the effects of

shifts in consumption among foods having different processing and marketing costs with

those of quantitative changes.

This index is subject to the basic limitations of the data from which it is

computed plus those just mentioned. The overall index is published for current years

each quarter in the National Food Situation (12) . It is given in table 3.1 (PFQ-2) of

this handbook.

3.1.2.Í4-. Combined Quantity Index of All Foods Used Plus All Marketing Services.—

This index for all food plus all food services (PFQ-8) is derived, for use in this

handbook, from the totals of the value aggregates, in 19^7-^9 dollars, of the index of

per capita use of farm foods and fishery products (PFQ-6a) and those of the index of

marketing services per capita (PFQ-3) • The series, PF5-8, is given in table 3»2- It

differs from the retail index of per capita food consvmiption by reflecting all changes

in the use of marketing services, not merely those of processing. However, the measure of the use of marketing services available at present is an approximation, not a

directly developed index as described in a section 3-5»2.

3.1.2.5. Nutrient Supplies.—The Institute of Home Economics of the Agricultural

Research Service prepares annual estimates of the average quantities of specific

nutrients available for consumption in the country as a whole. Averages per person

per day for 11 nutrients and food energy are calculated from the appropriate retail

weights of foods consumed, as measured by AMS. The nutritive value series are particularly useful because they show trends in supplies of major nutrients that can be

directly related to changing food patterns.

Details of the computations are described in chapter k of Agr. Handb. 62 (6).

These estimates of nutritive value do not take into account losses and wastes after

food leaves the retail outlets, or variations in the distribution of food among different groups in the population. Hence, these nutrient levels only indirectly measure

the nutritional adequacy of the national food supply.

3.2. Time Series of Supplier Values

Supplier value data encompass the farm value of domestic farm foods, the value

of imported foods, and the value of domestic fishery products. A guide to those

series of supplier values, which are coordinated with the AMS market value data, is

given in exhibit B.

3.2.1. Farm Value of Food

An increasing number of sets of farm value da':.a have been developed in recent

years by AMS in connection with (l) estimation of farm income, (2) measuring the

supply and utilization of farm commodities, ^3) calculating the marketing bill for

farm products, and more recently, (U) the estimation of market value of food consumed

by U. S. civilians.

Work on farm income includes the regular preparation of estimates of cash receipts from farm marketings and of noncash elements of gross farm income. 20/

^ For details, see vol. 3, "Gross and Net Farm Income" of Agr. Handb. II8 (2|i),
Exhibit B.—Guide to coiqpoiients of AMS total food value series ^

Item

Supplier

level

Code

Marketing

services

from

supplier

to retail

level

Value: Code : Value : Code : Value

RetaU

level

MaxicetiDg

services

from

supplier

to final

aaziLet

Code Value

Value at

final

market

level

2/

Code : Value

Retail

sales

taxes

and

tips

Expenditures

for

purchased

foods

2/

Code : Value

Food per se

Domestic fam food

comnodities

Sold to U. S. civilians

Home produced (fazm and

nonfáxm)

Tbtal

Imported foods

U« S. fishery products

Tbtal

Marketing services

With domestic faim food

commodities

With all foods

TFV-1

TPV-2

TFV-3

TFV-U

Bil.

IB.3

2-3

20.6

3.3

.3

Bil.

dol.

BU.

dol.

Bil.

dol.

BU. Bil.

dol. dol.

Bil.

TFV-6 I16.3

TPV-T

51.1

\TFV-8

TFV-S 24.2

7.6

XPV-9 58.7

26.0

TFV-lUa 35.7

$1.8

$2.8

1.0

TF»-13b 50.5 1

H

flFV-iOa

\TFV-10b

60.0

6L.2

1.2

TP»-llb 58.9

1

31.2

35.8

1.0

1.2

TFV-15b

TFV-lUb

32.2

37.0

1/ References to tables for other data and to text sections ibr description of series:

Code Table Section £fid£ lOUft Section SS^ XB}2l£ Section

OSFV-l 3.3

TFV-2 3.3

TPV-3 3.3

TPV-U 3.3

TF»-5 3.3

TFV-6 3.J»

187-7 z.^

3.2.1.3

3.2.1.'»

3.2.2

3.2.3

3.2.1»

3.3.2

3.3.3

TPV-8

TFV-9

1!PV-10a

TPV-lOb

XFV-llb

TFV-12a

TPV-12b

3.*

H3.6

3.6

3.7

3.7

3.3.3

3.3.3

3.^.3.1

3.U.3.I

3.^.3.3

3.'».3.2

3.<».3.2

TSV-13b 3.7 3.U.3.'»

TFV-H». 3.8 3.5.H rav-u»b 3.8 3.5.1.1

IFV-lSa 3.8 3.5.1.2

TFV-15b 3.8 3.5.1.2

2/ Subseries £ excludes taxes and tips^ subseries j^ includes them.

3/ From table 33 of Misc. Pub. T'^l Farm-Retail Spreads ^¡Q£ issSL Products (2). Mentioned in section 3.^.1.2.
- 17 -

3.2.1.1. Cash Receipts From Farm Marketings.—All sales of crops by farmers are

included; purchases of feed and seed are deducted later, as production expenses.

Similarly for livestock, estimates include all sales except those by one farmer

directly to another farmer in the same State. Purchases of livestock by fanners from

all sources outside their own State and from public stockyards within the State are

later deducted as a production expense. Estimates for farm sales of firewood and

other forest products are included in crop totals. These data have nonfood conqponents.

They also include food going to the Armed Forces and for export.

3.2.1.2. Farm values in terms of 1947-49 dollars are derived in the measurement

of the flow of farm commodities from major sources into channels of distribution.

These farm value data are the bases for the confutations of the supply-utilization

indexes described in 3.1.2.2. 2l/

3.2.1.3. Annual data on the farm value of domestic fann foods sold to U. S.

civilian consumers are estimated as an integral part of the confutations of the marketing bill for fann foods. 22/ This methodology is basic to several other sets of

value data recently developed. 23/ (The series is TFV-1 in table 3-3«)

The net farm values of major farm food commodities consumed domestically as food

in 1913-39 were estimated, using the statistics on cash farm receipts from sales of

food products with adjustments for resales to farmers (such as feeder cattle), nonfood

byproducts or joint products, noncivilian takings, and changes in stocks. The net

fann values for food groups were divided by the farmer's shares of retail costs indicated by the market basket series to obtain retail values. The market basket series

are based on fixed combinations of foods, hence they do not reflect changes in makeup

of food consumption within groups.

Substantial changes in food consunrption since 19^*0 necessitated changes in

methodology for estimating retail values and in methods for farm values as well. The

changes within a commodity group are reflected to a greater degree (l) by dividing

net farm value of individual products by farmer's share percentages and totaling than

(2) by dividing the net farm value of the commodity group by the farmer's share for

the group as a whole. In general, beginning 19^^ the first method is used. But some

minor adjustments were made in the commodity group estimates for 19to-46 to link the

series at 1939«

Farm values of individual products are obtained by multiplying farm equivalents

of civilian consumption from marketings (total civilian consumption less imported

products and products consumed on farms where produced) by average price received by

farmers. Farm values of some products are adjusted to allow for the value of nonfood

byproducts.

21/ Value aggregates are given in tables 33-44 of Agr. Handb. 9I (12) .

22/ The marketing bill for any specified group of farm products is the aggregate

dollar amount of marketing charges paid to all agencies engaged in marketing these

products. Thus, it may also be described as the dollar value of marketing services

bought with those farm commodities, such as foods.

2¿/ This description was prepared with the assistance of Kathryn Parr, formerly of

the Marketing Economics Research Division. Some further information is given on

page 9 of vol. 4, "Agriciatural Marketing Costs and Charges," Agr. Handb. II8 (24) and

page 49 of Misc. Pub. 74l (¿ . Other sections of the latter publication describe

commodity data. Further details may be obtained from the Marketing Economics Research

Division, AMS.
- 18 -

A problem in computing farm value of commodity groups is the use of products of

one group as ingredients of products of other groups. Because ingredients other than

flour are so important in bal^ery products, corrections are made to avoid duplication.

Fam values of milk, butter, lard, vegetable shortening, eggs, fruit, com siiiip, and

sugar estimated to be used in bakeiy products are subtracted from their product groups

and added to the farm value of grain to obtain the total farm value of bakery and

cereal products. Such corrections were not made for any other products.

3.2.I.I1.. The farm value gf hnme-Dreduced food is composed of tvo segments: The

output of farm households and the output of nonfarm households. The quantities of

home-produced food used by fam households are valued at prices received for the sale

of similar products. 2ä/ "^^ value of food produced by nonfarm households for their

own use was estimated by the author from detailed data on the quantities home-produced

by such households (which form part of the disappearance data) using farm price data

applicable to farm home-produced foods. 2¿/ The series of total values of homeproduced food is given in table 3.3 (TFV-2).

3.2.2. Value of Imported R)ods

Data on the value of inçorted foods are prepared in the Department in connection

with the foreign trade work of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), the measurement

of the supply and utilization of farm commodities, and work on the market value of

U. S. food. The FAS current value data on imports of all agricxiltural commodities

are declared values of both processed and unprocessed commodities as stated at the

ports of origin. The AMS measures of the inflow of inçorted foods are coinputed in

farm value equivalents and 19^*7-^9 dollars. 26/

For work on the market value of U. S. food, it was necessary to construct a set

of approximate value figures for imported food commodities, including fish, for U. S.

civilians. This was done by summarizing the import values of foods imported from

foreign countries, then subtracting military takings and approximate values of nonfood

use of such commodities. In addition to these imported foods, estimates had to be

made of the value of inshipments from the former U. S. Territories, Alaska and Hawaii.

These presented a problem for the years 19tô through I958 because inshipments from

Alaska and Hawaii were not reported. However, quantity data for the major receipts

from these areas were computed for the measurement of domestic food consunçtion, using

trade sources. These were valued at prices derived from the import data for the same

commodities from other Territories. The combined series is TFV-3 in table 3.3.

(Consuiiç)tion data used in this handbook apply only to the tô States.)

3.2.3. Value of Domestic

Fishery Products

The value of domestic fishery products is estimated regularly by the Fish and

Wildlife Service of the Department of Interior and reported as the value of the

Continental U. S. catch of edible fishery products. One adjustment is necessary ~ to

2k/ The detailed description is given on pages I5-I6 of vol. 3^ Agr. Handb. II8 (24).

25/ Details of the estimation of the quantities of individual commodities produced

for home consumption are given in Agr. Handb. 62 (6) except for the revised procedure

for estimates of vegetables for recent years, to which reference is made on page k6 of

vol. 5 of Agr. Handb. II8 (24).

26/ Details of the computations of the value of iicported foods in terms of 1947-49

dollars are given in the supply-utilization bulletin, Agr. Handb. 9I (12), and, in

brief, in chapter 2 of vol. 5^ Agr. Handb. II8 (24).
- 19 -

subtract approximate values of military taJcings, which were developed from supply and

distribution data for these products. The series is TFV-U in table 3.3.

3.2.4. The total supplier value of U. S. civilian food is the sum of the farm

value of domestic farm foods sold to civilian consumers, all home-produced food all

imported foods, and domestic fishery products (TFV-5). '

3.3. Time-Series of Retail Values

Data on the retail value of food are prepared in the Department in connection

with the measurement of per capita consumption, the work on the marketing bill for

farm foods, and the analysis of the market value of food consumed.

3.3-1. Value Aggregates of the

Retail Consumption Index

The value aggregates of the per capita consumption index represent the retailstore value in 1947-49 dollars of all food consumed by U. S. civilians on a per

capita basis. This series has not been published. T¡J Such value data cover homeproduced and imported farm and nonfann foods as well as farm foods purchased, all

priced at average retail-store prices in 1947-49. 28/

3.3.2. Retail Value of Domestic

Farm Foods Sold

The retail value or cost of domestic faim foods sold to U. S. civilians is

estimated for each year in connection with work on the marketing bill. 22/ Measured

at the retail-store level, it does not include any costs of services in restaurants

and other eating places, and it includes neither costs of nonfann foods, such as

fish, nor the cost of coffee, tea, and other imported foods.

The retail cost was originally computed by dividing the estimated farm value of

each of six commodity groups of farm products by the farmer's share of retail cost

for the group as determined by "market-basket" computations. This is the method used

for estimates for the years before 19to. For more recent years the method is varied

by commodity groups, depending on availability of data.

Where possible, the retail cost for each product is obtained by dividing the

farm value, or payment received by farmers, by the farmer's share in percentage terms

for that particular product. For example, farm values for beef, pork, and lamb are

now inflated separately instead of inflating the total farm value for meat preducts as

a group. Values for individual products are totaled into groups and the groups into

a total of all farm food products. Inflating of farm values of individual products

should result in more accurate estimates than inflating byproduct groups. This

method takes account of changes in the relative importance of individual products

within the group.

22/ The series can be readily approximated by applying the published indexes for all

foods combined, and for food groups, to the revised base period aggregates reported

in table to of the Supplement for I956 to Agr. Handb. 62 (6).

28/ The price data are described in chapter 3 of Agr. Handb. 62 (6).

22/ This description was prepared by Kathryn Parr, formerly of the Marketing

Economics Research Division. See also vol. 4, Agr. Handb. II8 (24).
- 20 -

For some food groups retail prices and farmer's share percentages are available

for so few individual products that inflation is made by subgroups, as is the case for

canned vegetables, canned fruit, and frozen fruit. This assumes that the fanner's

share for a subgroup, based on the relatively few products for \^ich retail prices are

available, is representative of the subgroup including additional products.

Increases in the quantity of marketing services may not be reflected fully in

the retail cost because adequate data on prices and volumes are often lacking for

minor items. Where reasonably good estimates of prices and volumes can be developed,

allowance is made for effects of changes in marketing services, such as the increased

proportion of potatoes sold in the form of potato chips and the additional cost

resulting from the shifts to smaller can sizes for canned fruits and vegetables. To

improve the series, methods are changed from time to time as more data become

available.

The total and per capita series are TFV-6 and PFV-6, respectively, in table 3.k.

3.3-3. Retail Value of

All Food Consumed

The retail value of all food consumed is estimated for AMS work on the analysis

of changes in food consionçtion and on the market value of food (TFV-9 and PFV-9) . To

the retail cost of domestic farm foods sold to U. S. civilians are added allowances

for home-produced foods, imported foods, and fishery products. The retail value of

home-produced foods (TF7-7) was estimated from their farm value, utilizing relationships of farm to retail values for major home-produced items calculated in connection

with the marketing bill for farm food commodities sold. The retail value of imported

foods was estimated by calculating the retail value of major items (coffee, tea,

bananas, and pineapples plus the value of sugar sold as such and the estimated value

of sugar in processed foods), then comparing the retail value of these items with their

imported value. These relationships were used to inflate the inçort value for all

imported foods excluding fish (as tabulated from the Bureau of Census trade reports

adjusted for nonfood use and for military takings) to the retail value for all items.

The retail value of fishery products was estimated from the retail value aggregates in 19^7-^9 dollars which go into the computation of the per capita consumption

index by making adjustments for the changes in the civilian population and in retail

prices of fishery products indicated by price data of the Bureau of Labor Statistics

(BLS).

The total retail value of imported and nonfarm foods (TFV-8) and the total and

per capita retail values of all food consumed by civilians in each year (TFV-9, PFV-9)

axe reported in table 3.U.

3.k. Time Series of Market Values

Estimates of the market value of all food consumed at home and away from home

are derived from the three different sets of data that foJJLow.

3.if.l. Baged ^

Commerce Data

The Department of Commerce series called "consuiiç)tion expenditures for food" can

be adjusted so as to measure the market value of all food consumed by civilians. This

food expenditure series is prepared by the National Income Division as part of the
- 21 -

oSS'co^^11:Îa?^ ""''°"^ '°^°""- '* ^' ^'^'^"^^ ^ -*^*^- 3.6 along with

3.4.2. Based on Value Aggregates

of Per Capita Consumption Index

^c ^ho^o?'"'''''^ possible basis for estimates of the market value of all food consumed

is the value aggregates of the per capita food consuiiç)tlon Index. These represent

the sums of the products of changing quantities of individual foods muîwSîS bf

average retail prices in 1947-49. Oto derive a measure of total market value in current

dollars, several adjustments in these values in 19^7-49 dollars must be made. F±l^

they must be adjusted to a current dollar basis, using tfte BLS index of retail food '

prices. Then further adjustments are needed: (l) an addition to allow for the added

cost of marketing services other than those in the usual channels from fam to retail

and (2) a subtraction to allow for foods sold at less than retail prices. An unpubdeSribe?^'''^^ ^^""^^^ """^ """^"^^^ ^ ^^^* ^^^^^ '''' ^^^ marketing bill data next

3.4.3. Based on AMS

Marketing Bill Data

3.4.3.1 • The third basis for estimates of the market value of all food consumed

at home and away from home (TFV-lOa), the one adopted for the AMS series, is the

marketing bill data of the Agricultural Marketing Service. The retail cost or value

of domestic fam foods sold (TFV-6 described in 3-3.2) is adjusted to the concept of

total market value by adding estimates of the extra cost of buying food in the form of

meals rather than at retail stores; the farm value of food consumed on farms \^ere

produced and of nonfarm families' production for home use (TFV-2); and the retail

values of Imported foods and nonfarm foods (TFV-8) . Because some food is sold to

consumers at less than retail-store prices by farmers, processors, and wholesalers,

an allowance for these differences between market values and retail values was

subtracted. Details of the procedure used in deriving this set of data (as well as

other AMS value series) are given in appendix B. The series on market value of all

foods and its components are in table 3.5. The series labeled TFV-lOa excludes

retail-sales taxes and tips. (Reference to exhibit B may help the reader identify

relationships among the AMS value series used in this bulletin.)

The estimates of market value of all civilian food based on the two AMS series

and the one based on Commerce data are reasonably close together for the years since

World War II. Prior to 1944, the two AMS-based series diverge from that of Commerce,

apparently because of differences in the levels of food production indicated by the

Censuses of Manufactures and the estimates of the Agricultural Estimates Division,AMS.

Because the measures of food quantity used herein are those of the AMS, the

comparable market value series based on the marketing bill data is used throughout the

descriptive and analytical sections of this handbook. Exhibit C compares the coverage

of AMS series on market value of all foods with those for (l) the AMS series on retail

store cost of domestic farm foods sold to civilians and (2) the Commerce series on

consumption expenditures for food,

3.4.3.2. Market Value of Domestic Farm Foods.—The value of those farm foods

produced by American farmers and consumed by U. S. civilians is estimated from the

same sets of AMS data as the all-food series. For this series, it was necessary to

subdivide the extra cost of food purchased as meals and snacks into the share for

domestic farm foods and that for all imported foods and fishery products. This was

done by means of the ratio of the retail value or cost of farm foods sold to the
Exhibit C,—Comparison of coverage of several value measures for food,

excluding alcoholic beverages l/

: AMS market ; AMS retail store

] cost of domestic Dept« of Commerce

: value of a.n farm foods series, consumption

Item : civilian food \ sold to civilians expenditures

: TFV-lOa or b

: ^

TFV-6 for food

Domestic production of farm

foods for home use

By farm households : Yes - farm value No Yes - farm value

By nonfarm households : Yes - farm value No No

Domestic farm foods

Sold to U. S. military : No No Yes - "vÄiolesale value

Sold to U. S. civilians

By farmers and distributors

of food : Yes - market value Yes - retail value Yes - market value

As meals and snacks

To businessmen

(Nonconsumer purchases) Yes - market value Yes - retail value No

With transportation and

hospital services Yes - market value Yes - retail value No

Other Yes - market value Yes - retail value Yes - market value

Imported foods and fishery :

products :

Sold to U. S. military : No No Yes - ^^olesale value

Sold to U, S, civilians :

By fishermen and distributors:

of food : Yes - market value No Yes - market value

As meals and snacks :

To businessmen : Yes " market value No No

With transportation :

and hospital sei-vices : Yes - market value No No

Other : Yes - market value No Yes - market value

I

i8

"Yes" means inclusion, "No" indicates exclusion. 2/ Described in section 3.^.3.1 and appendix B.

Described in section 3»3-2. h/ Described in section 3.6.2. See also pp. 78-79 of Uj. S^. Income and Output.

1958 Supplement to the Survey of Current Business (27).

a/De
- 23 -

retail value of all foods sold. For some purposes, retail sales taxes and tips should

be excluded, for others they should be included. Alternative series are therefore

given in table 3.7 (TFV-12a, TFV-12b).

3.^.3.3. Civilian Expenditures for All Foods.--Two AMS series measure dollar

outlays for food by U. S. civilians. They were derived from the AMS market value

data described above by subtraction of the imputed value of home-produced food. The

series pertaining to all food (TFV-llb in table 3.6) differs in coverage from the

Commerce series, consumption expenditures for food (described in 3.6.2), for this

reason and also because it excludes military food, but includes value of food bought

with hospital and travel services and by business firms for clients^--^e per capita

series derived from the total food expenditure series, PFV-llb, matches the food

quantity series for all food sold to civilians,PF(5-6b, as indicated by exhibit A. The

expenditure data generally used in this bulletin include retail sales taxes and tips.

3.h.2.k. Expenditures for Domestic Farm Foods by Civilians.—For analysis of

several problems related to marketing of products of U. S. agriculture, a special

expenditure series has been derived to cover domestic farm foods only, TFV-13b in

table 3.7. It differs from that series on market value of domestic farm foods, which

includes retail taxes and tips, TFV-12b, by the exclusion of home-produced fopd. The

matching per capita food quantity series at the supplier level is the index of per

capita food use of purchased domestic farm commodities.

3.^.3«5- A number of other value series have been developed as byproducts of

the estimation of the market value of 6LL1 food. They provide approximations of measures for relative importance of several channels through which food reaches U. S.

consumers, such as eating places, purchased food, and so on. Ali^hough they form an

integral part, of the overall estimates of market value of all food consumed, they are

likely to be much less reliable than other series. Independent data are \available

for checking the overall figures but not some of these components. Accordingly, the

descriptions of these subseries and the data are relegated to appendix B. There the

methodology is clearly described, and the nature of the bases on which they stand is

set forth.

3.5. Marketing Services Sold With Food — Time Series

The currently available eeonomicmeasures of marketing services sold with food

are based on the difference between the value of food as it leaves the farmer or other

primary supplier and the amount paidPby^inal-x:onsumers. These value measures are

often described as the "marketing bills" for handling food commodities.

3*5«1- Value of Marketing Services

3.5•1«1- For all foods, the total marketing bill or the value of all marketing

services rendered between the farm gate and final purchase as food in retail stores,

and as meals and snacks, is calculated by subtracting total supplier value (TFV-5)

from the total market value of all food (TFV-lOa). Adjustments were made in the marketing bill to subtract special taxes paid by hog processors in 193^ and I935 and to

add Federal subsidies paid to food processors in 1943-tó. The series which excludes

retail taxes and tips is identified as TFV-l^l-a and the one including those extra

charges is TFV-lte, table 3.8.
- 24 -

3.5-1-2. Similar value data for all marketing services for domestic farm foods

only are derived from the final market value of domestic fam food commodities and

their farm values. The same adjustments in this marketing bill series were made as

in that for all foods. The general code number for these farm food series is TFV-I5

with series 15a excluding taxes and tips and series 15b including them (table 3*o). 30/

The series for total marketing bill for all services sold with domestic farm

foods excluding taxes and tips (TFV-15a) differs from the farm-retail marketing biü

regularly estimated by AMS because of the inclusion of services of eating places and

the deduction of services not supplied on food sold to consumers prior to the retail

stage in distribution, as by farmers and wholesalers. The components of the farmretail marketing bill have been studied extensively by marketing specialists of the

Marketing Economics Research Division, AMS. An analytical summary in tenus of labor

costs, profits, transportation costs, and so on is given in Misc. Pub. 7^1 (2) and in

the Marketing and Transportation Situation of July 1959 (lO) •

3.5.2. Quantity of Marketing Services

By deflating the marketing bill — the value series for all marketing services

sold with all food — a much needed measure of the volume of food marketing services

used can be approximated. But it is recognized that,since any quantity series derived

by deflating a value or expenditure series is merely an approximation, it should be used

only as long as a direct measure is not available. Measures of the quantities of such

services in use by the Department have been developed from the value data in table 3.8

by use of the marketing margin between the farm and retail values of the AMS market

basket of farm foods as a price index for marketing services, ¿l/ Here, too, it would

be more desirable to have a directly constructed index, pricing fixed quantities of

^/ An analysis of the components of the total marketing bill was published in the

July 1959 issue of the Marketing and Transnortation Situation, "The Marketing Bill for

Farm Food Products" (ll) . Reprinted as AMS-326.

31/ The AMS market basket series is constructed by pricing a fixed market basket of

farm food commodities (the average quantities of farm products purchased for consumption at home by urban wage-earner and clerical worker families in 1952) at the farm

level, using prices received by farmers, and at the retail level, using BLS average

retail prices, in general. The difference between farm costs and retail costs is the

marketing margin. For further explanation of this series, see Misc. Pub. 7^1 {¿).

A price index derived with fixed weights tends to have a slight upward bias

because buyers are constantly attempting to lower their costs by shifting among items.

In effect, the marketing margin of the market basket series incorporates some gradually changing weights as the amounts of services of assembly, transportation, wholesaling, and retailing are varied. But the amount of processing services is fixed

by the use of constant amounts of each form of processed food in the market basket and

the services of eating places are not included.

Whereas the use of a price index to derive a measure of quantity from a value

series often gives a downward bias to the quantity series, it is quite possible that

the use of this price index based on the marketing margin may yield a reasonably satisfactory measure of quantity of marketing services. Research workers in AMS have

experimented rather thoroughly with these series for services. They have obtained

some meaningful research findings using the series, and no serious biases have been

revealed.
- 25 -

individual marketing services, but none has been constructed. The index of the marketing margin does measure changes in the overall cost of getting specified quantities

of principal forms of all major farm foods from the farmer to the purchaser in the

urban retail store. Costs of services of eating places have probably changed in much

the same degree.

The deflated per capita values of marketing services bought with all foods

(PFV-1^) and with domestic farm foods (PFV-15d) are the bases for the index of all

marketing services per capita (PPQ-3 in table 3*1) and the index of services with

domestic farm foods only (PFQ-7 in table 3.2).

3«6. Department of Commerce Series

The Department of Commerce reports on national income, output, and retail trade,

and the several censuses are invaluable sources of economic statistics needed for work

on food consumption. In the following paragraphs a brief description is given of the

coverage of disposable personal income, a derived series on disposable money income,

the series on food expenditures, retail sales of food stores, and sales of eating and

drinking places.

3«6.1. Income

Disposable personal income represents the actual current income receipts of

persons from all sources less personal tax and nontax payments to Federal, State and

local Governments. It is the closest overall statistical approximation for consumer

purchasing power derived from current incomes (table 3-9) •

A series on disposable personal money income has been derived from the published Commerce data by subtracting from disposable personal income (l) the series on

personal income and consumption in kind and (2) the series on personal income partly

in kind (which represents food and fuel) (table 3*9) •

3.6.2. Food Expenditures

The concept and coverage of the Department of Commerce food expenditure series

are considered briefly in section 2.2.U.if., but several other characteristics are to

be noted. In addition to excluding expenditures by business firms for food for

clients, the series omits the value of food supplied to inmates of institutions and

travelers by water and air because these appear elsewhere in the accounts. In using

this series, an analyst has to remember that it includes the value of food produced

for home use by farm households and the value of food supplied to the Armed Forces.

The Department of Commerce publishes four subseries of the overall series on

expenditures for food and alcoholic beverages: (l) Food and alcoholic beverages

bought for off-premise consumption; (2) purchased meals and beverages; (3) food fu]>-

nished Government (including military); and {k) commercial employees (valued at farm

prices) . The first two series — off-premise purchases and purchases of meals and

beverages — are estimated for benchmark years according to the general procedure

described as the "commodity-flow method." ¿2/

^ For further details, see (l) pp. 177-178, Agr. Handb. 62 (6); (2) pp. 103-10^ of

the 195^1- edition of National Income (2¿), a supplement to the Survey of Current

Business; (3) PP. 78-79 of U^ Sj. Income and Output (21), 195Ö supplement to the

Survey of Current Business.
- 26 -

This method starts with the value of production at the primary producer level,

then separates the parts going directly to consumers (priced at the level at which they

are sold) and those processed. The latter are followed through the distribution

system and valued at final costs to consumers. The latter two subseries are estimated

independently of the "commodity-flow method. " The series on food furnished Grovemment

employees is mostly for the Armed Forces and is based on officiai financial records.

The value of food furnished commercial eirrployees is developed from trade data. The

series on value of home-produced food for farm households is supplied to the. Department of Commerce by the Agricultural Marketing Service. This is the farm household

part of the data described in 3-2.1.^ and is a component of gross farm income. From

the total of these components, the Department of Commerce subtracts its estimates of

sales of alcoholic beverages to consiimers to derive the series described as "consunç)-

tion expenditures for food."

The series on purchased meals is carried forward from benchmark years by means

of data on sales of eating and drinking places.

Data on food purchased for off-premise consumption were formerly extrapolated

for the years after the Census benchmarks using sample census data on retail

sales of food and liquor stores and sales data for State liquor monopolies.

This procedure has been somewhat changed since the incorporation of the 195^ benchmark, as described on pp. 78-79 of U^ S^ Income and Output (27) . For I95I and I956,

a short form of the "commodity-flow method" was used to develop estimates of offpremise consumption, using data from the annual census survey of manufactures.

Interpolations for 19tô-50, I952-53, and I955 were based on the components of the

market value of all food consumed by U. S. civilians derived from the marketing bill

data of the Agricultural Marketing Service (as in table 3.5).

3.6.3. Retail Sales

Estimates of retail sales of food stores and of eating and drinking places are

published by the Bureau of the Census each month in the Monthlv Retail Trade

Report (16). Tne methodology and coverage of these series are described in the

appendix to that report. The samples for the two sets of data were revised in

April 1957^ as set forth in the May I958 issue. Each Census of Retail Trade provides

a great deal of data on retail sales by various types of establishments and with

numerous subdivisions. The I95U Census did not report breakdowns of sales by commodity lines as had been done by earlier surveys. Therefore, it is not possible to

determine the sale of foods as opposed to nonfood items as was the case in the

Censuses of 1939 and l^kS. ^

3.7. Federal Surveys of Food Consumption

A number of nationwide surveys of consumption of all foods, as well as many

covering individual sectors of the food market,have been made by agencies of the

Federal Government. This section reviews those surveys which have been useful for

analysis of changes in U. S. food consumption.

22J For 1939 and 19tô the commodity-line data were used along with other Commerce

and Agriculture data to develop estimates of food sales by major marketing channels.

See "Distribution of the Food Supply of the United States" by this author in Agr

Econ. Res, July I952 (¿2). "^^
- 27 -

3.7»1» List of Ma.lor Surveys

3.7.1.1. Two general types of one-time, cross-section surveys have been made by

Federal agencies: (l) ibod consuiiç>tion by housekeeping households as surveyed by the

Institute of Home Economics and its predecessor agencies, ^ and (2) expenditure

surveys such as those by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. ^ Differences between the

objectives of the Institute of Home Economics and the Bureau of Labor Statistics in

malting such surveys affect the procedures and kinds of data obtained. Home economists are concerned particularly with appraisal of family diets and therefore

concentrate on obtaining the best possible estimates of quantities of food consumed,

as well as data on economic status and social characteristics of the family. ^

Surveys of the Bureau of Labor Statistics are designed to yield data on all goods

and services as well as relevant economic and social data. Accordingly, they must

stress the collection of information on all expenditures and enç)hasize precision on

food quantities. ^7/

In this section, reference is made only to the large scale surveys of the last

25 years because they provide the sets of data with sufficient comparability for

analytical uâe. 38/

3.7.1.2. BHE and BLS both cooperated with the Work Projects Administration in

making the I935-36 Consumer Purchases Study, and they both joined in the l^klr-k^ Study

of Family Spending and Saving in Wartime. The 1935-36 Consumer Purchases Study

yielded a considerable variety of income and expenditure data, for which U. S. totals

were derived. TSae detailed food quantities for segments of the population were very

difficult to combine satisfactorily because the samples were not designed to provide

complete coverage.

3.7«1*3» The Institute of Home Economics made a nationwide survey of urban

household food consumption in the spring of 19tô. AMS joined the Institute in making

the 1955 Survey of Household Food Consumption for each urbanization category, with

regional subdivisions.

3.7»1.^. The nationwide survey of expenditures of urban consumers by the Bureau

of Labor Statistics in the spring of I95I covered both the year I95O and food expenditures for home use during a week in the spring of 1951. Smaller scale surveys of

urban purchases, including food, had been made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a

week of September-October 19^^ and in February 19^5 in connection with surveys of

prices paid by consumers.

^ Bureau of Home Economics and Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics.

35/ Surveys made prior to 1953 are summarized on pages I79-I85 of Agr.

Handb. 62 (6) .

,36/ For general description of IHE methodology, see pp. 17^200, Agr. Inf.

Bui. 132 (^.

37/ See pp. 6-16 of "Methodology of the Survey of Consiimer Expenditures in I95O"

by Helen Humes Lámale, a monograph in Study of Consumer Expenditures. Incomes, and

Savings. University of Pennsylvania (3¿).

38/ References to earlier survey data given in Williams, Faith M. and Zimmerman,

Carle C. Studies of Family Living in the United States and Other Countries ; An

Analysis of Material and Method. U. S. Dept. of Agr. Misc. Pub. 223 (¿;6).""
- 28 -

Following is a description of available survey data pertaining to food consumption, arranged according to the type of data on food obtained. Only nationwide

surveys that included consumption of all foods are covered.

3.7.2. Recalls of Annual

Food Value Data

Only value data are available as a measure of aiinual food consiimption by households because it is impossible to recall quantities of individual commodities. ^/ To

develop recall of expenditures for food and of home-produced food, the surveys required

careful interviewing. Respondents were asked how much they spent for food in the year

and how much they received as gifts and as payment in kind, as well as how much they

had produced for home use. to/ Even with extensive interview procedures, there always

are unsolved problems of recall and of reporting.

3.7.2.1. The results of such survey efforts ,are available in the form of value

data for certain years. Data on the market value of all food and alcoholic beverages

consumed at home and away from home by all U. S. families and single individuals are

available from the Consumer Purchases Study (1935-36) and from the Study of Family

Spending and Saving in Wartime (19^1). i±l/ The data given in table 3.10 are in 19^1

dollars.

3.7.2.2. For four different years, matching data are available on expenditures

for food and beverages at home and away from home by urban families (table 3.II):. The

Study of Family Spending and Saving in Wartime provides the 19^4-1 figures for fami2:les

of two or more, but they include nonhousekeeping families. Estimates for the year

l^kk are from the ELS study, kg/ Expenditure data for the year 19^7^ for housekeeping

households only with two or more members, were obtained by the BHNHE in their urban

food survey, k^ The data for I95O expenditures by families and single individuals,

including nonhousekeeping households, are from the BLS survey, kk/

3.7.2.3. The 1950 BLS expenditure survey provides another set of food expenditure data for urban families, as well as information on other consumer goods and

services. These data have been summarized and published for individual cities and for

three classes of cities (large cities, suburbs of large cities and small cities) in

^22/ However, some privately financed panels of reporting households keep records

through the year (3.8.2). But none covers all foods.

ko/ Interviewers have helped by careful probing and reminding the respondent of

various possibilities. For example, the interviewer usually starts with a discussion

of current weekly expenditures, then discusses with the respondent how the weekly rate

should be adjusted for the month and for the year. This involves consideration of the

number in the family at various times in the year,vacations,and special food outlays.

kl/ The 1935-36 data were published by the National Resources Committee in Consumer

Expenditures ¿n ^le United States (¿l) . The 19^1' data were published in the BLS

Bui. 822, FflTm' 1V Spending and Saving in Wartime {k¿).

k2/ Reported in an article by Dorothy S. Brady, "Expenditures and Savings of City

Families in 19^4, " in the ^fonthly Labor Review, January 19^6 (^). Table 2 provides

the data for families of two or more.

¿3/ Table 25, page 56 of Agr. Inf. Bui. 132 (^) .

kh/ Reported in table 1-3, page k, vol. XVIII of Study of Consumer Expenditures.

Incomes and Saving {h¿) .
- 29 -

Exhibit D.—Oíypes of food data from first five reports on I955 Survey

of Household Food Consumption

Data Given in Survey Reports 1 to 5 (kk)

(1) Average money value per family of:

(a) All foods and beverages used in a week at home and away from home, including purchased and without direct expense;

(b) Purchased food for home use and meals, snacks and beverages consumed

away::from home;

(c) Food used at home received without direct expense from home production or

as gifts or payment in kind, l/

(2) For^each of some 23O food items separately and for groups of foods, from all

sources and purchased only:

(a) Percentage of households in group using item in week;

(b) Average quantity used at home per household in week;

(c) Average money value of the quantity used per household.

(3) Use of major home-produced foods by rural nonfarm and farm households:

(a) Percentage of households in group using item in week;

(b) Average quantity used at home per household in week;

(c) Average money value of the quantity used per household.

Averages Reported for Households Grouped by —

Area

United States

Northeast

North Central Region

South

West

Urbanization

category

All combined

Nonfarm

Urban

Rural nonfarm

Farm

1954 money income of family

after income taxes 2/

Under $1,000

$1-2,000

$2-3,000

$3-li-,000

$1^-5,000

$5-6,000

$6-8,000

$8-10,000

$10,000 and over

Data Computable from Reported Statistics for Each Group

(1) Per person averages for each type of data for individual foods and for groups

of foods.

(2) Per household averages for those households using item during week.

(3) Estimates of regional, urbanization, and income shares of (a) the commercial

market for all food and for individual foods, (b) home-produced foods, (c) all

food consumed at home.

{h) Breakdown of the money spent for food at home among commodities.

(5) Average prices paid by selected groups of households for individual foods and

groups of foods.

(6) Cross-section indexes of food consumption per person (retail level), of total

food use per person (farm level), and of use of purchased foods per person

( farm level) .

1/ Valued at prices paid for purchased item by households in the same urbanization

category and region.

2/ Some income classes were combined in some urbanizations of some regions because

of small number of cases in sample.
- 30 -

continued over more than a year. The samples were not designed to provide U. S. coverage. They included only households not receiving relief. Hovever, some U. S. data

have been estimated and published from time to time by analysts in the Department of

Agriculture.

3.7.1^.2. The Study of Spending and Saving in Wartime yielded detailed data on ,

consumption of food at home in a week of April and May of 19^2 for the U. S. as a

whole, ha/ They were published by the Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics

in Misc. Pub. 550, Family Food Consumption in the United States (¿lO). Income and

expenditure data for all U. S. households and for urban households in the first

quarter of 19k2, as well as the annual recall data for 19^1, were published in BLS

Bui. 822 (1¡¿). Income and expenditure data for rural families from the same survey

were published in USDA Misc. Pub. 520 (Jjl) .

The survey of urban housekeeping households in the spring of 19^ supplied data

on food expenditures at home and away from home (including alcoholic beverages), the

value of food obtained without direct expense, and detailed quantity and money value

data for all foods consumed at home. This survey by the Bureau of Human Nutrition

and Home Economics (later the Institute of Home Economics) covered food consumption

in a week in spring for all U. S. housekeeping households of two or more. Supplementary data were obtained on food consumption in households in four cities during three

seasons of 19^ and for those in two cities in two seasons of 19^9« For a subdivision

of southern households and northern households the U. S. spring data were tabulated by

food group. Agr. Inf. Bui. 132 (ji2) contains both the basic data and an appraisal of

methods of analysis.

3.7.It.3. The Bureau of Labor Statistics in its large scale survey of consumer

expenditures covered expenditures for food in a week of spring 1951- ií2/

3.7.if.i*-. The Institute of Home Economics and the Agricultural Marketing Service

cooperated in the 1955 Survey of Household Food Consumption. ¿O/ The 1955 survey was

designed to provide reliable statistics on food consiomption by all housekeeping households in the spring of that year and for major segments such as households grouped by

region, urbanization, and income. The sample covered the U. S. housekeeping population of about 153 million civilians. Excluded from the survey were about 9 million

people (l) who lived in households in which no one had 10 or more meals from household

supplies during the survey week and (2) who lived in rooming houses or hotels, or in

public or private institutions — often described as the nonhousekeeping population.

The types of data reported or obtainable from the first 5 survey reports are listed in

exhibit D. ¿l/

ii6/ A few urban schedules were collected in the early part of June, 1Sh2.

kg/ The data in vol. XII of Study of Consumer Expenditures. Incomes and Savings (¿¿)

on expenditures for food for home consumption cover all foods bought for such use,

valued at retail, and not just food bought in stores as is indicated by the titles of

tables 3-^-

50/ Data from this survey are published by the Department of Agriculture in a

special series of survey reports (¿Jt) . Survey Reports 1-5 contains the money value

and food quantity data.

¿1/ An article by Burk and Lanahan in Agr. Econ. Res. July 1958> (53) describes

aspects of the 1955 food survey data of interest to researchers in agricultural

economics. Results of several checks on the reliability of the data, reported in that

article, are given in appendix C.
- 31 -

three regions ~ North, South, and West. ¿S/ In addition to these nine subdivisions,

other groupings of families were also used ~ income, family size, age of head, occupation of family head, family type, and so on, and combinations of income and certain

of the other family characteristics. The University of Pennsylvania is engaged in a

detailed analysis of the relationship of various family characteristics (income,

family size, occupation of family head, family type, and so on) to expenditures for

food by region and city size as part of the Study of Consumer Expenditures, Incomes

and Savings (¿¿) .

3.7.3. Annual Recall of

Home Food Production

Data on the production of food in the preceding year were obtained for I9Í+I as

part of the Study of Spending and Saving in Wartime and for 195^ in connection with

the 1955 Survey of Household Food Consumption. For 19^1-1 some overall value data on

urban production of food for home use are given in BLS Bui. 822 {¡¡¿). More extensive

data for rural households are given in Misc. Pub. 520, Rural Family Spending and

Saving in Wartime (ijO) • ¿6/ For farm households, there is information on the value of

all home-produced foods, commodity detail for the values and quantities of livestock

products, the flour, cereal, meal group, and for sirups and honey; value figures only

are given for fruits and vegetables. This publication also contains information on

home canning of fruits and vegetables and of meat and poultry by farm households and

on storage, freezing and dehydrating of some items. For rural nonfarm households, it

reports the value of all home-produced foods with broad commodity breakdowns, the

quantities for major livestock items, and the quantity of all home-canned food.

Agr. Inf. Bui. 132 (¿2) reports the value of food home produced by urban households in 19^7^ subdivided into seven food groups.

Survey Report 12. Food Production for Home Use by Households in the United

States, by Region, (My on the I955 Survey contains a considerable variety of data on

the value and quantity of home-produced foods. These were analyzed and described from

the marketing point of view in the National Food Situation for April and July I958

(¿2). The survey data on the use of fruits during 195^ are inadequate. A new approach

to estimates of current use of home-produced vegetables in the fresh form supplied a

fairly conçrehensive set of data for these foods for the first time, as described in

the report's notes on use of the tables.

3.7-^« Recall of Food Consumption

in a Week of Spring

Each of the publications with detailed food data from the national surveys describes the way in which the survey was made, and its coverage. Following is a review

of the types of available data on a week's food consumption.

3.7A.I. The Consumer Purchases Stuc3y for 1935-36 ¿2/ provided value and quantity data for all commodities for area and population segments. The interviewing

45/ Vol. III. "Summary of Familv Expenditures for Food, Beverages and Tobacco" (1950),

and vol. XII, "Detailed Family E^qpenditures for Food, Beverages and Tobacco" (1950 and

spring 1951) ß Study of Consumer Expenditures. Incomes and Savings (¿¿).

¿6/ Published by the Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics.

hi/ Data for large cities reported in Family Expenditures in Selected Cities, 19^5-,^6.

Vol. II, "Food." BLS Bui. 6k8 (ifg) . The Department of Agriculture published the

food data for farm, village, and urban households in Family Food Consumption and

Dietary Levels. Five Regions. Farm Series. Misc. Pub. to5 (38). Urban and Village

Series, Misc. Pub. ^52 (^) .
- 32 -

3.7-5- Sipring Survey Data on

Quantities Consumed

Survey data on quantities of individual foods consumed in the preceding week,

usuEdly in the spring, have proved to be particularly useful for study of changes in

the structure of U. S. food consuiiç)tion.

3.7.5.1. The food data for a week in spring 19^2 cover consumption at home loy

families and single individuals grouped hy urbanization and by family income level.

Reports referred to previously in this handbook provide detailed quantity figures on

consumption (and on home production by rural households) of individual foods and

groups of foods. Separate data on food quantities for urban households of two or more

persons were retabulated by the Institute of Home Economics for comparison with the

spring 19^ data and are published in Agr. Inf. Bui. 132 (32)- Infonaation on the

structure of food consumption in the spring of 19^ appears to be generally useful for

comparison with I955 survey data. ¿2/

Consumption of some items in spring 19^, however, was affected hy the collection of data primarily in April and May, with only a few urban schedules in June.

Some other items were affected hy wartime food developments. Detailed analysis of

commodity data has indicated that the seasonal differences were not major and were

largely offsetting. Unfortunately, the effects of wartime food shortages on food consumption and food purchases and consumption at home by the housekeeping population

cannot be measured directly with available data. But the short supplies of some

items for consumption at home in spring 19^ appear to have been shared quite generally by rich and poor, farm and nonfarm people. Per person averages for consumption

at home of meat and sugar, in particular, appear to be low in relation to AMS data on

disappearance, but comparisons of the averages for each income class in the three

urbanization categories with such data from the I955 survey reveal a high degree

of internal consistency. ¿2/ The possibility of significant variations because of

seasonal differences or sharp changes in supplies from the period of one survey to

another necessitates great care in the comparison of levels of "Engel curves" for

particular types and forms of individual food commodities.

52/ Here the structure of food consumption refers to the whole configuration of

average food consumption from all sources and from purchased supplies only by households grouped according to urbanization and to income.

¿3/ The survey average for meat consumption per person at home in April-May I9U2 was

somewhat lower than the AMS estimate of apparent meat disappearance in that period into all civilian distribution channels for consumption in homes, eating places, and

institutions (including, admittedly, rough quarterly data on farm home consiimption) .

The possibility that the survey data on consioraption at home were underreported is

lessened by the facts that the 19if2 "Engel curves" for beef and pork for households in

each urbanization have generally the same slopes and shapes as their counterparts in

1955, though at different levels, and that the urban "Engel curves" for all meats in

19Í-2 and 19^8 are very close in slope and in level. Some error is also quite possible

in the estimate of civilian meat disappearance in April-rJime 19^. Furthennore, commercial meat supplies distributed in spring 19^2 for consunçtion at home were probably

reduced by greatly increased sales through eating places and perhaps by unreported

changes in stocks.

The term "Engel curves" refers to the graphic relationships between the averages

for all foods or individual foods per person for each income class and average disposable money income for households in each urbanization.
- 33 -

3.7«5*2. The survey of urban housekeeping households of two or more persons

mane in the spring of 1948 supplied information on the quantities of purchased foods

used at home and their values for all major commodities. In addition, data on supplies from all sourt:es, including those received without direct expense, are given

for subgroups of foods' in Agr. Inf. Bui. 132 (^ • As this bulletin contains full

descriptions of the data^ their limitations, and their uses, no further detail is

needed here.

3.7«5*3- The 1955 Survey of Household Food Consumption supplied data on food

used at home for the United States and the four regions by all housekeeping households

grouped within each of the urbanization categories and by single person households as

opposed to households of two or more persons. Only the households of two or more

persons were subdivided by family income, therefore detailed data on quantities of

food consumed at home by people at several income levels are available only for these

households. Those types of data given or coiiÇ)utable from the survey reports of par^

ticular value to consumption analysis are listed in exhibit D. As ajdditional crosstabulations are made by AMS, resiilts will be published.

No commodity data can be repeated in this handbook — the mass of statistics

involved is too great. But some overall measures of the quantity of all foods consumed within households grouped by income have been developed by the Consumption

Section of AMS from the 1942 survey and the I955 survey. They are described in the

next two sections.

3.7»5•4. A cross-section index of food consuiiç)tion per person (retail level)

has been constructed from the information on the quantities of food consumed at home

in a week of spring 194-2, as reported in Misc. Pub. 550 (iiS) • The reported data were

adjusted to the bases of the retail time series on per capita food consumption and

combined by means of the retail price weights and the formula of the index of per

capita food consuiiç)tion (PPQ-2) . The value aggregates computed for households in

each income group within each of the urbanization categories were converted to averages per person and compared with the all-U. S. average. The comparisons yield the

cross-section index given in table 3-12. Further details of the computations are

provided in appendix D.

These indexes axe subject to all the qualifications described in 3.7.5.I, plus

those resulting from pricing all quantities at the same average retail price, irrespective of quality and of the extent of famnretail services bought or not bought

with the food. But they are a useful statistical tool for analysis of changes in

U. S. food consunçtion from spring 194-2 to spring 1955-

3.7.5.5. To measure for demand analysis the structure of overall food consumption in quantitative terms, three new indexes were developed from the 1955 food

suivey. Two match the definitions of the time-series indexes of per capita food use

of farm commodities (PFGl-la, b) . One index covers consumption from all sources

(CFQ-la), the other only purchased foods (CF^lb) . For these, the consumption data

from the I955 survey were converted to their farm commodity equivalents and valued at

1947-49 farm prices. The third index measures variations in consumption from all

sources in terms of average retail value at 1947-49 average prices (CFQr2). This

index matches the time-series retail index of per capita JTood consumption (PFQ-2).

The overall indexes for U. S. households grouped by urbanization and income are given

in table 3.I3. Details of the methodology and subseries for commodity groups are

given in appendix D. The overall food data are considered to be quite reliable and

generally representative of food consumption at home in all of 1955* The subindexes

for commodity groups are subject to the same limitations as the weekly data from which

they are coniputed — seasonality, sanipling, and so on.
- zh3.7.6. Value Data on Food

Consumed in a vfeek of Spring

This section describes a number of sets of overall food value data from household surveys of food consumption in a week of spring. To approximate coiiç)arability

among the data from several surveys, the author made a series of adjustments in the

reported data, as indicated in the footnotes of tables 3.IÍ4-I6, \^ich contain the

ad.iusted data. It is quite unlikely that any two statisticians would adjust such

diverse sets of data in exactly the same ways. But adjusted data are given for the

benefit of researchers who may lack the time to develop their own.

3.7.6.1 For spring 19tó, the market value of all food consumed at home in a week

was published for all foods combined, and for individual items, in Misc. Pub. 55O (¿fi).

Data on expenditures for food away from home were derived from the recall of expenditures in the first quarter of 19^2 for urban households, in BLS Bui. 822 (43) and for

rural nonfarm households, in Misc. Pub. 520 (itl). Comparable data for farm households

had to be estimated from the '^.^kl data reported in Misc. Pub. 520. Data on expenditures for food at home represent a separate set of data tabulated from the schedules,

and not the value of purchased food consumed at home. ¿¿/

3.7.6.2. From the urban survey of spring 19^, the following sets of value data

are immediately available in Agr. Inf. Bui. 132 (¿3) : Total expenditures for food at

home and away from home; value of food obtained without direct expense in total and

for broad commodity groups; the value data for individual purchased foods used at home.

3.7.6.3. The survey of urban consumers made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in

the spring of I95I supplied extensive sets of expenditure data. Those pertaining to

the value of all purchased food at the retail level in spring I95I were published by

the VVharton School of Finance and Commerce in vol. XII of the series. Study Qf

Consumer Expenditures. Incomes and Savings (¿¡¿) . These data represent the recall of

the number of units purchased, \init size and price, and the total amount spent. As

they were gathered as part of the survey of all consumer expenditures, less emphasis

was paid to the development of food quantity data. The data in the published reports

are in terms of expenditures without matching quantity figures.

3.7.6.4. The kinds of value data reported directly or computable from the published reports for the spring 1955 food survey are listed in exhibit D. Several sets

of data for U. S. households grouped by urbanization and income are given in table 3-16.

3*7.7. Inherent Limitations of

Cross-Section Data for a Week

3.7-7.1. These cross-section data have many uses, as illustrated in this

bulletin, but they have certain inherent limitations too. The limitations arise, on

the one hand, from changes made from one survey to another and, on the other, from the

fact that they represent one week's consumption only. To meet changing objectives

and needs, there have been changes from one survey to another in household coverage,

definitions, and tabulations. For example, home canned fruits and vegetables were

classified with commercially canned items in the report on spring 19^ data, but the

1955 survey reports include them with fresh supplies. ¿¿/ Pork fat cuts provide

5^/ These are hitherto unpublished data supplied by the Institute of Home Economics.

55/ On the basis of the experience of AMS analysts with these two procedures, it now

appears that handling them as a separate category or subdivision is desirable.
- 35 -

another example of variation in handling ~ for I9U2 they are included with fats and

oils, for 1955 with meats.

3.7.7.2. Household coverage has varied between surveys of the Bureau of Lahor

Statistics and of the Institute of Home Economics. Although BLS surveys of income and

expenditures have covered all urhan households, including nonhousekeeping households,

detailed food data pertain only to housekeeping households. Institute of Home

Economics surveys have all referred to housekeeping households. The 19tô survey covered only urban households of two or more persons, whereas the I955 survey included

one-person households and rural farm and nonfarm as well.

3«7.7«3« Analysis of findings from surveys of a week's food consuiiÇ)tion must

take into account these facts: (l) During a limited period the market availability

of goods and services is practically fixed. (2) Demand is relatively fixed or static

because outside influences and intra-family relationships have no time to change

during the single week reported on by each respondent although the interviewing may be

spaced over a several month period. (3) The data may reveal irregularities in consunçtion patterns, market structure, and prices \^ich are peculiar to the particular

period, {k) Problems for some individual foods arise because of seasonality.

(5) Only housekeeping families are included. (6) An adjustment for meals eaten at

home and away from home is made on a pro rata basis in obtaining per person averages

for food at home, 21 meals at home being set equal to one person. While such adjustment is necessary, it may introduce some bias, particularly if there is a notable

difference in the kind of foods eaten out. (7) Sançling and reporting errors have

varied, reflecting improvements in sanpling and collection methods on the one hand and

difficulties such as obtaining cooperation of employed respondents and recall of data

on more items, on the other.

Other limitations of these cross-section surveys, particularly the early ones,

are reported in the literature. ¿6/

3.7.7.U. Although this handbook is concerned primarily with all foods combined,

a section to guide analysts in making comparisons of commodity data from the I955 food

survey with other sets of data is given in appendix C.

3.8. Business Cross-Section Food Surveys

3.8.1. Cross-section surveys of food consumption made by business firms can be

considered in this report only in general terms. It is evident,however, that they vary

in several respects from such surveys conducted by the Federal Government. The only

nationwide all-food study by private agencieö whose existence is generally known is the

one-time survey by Life magazine in 1956. This was part of a large scale study of consumer expenditures which is described in an article by Richard H. Ostheimer. 57/ For

this survey, records were kept by families on their expenditures for foods in each of

10 days. The statisticians in charge of the survey reported difficulties in obtaining

¿6/ (a) Brady, Dorothy S. and Williams, Faith M. "Advances in the Techniques of

Measuring and Estimating Consumer Expenditures." Jour. Farm Econ. May 19^5 \!¡2) •

(b) Part II of BLS Bui. 822 (¿2). (c) Pp. 1-to of the monograph by Helen Humes

Lámale (¿i) .

¿2/ Jour. Mktg.. Jan. I958, pp. 260-272.

Reference to this survey and others that follow does not constitute an indorsement of the data by the U. S. Department of Agriculture.
- 36-

information on consumption by high-income households. Some food data were published

in vol. I, Study of Consumer Expenditures (^6) . The data in this report on food provide only 18 subdivisions within all foods. Published data do not indicate how much

detail on consumption of individual food items was obtained on the schedule.

3.8.2. Probably the best known panel for obtaining cross-section information on

food in this country is that operated by the Market Research Corporation of America.

The Federal Gtovemment purchased and published some data from this panel survey, hence

its characteristics are generally known. The sample for the panel is made up of

families who are paid for their participation with points which are redeemable in

merchandise. Like all other panels, this one experiences problems in retaining

randonmess of the sample in the highest and lowest income groups. The survey is conducted by personal interviewers at the outset, but the weekly diaries are mailed in

by each family. 58/ The MRCA panel now includes a wide variety of foods, but as of

April, 1958, the schedule did not cover fresh meats, poultry, fish; bread; rolls;

fresh vegetables, potatoes, sweet potatoes; dry beans and peas; eggs; ice cream;

melons; and sugar,

3.9« Special Surveys for Market Development Research

Market researchers working on some specific food commodities make use of

U.S.D.A. reports on special market surveys of preferences and use by households and

industrial consumers. As of mid-1959^ no reports on all foods combined had been

published but some pilot reseaarch was in progress. To date, the food commodity

studies have included potatoes, rice, citrus, bakers* use of fruits, apple juice,

cranberries, cooking fats and oils, lamb, cherries, specific bread formulas, poultry,

avocados, dates, raisins, peanuts, and tree nuts.

3.10. Retail Store Data

Information on sales by retail stores and the results of special experiments at

the retail level also, under certain conditions, can be used for study of food consumption. The best known suirvey of sales of retail stores is the continuing survey

by the A. C. Nielsen Company. As such data have not been purchased for use by the

Department of Agriculture, details are not readily available, though certain general

infoiTnation regarding the survey is considered in appendix C.

Retail store experiments have been used to study a variety of marketing and

merchandising problems. These have been on a relatively small scale, and, because of

the expense involved, they cover only single commodities or commodity groups.

58/ Guidance to comparison of this type of survey data with information from the

Grovemment one-time surveys and with the AMS disappearance data is given in

appendix C.
- 37 -

TalDle 3»1-—Major quantity indexes for civilian per capita use of food,

measured at farm and retail levels, and for food marketing

services, and civilian population,1929-59

(Indexes : 19^7-^9=100)

Index of per capita food

use of farm foods l/ Index of per

capita food

consumption

2/

Index of

marketing

services

per capita

Civilian population,

July 1 \J

Year :

All food Purchased

food Num"ber Index

PFO-la PFO-lb : PFO-2 PFO.-^

Million

1929 : 92 85 91 72 121.8 83.9

1930 91 84 91 72 123.1 84.8

1931 91 84 90 72 12i^.O 85.4

1932 89 81 88 68 12if.8 86.0

1933 89 81 88 68 125.6 86-5

193'^ 91 84 89 68 126. U 87.1

1935 87 80 87 64 127.2 87.6

1936 90 84 91 68 128.1 88.3

1937 : 91 85 90 65 128.8 88.7

1938 : 90 84 91 70 129.8 89.4

1939 : 93 87 94 73 130-9 90.2

19')0 : 95 91 95 78 132.1 91.0

19ÍH : 97 93 97 85 131.8 90.8

19tó 96 92 96 88 131.5 90.6

19'*3 : 99 94 97 88 128-9 88.8

19ÍA : 103 99 100 9^ 128.6 88.6

19l^5 : 103 100 101 100 129.1 89.0

1946 : 105 103 104 105 138.u 95.4

19'^7 : 103 102 102 100 142.6 98.3

191(8 : SS 99 99 100 145.2 100.0

191^9 : 98 99 99 100 147.6 101.7

1950 ': 99 100 100 101 150.2 103.5

1951 : 97 99 98 103 151.1 104.1

1952 : 99 102 100 102 153.^ 105.7

1953 : 100 104 101 103 156.0 107.5

1951* : 100 104 101 103 159.1 109.6

1955 : 101 106 102 10i+ 162.3 111.8

1956 : 103 109 104 108 165.3 113.9

1957 : 101 107 102 106 168.4 116.1

1958 : 99 105 101 103 171.4 118.2

19595/ : 101 108 103 105 174.4 120.2

1/ Measured in terms of farm commodities valued at average 1947-49 farm prices. /J.1 food

series differs from purchased food by the amount home produced. PFQ-la represents £er capita

food £uantity - No. la.

" 2/ Derived from data on per capita consumption of individual foods using estimates of retail

weights multiplied by average retail prices in 1947-49.

2J Derived from series PFV-l4d in table 3.8. See text, section 3-5.2.

4/ Civilian population data from the Bureau of the Census adjusted in 1941-45 to include

military personnel eating from civilian supplies. For period before 194l series covers entire

population.

¿/ Preliminary.
- 38-

Table 3.2.- Several special indexes for the quantity of food used, measured at supplier level;

an index of marketing services bought with domestic fann food commodities; and a composite

quantity index of all foods plus all marketing services, 1929-59

( Indexes : IQlf7-^9=100)

; Index of per capita use of — Index of

marketing

services

bought with

domestic

faim food

Conçosite

* Domestic farm

; foods i/ Imported

foods

including

All faim foods

and fishery

nroducts k/

quantity

index of all

: foods used

Year plus all

Purchased fishery Purchased commodities. maAeting

: All 2/ products

2/

All 2/ per capita services, per

capita 6/

: PFQ-lfa PFa-ifh PFQ-5 PFQ-6a PFQ^6b PPÛ-7 PFQ-8

1929 : 91 Qh 101 93 86 69 82

1930 ': 91 83 98 92 85 69 81

1931 : 92 83 93 91 81^ 69 81

1932 : 90 80 85 89 81 67 78

1933 : 91 81 8U 90 81 68 78

193^^ : 92 83 89 91 ßh 66 78

1935 : 86 77 106 88 80 61 75

1936 : 88 81 114 91 85 66 79

1937 : 90 83 109 92 86 63 78

1938 : 89 82 102 90 Sk 69 79

1939 : 93 86 101 93 88 72 83

19^ 96 90 96 96 91 76 86

I9i^l 97 92 100 98 93 82 91

19^2 98 9h 77 96 92 88 92

19^3 102 97 71 99 9^ 91 93

I9i^i^ 105 100 81 102 98 9h 98

19i^5 106 102 83 lOif 100 105 102

I9if6 107 105 92 105 103 109 105

19^7 lOU 103 9^^ 103 102 100 101

19k8 98 98 103 99 99 100 99

19^9 98 98 103 98 99 100 99

1950 98 100 105 99 100 100 100

1951 97 99 10i+ 98 100 102 100

1952 99 102 107 99 102 102 101

1953 99 lOii- 110 100 lOU 102 102

195^ : 100 105 102 100 lOif lOif 102

1955 : 101 107 101 101 106 106 103

1956 : 10i+ 110 101 103 109 108 106

1937 : 101 107 lOU 101 106 106 lOU

I95Ö : 98 lOil- 113 99 105 io4 101

1959 1/ : 99 107 118 101 107 107 103

1/ Breakdown between imported and domestically produced supply of each commodity based on relative

proportion of each in total wherever no better measure was available. Data from computations of supplyutilization index.

2/ Excludes home-produced farm commodities.

^ Indexes developed from farm values of imported farm commodities at I947-Í+9 prices and from edible

weights of imported fishery products priced at 19^^7-^1-9 average import price.

¿/ Value of fishery products at average 1911.7-1^9 prices added to farm value data from supply-utilization

index.

5/ Derived from series PFV-15d in table 3.8.

0/ Combination of PFQ-6a and PFQ-3.

2/ Preliminary.
- 39 -

Table 3«3«- Supplier values of foods used by civilians, I929-59

Farm value Farm value Import value Wharf value ;

of domestic of home- of of domestic : Total

Year ; food sold to produced imported fish catch : supplier

civilians l/ food 2/ food ^

for civilian :

: use k/ !

value

TFV-1 TFV-2 : TJ<V-3 TFV-k : TFV-S

Ml.dol. Bil.dol. Bil.dol. Bil.dol. Bil.dol.

1929 7.2 2.0 1.1 0.1 10.U

1930 6.3 1.8 .8 .1 9.0

1931 k.l 1.5 .7 .1 7.0

1932 : 3A 1.1 .5 .1 5.1

1933 3.6 1.2 .6 .1 5.5

1934 : h.3 1.3 .6 .1 6.3

1935 5.0 1.5 .7 .1 7.3

1936 5.8 1.6 .8 .1 8.3

1937 : 6.0 1.7 .9 .1 8.7

1938 : 5.2 l.k .7 .1 l.k

1939 : 5.2 l.k .7 .1 7-k

19itO ; 5.6 l.k .6 .1 7.7

19ÍH : 7.1 1.7 .8 .1 9.7

19i^2 : 9-3 2.2 .6 .1 12.2

1943 : llA 2.9 .8 .2 15.3

19I+U : 11.6 2.8 .9 .2 15.5

19^5 : 12.6 3.1 1.0 .2 16.9

l9l)-6 : 15.7 3.2 l.k .3 20.6

I9lf7 : 18.7 3.k 1.9 .3 24.3

I9tô : 19.3 3.k 2.1 .3 25.1

19U9 : 16.9 2.8 2.2 .3 22.2

1950 ; 17.6 2.6 2.7 .3 23.2

1951 : 20.0 3.0 2.9 • 3 26.2

1952 : 19-9 2.9 3.2 .3 26.3

1953 : 19.0 2.7 3.3 .3 25-3

195^ : 18.i^ 2.It 3.í^ .3 21)-. 5

1955 : 18.3 2.3 3.3 • 3 24.2

1956 : 18.7 2.3 3-3 .3 2k.6

1957 : 19.5 2.2 3-3 .3 25.3

1958 : 20.7 2.2 3-3 .3 26.5

1959 ¿/ : 19.7 2.0 3.1^ .3 2^.k

1/ Described in text, section 3.2,1.3. TFV-1 represents total food value - No. 1.

2/ Includes home production by nonfarm households. See text, section 3.2.1.4-

¿/ Described in text, section 3.2.2. Includes iniported fishery products.

¿/ See text, section 3.2.3.

¿/ Preliminary.
- 1»0 -

Table 3-^«- Retail value of foods used by civilians, by source

of supply, 1929-59 1/

:Retail valueÎ of domestic. . Retail value of all

: farm foods sold 2/ ; Retail value

of home-

¡Retail value

of imported

: foods consumed

Year ; Total Per capita ]

produced

food

. and nonfarm

foods

Total ' Per capita

: TFV-6 PFV-6 ; TFV-7 Ti'V-8 WV-9 PFV-9

: Bil.dol. Dol. Bil.dol. Bil.dol. Bil.dol. Pol.

1929 : 17.1 l40 4.4 3.0 24.5 201

1930 : 16.2 132 4.3 2.8 23.3 189

1931 : 13.1 106 3.7 2.4 19.2 155

1932 : 10.6 85 3.1 1.9 15.6 125

1933 : 10.9 87 3.1 1.7 15-7 125

193*^ \ : 12.5 99 3.2 2.0 17.7 l4o

1935 : 12.9 101 3.5 2.3 18.7 147

1936 : 14.3 112 3.6 2.4 20.3 158

1937 : 14.2 110 3.6 2.4 20.2 157

1938 : 13.4 103 3.3 2.2 18.9 146

1939 : 13.4 102 3.3 2.2 18.9 144

19i»0 ': 14.1 107 3.2 2.2 19.5 148

1941 : 16.3 124 3.5 2.6 22.4 170

19*^2 : 19.8 151 4.1 2.3 26.2 199

19^3 : 22.3 173 5.3 2.3 29.9 232

19l)-U : 22.5 175 5.2 2.7 30.4 236

19^5 : 24.4 189 5.6 2.5 32.5 252

1946 : 30.8 223 5.9 3.i^ 4o.i 290

1947 : 36.7 257 6.1 5.0 47.8 335

1940 : 39.2 270 6.2 N 5.5 50.9 351

1949 : 37.7 255 5.5 5.8 49.0 332

1950 38.5 256 5.0 6.5 50.0 333

1951 42.8 283 5.5 7.1 55.i^ 367

1952 : 44.4 289 5.6 7.3 57.3 374

1953 : 44.5 285 5.4 7.6 57.5 369

1954 : 44.9 282 4.9 7.8 57.6 362

1955 : 46.3 285 4.8 7.6 58.7 362

1956 : 48.3 292 h.9 8.1 61.3 371

1957 : 50.4 299 4.8 8.4 63.6 378

1958 : 52.8 308 4.8 8.4 66.0 385

1959 i/ : 53.4 306 h.9 8.3 66.6 382

1/ Sources and methodology described in text, section 3-3.2 and 3.3-3, and in

appendix B. Retail value data exclude retail sales taxes and tips. 2/ This series

published in Marketing: and Transportation Situation, identified as retail-store cost

of farm foods sold, ¿/ Preliminary.
Ul -

Table 3.5.- Derivation of the market value of all civilian food, 1929-59 1/

Year

: Retail value

: of all

: foods sold

Farm value

of all

homeproduced

food

Eating

place

markup over

retail

2/

Minus

estimated

marketing

charges saved

on food sold

prior to

• Total market

[ value of all

'civilian food,

excluding

taxes and tips

retail level

:TFV-6 + TFV-8 WV-2 ^/ Tl^V-lOa

: Bil.dol. Bil.dol. Bil.dol. Bil.dol. Bil.dol.

1929 : 20.1 2.0 1.3 1.4 22.0

1930 : 19.0 1.8 1.3 1.1 21.0

1931 : 15.5 1.5 1.1 .8 17.3

1932 : 12.5 1.1 .9 .6 13.9

1933 : 12.6 1.2 .7 .7 13.8

193»^ : IU.5 1.3 .6 1.0 15.1^

1935 : 15.2 1.5 .6 1.0 16.3

1936 : 16.7 1.6 .7 1.1 17.9

1937 : 16.6 1.7 .8 1.0 18.1

1938 15.6 l.k .9 .8 17.1

1939 : 15.6 l.k 1.0 • 7 17.3

191*0 : 16.3 'l.k 1.0 .6 18.1

19ÍÍ-1 : 18.9 1.7 1.2 .6 21.2

19lf2 : 22.1 2.2 l.k .4 25.3

1943 : 24.6 2.9 1.8 .5 28.8

19M^ 25.2 2.8 2.0 .4 29.6

19i^5 : 26.9 3.1 2.k .4 32.0

19^ : 31^.2 3.2 2.9 .5 39.8

19h7 kl.l 3.1* 3.1 .6 47.6

191*0 : Mf.7 3.1^ 3.3 .6 50.8

19U9 1^3.5 2.8 3.3 •5 49.1

1950 1^5.0 2.6 3.3 .5 50.4

1951 1 1+9.9 3.0 3.8 .5 56.2

1952 : 51.7 2.9 3.9 .5 58.0

1953 : 52.1 2.7 4.0 .5 58.3

195»^ : 52.7 2.If l*.l .5 58.7

1955 : 53.9 2.3 1^.3 .5 60.0

1956 : 56.U 2.3 1^.5 .5 62.7

1957 : 58.8 2.2 4.8 .4 65.4

1958 : 61.2 2.2 4.9 .4 67.9

1959 ¿/ : 61.7 2.0 5.2 .3 68.6

1/ Procedures for estimation of component series described in text, section 3-^-3-l,

in general tenns,and in more detail in appendix B, 2/ Sources and methodology

described in section I.5 of appendix B. 3/ See section 1.6 of appendix B.

h/ Reference is to retail sales taxes• ¿/Preliminary.
- 1^2 -

Table 3«6.- All foods consumed by civilians: Total and per capita

market value and expenditures, 19^9-59 i/

Ibtal market value of all foods Expenditures for all foods,

• 4 vi<-k*1 1^^'f v^r* 4-<4^j'^»<«i ov^/^ +-î'»-»r'

i Excluding

' taxes

[ and tips

Including taxes and tips J.lJ.^JUU.\Jl.XU^ wcM^%.^iO ÇA±i\A. VJU¿/0

Year

Total Per capita ! Total Per capita

: TFV-lOa TFV-101) , PFV-lOb T];'V-llti PFV-llb

: Bil.dol. Bil.dol. Dol. Bil.dol. Dol.

1929 : 22.0 22.1 181 20.1 165

1930 : 21.0 21.1 171 19.3 157

1931 ' : 17.3 17.1+ ito 15.9 128

1932 : 13.9 llf.O 112 12.9 103

1933 : 13.8 13.9 111 12,7 101

193»+ l^.k 15.5 123 11^.2 112

1935 : 16.3 16.5 . 130 15.0 116

1936 : 17.9 18.1 liH 16.5 129

1937 : 18.1 18.3 142 16.6 129

1938 : 17.1 17.3 133 15.9 122

1939 : 17.3 17.5 131^ 16.1 123

19'»0 : 18.1 18.l^ 139 17.0 129

19IH : 21.2 21.5 163 19.8 150

191^2 : 25.3 25.7 195 23.5 179

19*^3 : 28.8 29.3 227 26.4 205

19Mt : 29.6 30.2 235 27.l^ 213

l9^^5 : 32.0 32.7 253 29.6 229

19k6 : 39.8 to.5 293 37.3 270

I9kl : hl.6 1*8.3 339 kk.9 315

19U8 50.8 51.6 355 ka.2 332

1949 : 1^9.1 k9.9 338 I^7.l 319

1950 50.1^ 51.2 31^1 1*8.6 321^ •

1951 : 56.2 57.1 378 5l*.l 358

1952 : 58.0 59.0 385 56.1 366

1953 : 58.3 59.1^ 381 56.7 363

195»^ 58.7 59.8 376 57A 361

1955 60.0 61.2 377 58.9 363

1956 62.7 63.9 387 61.6 373

1957 65.1^ 66.7 396 64-5 383

1958 : 67.9 69.2 toi^ 67.0 391

1959 2/ : 68.6 69.9 toi 67.9 389

1/ Derived from AMS data as described in text, sections 3.U.3,1 and S.^l-^S.S, Taxes

refer to retail sales taxes.

2/ Preliminary.
- k3-

Table 3*7»- Domestic farm foods consumed by civilians: Total and

per capita market value and expenditures, I929-59 l/

Œbtal market value of domestic Expenditures iE"or domestic

farm foods only- farm foodc

J T._JJ J

5 only.

Year ;

Excluding

Including taxes and tips :

xiii:xuuj.Lig i>axsB ana Tixps

t£ixes and tips Total Per capita Total Per capita

TFV-12a : TFV-12t PFV-12b : 'i'Jb'V-l.^b PFV-l^b

Bil.dol. Bil.dol. Dol. Bil.dol. Dol.

1929 i 18.8 18.9 155 16.9 139

1930 ': 18.0 18.1 147 16.3 132

1931 llv.7 lU.8 119 13.3 107

1932 11.9 12.0 96 10.9 87

1933 12.0 12.1 96 10.9 87

193ít 13.3 I3A 106 12.1 96

1935 13.9 lU.l 111 12.6 99

1936 : 15.4 15.6 122 14.0 109

1937 : 15.6 15.8 123 14.1 109

1938 : 14.8 15.0 116 13.6 105

1939 : 15.0 15.2 116 13.8 105

19itO ; 15.8 16.1 122 14.7 111

191^1 : 18.U 18.7 142 17.0 129

I9U2 : 22.9 23.2 176 21.0 160

1943 : 26.3 26.7 207 23.8 185

l9Uif : 26.7 27.2 212 24.4 190

19U5 : 29.3 29.9 232 26.8 208

I9tó : 36.1 36.7 265 33.5 242

l9'^7 : U2.2 42.8 300 39'^ 276

191*8 : l^i^.9 45.6 314 42.2 291

19U9 : U2.9 43»6 295 40.8 276

1950 i k3,k kh.l 294 41.5 276

1951 ua.6 k9.k 327 46.4 307

1952 : 50.2 51.1 333 48.2 3l4

1953 : 50.1 51.0 327 48.3 310

195»^ : 50.3 51.2 322 48.8 307

1955 : 51.8 52.8 325 50.5 311

1956 : 3^.0 55.0 333 52.7 319

1957 : 56.3 57.U 341 55.2 328

1958 : 58.8 59.9 3i^9 57.7 337

1959 2/ : 59.6 60.7 348 58.7 337

1/ Derived from AMS data as described in text, sections 3*^«3*2 and 3*^-3«3-

refer to retail sales taxes.

2/ Preliminary.

Taxes
- khTable 3.8,- Total marketing "bill for all civilian foods and for domestic farm foods:

current dollars, and totaJr and per capita in 19^7-^9 dollars, 1929-59

Total in

• Index of

Total marketing bil3 for ©J.! foods 2/ Total marketing bill for ax

fam foods 4/

Dmestlc

In current In 19^^7-49 dollars. In current In 19^7-^9 dollars.

; marketing

• margin

dollars excluding taxes

and tins dollars excluding taxes

and tins

Year

• (19^7-^9

=100) Including : Excluding Total Per Including:Excluding Total Per

taxes

and tips

: taxes

:aiid tips 2/ capita taxes and

tips ¿/

:taxes and

: tips ¿/ capita

TFV-"l4b : TFV-l4a TFV-l4d PFV-l4d TFV-15b : TFV-15a TFV-15d PIV-15d

Bil.dol. Bil.dol. Bil.dol. Pol. Bil.dol. Bil.dol. Bil.dol., Pol.

1929 *: 76 11.7 11.6 15.3 126 9.7 9.6 12.6 103

1930 ': IQ 12.1 12.0 I5A 125 10.0 9.9 12.7 103

1931 : 66 10.4 10.3 15.6 126 8.6 8.5 12.9 104

1932 : 59 8.9 8.8 14.9 119 7.5 l.h 12.5 100

1933 : ^6 8.4 8.3 14.8 118 7.3 7.2 12.8 102

193^ : 59 Ö.9 8.8 14.9 118 7.5 l.h 12.5 99

1935 : 61 Ö.9 8.7 li^.3 112 7.3 7.1 11.6 91

1936 : 63 9.8 9.6 15.2 119 8.2 8.0 12.7 99

1937 : 6k 9.6 9>h 14.7 114 8.1 7^9 12.3 95

1938 : 61 9.9 9.7 15^9 122 8.4 8.2 I3.i^ 103

1939 : 59 10.1 9.9 16.8 128 8.6 8.4 14.2 108

19^ ': 58 10.7 10.4 17.9 136 9.1 8.8 15.2 115

19^1 : 59 11.8 11.5 19.5 148 9.9 9.6 16.3 124

19^2 : 65 13.5 13.1 20.2 15^^ 11.7 11.4 17.5 133

19^3 : 69 14.2 13.7 19.9 154 12.6 12.2 17.7 137

19^*-^ : 70 15.2 14.6 20.9 163 13.3 12.8 18.3 142

1945 : 70 16.5 15.8 22.6 175 14.9 14.3 20.4 158

19^^ : 78 20.4 19.7 25.3 183 18.3 17.7 22.7 164

1947 . 9^^ 24.0 23.3 24.8 17^^ 20.7 20.1 21.4 150

19^*8 : 102 26.5 25.7 25.2 Uk 22.9 22.2 21.8 150

19i^9 104 27.7 26.9 25.9 175 23.9 23.2 22.3 151

1950 103 28.0 27.2 26.4 176 23.9 23.2 22.5 150

1951 111 30.9 30.0 27.0 179 26.4 25.6 23.1 153

1952 116 32.7 31.7 27.3 178 28.3 27,i^ 23,6 15^^

1953 118 3i^.l 33.0. 28.0 179 29.3 28.4 24.1 15*^

1954 119 35.3 34.2 28.7 180 30.4 29.5 24.8 156

1955 121 37.0 35.8 29.6 182 32.2 31.2 25.8 159

1956 123 39.3 38.1 31.0 188 3*^.0 33.0 26.8 162

1957 128 41.4 4o.l 31.3 185 35.7 3k.6 27.0 160

195Ö : 134 42.7 41.4 30.9 180 37.0 35.9 26.8 156

1959 6/ : 135 44.5 43.2 32.0 183 39.0 37^9 28.1 161

1/ Calculated from the AMS "market basket" series. See reference in text, section 3.5.3.

2/ Described in text, section 3.5. Taxes refer to retail sales taxes. Difference between total market

value and supplier value except that Federal processor taxes have been deducted in 1934 and I935 and

allowances for Federal payments to processors have been added in 1943-46.

2/ TFV-l4d represents total food value series - No. l4a deflated.

4/ Differs from faim-retail marketing bill because this series includes services of eating places

and excludes share of markup on food sold prior to retail level. Difference between total market value

and supplier value except that Federal processor taxes have been deducted in 1934 and I935 and allowances

for Federal payments to processors have been added in 1943-46.

¿/ Estimated retail sales taxes and tips for fam foods based on ratio of retail-store cost of farm

foods sold to retail value of all food sold.

6/ Preliminary.
-U5 -

Table 3-9•- Disposable total personal income and disposable money income,

total and per capita, 1929-59

Disposable total iucome l/ ] Disposable money income 2/

Year :

u. s.

total

Per ceipita in — ;

U. S.

total

Per capita in —

Current ; 1947-49 Current ; 1947-49

dollars ; dollars dollars ; dollars

Bil.dol. Dol. Dol. Bil.dol. Dol. Dol.

1929 ': 83.1 682 930 76.8 631 861

1930 '. Ik.k 604 846 68.6 557 780

1931 : 63.8 515 792 59.0 476 732

1932 : 1*8.7 390 668 44.9 360 616

1933 : 1^5.7 364 658 42.5 338 611

193»^ 52.0 411 719 48.8 386 675

1935 . 58.3 459 782 54.8 431 731*

1936 : 66.2 517 872 62.5 488 823

1937 : 71.0 551 897 67.0 520 847

1938 : 65.7 506 839 61.8 476 789

1939 : 70.1* 538 906 66.4 507 854

191*0 : 76.1 576 962 72.0 51*5 910

19ÍH : 93-0 697 1,108 88.1 660 1,049

19tó : 117.5 871 1,250 110.8 821 1,178

19^3 : 133.5 977 1,320 124.9 914 1,235

19l^i+ : 146.8 1,060 1,410 137.0 990 1,316

19^5 : 150.1* 1,075 1,398 139.6 998 1,298

19k6 : 160.6 1,136 1,362 151.6 1,072 1,285

1947 : 170.1 1,181 1,237 161.5 1,121 1,174

191*8 : 189.3 1,291 1,256 180.2 1,229 1,196

19U9 : 189.7 1,271 1,249 180.5 1,210 1,189

1950 : 207.7 1,369 1,332 197.9 1,305 1,269

1951 : 227.5 1,473 1,327 216.2 1,400 1,261

1952 : 238.7 1,520 1,339 226.8 1,445 1,273

1953 : 252.5 1,582 1,383 240.2 1,505 1,316

195!^ : 256.9 1,582 1,378 244.7 1,507 1,313

1955 : 274.4 1,660 1,450 262.0 1,585 1,384

1956 : 292.9 1,742 1,499 279.9 1,664 1,432

1957 : 308.8 l,804 1,501 294.8 1,722 1,433

1958 : 317.9 1,826 1,479 302.9 1,740 ^S?

1959 i/ : 337.3 1,905 1,529 322.2 1,820 l,tól

1/ Total series from Uo S. Department of Commerce. Per capita data calculated by

MS. .

2/ Derived from total series by subtracting income received wholly and partly m

kind.

¿/ Preliminary.
Table 3.10.- Average total disposable income and total market value of

food consumed per person in year, at home and away,

by income group, 1935-36 and I9UI l/

(In IQlfl clollars)

Total income : Distribution : Average Total

TnftTlcpt

per consumer : of family disposable : value unit in current

dollars 2/

members income per :

person :

of food

per person

: Percent Dollars Dollars

Under $500 1 Ik.k 121 74

$500-1,000 : 28.3 259 111

$1,000-1,500 : 22.8 396 lUl

$1,500-2,000 : 13.9 537 165

$2,000-3,000 : 12.5 726 192

$3,000-5,000 : 5A 1,051 22h

$5,000 and over : 2.7 3,i^99 368

Average 1^9^^

1941

143

Under $500 " 5.1 122 91

55500-1,000 !: 15.2 293 130

$1,000-1,500 16.1 kk6 167

$1,500-2,000 17.7 529 179

iJ2,000-3,000 23.5 73^^ 206

»3,000-5,000 : 16,0 1,008 2l)-7

î)5,000 and over : 6.U 2,027 35»^

Average : — 680 191

1/ Data derived from 1935-36 Consumer Income and Expenditure Studies of the

National Resources Committee and 19^1 Study of Spending and Saving in Wartime (^31^ its)* Disposable income includes money and nonmoney incomes; 191+-1

incomes adjusted for underreporting. Market value of all food including

away-from^home and home-produced food, valued at local prices, and alcoholic

beverages. Excludes institutional population.

2/ Approximately same as disposable income; includes nonmoney income.

¿/ Including single individuals.
- U7

Table 3.11.- Average disposable money income and expenditures for food and

alcoholic beverages per person, urban families, by income group,

I9UI, 19^^, 19^7 and 1950 1/

(In 19,^5-^9 dollars)

Money income

of family

in current

dollars

Under $500

$500-1,000

$1,000-1,500

$1,500-2,000

$2,000-2,500

$2,500-3,000

$3,000-4,000

$4,000-5,000

$5,000-10,000

$10,000 and over

Average

Under $1,000

$1,000-2,000

$2,000-3,000

$3,000-4,000

$4,000-5,000

$5,000-6,000

$6,000-7,500

$7,500-10,000

$10,000 and over

Average

Distribution of

family

members

Average

disposable

money

income

Expenditures for

food and

alcoholic

beverages

Percent

2.8

10.0

11.7

18.0

16.2

14.8

18.0

8.5

2.8

12.3

28.5

26.2

12.7

11.3

6.2

Dollars

iSiii 2/

116

220

391

U92

6U3

703

9ha

1,313

2.753

¿/680

I2iil¿/

159

kQ9

633

789

1,086

1,857

690

Dollars

66

91

li^5

162

192

216

2U3

285

i)00

ÍL/195

155

166

200

219

2kh

267

315

220

Distribution of

family

members

Average ^Expendidisposable^*^^^^ ^°J

money _ , _ .

¡alcoholic income

: beverages

Percent

1.1

3.7

4.3

9.5

12.7

13.4

24.8

13.1

17.4

Dollars Dollars

1944 ^/

102

252

356

468

581

702

752

876

l,tó5

4/79^

1250 6/

238

424

545

634

763

880

i,oto

1,226

2,500

758

122

l4l

159

184

205

233

225

229

268

4/220

172

177

203

213

237

256

276

298

hl^

231

1/ Income and expenditure averages converted to 1935-39 dollars using changes in

CPI. Distribution of population retained in current dollars of each set of data and

without adjustment for probable underreporting.

2/ Data derived from BLS Bui. 822, Family Spending and Saving in Wartime (¿¡¿j.

¿/ Computed from BLS Serial No. R. I818, "Expenditures and Savings of City Families

in 1944" by Dorothy S. Brady. Monthly Labor Review, Jan. 1946 (^ . Averages computed with population weights.

4/ Calculated average.

¿/ Housekeeping families only. Computed from table 25 in USDA Agr. Inf. Bui. 132,

Food Consumption of Urban Families in the United States (^) .

6/ Data derived from table 1, vol. I8, "Summary of Family Incomes, ^fP^^^^^^^^^^^^

Savings - 1950" Study of Consumer Expenditures, Incomes, and Savings

single person families.

(4¿). Includes
Table 3*12.- Cross-section indexes for 19^2: Per person food consiuiçtion

at home in housekeeping households, in a week of spring 19^2 l/

First quarter 1942

money income

per family

at annual rate

in current dollars

: United

: States ¡

Urban Rural ;

nonfarm Fann

All : 100.0 104.1 90.7 99.2

Under $500 : 81.7 . 75.8 76.9 86.5

$500-1,000 \ 87.8 85.6 81.6 98.8

$1,000-1,500 i 93.7 91.8 88.4 112.5

$1,500-2,000 i: 100.9 97.7 99.6 117.9

$2,000-3,000 : 108.9 110.9 101.8 114.3

$2,000-2,500 : — 106.8 —

$2,500-3,000 ! 113.2 —

$3,000 and over !: llI(-.2 113.9 112.1 114.6

$3,000-5,000 !; — 113.4 —

$5,000-10,000 : 115.8 —

1/ Described briefly in text, section 3»7«5»^ and in detail in appendix D. Quantities of

individual foods used in a week at home in spring 19l^2 in housekeeping households, from Misc.

Pub. 550, Family Food Consumption in the United States iUo) . combined with 191^7-^9 average retail

prices used in time-series index of per capita food consumption; resulting per capita value- aggregates Compared with the all U. S. average to derive index matching concept of time-series index

PF^2. Income data are given in table 3«1^»

I

I
Table 3-13»*" Three cross-section indexes of per person food use in spring 1955^ and average disposable money

income per person, by urbanization and income group l/

195Í1- disposable United Rural ; United Rural

money income States Urban nonfann Farm

; States Urban nonfann Farm

per family

a. Per person food use - b. Per person food use -

all sources (CFQ-la) 2/ purchased only (CFQ-lb) ¿/

Under $1,CX)0 79.7 83.8 69.3 85.0 ! 57.1 89.6 58.1 43.6

$1,000-2,000 87.1 84.9 80.7 97.7 : 75.0 92.4 73.0 52.5

¿2,000-3,000 94.2 90.9 9^.3 104.6 : 90.1 100.5 90.3 58.4

$3,000-if,000 95.5 95.3 93.1 105.2 : 97.1 105.7 92.9 60.6

$i|-,000-5,000 101.1 99.9 101.1 110.7 : 105.5 111.1 104.0 63.4

$5,000-6,000 105.4 106.6 102.2 110.9 : 111.5 118.3 106.6 70.7

¿6,000-8,000 108.8 109.3 108.1 108.7 : 115.4 121 .7 112.2 65.9

$8,000-10,000 ^ 109.1 107.4 114.0 113.1 : 115.6 120.3 122.0 62.0

$10,000 and over 117.3 118.3 111.7 124.8 : 127.1 131.2 114.3 88.6

Average - all

households 100.0 101.7 95.9 101.8 100.0 112.8 95.2 56.8

c. Per person food consumption - d. Average disposable money income

retail level (CFQ-2) 4/ per person (l954)

Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars

Under $1,000 77.9 82.0 68.9 82.0 115 185 161 53

^1,000-2,000 85.2 83.1 79.1 95.4 450 510 432 386

$2,000-3,000 93.1 90.1 93.0 102.4 703 766 652 612

$3,000-^,000 96.1 96.2 92.8 104.1 : 932 977 880 836

$4,000-5,000 101.7 100.9 100.8 108.9 : 1,196 1,233 1,156 1,023

$5,000-6,000 105.2 106.8 102.0 110.1 : 1,422 i,50it 1,296 1,154

$6,000-8,000 109.6 110.0 106.7 106.1 : 1,811 1,869 1,752 l,to4

$8,000-10,000 : 110.8 109.0 115.6 111.6 : 2,267 2,350 2,151 1,758

$10,000 and over : 119.3 120.4 113.2 124.7 : 4,076 l;,22lt 3,314 3,854

Average - all

households : 100.Û 102.4 95.3 99.6 ! 1,250 1,1(60 1,021 698

1/ Described briefly in text, section 3-7.5.5, aJ^cL in detail in appendix D. Quantities of individual foods used in a week

at home in spring I955 by housekeeping households (from I955 Survey of Household Food Consumption) combined with 1947-49

average prices used in time-series indexes; resulting value aggregates on a per person basis compared with all U. S. average

to derive indexes. 2/ Matches concept of time-series index of per capita food use - all sources (PFQ-la) ; quantities of

individual items converted to farm^weight equivalents and valued at average farm prices in 1947-49. ¿/ Matches time-series

index of per capita food use - purchased food (PFQ-lb); quantities of individual items converted to farm-weight equivalents

and valued at average farm prices in 1947-49. 4/ Matches time-series index of per capita food consioraption (PFQ-2) ; retail

weights of individual items valued at average 1947-49 retail prices.
Table 3.11«..- Spring 19U2: Market value and expenditure data for food per person in a week, average income per person and percentage distribution

of population of housekeeping families of two or more, by urbanization and income group i/

Disposable

Distribution

of

family

Market value of all food at home

and away 5/

: Tbtal

:e^endi- Disposable

Distribution

of

family

Market value of all food at home

and away 5/

: Total

texpendiFirst quarter 19^2 ;

money income per \

All food at home : tures All food at home :E3cpendi- : tures

income : tures :for food moneyincome : tures :for food

family at annual '

rate in current "

per

person

members,

exclud- Total

6/ Œbtal '

Home

proEacpenditures

:for food

: and

: at home

:and food per

person

members,

exclud- Ttotal

6/

Total*

Home ]

pro- '

Expenditures

:for food

: and

: at home

:and food

dollars .2/ ; in 195^ ing 2/ ; duced for :beverages: and in 1954 ing 2/ ; duced ' for : beverages: and

dollars singles ^ ;

food 2/ : away

: from

rhome 10/

: beverages

:away from

;home U/

dollars singles 2/ : food 5/ : away

: from

:horae 10/

: beverages

:away from

ihome 11/

^SLU Pi?.tf,t £21^ DsJu. Dol. Û2i^ £2^0. £SL^ Dol^ Pçt^ Dol^ £21:. Ds^ Dsl^ D2l^ Dol^

a. All households b. Urban hoiiseholds

Under $500 ! 128 16.2 k.^k kM 12/ 2.32 0.09 2.42 179 2.9 4.72 k.3h. 12/ 3.ÖO 0.18 4.06

$500-1,000 : 350 12.6 5.11 k.9h 12/ 3.57 .16 3.73 418 8.9 5.27 5.07 W 4.85 .22 5.07

$1,000-1,500 : 588 13.1 6.08 5.65 12/ h.53 .42 4.96 656 11.0 6.42 5.82 W 5.53 .60 6.13

$1,500-2,000 : 852 13.5 6.92 6.30 12/ 5.60 .62 6.22 921 14.6 7.14 6.39 m 6.42 .75 7.17

$2,000-2,500 :

$2,500-3,000 :

'lA3h 21.9 7.98 7.01 12/ 6.66 .97 7.63 / 1,092

\ 1,300

16.5

12.8

7.90.

9.02 VM 12/

i2/

7.14

7.63

.88

1.46

8.02

9.10

$3,ooo-iv,ooo

$lf,000-5,000 :

1,59^^ 15.7 8.80 7.i^7 12/ 7.17 1.34 8.51 1,602 22.6 9.00 1.36 12/ 7.63 1.45 9.08

$5,000-6,000 :

$6,000-8,000

$8,000-10,000 :

'

2,350 T.O 10.58 8.18 12/ Q.2k 2.40 10.63 2,900 10.7 10.82 8.29 ig/ 8.47 2.53 11.00

$10,000 and over :

Average - all households: 1,038 — 6.92 6.17 12/ 5.27 .75 6.02 1,230 7.89 6.79 ü/ 6.82 1.10 7.92 ,

Average - excl. singles :

"^ 1

(calculated) : 1,008 100.0 7.01 6.2U 12/ 5.22 .77 5.99 100.0 7.98 6.88 ig/ 6.88 1.10 7.98 ^

à. FËim households

Under $500 : 189 18.2 i*.15 4.10 1.26 2.82 .05 2.87 91 52.1 4.68 4.65 3.OU 1.¿1 . .04 1.65

$500-1,000 : 357 19.3 4.61 k.k^ 1.17 3.11 .16 3.27 300 15.8 5.53 5.44 3.tó 1.96 .09 2.05

$1,000-1,500 : 36k 21.1f 5.33 5.05 .99 k.2û .27 4.37 476 10.4 6.61 6.50 t.06 2.36 .11 2.47

$1,500-2,000 : 803 15.6 6.2k 5.76 1.19 k.6l .48 5.09 664 7.8 7.12 6.90 3.55 3.35 .22 3.57

$2,000-2,500

$2,500-3,000 :

983 16.0 6.53 6.06 1.10 5.05 .1*8 5.53 1,006 7.4 7.34 6.94 U.23 2.85 .40 3.25

$3,000-i^,000 :

$lt,000-5,000 :

1,5^2 8.0 8.00 6.97 • 6.22 1.02 7.24 . 1,192 4.0 7.36 7.01 ] 3.11

3.75

.35 3.46

$5,000-6,000 :

$6,000-8,000

$8,000-10,000 :

910,000 and over

W 1.5 8.71 7A3

. .88^

> 7.69 1.28 8.97 ¿2/ 2.5 7.89 7.34

3.a

.55 4.30

j i

Average - all households: 682 ~~~ 5.53 5.18 1.13 ' 4.08 .35 4.43 ^i7 5.58 5.1*5 3.35 ' 2.10 .13 2.23

• ~^^'- ••'-

1/ Data derived by this author from reports on Study of Family Spending and Saving in Wartime (40. 4l. \?i\ Ad.1ustments made in attempt to achieve enmpunibi'Hty

with spring 1955 data. Confuted from unrounded data. %l Based on disposable money Income in first quarter of 1942. 3/ Disposable noney income in first quarter

1942 times 4. Per person averages based on economic family size data. Converted to 1954 dollars using change in CFI (times 1.66). ¿/ Includes a few nonhousekeeping families. Distribution on basis of incomes in first quarter 1942. ¿/ Eood value data include food used by single-person households, adjusted to spring

1955 dollars using change in BLS index of retail food prices from April-May 1942 to April-June I955 (times I.83). Value of food consumed at home per household

divided by household size to obtsdn per person averages. ^ Sum of value of all food used at home and expenditures for food and beverages away fzom home.

2I Estimated from data on p. 37 of Misc. Pub. 55O T^^^y R>od^ Consumption ^ j|¿[ie Ifaited States (JjO); averages for highest income group estimated from residuals.

Includes home produced, purchased and food received as gift or pay. Value of food used reported separately, g/ Rural nonfaxm and fann data estimated fzom data

on p. 42, Misc. Pub. 550. ^ Based on uxipuhllshed data supplied by the Institute of Home Economics. Eacpenditures for food at home reported separately, not value

of xnirchased food 7V*pri»"T^ during the week. 10/ Estimates for food and alcoholic beverages derived f2x>m following soxirces: Urban, e3q>endltures by housekeepi^

families from p. 122 of BLS Bulletin Ho. 822 (Ss); rural nonfana, es^enditures in first quarter 1942 (less board at school) divided ^y 13j faxm, esqiendituxes in

1941 (less board at school) divided by 52. ¿^Sum of esqpenditures for food and beverages away from home and eaqpenditures for food puxchased for home

consunptlon. 12/ Hot available.
Table 3.I5.- Spring 1^U& and I95I, urban households only: Market value and expenditure data for food per person

in a week, average income per person, and percentage distribution of the population of

housekeeping families of two or more persons i/

19^ urban data 2/ ] 1951 urban data £/

Market value of all food : Total

Disposable :

Disposable

money income

Distribution

of members

at home and away 5/ •.expendi-

: tures

:for food

: at home

Disposable

money

income

Distribution

of members

money income ;

in preceding :

Food at home 6/

Expenditures for

food and

beverages

away from

home

Expendiyear per tures

family, in :

current :

dollars :

per person,

in 195^

dollars

¿7-

of housekeeping

families

Total

Market

value

of all

Expenditures

: and for

:food and

: beverages

per person,

in 195^

dollars

of housekeeping

households

for food

at home

y food 8/ :away from 3/ 10/

• 1/ : home

: 5/

Dollars Percent Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Percent Dollars

Under $500 :

$500-1,000 :

292 2.8 6.12 •5.5^^ 5.08 0.57 5.67 292 1.8 5.18

$1,000-1,500

$1,500-2,000 61flt 12.3 6.55 6.06 5.6U A9 6.13 61f2 7.7 4.71

$2,000-2,500

> 918 28.5 7.3^ 6.53 6.20 .80 7.00 9k2 17-3 5.77

$2,500-3,000

$3,000-^,000 1,190 26.2 8.12 7.08 6.80 1.05 7.85 1,172 26.7 6.30

$ii-,000-5,000 : 1,523 12.7 9.16 7.55 7.18 1.58 8.76 i,ifto 20.5 6.59

$5,000-6,000 1,669 11.3 6.9^

$6,000-7,000 : > 2,072 11.3 9.69 7.^9 7.22 2.21 9.kk } 1,978 l.h 7.53 $7,000-7,500

$7,500-8,000 } 2,326 k.6 7.67

$8,000-10,000 : • 3,702 6.2 11.87 8.69 8.38 3.16 11.55

$10,000 and over . ^,685 2.7 8,65

Average ': 1,317 8.27 6.99 6.68 1.27 7.95 . 1,^13 — 6.1^2

H

I

1/ Data derived from published reports. Adjustments made in attempt to achieve conç>arability with spring I955 data.

Computed from unrounded data.

2/ Derived from Agr. Inf. Bui. 132, Food Consumption of Urban Families in the United States (¿3).

3/ Preceding year's income converted to 195^* dollars using change in Consumer Price Index.

kj Distribution of members of economic families according to their income in 19^7-

¿/ Converted to spring 1955 price level using change in BLS index of retail prices for food at home.

6/ Excludes expenditures for alcoholic beverages for home consumption.

7/ Includes food obtained without direct expense.

8/ Value of purchased food used in week, family basis.

2/ Derived from data in Vol. 12 of Study of Consumer Expenditures. Incomes. and Savings (¿¿).

10/ Distribution of members of housekeeping households according to 1950 income; probably differs only slightly from that for

economic family members.
- 52 -

Table 3,l6.- Spring 1955: Market value and expenditure data for food per person in a week,

average income per person, and percentage distribution of the housekeeping

population, by urbanization and income group l/

Market value of all food

TV" ^ „^ *^^ j. > , .

cit home and iaway Total

Distribution expendi-

'•Disposable of All food at home tures

Disposable

; money population Expendi- for food at

money income

; income in tures home and

of family ] per families Total for food and food and

in 195^ ; person of 2 or more

2/

i/ Œtotal Home

produced

Expenditures

for food

beverages

away from

home

beverages

away from

home

: Dollars Percent Dollars Dpllars DoHars Dollars

a. All households

Under $1,CX)0 i 115 5.8 5.39 5.11 1.50 3.30 0.28 3.59

$1,000-2,000 : U50 9.2 6.22 5.68 1.01 4.39 •3k ^.93

$2,000-3,000 : 703 12.7 7.11 6.29 .66 5.39 .82 6.20

$3,000-iv,000 : 932 19.0 7.66 6.64 .44 6.02 1.02 7.03

$J+,000-5,000 : 1,196 19.7 8.37 7.08 .36 6.54 1.29 7.83

$5,000-6,000 : 1,422 12.2 8.87 7.49 .33 6.99 1.38 8.37

$6,000-8,000

$8,000-10,000

: 1,811 12.4 9.85 7.83 -3^^ 7.36 2.01 9.38

: 2,267 4.3 10.20 7.88 .32 7.47 2.32 9.78

$10,000 and over : 4,076 ^.7 13.36 9.32 .20 8.93 4.04 12.97

Average kj : 1,250 8.40 7.02 .5^ 6.28 1.39 7.67

Average excluding

singles : 100.0 8.36 6.97 ^^h 6.24 1.38 7.62

b. Urban households

Under $1,000 ; 185 1.8 6.15 5.51 ¿/ 5.10 .64 5.74

$1,000-2,000 510 6.1 6.32 5.51 ¿/ 5.20 .81 6.01

$2,000-3,000 766 10.8 7.15 6.24 1/ 6.01 .90 6.91

$3,000-4,000 : 977 18.8 7.98 6.84 ¿/ 6.62 1.14 7.76

$1^,000-5,000 : 1,233 21.9 8.63 7.13 ¿/ 6.93 1.50 8.43

$5,000-6,000 : 1,504 13.4 9.25 7.79 ¿/ 7-55 1.46 9.01

$6,000-8,000 : 1,869 15.1 10.23 7.97 ¿/ 7.73 2.26 9.98

$8,000-10,000 : 2,350 5.4 10.25 7.85 1/ 7.74 2.4o 10.14

$10,000 and over : 4,224 6.7 13.97 9.66 ¿/ 9.40 4.31 13.70

Average kJ : 1,480 9.15 7.38 ¿/ 7.14 1.77 8.91

Average excluding

singles : 100.0 9.08 7.32 ¿/ 7.09 1.76 8.85

c. Rural nonfarm households

Under $1,000 ! 161 6.9 4.69 4.56 .88 3.25 .13 3.38

$1,000-2,000 : 432 11.4 5.74 5.32 .68 4.20 .42 4.62

$2,000-3,000 652 15.3 6.94 6.13 .54 5.20 .81 6.01

$3,000-l^,000 : 880 21.8 7.15 6.25 .49 5.50 .90 6.40

$1^,000-5,000

$5,000-6,000

: 1,156 18.7 7.97 7.00 .42 6.29 .97 7.26

: 1,296 12.0 8.17 6.86 .38 6.30 1.31 7.61

$6,000-8,000 1,752 9.1 9.29 7.67 .42 7.13 1.62 8.75

$8,000-10,000 2,151 2.5 10.96 8.33 .30 7.82 2.64 10.46

$10,000 and over : 3,314 2.3 10.70 7.57 .29 6.97 3.13 10.10

Average hj 1,021 — 7.51 6.51 .50 5.71 .99 6.70

Average excluding

singles — 100.0 7.44 6.44 ^50 5.66 1.00 6.65

d. Farm households

Under $1,000 53 21.6 5.59 5.34 2.51 2.62 •25 2.86

$1,000-2,000 386 19.1 6.71 6.41 2.77 3.44 .30 3.74

$2,000-3,000 612 15.8 7^33 6.79 2.79 3.77 -5k i^.31

$3,000-l+,000 836 13.6 7.43 6.81 2.65 3.99 .62 4.60

$4,000-5,000 1,023 12.0 7.61 6.90 2.69 4.04 .71 4.75

$5,000-6,000 1,154 6.9 7.96 7.05 2.40 4.41 .91 5.32

$6,000-8,000 l,4o4 6.9 7.62 6.90 2.49 h.31 .72 5-03

$8,000-10,000 1,758 2.8 8.15 7.19 2.90 4.20 .96 5.15

$10,000 and over : 3,854 1.3 10.58 8.93 2.22 6.48 1.66 8.14

Average kJ : 698 7.10 6.57 2.69 3.69 = 53 4.22

Average excluding :

singles : 100.0 7.06 6.53 2.68 3.66 ^52 4.18

jy Value data for food, excluding alcoholic beverages for home consumption, derived from table 2 of the I955 Household

Food Consumption Survey Report No. 1 (44). 2/ Distribution of members of those families reporting incomes. 3/ Includes

value of food received as gift or pay as well as purchased and home produced. 4/ Average for all families, including

singles and those not classified by income. ¿/ Negligible.
-53- ,

Chapter k. INTRODUCTION TO PROCEDURES FOR ANALYSIS OF Uj. S^ FOOD CONSUIvIPTION

This chapter contains a description of some of the procedures used in analysis

of historical changes and cross-section variations in U. S. food consunç)tion. For

other procedures references are given to standard statistical works. The most complicated statistical procedures among those referred to in this chapter are standard

regression analysis and the t test of significance. The author's objective,actually,

is to focus attention on rather simple methods that are regularly used in analyses of

U. S. food cons\iniption.

Such conç)licated procedures as simultaneous equations may be more desirable

conceptually than the simpler ones, but their use often iinplies greater precision than

the basic data on food consunçition can provide.

Topics covered in this chapter are: (l) Organization of data for use in

analysis; (2) graphic analysis, with some examples; (3) description of means for comrbining consumption rates with alternative population distributions; and {k) methods

for analyzing changes in an aggregate, such as the overall market value of all food

from one year to another.

k.l. Organizing Data for Use in Analysis

Before undertaking an analysis of any economic problem, several questions must

be answered. Among these are: What are the objectives? What definitions or concepts

for economic elements are most suitable? What data are available? This section

covers some of the processes of getting the data ready to use in study of a problem

related to food consumption in the United States.

Three preparatory phases may be distinguished. The first is the preparation of

food consuinption data, whether from time-series or cross-section sources, in the form

needed for the analysis, for example, computing or combining per capita figures.

Another phase in some studies is the computation of supplementary statistical series

from consumption and price data. For example, the overall value data and special

measures, such as those for marketing services, were developed to meet the data

requirements of comprehensive analysis of changes in U. S. food consiomption. Finally,

comes the assembly of related economic and social statistics and preparation for later

computations.

ii-.l.l. Time-Series Data

on Consumption

The statistical measures of U. S. food consumption through time are described

in chapter 3. The annual supplements to Agr. Handb. 62 (6) supply data usually needed

for special combinations of data required for particular studies. Many examples are

provided in chapter 3. Clues to other possibilities may be found in the text of that

handbook or, for the supply utilization index,in Agr. Handb. 91 (12) . Because procedures for developing data vary, no general directives are practicable.. Instead,

attention is directed to a description of the procedure used to derive market value

data, which is given in appendix B.

4.1.2. Time-Se ries of Related Economic

and Social Statistics

The major categories of statistics related to food consumption that are used

in analysis of time-series data pertain to population, prices, income, and expenditures
for other goods and services. Detailed references to source materials are given in

appendix E. 59/

Two revised editions of inç)ortant compilations by the Department of Commerce

provide a variety of other statistics. These are IK S¿. Income and Output (22), a I958

supplement to the Survey of Current Business (formerly called National Income) . and

Historical Statistics ^f toe United States. Colonial Times t^ 1957 (I5), issued by the

Bureau of the Cens\is.

The major types of adjustments needed in such statistics are derivation of per

capita series, deflation, and adjustments for coverage. In deriving per capita

figures, one must be sure to have the correct population, for exançle, total or civilian only. Some guidance to choice and handling of such statistics is provided in

Analytical Tools for Studying Demand and Price Structures by Richard J. Foote, Agr.

Hándb. ltó,pages 27-^3 (6Q) . Adjustments of the series to match coverage of the consunqption data must be based on careful study of the fine print of definitions, the

sanóle, and so on.

on Food Consumption

The kinds of adjustments to be made in cross-section data preparatory to analysis

depend on the definitions of commodity coverage found in each survey, in terms of value

and quantities, how tabulations have been run and reported, and characteristics of data

with \Aiich con^arability is sought. For example, the average value data for family

food published in table 2 of Reports 1 to 5 of the I955 Survey of Household Food

Consunçtion {]^, vere tabulated on the basis of the primary economic family, hence

the count of family members given in table 2 must be used to derive per person

averages. 60/ The rationale of this tabulation stems from the fact that away-fromhome expenditures can be adequately reported only for members of the primary economic

family by the respondent, vho is usually the homemaker of that fajaily.

In contrast, data in table 3, and those following, in the 1955 Survey Reports

I-5 Q-re on a household basis and pertain to consumption at home (or from home supplies) by all members of the household and guests. The nximber of persons based on

21-meal equivalents is used to derive per person rates in order to offset the systematic variations of average household size with income level, urbanization, and region.

Detailed information necessary for matching the I955 cross-section food data

with time series and other types of survey data is provided in appendixes A and C.

A checklist for use in studying problems in.matching data is given in k.1.^.

59/ Chapter 5 of Agr. Handb. 62 (6) describes some of the major series, for which

current data are published in annual supplements to that handbook. These series include civilian popvilation, retail food prices, disposable income (with a number of

series computed from the Department of Commerce aggregates), the Commerce estimates

of consumption expenditures for food (described in 3.6.2), and the AMS data on farm

value (TFV-l), and retail cost of U. S. fam foods sold to civilians (TFV-6).

60/ The term "per person" is used in this bvilletin for cross-section averages per

head, whereas the teim "per capita" is reserved for time-series data. This differentiation helps the user of the data to remember the differences in coverage between

the two sets of data.
- 55 -

Adjustment of the value data to comparable price levels is necessary for many

compeurlsons • Adjustments to allow for the change in the purchasing power of the

dollar are reg€u:xied as economically sound. But problems in the use of particular indexes do arise, especially in handling the prices for an abnormal period of supply and

demand for food, and the spring of 19tó was such a period.

^.1.4. Derivation of Approximate

Income-Size Distributions

Í4-.1.4.1. Adjustments of income-size distributions are often necessary for study

of food consumption patterns under alternative conditions and assumptions. The objective of such adjustments is to develop distributions of the population for use in

recombining or reweighting averages for income groups within each urbanization category and the urbanization averages to derive overall averages.

Surveys of household food cons\iiiç)tion made in recent years have provided incomesize distributions of families which can be converted to income-size distributions of

family or household members to match the averages for groups by which the consumption

data are tabulated. The use of income-size distributions from sources other than the

food data requires watching the definitions of income and the population coverage of

the survey. It even inquires alertness in keeping the same degree of underreporting of

income as that involved in groupings of households according to ^ich the consumption

data have been tabulated.

4.1.4.2. Two examples of the methodology discussed above follow: Exançle A is

the process of shifting the income-size distributions from the 1955 Survey of Household Food Consumption, based on the families* 1954 incomes at the 1954 price level,

back to a distribution with the same real income but in terms of 1942 dollars. This

is clearly an adjustment for change in the general price level.

Example B is the projection of income-size distributions for the three urbanizations from 1955 to 1975 under certain assumptions. This illustrates the adjustment

in income-size distributions for changes in average real income. The implicit assumptions for this procedure are that there is no change in the degree of inequality of

real income 6l/ and that the changes in consumption and income of one-person families

and Tionhousekeeping households may be disregarded because they will not affect the

overaJJ. change.

The 1955 Survey of Household Food Consumption provides the following data, which

give us the distribution of the housekeeping population according to size of family

money income after taxes: (l) The number of families of two or more persons in each

income class within each of the three urbanizations are given in table 1 of Survey

Report 1. (2) The average family size for each income class is reported in table 2.

(3) The combination of (l) and (2) yields the distribution of family members (in families of 2 or more persons) participating in the spring 1955 survey according to the

size of family disposable income in 1954.

4.1.4.3. Example A.~Following is a step-by-step description of the graphic

procedure for adjusting the I955 income-size distribution to a distribution among income classes in terms of first quarter 1942 dollars, without a change in relative

61/ In technical terms, the Lorenz curve is unchanged.
-56-

distribution of income: 62/

1. Lay out the scale for disposable money income per family on the logarithmic

horizontal scale of semilog graph papçir and the percentage of family meoibers on the

natural or arithmetic vertical scale. (As illustrated by chart k.l, use of semilog

paper condenses the range of income into manageable proportions.)

2. Cumulate the percentage frequencies of family members for each income class

below each class limit, starting from the lowest level on the worksheet.

3. Plot these cumulated frequencies against the upper class limit of each income class and draw a freehand curve joining the points.

k. To ad.iust the distribution from the 1954 price level to that of the first

quarter 19^42. move the curve to the left by the ratio of the CPI in the first quarter

of I9U2 to the CPI in 195^4-, 59 percent. This allows for the depreciation in the purchasing power of each dollar.

Chart 4.1—Work chart for cumulative frequency distribution of members

of farm families by income level in 1954 and transformation to

first quarter 1942 dollars

%of

family members

100

$100 $400 $500 $1,000 $2,000

Disposable money income per family

$4,000 $10,000

USDA

NEC. 8319-60 ( 12) AMS

62/ A statistical procedure to yield more precise results is described in Income

Distribution in the United States,by Size. 19Mt-50. footnote 12, p. 38 (3). This is

a 1953 supplement to .the Survey of Current Business.

A combined statistical and^graphic procedure was developed by Maurice Liebenberg

to short-cut the extensive computations of the preceding method. It is described in

"Kbmographic Interpolation of Income Size Distributions, Rev. Econ. Stat. Aiig. I956

(61). This procedure is used by .the National Income Division to adjust for changes in

price level which they measure by changes in iinplicit price deflators for personal

consumption expenditures given in U. S. Income and Output, table VII-I3, p. 228 (2l).
- 57 -

5. Move the curve according to this exaniple:

(a) 59ito of $1,000 = $590. The farm curve given in chart ^.1 in I95U

dollars intersects the $1,000 line at 22^. Therefore, we plot the

new point for the cumulated curve in 1914-2 dollars at $590 and 22^.

(b) 59^ of $3,000 = $1,770. The farm curve in I954 dollars intersects

the $3,000 line at about ^Q^. So we plot a second point for the

new curve at $1,770 and 58^0.

(c) Other points are located in the same fashion and joined by freehand

curve.

(d) Chart ^.1 shows both the 1955 distribution for farm households and

the transformation of the cumulated frequency curve to first quarter

1942 dollars.

6. Read the cumulated frequencies for the adjusted curve at the class limits

and calculate the frequencies for each class by subtraction.

7. The adjusted frequencies of family members in the spring of 1955 are given

in terms of 19^2 dollars in table k.\. Comparable distributions adjusted from the

first quarter 19^2 dollars to 195^ dollars are in the same table.

^.1.4.^. Example B.—The following procedure is used to derive some approximate

income-size distributions for the three urbanization categories for 1975«

Begin with the same 1955 cumulated frequencies plotted on a semilog chart, in

the same way as that described for example A. Daly's economic framework for 1975

provides an indication that the increase in real income from 195^ ^o 1975 on a per

capita basis might amount to 50 percent. 6^/

The application of this procedure to this problem requires moving the curve to

the right to allow for the 50 percent increase in real income per capita. 6kJ Other

steps are exactly the same as those for example A. The basic assumption of a general

upward shift of the whole population with no change in the relative distribution of

the population by income was used. A few adjustments were necessary to keep within

the overall average of the three urbanizations combined. The approximate income-size

distributions based on these assumptions are given in table h.2.

k.l.k.^. Reservations.—These procedures provide working approximations, but

they should be supplemented by additional information wherever possible. 6¿/ "S^ne

63/ Daly's economic framework indicates about a to percent increase in per capita

real income from I956 to 1975. The income data of the I955 survey were for 195^ income, hence the change from 195^ to 1975 would amount to about 50 percent. The framework is described in "Prospective Domestic Demands for Food and Fiber," paper submitted

for hearings on Policy for Commercial Agricxilture ... (5¿) •

GkJ Recall that example A involves a shift to the left because $1,000 in 195^ ^iollars was worth only $590 in first quarter 19tó dollars. Here the shift is to the right

because with increased productivity, a general rise in income levels is expected.

Thus, average real income per capita is raised from $1,250 in 195^ to around $1,875

in 1975 (in 1954 dollars), under Daly's economic framework.

6¿/ As illustrated in study by Liebénberg, Maurice and Kaitz, Hyman "An Income-Size

Distribution from Income Tax and Survey Data." Studies in Income and Wealth.

Volume 13 (62).
- 58-

Table l^.l.—Percentage distrilDutions of members of housekeeping families of 2 or more persons

in first quarter 19if2 and spring 1955> by urbanization and income 1/

Family income

in dollars 2/

Under 5CX)

500-1,000

1,000-1,500

1,500-2,000

2,000-2,500

2,500-3,000

3,000-i^,000

i^,000-5,000

5,000-6,000

6,000-7,000

7,000-7,500

7,500-8,000

8,000-10,000

10,000 and over

Percentage of U. S.

Under 500

500-1,000

1,000-1,500

1,500-2,000

2,000-2,500

2,500-3,000

3,000-1^,000

it,000-5,000

5,000-6,000

6,000-7,000

7,000-7,500

7,500-8,000

8,000-10,000

10,000 and over

In first quarter 191^2 based on

current money income

at annual rate

United

States

Urban Rural

nonfarm

Farm

Percent Percent Percent Percent

In current dollars

l6.2

12.6

13.1

13.5

)^-5 {it:

)l5.T

2.9

8.9

11,0

ik.e

5

8

22.6

7.0

100.0

16

11

7

a.k

18.2

19.3

21.It

15.6

16.0

' 8.0

1.5

2.3

57.9 21.9

In 195** dollars

52.1

15.8

10 A

7.8

k.O

2.5

20.2

1

If

5

5

10

15

20

15

10

12

6

7

21

25

21

15

8

k

2

1

5

17

11

6

k

3

2

1.5

In spring 1955 based on

disposable money

income in 195^

United

States

Urban Rural

nonfarm Farm

Percent Percent Percent Percent

In current dollars

] 5.8

) 9.2

}l2.7

19.0

19.7

12.2

]l2.1t

h.3

100.0

d.

6

6

9

13

33

1.8

6.1

10.8

18.8

21.9

X3'h

15.1

5A

6.7

6.9

H.h

15.3

21.8

18.7

12.0

9.1

2.5

2.3

21.6

19.1

15.8

13.6

12.0

6.9

6.9

2.8

1.3

58.9 28.6 12.5

In spring 19lf2 dollars

)33 {

17

8

3

1.5

1-5

2

3

7

13

17

18

20

10

k

7

7

12

15

18

16

Xk

7

1

20

15

15

12

11

9

10

k

2

1

1/ Distribution of family members in current dollars for first quarter \^\2. derived from data

in BLS Bui. 822, Family Spending and Saving in Wartime (J¿3), and for spring 1955 from U. S.

Department of Agriculture I955 Survey Report 1, Food Cons\amption of Households in the United

States (H) • Distributions in terms of dollars of other period derived by graphic adjustment

of cumulative curve of income-size distribution for change in price level, measured by change

in the Consumer Price Index.

2/ Net money income in first quarter 191^2, disposable money income in 195^*

2J Negligible.
- 59 -

Table U.2.—Preliminary approximations of distribution of population

of housekeeping families of 2 or more persons by income-size

and by urbanization in 1975^ under certain assumptions l/

Disposable money Income :

in 195U dollars :

Urban Rural

: nonfarm Farm 2/ All 2/

percent percent Percent Percent

Under 1,000 1 3 6 2

1-2,000 ! 2 6 10 3

2-3,000 : 5 7 15 6

3-í^,000 : 9 12 17 10

it-5,000 ! 12 13 Ik 12

5-6,000 ! 16 15 Ik 16

6-8,000 ! 23 25 11 22

8-10,000 : Ik 10 8 ^1 10,000 and over I 18 9 5 l6

Percent of all i 75

•

18 7 100

1/ Assuming 50 percent increase in real income per capita from 195^- to 1975 Q^d no

overall change in degree of inequality of distribution of incomes. For method of

estimating these distributions, see text section i|..l,li-.4. U. S. average income postulated at $1,875 in 195^*- prices; averages for individual urbanizations vork out thus:

Urban $2,050, rural nonfarm $1,^75, farm $1,050. These data are given here as

working tools, not forecasts.

2/ Includes some minor adjustments in lower income range on basis of historical

trends and to keep overall average change at 50 percent.

2J Beised on distributions for three subcategories.

income-size distributions so derived are not nearly so precise as those developed for

official use and publication by Selma Gtoldsmith and others of the National Income

Division (NID) of the Department of Commerce, but they do have the advantage of

matching the definition of after-tax income and the urbanization breaks of the 1955

survey data.

The NID income-size distributions cannot be applied directly to the 1955 survey

averages by income class because they incorporate the results of extensive research to

overcome underreporting of income, a common survey malady. However, study of the NID

size distributions of income after tax for recent years indicates little change in the

relative distribution. Accordingly, the 1955 survey distributions can be shifted to

the right by the increase in real income. The degree of precision desired by the

analyst must determine how detailed a procedure he adopts — -v^ether he uses all

urbanizations combined, a faim and nonfarm break, or develops approximations for the

three separate urbanizations of the 1955 survey data. 66/

66/ A procedure for adjusting one income-size distribution according to changes in

relative distribution of income shown by another has not yet been developed.
. 6o -

if.1,5. Checklist for ProMems

in Matching Data

A checklist of some of the most significant problems encountered in matching

sets of consumption data is provided in the following section. It is incorporated in

this handbook to help analysts identify inconsistencies among sets of i^o^sehoad survey

data that they may be using, and between survey data and time-series data. This list

is organized under three topics. At the end, some sources are noted for answers to

such questions as may be raised.

4.1.5.1. Coverage of Overall Data

a. U. S. civilian or military too?' Housekeeping households only? Including

singles or households of two or more only? Households of two or more classified

by income or all such households?

b. Home produced included? Farm or nonfarm too?

c. Gifts and payments-in-kind included?

d. At home only, or including away from home?

e. Alcoholic beverages in or out? Tobacco?

f. U. S. farm foods only or including imported foods and domestic fishery products?

g. Including purchases for storage reported or unreported? Or releases from

stocks?

h. Including businessmen's purchases and food supplied with hospital and travel

services?

i. Including donations or other special distributions of food to consumers?

It.1.5.2. Basis for Overall Measure

a. Poundage at farm level, retail?

b. Price weighted — farm or retail base period prices?

c. In current dollars — farm values, retail values or final market values

including services of eating places?

d. Expenditures or dollar outlays only or including estimated values of homeproduced foods?

e. If constant dollars, how deflated?

f. Household or family or per person averages? Basis for calculating per person

average?
. 61 -

k.l.^.Z* Commodity Problems .67/

a. Meats — including home canned, frozen? Offals in or out? Poultry meat? Game?

Slaughter weights or retail weights? Including pork fat cuts? Including content of prepared combined dishes? Including donations or other special

distributions to civilians?

b. Processed foods — processed weights? If equivalents, fixed or changing

factors used? Commercially prepared only or home processed included too?

c. Dairy products — butter included? Basis for combination — fat content,

calcium content, all milk solids not fat, \rtiole milk equivalent?

d. Flour, fats, sugar, eggs — including content of bakery products, dairy products, confections?

e. Fats and oils — product weight or fat content of salad dressings, mayonnaise,

sandwich spread? Including butter? Including pork fat cuts?

f. Canned vegetables — including baby foods? Baked beans? Sauerkraut? Soups?

k.l.^.k. Guides to Answers to

Questions Raised in ^,1.5*3

a. Introduction to survey reports and descriptions of samples.

b. Footnotes to tables of the reports.

c. Technical appendixes of the reports.

d. Appendix A, this bulletin.

e. Agr. Handb. 62 (6) and volume 5 of-Agr. Handb. II8 (2li) .

f. Commodity articles in the National Food Situation in 1957 and I958 based on

the 1955 survey (13) .

k.2. Ifee QÏ Graphic Analysis in Studying Relationships

if.2.1. Most of the graphic procedures used in the analysis of food consunç>tion

are described in Graphic Analysis in Agriciatural Economics by Frederick V. Waugh {jjjj*

The procedures include plotting cumulative frequencies, plotting trends on arithmetic

graphs, studying seasoneú. variations and cycles, graphic methods for regression

analysis, coiiçarison of time series, derivation of averages of two relationships, and

calculation of elasticities.

If.2.2. Logarithmic and Arithmetic Scales

Particularly useful in the analysis of food consuiiç)tion patterns are logarithms,

both in graphic work and in computations. Certain distinctions between "^^^^^e of

natural or arithmetic scales and logarithmic scales have to be recognized. 68/ Equal

w.# Appendix A contains some information on this subject.

œ/ Based on Allen, R. G. D. Mathematics for Economists, pp. 219-225 (¿I)
- 62 .

distances between points of natural or arithmetic scales indicated equal absolute

changes in a variable, whereas equal distances between points on logarithmic scales

indicate equal proportional changes in the variable. A natural or arithmetic graph

is preferable for study of absolute changes.

Semilogarithmic graphs are used for coniparison of percentage changes in the

value of one variable with gradual changes in another, and for studying relative

changes in a variable (on the logarithmic scale) through time (plotted on the natural

or arithmetic scale) . Plotting of two variables on double logarithmic graph paper is

helpful in comparison of proportional changes. Logarithms have the characteristics

of magnifying small variations and of reducing large ones to reasonable proportions,

and they are especially valuable for comparison of price and quantity changes and for

study of relationships between income and food consunçtion. Two parallel lines on

double logarithmic paper have the same elasticity at every level. But two parallel

lines on arithmetic paper having the same arithmetic slopes (and regression coefficients) may have quite different elasticities or relationships between variables

plotted on the two axes.

Consumption analysts make frequent use of logarithmic charts of consunqption per

person plotted against average income per person of families in that class. Household and family averages are also studied in this way. Such curves, plotted on^

logarithmic or arithmetic paper, are called Engel curves after Ernst Engel, a nineteenth century Saxon statistician who worked extensively with family eaqpenditure data.

Í1-.2.3. Ngw Procedure ta Study

Variability in Engel Curves

A simple graphic and arithmetic procedure has been developed by the author to

study variability in Engel curves. Much information about variations in consumption

among households across the income scale is lost by calculation of average income-food

relationships by the method of least squares. Computations for fitting nonlinear

curves are usually too extensive and complicated to use, and they imply greater precision than such data possess. The procedure described here can be used to compare:

(1) Variations in Engel curves for two or more measures for food, and/or (2) variations for the same measure among households in two or more urbanization categories,

and/or (3) variations for the same measure among households of a given urbanization

category at two or more points in time. The comparisons are facilitated by using the

U. S. mean income per person for all households as the key level in the second type

of these variations, and the income for one year as the base for comparisons of

variations at two points in time.

The first step in preparing for these comparisons is to adjust the averages from

two or more periods in time for changes in the prices of food and in the purchasing

power of the dollar. The BLS retail food price index and the Consumer Price Index

have been used for such adjustments for table 3»1^» Tl^e data used in these comparisons are the per person averages for each income group, usually within each urbaniza-

, tion category.

Engel curves are the starting point. As an exaniple, we begin by plotting the

Engel curve for total market value for all food at home and away from home by all U. S.

households per person in a week of spring 1955 (chart k.2) . The next step is to

locate the arithmetic mean of per person income for all households in the category or

for all U. S. households. In I954 this was $1,250 for all U. S. households. This

mean is marked on a horizontal income scale drawn at the top of the chart. A vertical

line is drawn down to the Engel curve, as at point A. Similarly, selected percentages
-63-

above aad below the mean income point are located to the lett and right of the mean on

the scale at the top of the chart. From these points lines are drawn down to the

Engel curve.

A table is needed for tabulation of data for each point, such as table 4.3.

Consumption rates are read from the chart at points where the income lines reach the

Engel curve, such as points A, B, C, D, and E of chart 4.2,and inserted in a table

as in the first line of table 4.3. The next step is to calculate the percentages by

vhich these consunqption rates vary from the consumption rate at the mean income point

for entry in the table, as in line 2. Such confutations provide a way to isolate

facts like these: U. S. households with incomes 50 percent above the average per

person in 1951*- used food valued at I7 percent more per person than those at the mean

level of income. The market value of food used by households with per person incomes

50 percent below the mean was I9 percent less than at the mean. However, the average

rate of food use by households with income three times as high as the I954 mean was

only 53 percent above the rate among households of average income.

Comparisons with the rate of consiimption at another year's average level of

income can be developed by superiniposing a second income scale across the top of the

chart for a given year. Suppose we want to know how the market value of all food in

spring 1955 among households with incomes 50 percent above the 19^2 mean level of income compared with the average value of food for households at that real income point

in spring 1942. Average income in the first quarter of 19^2 was at the rate of

$1,038 per year (in I954 dollars), according to the Study of Family Spending and

Saving. This should be plotted on a second income scale drawn above the 1954 scale on

chart 4.2, and a hew set of lines drawn down to the same curve as before. These would

provide the necessary data for conç)arisons with data from a variability table with

1942 data.

4.3* Alternative Combinations of Consumption Rates

and Population Distributions

4.3.1« Data on survey consumption rates, income-size distributions, and

urbanization distributions can be used to explore a number of problems. In their use,

the explorer must fully recognize and keep in mind the risks involved in generalizations from patterns of food consumption at home by housekeeping households in a survey

period to consumption patterns by the \ihole population at home and away from home. In

the section which follows, simple procedures are described for use in the four types

of analyses: (l) Calculation of regional distributions of the U. S. food market from

per person rates of survey data; (2) calculation of effects of change in one economic

factor, holding others constant; (3) derivation pf approximations for consumption

rates in subareas of regions, such as States; (4) projections for future years or for

historical periods based on information on the structure of food consumption in a

given period.

4.3.2. Calculation of Regional

Distribution of the U^ ^

Food Market

For some purposes regional variations in consumption of food by housekeeping

households at home in a given period may be generalized to describe regional variations

in consumption by the whole population at home. Such generalizations are probably

valid for consumption of all foods combined, but for particular commodities they have

less validity. Because there are no data on commodities consumed away from home.
- 6UChart 4.2--Work chart for study of variability of market value

of all food with income, spring 1955 1/

Dol.

$1,250

10

8

-90% -76Ve -50% -25% i 425%+50%4IOO% 4200%

II 1 1 ! ! ! 1 ! ! 1

1 1 '

I^X^

^

..^f^^""'^^

1 1 ^-^'^ ^

1 ^=^S^ t-Meon

i.—r-" -

1 ^

00 $2()0 $5130 $1, 000 $2, 000 $4, 000

15

Value

of

food

per

person g

5

4

Disposable money income per person

1/ Market value of all food in a week of spring 1955 and 1954 disposable

money income per person, all U. S. households of 2 or more persons,

for groups of families.

USDA NEC. 8320-60 ( 12) AMS

Table h.^*—Variability of market value of all food in a week of

spring 1955 with disposable money income in 195^^

all U. S. households, per person averages

; Unit

: Below mean income At 195^

mean

disposable

monçy

income

level,

. $1,250

•

Above mean income

Item

\ -30ÍO -755^ -50^ -259^ ' 25^ 50^ 1(X4 2aoi>

Market value :

Variation :

Dol.

Pet. ,

5.^5 6.00 6.85 7.65 8.1^5 9-20 9.90 10.75 12.90

-36í¿ -295¿ -19^ -9^ 0 +9ÍÍ +17?^ +27?í +53^
- 65-

either for the U. S. or for the regions, we turn to the I955 household survey data to

derive the first approximations of regional differences in the overall U. S. food

market.

Following is a shortcut method of estimating regional shares in the U. S. market

from the I955 survey data. For each region, multiply per person averages by the

survey percentage of the population of members of housekeeping families (Northeast -

27.0 percent. North Central Region - 30.I percent. South - 32.1 percent, West - 10.8

percent) . Add the products to get the U. S. total, then divide the products for each

region by the U. S. total to obtain the percentages of the U. S. market. Following

this procedure is far simpler than trying to blow up the ssmple data to regional aggregates for the entire housekeeping population.

I1.3.3. Calculation gf Effects of

Change in an Economic Factor

4,3«3»1« The effect of a change in one particular economic factor among several

may be evaluated by the faMliar procedure of making alternative combinations of

values for two or more variables. In some respects this method is a reweighting

procedure. This description is apt because the procedure encounters some of the

problems met in construction of index numbers, for example, applicability and interpretation of fixed weights.

The procedure is illustrated in table k.h, employing selected survey data for

spring 19l|-2 and 1955î (l) Expenditures for food at home in a week in spring, averages

per person in households of two or more persons, grouped by income (identified as Exp^g

and EXP55) j ^^^ income-size distributions of family members within the urban, rural

nonfarm, and farm categories (identified as Jnc¡^2 ^^^ Ii^Cc^); (3) distribution of these

family members by urbanization category (identified as Urbi|.2 ^^^ U^rb^^).

Actual U. S. average expenditures in a week of spring were: 2¡

191^2 = $5.22 Expi^2 X Inci^2 *

Urbi^2

(Col. 1 )

(Line A2)

(Col. 3

( " 7

( " 11

X Col. 5)

" 9)

" 13)

Line B, I9U2

1955 = $6.2U = E.qp^^ X

^'55 ^

Urb^^

(Col. 2 )

(Line A2)

(Col. k

( " 8

( " 12

X Col. 6)

" 10)

" Ik)

Line 3, 1955

The method involves calculation of ranges of possible effects of changes in

each of several factors, holding others constant. The patterns of expenditures at

each level of income within e€w:h urbanization reflect changes in all factors other

than income and urbanization. No completely satisfactory basis for reconciling or

compromising the ranges for the several factors has been developed, as will become

clearer when we consider the concluding section.

6Q/ References are to col\amns and lines in table k.k.
Table k,k»—Worksheet for alternative combinations of (l) group averages for expenditures for food at home in a week,

(2) income-size distributions, and (3) urbanization distributions, household survey data,spring 19'í'2 and 1955

Item

All U. S.

Expense

per person

19*^2 1955

Urban

Escpense

per person

u

1942 1955

Income-size

distribution

M^

19U2 1955

Rural nonfaim

Expense

per person

u

191^2 1955

Income-size

distribution

2/

1942 : 1955

Fann

Escpense : Income-size

per person : distribution

1/ : 2/

191^2 :1955 : 19*^2 1955

A, Income per family in current dollars

Under 5OO

500-1,000

1,000-1,500

1,500-2,000

2,000^2,500

2,500^3,000

3,000-4,000

il-,000-5,000

5,000-6,000

6,000-8,000 ^

8,000-10,000

10,000 and over

1. Average for all households

2. Average for 2+ households

B, Distribution by urbanization 3/

1. 19if2 urbanization averages combined with 1955 iirbanization

2. 1955 urbanization averages comrbined with 19^*2 urbanization

C, Alternative combinations of group

averages and income distributions

1. 19if2 group averages combined using

1955 income distribution h/

Combined into U. S. using

urbanization distribution of

a. 1942

1). 1955

2. 1955 group averages combined using

19^2 income distributions ¿/

Combined into U. S. using

urbanization distribution of

a. 19tó

b. 1955

Pol. Pol. Dol. Pol. Pet. Pet. Pol. Pol. Pet. Pet. Pol. Pol. Pet. Pet.

5.27

5.22

6.28

6.24

5.48

6.08

5.74

5.95

5.66

5.81

5.10 3.887

4.85Í

-^•1^1 6.01

6.42

.14

7.63

7.63

)

)

8.47

6.82

6.88

6.62'

6.93/

7.55)

7.73

7.74

9.40^

7.14

7.09

7.17

6.84

2.91

8.9Í

11.07

14.6/

16.5

12 "

22.6

1.8

6.1

3.Hi:}

4.10^

4.61/

•|| 10.8 5.05

10.7

18.8Í

21.9J

13.4^

15.1

5.4

6.7J

6.22

7.69

4.08

100.0 100.0

57.9 58.9

4.93

3.25

4.20

5.71

5.66

4.84

18.2

19.3.

21.41

15.6/

16.0

8.0

1.5

" 3

11.4

i.6r

1.96.

2.3<

3.35.

2.85

2.62

3.44

3.11

3.75

2.10

100.0 100.0

21.9 28.6

3.69

3.66

2.53

3.16

52.1]

15.8J

10.41

7.8/

7.4 15.8

21.6

19.1

4.0

2.5

13.6

12.0

6.9

6.9

2.8

1.3

100.0 100.0

20.2 12.5

1/ Pata for spring 1942 from table 3.l4 and for spring 1955 from table 3,16. 2/ Pistribution of members of housekeeping families

according to size of family income for 1942 from table 3.l4 and for I955 from table 3.16. 3/ Pistribution of population of housekeeping

families according to surveys in spring 1942 and spring 1955- 4/ Pistribution for 1955 by income size transformed to 1942 dollar basis,

as in table 4.1. ¿/ Pistribution for 1942 by income size transibraied to 1954 dollar basis, as in table 4.1.

I

I
- 67-

^•3.3«2« Measurement of the effect of change in urbanization only;

(1) Based on 19^2 expenditure averages

(a) And 1942 income-size distributions

Exp42 X ^%2 ^ ^^\2 = $5.22, actual U. S. average

Expi^g X Inci^g X Urbcc = 5-^, calculated in line B 1

$5.W -> $5.22 = 1.05 = 5í¿ increase

(b) And 1955 income-size distributions (from table k.l, part d)

Exp2^2 X Inc^^ x Urbj^g = $5.7^> calculated in line C la

Expi^g X Inc^^ X Urb^^ = 5.95, calculated in line C lb

$5.95 • $5.7^ = l.Oi^ = hi increase

(2) Based on I955 expenditure averages

(a) And I955 income-size distributions

Exp X Inc^^ X Urb^^ = $6.2lf, actual U. S. average

55 55 55

Expcc X lûCcc X Urbij^g = 6.O8, calculated in line B 2

$6.24 ^ $6.08 = 1.03 = yji> increase

(b) And 1942 income-size distributions (from table 4.1, part c)

Exp__ X Inc. X Urb^^ = $5*81, calculated in line C 2b

->> H-¿ 55

Exp X Inc. X Urb. = 5.66, calculated in line C 2a

$5.81 -» $5.66 = 1.03 = 3ff> increase

Comments.—These combinations provide four slightly different answers because of

interaxîtions. Just as the Paasche and Laspeyres formulas provide two different answers

in the index number problem \^ere two sets of prices can be combined with two sets of

quantities, base period or current period. Several significant points pertaining to

.these results merit attention. The differences in variability between the expenditure patterns in 1942 and I955 account for the differences between (la) and (2b) and

between (lb) and (2a). Similarly, the variations in the income-size distributions

between the 2 years apparently cause the differences between (la) and (lb) and between

(2a) and (2b). But conçparisons in (la) differ from the conqoarisons in (2a) because of

changes in both the expenditure patterns and the income-size distribution,., Intuitively, it seems safer to hold two factors constant in the same year and to vary the

third, as in (la) and (2a) . These examples demonstrate how complicated the analyses

of effects of changing factors on food consunçtion can be.. Even so, they yield a

range of resiats ^ich provide a good idea of the relative importance of each factor

in changes in food consunçtion through time. This point will be considered further

after the other two factors are explored.
- 68 -

^•3»3«3« Measurement of the effect of change in income only;

(1) Based on 19^4-2 expenditure averages

(a) And 19^2 urbanization distribution

Exp. X Inc. X Urb» = $5*22, actual U. S. average

Exp. X Inc X Urb. = 5*7^; calculated in line C la

$5.7^ -* $5.22 = 1,10 = 10^ increase

(b) And 1955 urbanization distribution

Exp. p X Inc 1^2 X Urb = $5-^^ calculated in line B 1

Exp, ^ X Inc^^ X Urb__ = 5*95^ calculated in line C lb

4¿ >|? ^>

$5-95 * $5.tô = 1.09 = 9^ increase

(2) Based on 1955 expenditure averages

(a) And I955 urbanization distribution

Exp X Inc X Urb = $6.2i|-, actual U. S. average

55 55 55

Exp X . Inc. X Urh = 5»81, calculated in line C 2b

$6.2i|. 4 $5.81 = 1.07 = 1% increase

(b) And 19tó urbanization distribution

Exp X Inc X Urb, = $6.08, calculated in line B 2

^55 55 i^2 "^ '

Esqp X Inc, X Urbi = 5«66, calciilated in line C 2a

$6.08 -î $5.66 = 1.07 = 7^ increase

Comments »—Here the range of the four sets of combinations indicates that the

changes in income reflected in the income-size distributions probahly raised food

escpenditures 7 to 10^ per person,

^•3-3-^» Measurement of the effect of change in expenditure averages for each

income group (i.e. the Engel curves):

(1) Holding 19^2 income size distributions constant

(a) Combined with I9U2 urbanization distribution

Exp, X Inc, X Urb, = $5.22, actual U, S. average

Exp X Inc. X Urh. = 5-66, calciaated in line C 2a

$5.66 -* $5.22 = 1.08 = 8^ increase
.69-

(b) Combined with 1955 urbanization distribution

Exp^^ X Inc^^ X Urb = $5.tô, calculated in line B 1

Expj^ X InC|^2 X Urb^^ = 5,81^ calculated in line C 2b

$5.81 -r $5.tó = 1.06 = e^ increase

(2) Holding 1955 income-size distributions constant

(a) Combined with I955 urbanization distribution

Exp^g X Inc X Urb = $5-95, calculated in line C lb

Exp^^ X Inc X Urb = 6.24 = actual U. S. average

$6.24 ^ $5.95 = 1.05 = 55t higher

(b) Combined with 19^2 urbanization distribution

Exp^g X Inc X Urb^g = $5-74, calculated in line C la

Exp^^ X Inc^^ X Urb|^2 = 6.08^ calculated in line B 2

$6.08 -» $5.74 = 1.06 ^ e^o increase

Comments.—It is apparent that a fairly strong argument exists for preferring

measures (la) and (2a) \Aiich utilize income and urbanization distributions for the

same year. Income and urbanization are probably highly interrelated.

^•3«3»5- Conclusions.—The ranges of the results in the exançle using expenditures for food at home in a week are summarized below with the calculated increases

given both in dollars and in percentages:

Dollars Percent

Effect of change in;

(1) Urbanization distribution

(2) Incoine-size distributions

(3) Expenditure patterns

It will be noted that the high of each range of the effect of change in one

factor measured in percentages is established by holding other factors constant at the

1942 level. The low point of each is set by the converse — holding other factors at

the 1955 level. The degree of variability in income distributions, expenditures, and

urbanization distribution was higher in 19^2.

The actual change in the U. S. average expenditure for food at home between the

two surveys (in I955 dollars) was $1.02 or 20 percent. Therefore, we come to the

problem of allocating the actual change among the three factors. Some of the solutions were obviously high, others low. Perhaps a geometric mean of the h calculated

averages might be worked out here, as in the case of Fisher's ideal index. A simple

average of the two extremes of the range for each set of changes yields an answer

Frcm Sa From Ta

0.15 0.26 3 5

.42 .52 7 10

"!i 1.22 15 23
- 70 -

close to the actual change. [$0.20 for (l) + $0.If? for (2) + $0.36 for (3) = $1.03.]

This provides a working solution, but some readers will ask whether the effects of

these factors are additive or multiplicative. Neither the author nor other economists

consulted can provide a satisfactory answer at this time.

A*-.3.^. Derivation of Consumption

Rates for Subregional Areas

A first approximation of consionqption patterns in subregional areas such as

States and metropolitan areas may be developed from regional survey data on the basis

of certain general assumptions. These include:

(1) Households of a given income level within each urbanization category in

the subregional area have about the same consunçption patterns as the

average of households for the coii5)arable group in the region.

(2) A reasonably adequate breakdown of the area's population by urbanization

and by income can be made.

As an exairrple, take approximations for average expenditures for food at home

for the State of Kansas in the spring of 1955. JO/ The first assunç)tion is that about

the same amounts were spent for food at home by Kansas households as amounts spent

by comparable urbanization and income in the whole North Central Region, Here again,

it is likely that this assumption holds reasonably true for all foods, but less so

for individual foods.

The first requirement for developing these estimates is a distribution of the

population of Kansas by urbanization. Such information for I955 is not directly

available. But the following percentage distribution of the total population by

urbanization (according to Census definitions) for the North Central Region and for

Kansas for I95O was derived from the I95O Census of Population, volume II, part 1,

table 58 (20):

Rural

Urban nonfarm Farm

North Central Sk^ 1^ 17^

Kansas 52 25 23

The urban proportion for Kansas is 8I percent of the urban share of the North

Central Region, the rural nonfarm proportion 131 percent, and the farm sector I35

percent. On the assTjmption that these differentials were the same in I955 as in I95O,

the 1955 distribution for Kansas can be estimated by applying them to the urbanization

distribution for the housekeeping household population of the North Central Region

obtained in the I955 Survey of Household Food Consumption. The resulting percentages

ai»e approximations for 1955:

20/ This example was worked out by Robert J. Lavell, Economic and Statistical

Analysis Division, ERS.
- 71 -

Rural

Urban nonfarm Farm

North Central Region 58^ 26^ iGjo

Estimated Kansas ^7 2i/31 22

The next set of information needed for calculation of the estimates for Kansas

pertains to income. A supplement to the Survey of Current Business provides average^

personal income for each State. 72/ According to this report, per capita income in

Kansas in 195^ ^^s $1,68^4-, 90 percent of average per capita income for the North

Central Region. This provides the first key to the estimation of an income-size

distribution for Kansas for 1955* The only published source of income-size distributions for both the North Central Region and Kansas is volume II of the 1950 Census of

Population. These distributions are for all urbanization categories combined. The

distributions of families by size of income in 19^9 i'or Kansas and the North Central

Region were as follows, in percentages:

North Central

Region Kansas

Under $1,000 12 15

$1-2,000 13 17

2-3,000 19 22

3-i^,000 21 19

l(-5,000 13 11

5-6,000 9 6

6-7,000 5 3

7-10,000 5 1^

10,000 and over 3 3

According to these distributions, the proportion of families that fell in the lower

range of income was larger for Kansas than for the North Central Region. 'Qa.e farm and

rural nonfarm populations constitute a larger proportion of the total for the State

than for the region.

Die next problem is to develop income-size distributions for each urbanization.

This is necessarily done in a round about way. The process starts with information on

farm income. Die î^m Income Situation (2) in September 1958 reported that average

disposable money income per farm from farm operations in 1.9<yh was about 3 percent

higher in Kansas than in the North Central Region. Another piece of information comes

from volume II of the Census of Agriculture for 195*^ ~ table 3, chapter K. Data are

given on the value of all farm products sold per farm for each State and region. The

Kansas average was about 7 percent higher than that for the North Central Region.

Accordingly, we may conclude from these 2 sets of data that average money ^''^^ fj

fam household in 195l^ was perhaps 5 percent higher in Kansas than in the North Central

Region. The average size of farm households is assumed to be about the same in the

State as in the region.

Because the per capita income was about 10 percent lower for the entire Kansas

population than for the North Central Region, and Kansas farm incomes were a little

21/ The first approximation of the Kansas urbanization distribution added up to

103percent. The extra 3 percent was subtracted from rural nonfarm category.

Y2/ Personal Income b^ States Since 1929 (it).
- 72 -

higher, urban and rural nonfarm incomes must have averaged enough lover in Kansas

than in the region to bring the overall average dovn to 10 percent below the North

Central Region. This is not suorprising since Kansas has relatively less industry and

commerce than a number of the other States in the region. Without direct information

on inral nonfarm and urban incomes, it is necessary to make some arbitrary guesses.

V7e selected the following estimates as reasonable and yielding the 10 percent lower

Kansas average: Rural nonfaim income per capita in Kansas at 5 percent below the

north central average and the Kansas urban average at 7 percent lower than the

regional rate. Approximations for Kansas income rates on these bases aré given in

table U.5.

Table 4.5.—Reported average disposable money income and distribution of

housekeeping population by urbanization in North Central

Region, 1954, and approximations for Kansas l/

• Average income per person

Distribution of

DODulation

Urbanization :Reported for

North Central

Region

; Approxi1 mations

; for

1 Kansas

Kansas as

percent of

• North Central

; Region

Reported for

North Central

Region

' Approximations

; for

Kansas

: Dollars Dollars Percent Percent Percent

All urbanizations ' ! i,ian 1,296 90 100 100

Urban ; 1,689 1,570 93 58 hi

Rural nonfarm 1,187 1,128 95 26 31

Farm 901 9k6 105 16 22

1/ Data for North Central Region as reported in 1955 Survey of Household Food

Consumption. See text for description of how Kansas approximations were developed.

The next step is based on the assumption that the degree of inequality of income measured for the North Central Region by the income-size distribution for each

urbanization category in the spring I955 survey was generally the same for Kansas.

From this assuinption and the comparisons of average incomes shown in table 4.5, the

income-size distribution for Kansas households for each urbanization was estimated by

shifting the cumulative frequency curve according to the procedure described in 4.1.4.

The distributions are given in table 4.6.

With this urbanization distribution and the income-size distributions for Kansas,

estimates of expenditures per person for food at home for each income class can be

combined into overall averages. Note again the assuiïçtion that average expenditures

by Kansas households in spring I955 were about the same as those by north central

households of the same income level within each urbanization. Weighted averages for

expenditures for food at home (excluding alcoholic beverages) per person representing

first approximations for the State of Kansas are urban, $7.40; rural nonfarm, $5.75;

farm, $4.00. Their combination with the urbanization distribution yields an estimate

of $6.15 per Kansan. Thiè estimate is 94 percent of the average expenditure per

person for food at home in the North Central Region in a week of spring 1955.
- 73 -

Table k»6.—Approximations of income-size distribution of Kansas

households in each urbanization in spring I955 l/

Disposable ;

money income

in 195^ dollars ;

Rural

Urban :

nonfarm Farm

per family "

Percent Percent Percent

Under 2,000 : 7 17 29

2-3,000 ! 10 Ik 16

3-lf,000 : 19 22 13

i»-5>000 : 22 21 16

5-6,000 : Ik 10 11

6-8,000 : 11* '

8-10,000 ! 7 16 15

10,000 or more : 7 '

l/ Methodology and basic data described in text.

As stated previously, one of the most important steps in using the reweighting

procedure is to check the results with all other available data. The only check data

immediately available were retail sales data for food stores in the 195^ Census of

Business (l8) . Per capita sales for Kansas were 96 percent of the average for the

North Central Region. Accordingly, it appears that our estimates provide reasonable

working approximations for expenditures for food at home by Kansas households.

^.3.5. Procedure for Development of

Preliminary Projections for 1975

The approach outlined for development of projections from cross-section data

must be coordinated with approximations developed from time-series data on consumption, and with projections of supplies of food likely to be available at specified

levels of prices.

Assumptions regarding the economic framework for 1975 are taken from Daly's

paper in Policy for Commercial Agriculture (¿¿) . Data used in this example are:

(1) Expenditures for food at home in 1955 dollars in a week of spring 19^ and 1955

for households grouped by income within the three urbanizations. 22/ (2) The incomesize distributions for 1975 developed in k.l.h.k', are given in table k.2. Tbe latter

provide the necessary key to projections of consumers * purchasing power.

Tkie procedure for developing these approximations involves the following steps

and considerations:

(1) Combine the I955 income-class average expenditures for food at home in

table k.k with the I975 income-size distribution for each urbanization. Averages

resulting are: Urban, $7.6^1-, rural nonfarm, $6.3^, farm $1^.05.

23/ They are also used in table 4.^4- and have been taken from tables 3.1^ and 3-l6.
- 7^-

(2) CoiDpaxe these averages with the actual averages for 1955: Urban, $7*09^

rural nonfarm, $5.66, farm, $3.66. The average eacpenditures for each income class in

spring 19^2 reveighted with the 1955 income-size distributions yield these estimates

for use in judging changes in the level of the Engel curves: Urban, $7-17^ rural

nonfarm, $4.93, and faim, $2.53.

(3) Because the 19^2 price adjustment for urban households involves some overestimate, amounting to perhaps 5 percent, it appears likely that there was some slight

rise in the level of the Engel curves, even for urban households. The changes in

levels for rural nonfaim and farm households are obvious. We may expect further

adjustments in the levels of these Engel curves, but probably not as mich as from

spring 19^2 to spring 1955. Therefore, we may hazard the adjustment of the calculated

averages to these: $7.80 for urban, $6.75 tor rural nonfarm, and $5.00 for farm.

{k) These averages may be combined, using an urbanization distribution for 1975^

which begins with Louis J. Ducoff *s projection that the farm population in 1975 may ^^

only about 7 percent of the U. S. total, jk/ The substantially larger population will

result in reclassification of former rural areas;we may therefore expect a considerable

increase in the urban proportion. Estimates of 75 percent for the urban population

and l8 percent for rural nonfarm appear plausible. Application of these percentages

to the adjusted averages yields a tentative approximation of $7.to for expenditures

per person in U. S. households for food at home in a week in 1975 in terms of 1955

prices. This approximation turns out to be 19 percent above the average reported by

U. S. households in a week of spring 1955> which was $6.24.

(5) The most inçortant step in developing projections is perhaps the checking

of the approximations worked out by such a procedure. The following three checks are

possible:

(1) We may compare postulated changes in income and in food expenditures from

1955 to 1975 with U. S. average changes from 19^4-2 to 1955 shown by survey data. With

respect to the period 1955 to 1975. change in real income is postulated at 50 percent^

and change in food expenditures is calculated to be 19 percent. In the period 19^2 to

1955« change in real income per person, according to survey data from first quarter

19H-2 to 195^ calendar year, was 20 percent. Change in average food expenditures from

April-May 19^2 to April-June I955 was about 20 percent. Several ideas pertinent to

coiiç)lications in the expenditure data can be stated briefly: (a) The "true" change in

expenditures was probably somewhat less than 20 percent because of over-adjustment for

the price change, (b) Food expenditures and food consumption in spring I9Í2 probably

were lagging behind incomes, for incomes had been rising sharply, (c) Decreased home

production from I9U2 to I955 contributed to much greater increases in expenditures

than income-food expenditure relationships would lead us to expect. Therefore this

first check on the I975 projection is inconclusive.

(2) We may compare the relationship of the projected income and changes in food

expenditure with income elasticities derived from regression equations of survey data.

The income elasticities available for coniparison are those pertaining ,to expenditures

for food at home and away from home, because regressions have not been coiiç)U"ted for

the expenditures for food at home only. We would expect the latter coefficients to be

slightly lower than those including away-from-home expenditures. The all-U. S. household coefficient for spring 191^2 was .52, that for spring 1955, .38. The income

7.V In "The Farm Popiilation and the Agricultural Labor Force in 1975," Applications

gf Demography; The Population Situation in the Ut S^, in 1975 (56).
- 75 -

elasticity based on the change in food expenditures projected from I955 to I975 and

the projected change in real income is about .k. This is close to the elasticity

derived from cross-section data for all expenditures for one point in time. Historically, the time-series changes have been greater than the cross-section data indicate

owing to changes in factors not reflected at one point in time. Therefore, we may

suspect that the projected change in expenditures from 1955 to 1975 may be a little

conservative.

(3) This check is concerned with change in data on the retail value of food

products sold, excluding those sold by eating places (table B-l), related to the

change in income from 19^1 to 1954. 75/

19lf2 = $18.5 billion -» 131.5 million people = $liH per capita

$11^1 -» BLS retail food price index for food at home of 61.3

yields $230 in 1947-^9 dollars.

1QS5 = $44.3 billion -f 162.3 million people = $273

$273 • BLS retail food price index of 109-7 = $2^9 in 19^7-49

dollars.

This' change in the per capita estimate for this retail value series from 19^2 to

1955^ based on time-series data, amounted to 8 percent; it may be compared with the

25 percent increase in disposable real income per capita from 19^1 to 195^. Thus

the retail value series for food sold per capita (excluding sales in eating plax:es),

\rtiich approximates expenditures for food at home, was up a third as much as real

disposable income.

We may conclude from these checks that the $7«to average expenditure per person

per week projected for food at home, representing a I9 percent increase from 1955 "to

1975^ is a reasonable estimate.

4.3.6. Inherent Advantages and

Disadvantages of Reweighting

Analysts who use the reweighting procedures we have outlined must always be

aware of the inrplications involved.

Advantages of the reweighting procedure are the following: (l) It permits full

use of the potentials of cross-section information on relationships among food consuiiÇ)tion, income level, and urbanization. (2) It involves relatively sinrple arithmetic — the analyst can study the economic implications of each step as he goes

along. (3) Because all major aspects of the structure of consuiiç)tion are considered

explicitly, it provides an opportunity for the analyst to adjust the parts of the

whole as he deems desirable, on thé basis of related economic and social infonnation.

Disadvantages of the reweighting procedure stem from certain characteristics of

the Engel curves. Income-food relationships for one period may be abnormal in certain

aspects. Often this can be ascertained only after extensive analysis. These relationships reflect net results of a variety of demand and supply factors at single

points in time and do not alone provide a key to rates of change through time. The

data used for Engel curves apply only to households, and, for most food information.

75/ These years are used to approximate the period covered by the income data of

the two surveys (first quarter 19tó and 195^).
- 76-

only to consumption at home. They may not, the re fore, taJce account of important shifts

in the food situation. To cope with these problems, it is usually possible to make

adjustments based on economic research.

Another disadvantage of the reweighting procedure arises from irregularities in

the Engel curves for small subgroups or individual commodities. Probably these curves

should be smoothed and adjusted averages used for the income classes in the reweighting

procedure.

k.k. References to Standard Statistical Procedures

Because the objective of this chapter is to supplement rather than to repeat

information on procedures available in standard works for methodology of least squares

computations, the reader is referred to statistical books by Ezekiel (¿l), Croxton and

Cowden (¿i), Mills (6^, Snedecor (62), Ferber (¿8), and to more recent texts by

Wallis and Roberts (22) and by Ostle (6l). The t test of significance of^en used to

evaluate coefficients is that developed and described by Fisher (¿2) • Croxton and

Cowden also have a good section on this test.

U.5. Methods for Analysis of Changes in the

Market Value of All Food

k.^.l. The change in the market value of all food for civilians from 19^1 to

1955 is used to demonstrate the possibilities of macroeconomic analysis. During this

period the changes in U. S. food consumption were great. Fortunately, cross-section

data for spring 19^ and spring 1955 are available for use with time-series data.

The objectives of such an analysis as this are to determine the subareas of

greatest changes within the overall increase in market value, to assess the relative

importance of price and quantity elements in changes in food per se and in food marketing services, and to appraise the relative importance of factors contributing to

these changes. The results are tabulated in table h.J.

l|-.5.2. Procedures for

Analysis by Component

Data from table 3.5 provide the starting point for analysis by component.

According to series TFV-lOa, the total market value of food for civilians in 19^1 was

$21.2 billion, in I955 $60.0 billion, an increase of $38.8 billion. The major components of this aggregate are the payments for basic productive resources (data in

table 3»3) ^^^ i'or marketing services (table 3*8) .

ÍÍ-.5.2.1. Payments for basic productive resources are subdivided for many

analyses into those going to U. S. farmers and those to importers and fishenaen.

(1) To U. S. farmers

19^4-1 1955 Increase

Sales (TFV-1) $7.1 bil. $18.3 bil.

Home production (farm

and nonfarm, TPV-2) . JLJ " 2.?^ "

Total 8.8 " 20.6 " $11.8 bil.
- 77

Table k,'J,—An analysis of the change in the total market value of all food between 19^1 and 1955 ]J

I9ÍH '

- Increase

Item ' Basis for estimate Amount

Percentage

.of total

; Increase

1955

Bil. •

dol. Î

: Bil.

. dol. E2ÍX

Bil.

dol.

Total market value of all food for U. S. civilians,

excluding taxes and tips, current dollars : 21.2 Í£¿ : 100.0 : 60^

I. Analysis by components

A. Payments for basic productive resources

1. To domestic producers of farm foods

a. Farmers' sales for civilian foods

b. Home produced, fana and nonfarm

Total

7.1 18-3

2.3

Por increased quantity and quality

Fbr price rise to get more food and general rise in price levcl^in 1955 dollars

Total to domestic producers à.ô

30 percent increase in total

civilian food use, domestically

produced

Residual

: 2.6 6.1

20.¿

2. To Importers and fishexmen

For increased quantity and quality

For price rise to get more food and

general rise in price level,in 1955 dollara

Total to inqporters and fishermen .9

20 percent increase in total civilian use of inçorted farm foods,

Ik percent increase in edible

veight of fish consumed

Residual

.2

2.7

•5

7.0 3.¿

Total for productive resources -all 1^.5 3lJt 2lf.2

B. Payments for marketing services

For more services in 19i^l dollars 51 percent increase in constant

dollars in total

To handle increased quantity and quality

of food moving through commercial

channels

For additional services per xmit

Total

: ko percent more commercial food

51 percent less ^40 percent

k.e

5.9 15^

For price rise to get more services and

general rise in price level, in 1955 dollara

On 19^1 volume of services

For additional voliune of services, combined result of price and quantity

Total

Total for marketing services ' 11^

105 percent of $11.5 billion ©^2.2

lit!:

21^.3

31.1^

62.6 2^

II. Analysis by economic and social factor ^ 100.0

A. Price in 1955 dollars Derived from part I 29.'^ Tl'ß.

B. Nbnprice factors in 19^1 dollars

1. Population increase 23 percent applied to 19^1 total

8.7

lf.9

22.1^

12^

a. More food

b. More marketing services

: 2.2

2.7

5.6

7.0

2. Changes in Income

a. For more food

b. For more marketing services

From survey data, ^5 percent of

change per person

Increase in per capita use of farm

foods

Residual

.5

1.2

k,k

1.3

3.1

3. Decrease in home production not due to

income change, all for more marketing

services

Residual, but 9 of ik percent in-

. crease in food moving throxigh

commercial channels due to

decrease in home production 2.1 5.i^

X/ See text sections 1 and 2 of if.5.2 and section if.5.3-

2/ Including $0.1 billion to balance for rounding losses.
- 78-

The $11.8 "billion increase in current dollar value was due partly to price and

partly to increased quantity and quality of the productive resources used. The total

civilian food use of domestic farm foods, a measure which reflects quantity and

quality of food per se, increased 30 percent. 76/ This percentage applied to $8.8

billion indicates a $2.6 billion increase needed to pay for greater quantity and

quality in 194l dollars. The residual is $9.2 billion, which can be ascribed to the

increase in prices. This may be checked by dividing the $9.2 billion figure by the

sum of $8.8 billion and $2.6 billion. It indicates an 8l percent increase in price

and checks well with the 85 percent increase for the farm price of foods in the AMS

market basket of domestic farm foods.

(2) To importers and fishennen

19^1 1955 Increase

Import value of iirç)orted food $0.8 ).8 bil. $3.3 bil.

Wharf value of domestic fishery

products _J. " _j¿ "

Total .9 " 3.6 " $2.7 bil.

Total food use of inçorted farm foods increased 20 percent. 77/ Imports of

fishery products measured in terms of edible weight went up somewhat more, but they

make up a small part of the total value. Total civilian consumption of fishery

products (including imported) increased ik percent on an edible weight basis.

Increased imports plus the increase for domestic fishery products could account for

a $200 million rise in the value of these productive resources in 19^1 dollars. The

$2.5 billion residual of the increase in the supplier value of imports and fishery

products would have to be attributed to price. There are no satisfactory price

indexes for all these items. But the BLS retail price of coffee, the most significant single item, went up from 2k cents a pound in 19^1 to 93 cents in 1955. (This

is a 288 percent increase, whereas the implicit price increase for the total is about

227 percent.)

Tne foregoing coinputations are summarized in part I A of table k^f.

U.5.2.2. Payments for marketing services increased from $11.5 billion to

$35.8 billion in 1955. Part of the increased outlays were necessary to handle the

ko percent increase in the quantity (and quality) of food flowing through commercial

channels as home production declined and as total consumption increased, indicated by

the 23 percent increase in the total civilian population and the ik percent rise in

the per capita use of all purchased foods (PFQ-6b) . According to TFV-lirâ. in table 3«8

the total payments for food marketing services in 19^7-^9 dollars rose 5I percent

between 19^1 and 1955- This can serve as a first approximation of the change in total

quantity of marketing services. 78/ The 11 percent residual after subtracting the

allowance for increased volume is made up of two types of increases in marketing

services. The first type is additional services of the "older type" supplied per unit

of food handled — more transportation, more meal preparation and serving, more ser^

vices of retailers instead of direct sales by fanners, more canning and freezing and

76/ From column 2 of table 22, Supplement for I956 to Agr. Handb. 9I (12). This

is the index of the U. S. civilian total corresponding to the per capita index given

in table 3.I, identified as PFQ-la.

77/ From column 3 of table 22 of the Supplement for I956 to Agr. Handb. 91 (12) .

78/ This is an appioximate measure, derived by deflating the value data of the total

food marketing bill. (Described in 3«5-2.)
- 79 -

so on. The other type of additions are the services involved in new convenience

foods• Research on the measurement of these services is under way. TO/

The next problem is to allocate the $24.3 billion increase in the all-food marketing bill between payments for more services and price increases. The 51 percent

increase in the marketing bill in 19^^7-49 dollars applied to the I9U1 base of $11 5

billion yields an increase of $5.9 billion in 191^1 dollars as an approximation of

costs of additional services. Parenthetically, we note that this figure can be

further subdivided between the increased services required to handle the ko percent

increase in total volume of food ($1|.6 billion) and $1.3 billion for the 11 percent

increase in services resulting from additional services per unit handled. 80/

As a first approximation, the increase in payments for marketing services owing

to the rise in prices is estimated at $l8.4 billion on the basis of the IO5 percent

increase in the index of the marketing margin of the market basket. Some of this

increase reflects the general inflation in the economy; but some was probably necessary to obtain the 51 percent increase in the volume of marketing services. This

total also includes (l) increased costs on the 19i^l volume of services and (2) the

costs of the additional services. Allocations for these services can be made by

applying the IO5 percent price increase first to the 19lfl marketing bill of $11.5 Million, yielding an estimate of $12.2 billion for the increased payments on 19li-l volume

of services and second, to the cost of additional volume of services as derived above

($5.9 billion in I9ÍH dollars), giving $6.2 billion as the payment for the increase in

volume. 81/

The resTilts of the analysis tWs far are summarized in part I B of table h.T.

4.5.2.3. Further analysis of the problem of allocating the increased payments

for marketing services between those for price and those for quantity is desirable.

This problem is similar in some respects to Mills* problem of separating the contribution of labor inputs and productivity gains to an increase in output. 82/ It

is also similar to the problem of allocating the shares in increased com production

between the effects of increased acreage and increased yield per acre.

The allocation of the increased payments for marketing services between the

changes in £ and the changes in ct starts from the following facts: (l) The value of

marketing services boiight with all food in 19^1 was $11.5 billion (Vl^.i) and $35.8 billion in current dollars in 1955 (V^c) . (2) The only measure of change in prices of

marketing se3rvices is that indicated by the change in the marketing margin of the AMS

market basket of domestic farm foods between the farm and retail levels. This increased 105 percent. The price index is indicated by P^^ and P55. (3) The only

available measure of change in quantity of marketing services (Q41 and Qcc) is derived

by dividing the value changes by the price index, yielding an increase of 5I percent.

Accordingly, this quantity measure is not independent of the price measure.

12/ First reported in Waldorf, "Indexes of Factory Production of Domestic Farm Food

Products," Mktg. Transn. Sit.. July I959 (22). Additional infomation supplied in

Waldorf,OutEut Qf Factories Processing Fa^ Food Products in the United States, 1909-

58 (^.

80/ This calculation has been revised by the author since the publication of an

analysis in an article in Jour. Am. Stat. Assn. (51).

81/ A fractional adjustment of $0.1 billion for rounding losses was put in the

price increase on 19^1 volume.

82/ Note 3, PP- 31-36 of Mills Productivitv and Economic Progress (6k).
80 -

A graphic presentation of the problem is shown below:

'55

incr

"41

X

X

;><x

^xV55<

y^

/V4I^/1

04, Qincr

^55

Possibility No> 1 for Allocation,—Payments for the increased quantity of marketing services coiild be measured thus:

(1) Y¡^2. ^ "^incr " increased outlays for 19^1 volume of services

$11.5 bil. X 105^ = $12.2 bil. 83/

(2) V .($2i|-.3 bil.) - $12.2 bil. = $12.1 bil. increased payments for ' incr ^^

more services

The difficulty with this method is that it does not allow

for the higher prices paid for the increased volume of marketing

services, as shown below. ^

incr $12.2 bil.

$12.1

bil.

$ll.5bil

-»41 'incr

Possibility No. 2.—Payments for the increased price of marketing services could

be measured thus:

(1) ^\^i X Qincr ^ increased payments for more services

$11.5 bil. X 51-^ = $5.9 bil. in 19ifl dollars

(2) V^^ç^ ($2U.3 bil.) - $5.9 bil. = $18.it bil. for increased costs due to

rise in prices, in I955 dollars.

8¿/ See note 8^/.
- 81 -

The difficulty with this procedure is that it does not allow

for the fact that some of the increase in prices was due to the

increased pressure of greater demand for services on available

supplies of those services.

incr

41

$18.4 bi 1.

$ll.5bil. $5.9

bil.

^41 Q;incr

It is fairly clear that $6.2 billion of the increase was due to the combined

effects of changes in quantity and price. Because the measure of change in quantity

of services is derived by use of the measure of change in their price, it is difficult to split satisfactorily the $6.2 billion between these elements. Therefore, it

may be argued that the analyst should identify the $6.2 billion properly and note the

fact that the $5*9 billion increase for quantity is measured in 19^1 dollars.

^incr

41

$12.2 bil. $6.2

bil.

$11.5 bil. $5.9

bil.

Ml 'incr

Possibility No. 3.—This is an application of Mills' method for allocating an

overall increment between two factors:

(1) Vi^3^ X Qincr = first approximation for share for greater quantity

of marketing services

$11.5 bil. X .51 = $5.9 bil.

(2) Vi^i X Finer = first approximation for share for higher places

for marketing services

$11.5 bil. X 1.05 = $12.2 bil.

(3) Component due to combination of two factors

$2U.3 bil. - $5.9 bil. - $12.2 bil. = $6.2 bil.
82 -

Mills suggests that the $6.2 billion should be divided on the basis of the relative magnitude of changes in the two factors (here the 2. and a).

Qi^-L = 1.00 = index of quantity in 19^1

%1 + Qincr = Q55 = 1-51 = index of quantity in 1955

Pi^3_ = 1.00 = index of price in 19^1-1

^kl "•" ^incr " ^55 = ^.05 = index of price in 1955

Vj+i = î*Ul^4l = 1*00 = index of value in I9UI

V + ^incr = ^%1 * ^incr) ^^1 + ^incr) = 3.11 = V55

If assume linearity of changes in P and Q,

Q = Ql,l + ^= 1.00 + -^= 1.255

P= Pi,i incr

= 1.00 + = 1.525

Increase in price associated with increase in Q = Qincr (-^ *** 2 '

= .51 (1.525) = .7775

Q

Increase in quantity associated with increase in P = ^^^^^j,

= 1.05 (1.255) = 1.31755

Qincr

(Q + ^^)

^ncr ^^ + ^^P) + Pincr («^ + 2^) = ^ %ncr + ^ ^incr + ^incr %ncr = ^mcr

• 7775 + 1.31775 = V. in index numbers

incr

^41

'^v:

$12.2 bil. ¡"^^X' 2.09525 I = $6.2 bil.

...jm^^i^^mi^ $6.2 bil.

2.09525 2.09525 ^

•37 + .63 = $6.2 bil.

Share for Q 4- share for P = combined effect

$2.3 bil. -Î- $3.9 bil. = $6.2 bil.

Although there is considerable argument for adopting the division of the $6.2

biiLlion worked out immediately above, a compromise is used in table U.7 by carrying

the $6.2 billion under price and inserting reference to combined action. The desirability of this compromise stems from these facts; The quantity index has been

derived by dividing the value of marketing services by the only available measure of

price change for marketing service (described in 3.5.2). Thus the two measures are
- 83-

not independently estimated. As noted in section 3«5«2, the price measure in turn has

some deficiencies because it is not independently constructed. Finally, there is an

unresolved problem in the fact that the payments for higher prices axe necessarily

measured in tenas of 1955 dollars, whereas the payments for increased quantity are

in 19^1 dollars. There appears to be no neat solution to this problem. But it does

call for increased awareness on the part of the analyst who develops and uses such

measures.

h.^.3» Procedure for Analysis by

Economic and Social Factor

Another objective of macroeconomic analysis in the food sector is to measure

effects of major economic and social factors. The results of such an analysis are

'summarized in part II of table k.T.

k.^.^.l. Price.—Here the costs of price increases measured in part I are

summarized. Tliese reflect both the general rise in the price level and extra costs

involved in obtaining the increased quantity and quality of food and of marketing

services. The $30 billion total increase in 1955 dollars for higher prices represents

about a 100-percent increase on the $21.2 billion base for 19^1 plus the $8.7 billion

direct increase in 19^1 dollars for greater quantity and quality of food and services.

The ELS urban retail price index for food at home rose 110 percent from 19^1 to 1955-

During the same period, prices of nonfood goods and services increased 63 percent,

according to the BLS urban retail price data. The allocation of the $30 billion total

between (l) change in purchasing power of the dollar and (2) payments necessary to get

increased quantity and quality of food and marketing services must be left to future

analysis.

U.5.3.2. Nonprice Factors.—The effect of the increase in population can be

measured simply by applying the 23 percent increase in the civilian population to

the 19^1 bases for productive resources and for marketing services.

The effect of changes in income has been measured by means of the reweighting

procedure described in i.3.3.3. The survey data on market value of all food at home

and away from home reweighted by alternative income and urbanization distributions

give a range of 8 to 9 percent for changes in income, no change for urbanization, and

10 to 11 percent for changes in patterns of market value at each income level. Using

the ratio of these ranges, we may allocate U5 percent to income and 55 percent to

change in patterns. Application of the k^ percent to the $3.8 billion residual after

taking out the effects of changes in price and population leaves a $1.7 billion total

increase for income. change. This must in turn be subdivided between the effect on

quantity and quality of food and that on marketing services.

Calculation of the effect of the increase in income on food £er se involves the

following steps:

(1) The index of per capita use of farm foods and fish shows a k percent increase from I9Í+I to 1955. Applying this increase to the $9-7 billion base for 19^1

plus the $2.2 billion cost in I9I+I dollars for supplying the 19^1 per capita volume

of food to the increase in the population, we obtain $0.5 billion as the cost for

the increased quantity and quality of food alone due to higher incomes.

(2) In part I, the total increase for quantity and quality of food is indicated

to be $2.6 billion for domestic farm foods and $0.2 billion for imported foods and

fishery products. The cost of supplying the same average quantity per person as in
- 84 -

19^1 to the increase in popiilation amounted to $2.2 billion. Subtracting $2.2 billion

from $2.8 billion leaves only $0.6 billion for an increase in the total due to higher

incomes or changes in patterns of expenditures. It is safe to conclude that practically all of this may be allocated to the income change.

The effect of higher incomes on payments for marketing services is figured as

a residual. From the $1.7 billion total for food and services, we subtract $0.5 billion to obtain $1.2 billion as a measure of how the rise in incomes reacted on

payments for marketing services (measured in 19^1 dollars).

The effect of the changes in the relationships of average market value of all

food to income is calculated as a residual:

$3.8 billion - $1.7 billion for income = $2.1 billion for change

in relationships to income.

Practically none of this total can be attributed to payments for more food,

since the change in income accounted for almost all of the increase in consumption of

food per se. The $2.1 billion must be attributed to more marketing services.

Elsewhere in this analysis it was noted that the quantity of food per capita

that moved through commercial channels was 1^+ percent greater in 1955 than in 19^1.

Of the ik percent, about 9 percent was accounted for in decreased home production of

farm foods, oh/ Applying this 9/l4 ratio to the $4.6 billion total payments to handle

the increased flow of food (shown under I B in the table) a figure of $2.9 billion is

obtained. This is higher than the $2.1 billion residual — it is obvious that the

decrease in home production accounted for all of the change in the relationships

between income and market value of food. The differential between the $2.9 billion

and $2.1 billion can be attributed to the change in home production, largely the

result of higher incomes in the later period. Thus it was part of the pi^ceding

$1.2 billion figure in the table, representing the effect of increased income on the

payments for marketing services.

dh/ The value aggregates from the supply-utilization index provide the best set of

data for studying changes in civilian use of food per se. For this handbook the

aggregate for U. S. civilian food was subdivided into purchased foods and those

home-produced. If the I9Í1.I proportion purchased by civilians had held for 1955, the

quantity of food purchased per person would have been about 9 percent less than

actually occurred.
85

Appendix A. COMPARISON OF 1 : SURVEY A^ TIME-SERIES COMMODITY COVERAGE

Table A.l.—Conçarison of divergent classifications of commodities in the I955 Household Food Survey Reports I-5,

primary distribution categories and retail summstry table for annual per capita food consuuiption data

Used at home as reported in

Survey Reports No. I-5 i/

Aimual ner capita civilian consumption data 2/

Primary distribution basis as in

tables 8-26 of Agr. Handb. 62

Summary food groups on retail weight basis

as in table 38 of Agr. Handb. 62

Table 5.- Summary measures of milk,

cream, ice cream, cheese

Fluid milk equlv. based on calcium content (excluding butter)

Milk fat (excluding butter) )

Milk solids-not-fat ^

Table 6.- Milk', cream. Ice cream,

cheese

XncXudes velc^t of chocolate In

drink and cocoa in dry cocoa

mixes, and fruit etc«. In Ice

cream; excludes sherbet. Ices.

Tahle 7«- Fats and oils

Includes Ingredients other üxan

fats and oils in salad dressing^

mayonnaise, and sandwich spread«

Table 8«- Flour and cereal products

Incliides, all Ingredients of i>z«- :

pared flour mixes, noodles, and

ready-to-eat breakfast cereals.

Includes popcorn, tapioca, potato

flour and soya flour«

Table 9.- Bakery products,

clal

Table 10.- Meat, poultry, fish

Includes the non-meat Ingredients

In luncheon meats,, sausage, etc.

These Items pinrchased in a

varle*^ of foxns.

Table U.- Eggs

Data given in dozens of assorted

sizes«

Table i2»- Sugar, sweets

Exeludes chocolate sinç. Includes all ingredients of Jams,

Jellies, candy, and fruit,

butterscotch and ceiramel slnqps

Table I3.- Potatoes, sweetpotatoes

Includes prodtict weight of chips

and sticks.

Table ik.- Fresh vegetables

Home canned and home frozen

vegetables Included on product

weight basis. Includes sauerkraut, not canned, and horseradish.

Table I5.- Fresh fruit

Bone canned and home frozen

Included on product weight

bets is.

Table 16.- Commercially frozen

fruits and vegetables

Excludes frozen fruit Juices and

potatoes.

All dairy products combined in terms of fluid

whole milk on a fat content basis. ^

Same basis as survey except includes butter.3/

Fluid milk and cream measured at farm or distributor level on a fluid milk equivalent

basis; other items In terms of prodiict weight

(see table 31 for conplete list of minor

dairy products). 3/

Measured at processing level. 3/

Grain products (excl. com sugar and sirup)

measured at mllUng or processing level. 3/

Excludes all non-grain material except small

amounts of sweetener or flavoring in breakfast cereals and Infant foods. Barley expressed in tezms of malt equivalent. Ex- ^

eludes popcorn, soya flour, and tapioca.

Potato flotu- in the potato figures.

Same basis as survey. ^

Not shown.

Differs from primary distribution basis in that

fluid milk and fluid cream are shown separately—cream in terms of 25^ fat content

équivalent (here half and half is considered

to be cream). Ice cream is shown in terms of

milk and cream used (see table 9 for product

weiÉ^t) to avoid duplication with fruits,

sugar, etc.

Same as primary distribution basis except incliides fat pork cuts.

Same as primary distribution basis. Soya flour

included with dry beans and peas on product

weight ba^ls.

No ccnparáble series,

groups.

Ingredients of mixed foods are included in their respective basic food

Meat - measured at the slaughter level and

esgpi^ssed In tents of carcass wel£^t, vAilch

excludes edible offal«

Fish - market weights converted to edible

welfi^t.

Poultry - slauc^ter wei^it converted to readyto-«ook basis.

Excludes ^dlble offal and game.

Measured at the faxm level. Data expressed in

nunber of eggs. 3/

Sugars and slrvcps j/ - Beet and cane sugar,

measurë3~at the refining level, is expressed

as granulated sugar, but because amounts of

powdered and brown sugars reported in the

survey are small, no slgnlficsint difference

is noted.

Measiired at fana level. Canned and frozen

potatoes and sweetpotatoes reported in the

vegetable tables; chips and sticks and dehydrated potatoes Included on a fresh weight

equivalent with the fresh category. Excludes

quantities produced in home gardens.

Measured at fairm level. Excludes quantities

from home gardens. Sauericraut and horseradish excluded. Melons, also given in the

tables, being a truck crop.

Measured at farm level. Excludes all home

produced fruits and since 193^ apples grown

in noncommercial areas of the United States.

Excludes melons and minor fruits and berries.

Includes frozen fruit Juices and fruit ades

and potatoes. ^

Same as primary distribution basis for fish

and poultry. Meat converted to "fresh retail

cut" equivalent using constant conversion

feustors for all years. Fat cxtts of pork included with fats and oils. Includes edible

offal and game.

Primary distribution data converted to retail

weights using constant loss factor (except

in war period when breakage was considered

slightly higher). Poxmdage derived using

constant factor of 1.5 pounds per dozen

I909-I9U6, increasing thereafter to allow

for larger size eggs in recent years.

Same as primary distribution basis except

excludes d\jpllcation of sugars and sirups

used in the processed foods and given else-

\diere in this set of statistics (e.g., canned

fruits and vegetables, condensed milk, etc.).

"Fresh" converted to retail weigiit by use of

constant conversion factors; cEinned and

fi-ozen same as primary dlstrlbujblon basis.

Includes quantities produced in home gardens.

Farm weights converted to approximate retail

weights by use of constant conversion factors

for individual items. Includes quantities from

home gardens. Sauerkraut and horseradish

excluded.

Farm weight converted to approximate retail

weights by use of constant conversion factors

for individual items. Includes apples grown

in noncommercial areas, and melons, but excludes all fruit produced in home gardens or

grown wild and minor fruits and berries.

Same as primary distribution basis except excludes potatoes and includes frozen citrus

Juices on single strength basis, kj

Continued -
86 •

Appendix A. COMPARISON OF HOUSEHOLD SURVEY AND TIME-SERIES COMMODITY COVERAGE - Continued

Table A.l.—Conçarison of divergent classifications of commodities in the I955 Household Food Survey Reports l-5i

primary distribution categories and retail summary table for annual per capita food consumption data -Continued

Used at home as reported in

Survey Reports No. 1-5 l/

Table I7.- Commercially canned

fruits and vegetables

Excludes bvilk sauerkraut, tomato

catsup, chili sauce, etc. and

pickles, olives, and relishes,¿/

Includes baby food and baked

beans and mature peas.

Table 18.- Fruit and vegetable

Juices

Caxmed fruit and vegetable juice

data Include home-canned and

-frozen Juices. Frozen concentrated Juice data exclude

frozen ades (e.g. lemonade).

Table I9.- Dried fruits and vegetables. Excludes canned baked

beans and canned mature peas.

Table 20.- Beverages

Coffee, tea, chocolate and cocoa

Coffee includes coffee substitute. Ingreglents of chocolate

sirup included.

Soft drinks, bottled, canned and

povdered and fruit ade other than:

frozen.

Frozen fruit ade

Alcoholic beverages (no quantity

data collected)

Table 21.- MiscellaneoviB foods

Nuts and peanut butter

Soups, Including home canned and

dehydrated and frozen

Catsup, chill sauce, etc. V

Pickles, olives, relishes }

(both include home made products))

Puddings,pie fillings, icing mix,

fudge mix, and mixtures other

than baby food, prepfti«d or

partially prepared

Strained canned pudding (baby) ) :

Baby and Junior foods, mixed, ) :

prepared or partially prepared. )

Sherbets, ices

Leavening agents (yeast, baking

powder, cream of tartar, soda)

Seasonings (vinegar, salt, spices,

extract, flavors, flavoring

sauces, meat tenderizer)

Annual per capita civilian consumption data 2/

Primary distribution basis as in

tables Ô-26 of Agr. Handb. 62

Includes all sauerkraut; excludes minor canned

fruits, baby foods, baked beans, and canned

mature peas. ^ (Baby food shovn as separate

category and baked beans and canned mature

peas included with dry beans and peas in

terms of their dry equivalents.)

Data for Juices reported in the tables on

canned fruit Juices, canned vegetables, and

frozen fruit. Includes only commercially

produced canned fruit and vegetable Juice.

Concentrated frozen fruit ades are

included. 3/

Dry beans and peas

Measured at farm level, on a cleaned basis.

Includes dry bean equivalent of canned baked

beans; excludes quantities produced in nonfana gardens.

Dried fruit measured at the packer level.

Measured at the import level. Coffee in terms

of green beans; chocolate and products in

terms of cocoa beans. 2J

Summary food grovrps on retail weight basis

as in table 38 of Agr. Handb. 62

Same as primary distribution basis, except

fruit and vegetable baby foods and all

canned soups are included. U/

Same as primary distribution basis, kj

Same as primary distribution basis except

includes quantities of dry beans and

peas produced in all home gardens and

soya flour on product weight basis. Dried

fruit is shown with fruits.

Coffee converted to roasted equivalent,

cocoa beans to chocolate liquor.

No comparable series. Ingredients included in their respective basic food groups.

Frozen lemonade, etc. included with frozen : Same as primary distribution basis,

fruit Juices.

Not classified as a food; ingredients not included.

Peanut butter included in shelled x)eanut

equivalent. ^

Commercially canned only.

Commercial only. Tomato products, pickles

and relishes included in canned vegetable

data, olives in canned fruit data.

Same as primary distribution basis, included

in dry bean, pea, nut category.

Same as primary distribution basis. Included

with canned vegetables.

Same as primary distribution basis.

No comparable series, ingredients included in basic food groups.

Included with baby food in a separate category, "canned baby food."

Included with dairy products.

No series available.

Data on spices only, measured at import level.

Excluded,

groups.

Ingredients included in basic food

Same as primary distribution basis.

No series available.

Not included.

¿/ Quantities consumed at home per household; product weight.Unless otherwise noted, excludes quantities in mixed foods. Table

numbers shown refer to tables in each of the 5 reports (Mj). 2/ As published in Agr. Handb. 62; Consumption of Food in the United

States (6) ; Includes all use away from home. Items on primary distribution basis are annual averages for the United States, measured

at lAiatever level data are available, derived as a residual from data on production, stocks, foreign trade, and military takings,

and Include quantities used in producing mixed foods such as bakery products. Retail weight data are derived from primary distribution data using various loss factors or making other adjustments such as those to avoid duplication with other foods listed.

Reference to tables are those in Agr. Handb. 62. 3/ Includes quantities used in mixed foods, such as bakery products, salad dressings, soft drinks, etc. U/ In table 38 of Agr. Handb. 62 the fruits and vegetables are in 3 nutritional groupings: Citrus fruit

and tomatoes; leafy green and yellow vegetables; and other vegetables and fïult. ¿/ As shown in table 21 - Miscellaneous foods,

tomato catsup, chill sauce, etc. and pickles and relishes do not separate data for commercial and home canned items.
-87-

Appendix B. PROCEDURE USED Di ESTIMATING MARKET VALUE OF

ALL FOOD AM) SOME BY-PRODUCT DATA

The procedure used in estimating the new series on market value for all food is

described here in detail because it is not yet available in any of the statistical

handbooks on food consumption. This appendix elaborates the brief description of the

procedure given in 3«^-3»

B.l. Market Value of All Foods

ij.1.1. The statistical series that measures the market value of all foods is

based on the data on retail cost of farm foods sold to U. S. civilians, described in

3.3.2, but with several adjustments.

B.1.2. The first of the adjustments is the addition of the farm value of the

farm and nonfarm consumption of home-produced foods (3.2.1.U). The value of home

production by farm families is regularly derived as part of the AMS work on gross farm

income [described on pages I5-I6 of volume 3 of Agr. Handb. II8 {^]. The quantities of food produced by farmers for their own use are estimated for most foods by

the Crop Reporting Board. These data are supplemented by estimates of vegetable production prepared by this author and by estimates for some minor commodities made by

the Farm Income Branch, AMS. The quantities of individual foods are valued at prices

received by farmers for such foods in each year. For nonfarm home production, the

quantities of livestock products home pixDduced are estimated by the Crop Reporting

Board. The estimiates for vegetables are described on page k6 of volume 5 of Agr.

Handb. II8 (2^^) . These quantities for individual food groups produced by nonfarm

families were conçared with the quantities farm home-produced. Then the ratios were

applied to the values of farm home-p2X)duction for each commodity group to derive total

values.

B.1.3. The second adjustment is the addition of the retail value of imported

food (described in 3.3.3), estimated as follows. First, the retail values of coffee,

tea, bananas and pineapples are calculated using the total quantities consumed by

civilians and BLS prices at retail. Next, the retail value of imported sugar consumed

by civilians is deteimined by estimating its retail value if all were bought as such,

then making an allowance for extra costs of siigar in processed forms. The allowance

for the higher cost of sugar in processed foods is made according to the relationships

in table Ul of Agr. Handb. 62 (6). The third step is the tabulation of the inçort

value of these major items and of all other items (except fish) from the Census trade

reports. Adjustment is also made to exclude military takings and nonfood use. Also,

estimates are added for the value of inshipments of sugar and pineapple from Hawaii,

based on the quantities derived from trade data and sugar control data and the import

price for each year derived from data for Puerto Rico. The final steps are the comparison of the import value of the major items with their retail value and the application of this ratio to the import value of all foods for civilian use.

B.l.lf. The third series added is the retail value of fishery products. These

data are based in the first instance on the retail values per capita of fishery

products consumed in each year in 19^^7-49 prices which are derived in the estimation

of the index of per capita food consunçtion. The per capita values are multiplied by

the civilian population and then adjusted from the 19^7-^9 price level to current

prices for each year, using the changes in prices indicated by the Bureau of Labor

Statistics data for the meat, poultry and fish group at retail and for wholesale fish.
- 88 -

B.1.5« Tkie fourth adjustment in the derivation of the market value of all foods

is the allovance for the cost of marketing services in the preparation and serving ßf

meals and snacks b^ eating places > This represents the difference between the retail

value of food and the meal values. Derivation of this -eating place markup requires

the estimation of the market value of all meals and snacks served "by eating places.

This is developed in sections.

B.1.5.1. One section is meals and snacks sold h^ eating places other than

boarding houses. This set of data is based primarily on the Commerce series for onpremise sales of meals and beverages (including taxes and tips) and unpublished data

of the National Income Division of the Department of Commerce on nonconsumer purchases

of food and beverages. From the total of these tvo series are deducted the Commerce

estimates of taxes and tips on meals and beverages and the estimates by this author

on on-premise sales of alcoholic beverages. (The approximate part of total sales of

alcoholic beverages sold as drinks by eating places is based on 1939 ^^^ ^9^ Census

of Business benchmark data (18), trends in sales of drinking places, and some trade

data.) This confutation yields the market value of meals sold by eating places except boarding houses. The wholesale value of such meals is derived using k^ to

50 percent of meal sales. Then the retail value of food in such meals is approximated

by applying the estimated retail store markup over food cost (supplied by the

Marketing Economics Research Division). This retail value of meals sold is compared

with the market value of meals sold to derive the markup over retail on meals sold

by eating places other than boarding houses.

B.l.5.2. A series of values of meals sold b^^SSSädlS hissBBBS^ which must be

regarded as only rough approximations, has been estimated by the author using information from consumer surveys in I9ÍH and I95O and the estimated size of the nonhousekeeping population, exclusive of permanent institutional residents. The markup of

meal value over retail is estimated to be 20 percent.

B.l.5.3. The next section is the estimation of the markup over retail value on

meals furnished. This is derived in two peurts. The food furnished civilian employees

includes meals supplied to employees of eating places and to einployees of institutions,

hospitals, and nonfood service establishments. No allowance for the costs of preparing

meals furnished employees of those eating places selling their meals should be included because these costs form part of the markup on meals sold. Meal preparation

and overhead costs for meals furnished employees for institutions, hospitals, and nonfood service establishments are estimated to be 10 percent of the total value of all

food furnished civilian employees, a series based on unpublished data supplied by the

National Income Division of the Department of Commerce. Estimates of the value of

meals furnished travelers and institutional inmates are also based on unpublished

Commerce data on the wholesale value of food going into such meals. A 20 percent

markup for meal value over retail is used.

The total eating place markup over retail is the sum of the markups on

meals sold by eating places other than boarding houses, on meals sold by boarding

houses, and on meals furnished employees and travelers and institutional inmates.

B.1.6. The final step in the derivation of the estimates of the market value of

all food is a subtraction of estimated costs of farmr-to-retail marketing services

-vdiich are not incurred because the food is sold by producers and distributors directly

to consumers. This series is estimated from some rather extensive benchmark data for

commodity groups developed from the Censuses of Distribution and of Manufactures for

1929, 1939, and 19tô described in the article, "Distribution of the Food Supply of

the United States," Agr. Econ. Res. July I952 (JiS) ^ ^^^ ^ome Crop Reporting Board data

on direct sales of-milk to consumers and special surveys of farmers* marketings of

fresh produce and poultry and eggs.
-89-

B.1.7. The sum of the retail cost of farm foods sold^ the farm value of all

home-produced foods^ the retail value of imported food and of fishery products and

the total eating plaxîe markup over retail minus an allowance for farm-to-retail costs

of marketing services not incurred yields the market value series for all food (TFV-IO)

given in table 3.5. These data have been checked extensively with other series of

estimates described in 3.^.1 and 3-^.2, as well as estimates derived from Census data

for 1939 and 191*8, described in the I952 article on distribution of the U. S. food

supply.

Data used in deriving the market value for all foods also form the basis for

the estimates of the market value of domestically produced fam foods (TFV-12a described in 3.^.3»2) and the matching food expenditure series for all food (TFV-llb)

and for farm foods only (TFV-13b).

Other by-products of this estimating procedure are a number of subseries which

are described in the next section.

B.2. Retail Value of All Foods Subdivided b^ Channel

B.2.1. In table 3.4 the retail value of foods used by civilians is tabulated

according to the sources of supplies. Some additional subseries of retail value

derived in the process of estimating the market value of all food provide approximate

measures of the retail value of food sold as food and that sold or furnished as meals.

Also, there is the retail value series for home-produced food (TFV-7 in table 3.4),

described in 3.3.3.

B.2.2. The retail value of food handled by eating places is estimated in order

to derive the markups over retail for meals sold and furnished. The critical elements

in the derivation of the subseries on meals sold by eating places other than boarding

houses, shown in table B.l, are, first, the estimation of the breakdown of alcoholic

beverages between on-premise and off-premise sales and, second, the size of the markups of meal values over retail values and over wholesale food costs. For the breakdown of the alcoholic beverage data, benchmarks were used to set the level, but the

year-to-year changes are mere approximations although the general direction is

believed to be correct. The markup estimates are based on some trade data and on

the findings of a pilot study of eating places in Minneapolis and Fairmont, Minnesota,

reported in Mktg. Res. Rept. 3 (68).

B.2.3. The boarding house series is certainly only a series of rough approximations, but it seems wiser to use such a series than to ignore boarding houses

completely.

B.2.4. Estimates of sales of candy and of other foods by eating places to consumers for off-premise consumption are based on benchmark data from the Censuses of

Distribution (¿8) in I939 and 191*8 and on household survey data for 1950. The 1954

Census provides no breakdown of sales by commodity line.

B.2.5. These subseries of the retail value of food handled by eating places

have been checked with earlier estimates based on the Censuses. There have been some

minor changes in definitions and in approximations made to irepresent missing data.

However, the results are substantially the same as those reported in the article,

"Distribution of the Food Supply of the United States" (¿2).
- 90 -

B.2.6. No iDreakdovn of total food handled "by eating places into commodity groups

is possilDle iDecause of complete lack of data.

B»2.7. The retail value of food sold or purchased as food products, given in

table B.l, is estimated as a residual. It represents the total of the retail values

of farm foods sold (TFV-6) and of iiiç)orted foods and fish (TFV-8) from tahle 3«^ minus

the retail value of food handled "by all eating places.

B.3. Market Value of All Food Handled b^ Eating Places

Several sets of data on market value for food handled by eating places \rtiich

vere developed in the procedures described above have been assembled in table B.2.

•niese provide some approximations of the market or sales value of all food handled by

eating places. The estimation of these series involves most of the critical elements

set forth in the preceding section on retail value of food handled by eating places.

Therefore, these sets of data must be considered as approximations. More reliable

estimates cannot be developed until conç)rehensive surveys of eating places are made.
- 91 -

Table B.l.—Approximations of retail values of flows of food through

several channels to civilian consumers i/

Year

Retail

value

of

homeproduced

food

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

193'*

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

191*0

I9IH

lSik2

I9U3

194U

1945

19U6

19U7

191*8

191*9

1950

1951

1952

1953

195I*

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959 2/

Retail

value of

food

products

sold

(excluding

food

handled

by eating

places)

Retail value of food handled by all eating places

Meals sold by'

Eating

places

except

boarding

houses

: Meals

: furnished

Board-:employees,

Ing :travelers>

houses : inmates

: Sales of

; candy,

etc.

;for off-

; premise

con-

; suuçtion

Total

Value

Bil.

dol.

1^.1*

1*.3

3.7

3.1

3.1

3.2

3-5

3.6

3.6

3-3

3.3

3.2

3.5

l*.l

5.3

5.2

5.6

5-9

6.1

6.2

5.5

6.0

5.5

5.6

?•'' 1*.9

U.8

1*.9

l*.8

1*.8

1*.9

Bil.

dol.

17.0

16.0

12.7

10.3

10.8

12.8

13.6

ll*.9

1U.3

13.1

12.9

13.6

15.8

18.5

20.1

20.3

21.2

27.6

3l*.l*

36.8

35.8

37.3

1*1.1*

1*2.9

1*3.0

1*3.5

l*l*.3

1*6.2

1*8.1

50.1*

50.3

1.9

1.8

1.6

1.1*

1.0

.9

.8

.9

1.1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.6

1.8

2.6

3.0

3.6

1*.2

U.7

5.2

5.2

5.2

5.9

6.2

6.1*

6.6

6.9

7.1*

7.9

8.0

8.5

Bil.

dol.

0.5

.5

• 5

.1*

.1*

.1*

.1*

.k

.1*

.1*

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

.6

.5

.1*

.1*

.3

.3

.2

.2

.2

.2

.1

.1

Bil.

dol.

0.5

.5

.5

.3

.3

.3

.3

.1*

.6

.7

.7

.6

.7

.9

1.0

1.0

1.2

1.3

1.1*

1.1*

1.1*

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.8

1.8

1.9

1.9

Bil.

dol.

0.2

.2

.2

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.2

.3

.3

.3

.3

.1*

.1*

.1*

.1*

.6

.7

.7

.6

Bil.

dol.

3.0

2.8

2.2

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.8

2.3

2.5

2.7

2.7

3.1

3.6

1*.5

1*.9

5.7

6.6

7.3

7.9

7.7

.6 7.7

.6 8.5

.6 8.8

.7 9.1

.7 9.2

.8 9.6

.8 10.2

.8 10.7

.8 10.7

.8 11.1*

Percent

of

total

retail

value of

all food

Total

retail

value

of all

food

Pet.

12.9

ll*.6

ll*.l

11.5

9.6

8.6

8.9

11.1*

13.2

ll*.3

13.8

13.8

13.7

15.1

16.1

17.5

16.5

15-3

15.5

15.7

15.1*

15.3

15.1^

15.8

16.0

16.1*

16.6

16.8

16.1*

17.1

Bil.

dol.

3.1 12.7 2l*-.5

23.3

19.2

15.6

15.7

17.7

18.7

20.3

20.2

18.9

18.9

19.5

22.1*

26.2

29.9

30.1*

32.5

1*0.1

1*7.8

50.9

1*9.0

50.0

55.1^

57.3

57.5

57.6

58.7

61.3

63.6

66.0

66.7

1/ Described in section B.2.

2/ Preliminary.
- 92 -

Table B.2,—Summary of approximate market values of

all food handled by eating places l/

Market value of :

meals sold ]

: Sales of :

: candy, etc. '

Market ]

value '

Total

market

value of

Year ;

Eating : : Tjy eating : of all food

places ! Boarding ,

houses

: places for 1 meals handled hy

excluding ' 1 Tbtal ! off-premise i furnished ; eating

boarding : constunption ; places

houses

Bmion Bniion Billion Billion Billion Billion

dollars dollars dollars «iollars dollars dollars

1929 ! 3.0 0.6 3.6 0.2 0.6 k.k

1930 ; 2.9 .6 3.5 .2 .6 if.3

1931 : 2.6 .6 3.2 .2 .5 3.9

1932 : 2.2 .6 2.7 .1 •3 3.2

1933 ! 1.6 .5 2.1 .1 .3 2.5

19^ ! 1.3 • 5 1.8 .1 .k 2.3

1935 : 1.3 .5 1.8 .1 .h 2.3

1936 : l.k .5 1.9 .1 .5 2.5

1937 : 1.7 .5 2.2 .2 .6 3.1

1938 : 1.8 .6 2.3 .3 .7

1939 : 2.0 .6 2.6 .3 .7 3.6

I9it0 : 2.1 .6 2.7 .3 .7 3.8

19IH 2.6 .6 3.2 .3 .8 ^.3

I9tó : 3.0 .6 3.6 .k 1.0 |-° 19h3 : k.2 .6 k.Q .k 1.1 6.3

19U4 : 1^.8 .6 5A .k 1.1 6.9

19*^5 : 5.8 .7 6.5 .k 1.3 8.2

19U6 : 6.9 .7 7.5 .6 1.4 9.5

19»^7 : 7.5 .7 8.2 .7 ^•1 10.if

19^8 : • 8.2 .7 8.9 .7 1.6 11.2

19^9 : 8.2 .6 8.8 .6 1.6 11.0

1950 ': 8.3 .5 8.8 .6 1.6 11.0

1951 : 9.5 .k 9.9 .6 1.8 12.3

1952 : 9.8 .k 10.2 .6 1.9 12.7

1953 : 10.2 .k 10.5 •7 1.9 13.1

195^ : 10.If .3 10.7 .7 1.9 13.3

1955 : 11.0 .2 11.2 .8 1.9 13.9

1956 : 11.8 .2 12.0 .8 2.0 llf.8

1957 : 12.5 .2 12.7 .8 2.1 15.6

1958 : 12.6 .2 12.8 .8 2.1 15.7

1959 2/ : 13.1^ .2 13.6 .8 2.2 16.6

1/ See description of sources of data and methodology in section B.I.5 and discussion of critical elements in B.2.2A. Totals derived from unrounded data.

2/ Preliminary.
- 93 -

Appendix C. CHECKS ON I955 SURVEY DATA AND GUIDES FOR

COMPARISON WITH OTHER DATA 85/

C.l. Checks on the Level of Food Consumption Indicated

ki ÎîiÊ 1955 Survey

A variety of checks on the overall dollar figures, on overall measures of per

capita food consuiiç)tion, and on quantities of major foods consumed have been made.

Before goiog into the findings, these facts need emphasis: A range of error is to be

expected in these survey data as well as in the aggregate figures for food expenditures and food disappearance. Neither set of data proves or disproves the validity

or accuracy of the other.

In brief, these are the findings to date:

1. The survey data on market value of all farm food commodities consumed, adjusted to United States aggregates for the year, are 5 or 6 percent higher than the

AMS estimates of the market value of all farm foods and meals consumed by the civilian

population. About half of the difference arises from the disparity between the amount

of home food production as estimated for the disappearance data and that reported by

housekeeping households, both for a week of spring I955 and for the year 195^.

2. A comparable degree of diffeirence was found between the overall level of

use per person of farm food commodities by the sample of housekeeping households in

a week of spring 1955 and the level indicated by the index of per capita use of farm

foods in the year 1955* Again, about half of the difference arose from the estimation of home production. The small discrepancy remaining seems to indicate that

seasonal variations for individual foods balance out in the total for all foods.

3. Among commodities, there is wider variation between averages computed from

survey data for the housekeeping population's use of food at home and those derived

from disappearance data. Average use of sugar at home in all forms, adjusted to a

yearly total from the survey data, was much lower than average annual per capita

consumption. But use at home excludes all the candy, soft drinks, and desserts consumed away from home.

At the other extreme, survey data on eggs appear to average substantially

higher than AMS estimates of per capita consuinption. The procedure by \Aiich equivalent persons are calculated apparently leads to upward or downward bias for foods

consumed primarily at one meal of the day. 86/ When allowance is made for seasonal

variations in food consumption, the survey data for meats and for fats and oils were

found to be close to the levels indicated by annual per capita consumption data.

Study of data for other commodities is still in progress.

For individual commodities and farm consumption of home-produced foods,

analysts working with survey data will frequently face the problem of seasonality of

supplies and of consumption. Reference to seasonal analyses in earlier household

surveys 8?/. quarterly disappearance data for some foods, carlot shipment and trade

8^ Extracted from the article, "Use of I955 Food Survey Data for Research in

Agricultural Economics," by Marguerite C. Burk and Thomas J. Lanahan, Jr. Mr. Econ.

Rg^, July 1958 (¿3). (See 3.7.^.^ and 3.7.7.^.)

86/ See Burk, Marguerite C, "Introduction to I955 Household Survey Data on Eggs."

Poultry and Eg^ Sit., May I957. pp. 13-I9 (¿0).

81/ Agr. Inf. Bui. I32, pp. 9-10 and 102-103 (¿3l.
- 9kdata helps one to understand such variations and to develop necessary adjustments.

Fortunately, the spring of 1955 vas remarkably "normal" in both supplies and prices

for most foods.

C.2. Guides for Comparison of Data from the 1955 Household Food

Survey With Other Sets of Data

Household food surveys provide statistics on variations in food consumption that

lie behind the U. S. annual averages. Comparisons of averages from survey data with

AMS data on annual per capita civilian consumption are informative, provided pix^per

attention, is paid to difference in classification, in level of distribution, and in

imiverse covered. Even though the commodity details in 1955 Survey Reports 1 to 5 (H)

were organized along marketing lines, there are many variations from the classifications and specifications used in the annual consumption data. A key to these diffeiv

ences in classification is provided in appendix A.

In addition to regroupings, a variety of adjustments must be made to convert the

retail-product weights of the survey data to weights appropriate to the level of

distribution desired for the analysis to be undertaken. 88/ Some of the complexities

and the significance of such conversions have been discussed in chapter 2. For

coiiqparisons, particular care is needed for commodities having both "direct" consiomption such as use of purchased sugar and "indirect" consximption as content of purchased

prepared foods such as bakery products and candy. This problem is especially significant for silgar, flour, and fats and oils.

In working with commodity detail from the I955 household survey data and the

AMS disappearance data (annual per capita civilian consumption), it is essential to

keep in mind these differences of fact: The I955 survey data on commodities cover

use of food at home in a week by housekeeping households surveyed in April to June,

whereas the annual disappearance data cover the consumption of the entire civilian

population at home and away from home, in eating places of all kinds, and in public and

private institutions. It is not sui;prising, therefore, that the averages per person

derived from the survey multiplied by 52 do not match the disappearance data.

The author does not have access to the A. C. Nielsen retail sales data, derived

from a sample of retail food stores. But a few comments may be helpful to others \Äio

do have these data and wish to conçare them with the I955 survey data.

First, the household survey data include only the purchases (or consumption) of

housekeeping households and not the food bought from retail food stores by small

restaurants, boarding houses, and others in the nonhousekeeping population. The proportion of children in the housekeeping population may differ from that of the \^ole

clientele of retail food stores.

Second, the household survey data include supplies obtained from sources other

than retail food stores — department stores, local produce markets, delicatessens,

milkmen, farmers, and wholesalers.

Third, the household statistics pertain to use of food in a week in a specified

number of meals for a carefully identified population, whereas buyers at retail food

stores are not identified directly in the process of obtaining the Nielsen sales data.

88/ Most of the factors needed for adjusting the data are available in Conversion

Factors and Weights and Measures for Agricultural Commodities and Their Products ( 72).
- 95 -

Problems are also encountered in comparing the I955 United States Department of

Agriculture household survey data with those collected from the household panel of

the Market Research Corporation of America (MRCA) . (See 3.8.2.)

First, the USDA survey collected data on all foods used by the household through

extended interviews by specially trained interviewers, using a detailed schedule.

Although it is reported that there is a personal interview when a family joins the

MRCA panel, apparently the panel members receive most of their instructions by mail

and send in their records each week.

Second, the USDA household survey data pertain to use of food in a week in a

specified number of meals for a caarefully identified number of persons, but MRCA data

pertain to purchases during the period, not use.

Third, as already indicated, the USDA survey collected data on use of all foods,

whereas MRCA panel members report purchases of only specified items on the records

they keep.

Fourth. the USDA sample was a self-weighting probability sample, whereas, because of dropouts, it is difficult to maintain a continuous panel on a random probability basis, even if it is started in that way.

Fifth, the income data given in the I955 food survey reports pertain to 195^

money income after payment of income taxes, whereas the MRCA data refer to income

before taxes and usually are not shown in dolletrs or in much detail.
-96-

Appendix D. CROSS-SECTION INDEXES OF PER PERSON POOD CONSUMPTION

D.I. Cross-Section Indexes of Food Use of Farm Commodities Per

Person in Spring 1955 8g7

The cross-section indexes of food use of farm commodities per person in 1955

measure variations in the quantities of farm food commodities consumed, from all

sources (CFQ-la) and from purchased supplies only (CFQ-lb), among households grouped

by income within urbanizations and regions. These c3x>ss-section measures match the

time-series indexes of per capita food use of farm commodities, combined in tenns of

farm level values at 19^4-7-49 prices. (PFQ-la and PFQ-lb.) 20/ Purchased foods in the

cross-section indexes exclude food received as gifts and payments-in-kind whereas the

time-series index for use of purchased farm foods excludes only home-produced foods.

Table 3.13 carries the indexes for U. S. households subdivided by urbanization

and income. The overall indexes for farm foods from all sources and the subindexes by

commodity group for the U. S. are in table D.I. Comparable indexes for purcheised farm

foods are in table D.2. 91/

D.1.1. Data Used

Information on the quantities of individual foods consumed per household, in

retail weights, was taken from the statistics published in Survey Reports 1-5 (W

on the 1955 Survey of Household Food Consumption and from unpublished supplementary

tabulations. They pertained to consiamption of food at home from all sources and from

purchased supplies only by housekeeping households in a week of April-June 1955. The

fresh commodities were converted from retail to farm or primary distribution weights

by means of the factors given in table 27 of Agr. Handb. 62 (6) . The content of

individual farm commodities in processed mixed foods was estimated and combined with

the primaiy processed items — for example, the flour content of bread with flour

bought as such. The principal source of these factors to derive the commodity content

was Conversion Factors and Weights and Measures for Agricultural Commodities and their

Products ( 72) . But some came from unpublished data on food composition of the

Institute of Home Economics, and others were estimated by comparing census and trade

data on materials used with comparable data on products manufactured.

^6 "Prices used with the quantities of individual foods to derive farm value

aggregates were the average farm prices for 19^7-^4-9 used in the calculations of the

index of supply-utilization. These farm prices coiild be applied directly to the

quantities of each "fresh" commodity, but calculation of farm values of processed foods

requii^d an intermediate step. Processed items such as flour had to be valued first

at average 1947-^9 wholesale prices (as in the procedure for the supply-utilization

index) . From this wholesale value the equivalent farm value was derived by applying

the 1955 ratio of the farm value of the commodity processed to the total wholesale

value of the products of a given fann commodity as developed for the supply-utilization

index, (e.g., the farm value of wheat processed in I955 in terms of 19^^7-49 farm prices

to the total wholesale value of flour, ce§?eals, and mill feeds in 1955 valued at their

19^7-^9 wholesale prices).

89/ By Leva C. Taylor, Economic and Statistical Analysis Division.

90/ The time-series measures are described in 3.1.2.2.

91/ Matching regional indexes were published in the National Food Situation,

July 1959 (¿S) •
-91 -

Table D.I.—UNITED STATES: Cross-secüon indexes of per person food use (farm level, all sources) for

major commodity groups, by urbanization and family income, 1955 1/

(Index U. S all household average = 100)

Livestock Crops

Pota-:

Urbanization : All Meat Dairy All

livestock

Oil

crops

6/

• : toes :

and income groups :

(dollars) :

food

2/

animals

Poultry Eggs

products

Grains

5/

Sugar

crops

Fruits

Vegetables

u

and :

sveet-:

: pota-:

An

crops

0/

toes :

ALL URBANIZATIONS :

All households 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Households of 2

or more persons 100 100 99 99 100 100 99 101 101 100 99 101 100

Under 2,000 84 78 89 91 85 83 131 72 102 73 81 91 88

2 - 3,000 9h 95 90 95 91 94 no 95 100 91 102 96

3 - 4,000 96 96 89 98 95 95 99 108 103 94 94 106 97

k - 5,000 101 103 95 99 104 102 92 n2 100 100 97 103 99

5 - 6,000 105 108 110 101 105 107 92 111 99 108 101 98 102

6 - 8,000 109 110 113 105 107 109 88 n2 102 117 109 104 107

8 - 10,000 109 108 111 108 111 109 81 112 104 124 112 94 , 109

10,000 and over •117 116 131 117 121 119 81 105 98 128 132 95 n4

URBAN

All households " 102 104 113 97 98 103 88 104 93 98 107 93 99

Households of 2

or more persons . 101 104 112 96 98 103 86 104 93 97 106 93 ^

Under 2,000 : 85 90 103 83 68 86 100 82 86 69 88 81 82

2 - 3,000 : 91 96 98 88 82 92 96 95 88 75 95 90 88

3 - lf,000 : 95 97 100 92 93 96 91 106 96 88 97 99 93

k - 5,000 : 100 103 106 93 101 101 85 no 93 94 101 95 96

5 - 6,000 : 107 109 123 102 105 109 85 n2 94 103 107 90 101

6 - 8,000 : 109 111 120 104 108 no Q6 115 100 no n4 99 107

8 - 10,000 . 107 105 119 109 106 107 11 no 102 124 n4 84 108

10,000 and over . 118 117 133 120 119 120 78 105 97 127 139 91 n4

RURAL NONFARM

All households i 96 94 82 99 95 93 ni 107 104 104 90 107 102

Households of 2

or more persons \ 95 94 81 98 95 93 111 108 103 103 88 108 101

Under 2,000 : 76 .65 77 86 79 72 136 73 95 69 72 ^

86

2 - 3,000 : 9k 92 87 95 88 91 ]?? 107 102 97 88 108 102

3 - if,000 I 93 91 68 101 92 90 108 117 105 101 89 n4 101

k - 5,000 : 101 102 79 105 106 101 100 121 109 106 87 113 102

5 - 6,000 : 102 103 88 101 103 101 105 121 104 n4 92 106 106

6 - 8,000 : 108 in 92 103 104 106 90 114 104 l42 103 m 113

8 - 10,000 : 114 116 100 106 120 114 92 130 115 122 n4 no 115

10,000 and over: 112 101 132 100 127 no 92 m 100 139 loi n4 115

FARM

All households ! 102 96 81 115 117 102 131 73 128 104 88 n7 102

Households of 2

or more persons : 102 96 81 114 117 101 131 73 128 104 88 116 102

94 Under 2,000 : 91 80 83 105 107 90 154 59 123 I! 85 94

2 - 3,000 : 105 101 71 116 123 104 ,131 74 132 XlS 85 126 105

3 - if,000 : 105 101 82 129 118 106 121 82 134 106 88 122 103

k - 5,000 : 111 112 70 127 123 112 n2 93 127 120 96 131 109

5 - 6,000 : 111 ni 86 115 125 112 111 83 131 130 89 132 109

6 - 8,000 : 109 107 113 121 115 112 no 81 126 112 85 133 102

8 - 10,000 : 113 118 65 109 133 114 99 87 141 133 91 146 no

10,000 and over : 125 137 114 118 130 130 96 94 129 129 105 119 n2

1/ Derived from 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey data on household use of individual foods, measured in

terms of faim commodities valued at average 1947-49 fam prices. Family money income in 1954 ?®^^VÎÎ^^+

income taxes. Food from an sources differs from purchased food by the amount of food received without ^irecx

expense, mainly home-produced food. 2/ Fann foods only, excludes fish. 3/ Includes lard. 4/ Includes ^^^^r.

5/ Includes com used for sugar and sirup. 6/ Includes an peanuts, ij Includes melons. 0/ Includes some

commodity groups (dry beans and peas, coffee, tea, and cocoa, etc.) not shown separately.
98

Table D.2,—UNITED STATES: Cross section indexes of per person food use (farm level, purchased) for

major commodity groups, by urbanization and family income, 1955 y

Í Index u. s. aU household average 100^

: :

:

Livestock C"»P»

: : : ; Pota-:

Urbanization : AU : Meat : Dairy All ! : ftii • 'T«8B- '•

toes : AU

and income groiq^s : food : ani- : Poul- Sggs . prod- live- o«¥»'«««. •»«« 'Fruit* •tablas- and :

crppa

(dollarB) 2/ : mais :

2/ ;

try \V stock : ^ :

^ jcrops

! ; 2/ ;

syect;-»:

pota-: ^

: 2 .„-¡ L toes ,?.

:

ALL URBANIZATIONS :

All households 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 IXX)

Households of 2

or more persons , 100 100 99 100 100 100. 100 101 100 99 99 100 S

Under 2,000 68 68 62 60 53 63 126 69 101 58 1$ 80 78

2 - 3,000 90 92 84 86 84 88 111 96 100 85 87 98 94

3 - 4,000 97 97 91 101 99 97 100 w 102 93 96 107 97

\ - 5,000 106 106 103 108 U3 107 93 113 99 103 103 105 101

5 - 6,000 lU U2 U7 U4 115 U4 94 113 99 U5 108 102 106

6 - 8,000 U5 U5 121 U6 121 U7 90 u4 102 122 U8 110 Ul

8 - 10,000 U6 U2 119 123 121 U6 82 113 "*l ^S 124 98 115

10,000 and over 127 122 142 136 138 130 82 105 98 iMk 151 103 121

URBAN

All households U3 U3 129 U7 U4 U6 88 106 93 112 121 101 106

Households of 2

or more persons : 112 113 127 117 U4 ^? 87 105 93 111 120 101 105

Under 2,000 : 92 97 U2 95 76 94 100 81 ÎI V 95 87 87

2 - 3,000 : 100 105 Ul 104 94 103 97 96 88 85 106 98 95

3 - i^,000 i 106 106 115 Ul 109 108 95 107 96 99 UO 107 100

4 - 5,000 : lU 112 122 U4 U7 U4 86 U2 93 107 U6 102 103

5 - 6,000 : UB U9 13ß 124 122 122 87 U3 9U 119 120 98 108

6 - 8,000 : 122 121 ito 124 126 125 87 U6 100 127 130 107 115

8 - 10,000 : 120 U6 132 135 124 122 78 Ul 97 UtT 133 92 117

10,000 and over : 131 127 153 144 139 135 79 105 97 li|8 161 100 123

RURAL NONFARM

AU households 1 95 96 78 98 97 94 112 108 lOi» 93 81 106 98

Households of 2

or more persons i 95 96 78 97 97 94 Ul 107 103 92 80 106 ^

Under 2,000 : 67 65 60 68 59 64 134 70 95 5^ 46 86 7T

2 - 3,000 ! 90 91 73 82 86 87 123 ^1 102 90 I^ 101 98

3- 4,000 ! 93 93 69 101 93 91 109 U8 105 90 81 110 97

4 - 5,000 : 104 104 84 U5 115 106 102 122 109 95 85 113 100

5 - 6,000 : 107 107 91 110 U4 107 106 122 vak 113 94 Ul 106

6 - 8,000 : 112 115 97 U7 121 U5 90 115 Xt3k 120 102 119 m

8 - 10,000 ! 122 125 118 U6 133 s

93 131 115 118 120 121 u6

10,000 and over : U4 103 UO UO \U9 94 112 99 130 105 127 U4

FARM

All households i 57 53 25 33 hi U6 125 73 126 67 46 87 82

Households of 2

or more persons ! 56 53 24 33 kl U6 125 73 127 67 46 51 82

Under 2,000 48 kS 20 21 28 37 l4o 59 121 I16 34 68 '^}

2 - 3,000 : 58 55 23 38 U7 ii8 128 74 131 72 45 ^i 84

3 - 4,000 : 61 54 28 IK) 57 50 119 83 132 2 54 ^

86

4 - 5,000 : 63 53 27 44 67 52 112 94 126 91 57 94 90

5 - 6,000 : 71 67 39 44 65 61 U2 83 131 99 63 101 93

6 - 8,000 : (Â 63 32 38 69 58 109 82 126 76 5T 103 86

8 - 10,000 I 62 51 22 38 70 50 101 88 lia 91 55 98 90

10,000 and over : 89 85 67 m 99 82 98 95 130 122 92 87 105

1/ Derived from 1955 Household Food Consuiqption Survey data on household use of individual foods, measuxvd in

texms of fam commodities valued at average 1947-1«9 faxm prices. Fanily money income in 1954 neaauzvd after

income taxes. Rx3d from aU sources differs from purchased food by the anount of food received vlthout direct

expense, mainly home-produced food. 2/ Farm foods only, excludes fish, ¿f Includes laid. 4/ üieliidea butter.

¿/ Includes com used for sugar and sirup. 6/ Includes aU peanuts, j/ Includes mslons. ^Inelides

coionodity gzx^ups (dry beans and peas, coffee, tea, and cocoa, etc.) not shovn separately.
- 99 -

Value aggregates for individual commodities were combined into commodity groups

and into totals for all farm commodities, by region, urbanization, and income• Aggregates per household for a week were reduced to per person averages by dividing by the

number of 21-meal equivalent persons in the average household in each classification.

The average values per week were multiplied by 52 to get annual estimates.

To compare average consumption rates of groups of households with the U, S.

average, indexes were computed by means of a Laspeyres type formula. Changing quantities were valued at the same commodity prices for all households. Value aggregates

for the U. S. average per person for all sources and for purchased were each set at

100 and average values for groups of households were compared with the U. S. average.

D.I.2. Notes on Procedures for

Ma.ior f^f^TnpnrJit.y Grouns

The following notes describe procedures used in handling the information for the

major food groups. Each type of meat used by households reporting in the survey was

treated separately. Ttie beef content of luncheon meats and other meat food mixtures

was derived by applying to their product weights pertinent factors from Conversion

Factors and Weights and Measures for Agricultural Commodities and Their Products.

Offal was reported for all meats together. Beef offal was estimated at 19 percent of

the total, which was the proportion of beef offal in total offal production in 1955,

and valued separately at the wholesale level. The total retail weight of beef other

than offal was converted to its carcass weight equivalent by means of factors in Agr.

Handb. 62 (6), then valued at average wholesale prices in l^kj-k^. A similar procedure

was used for veal. Then the combined \Aiolesale value of beef and veal was reduced to

its farm value by applying the ratio of the 1955 farm value of beef and veal slaughtered to the \^olesale value of beef and veal products produced in 1955 (all in tenns

of 19i*-7-^9 average prices).

The hog category includes pork sold as such, pork in mixed foods such as

luncheon meats, offal, and lard. Estimates of the lard contained in shortening,

margarine, confectionery, potato chips and sticks, bakery products, and flour mixes

were included as well as the direct uses. Quantities of pork,in terms of carcass

equivalents, and lard were first valued at their 19^1-7-^9 wholesale prices. Then the

aggregate value was reduced to a farm value by applying a 1955 ratio derived in the

same way as that for beef and veal.

The same procedure was used for lamb and mutton.

Data on milk solid equivalents of dairy products (except butter) consumed per

household are reported in Survey Reports 1-5. To these data were added the milk solid

contents of butter used as such and of butter and milk used in prepared mixes, bakery

products and candy. Total milk solids were valued at the average 1947-^9 price

received by farmers for milk converted to a price for equivalent milk solid content.

Use of eggs as such and the egg content of mayonnaise, salad dressing, flour

mixes, cakes, doughnuts, and cookies was valued at average 19^7-^9 farm prices.

Total use of chicken meat, both as such and in mixed foods, was converted to

live-weight equivalents and valued at 19^7-49 farm prices. Some of the unpublished

survey data provided information on minor items containing chicken. The chicken

content was approximated by applying estimates of amounts of chicken per unit of mixed

food.
- 100 -

Tbe vegetable oils used in margarine, shortening, cooking and salad oils, flour

mixes,l38Lked goods, potato chips and candy were estimated "by use of conversion factors.

Butter and lard in these food items were allocated to the dairy and hog categories.

The remainder was allocated to the three major categories of food oilseeds — cottonseed, soybeans, and peanuts — according to the proportions of these oils processed

for civilian food use in 1955. The oils were first valued at their average wholesale

prices for 19^7-49, then reduced to farm value "by applying the ratio of farm value of

seeds used in crushing to the wholesale value of products processed in 1955» For the

peanut category, peanuts consumed as nuts and as peanut butter and candy were converted

to approximate farmers' stock equivalents and valued at the 1947-49 average farm price

of peanuts.

Wheat cereals and flour (including flour content of commercial mixes and bakery

products), were priced at their average 19^7-^9 wholesale prices. Then the values

were adjusted to equivalent farm values according to the ratio of the farm value of

wheat processed to the wholesale value of all products produced.

Com and oat food products. consumed as breakfast cereals, meal, and grits, were

converted to grain equivalents and valued at 19^7-49 average farm prices of the grains.

Com sirup, including an estimate of the use in candy, was converted to a grain equivalent basis and included in the com categoiy.

The sugar category includes direct and indirect uses of sugar and molasses.

Data on sugar in soft drinks, beverage powders, and prepared desserts are given in

Report 6 of the survey. Estimates of sugar content of canned and frozen fruits and

vegetables (including home canned and home frozen)^bakery goods, jams, preserves,

jellies, candies, condensed milk, baby puddings, mayonnaise, and salad dressing were

derived by use of conversion factors for each item. The general procedure of calculating first wholesale values, then farm values was used.

Fruits used fresh, canned, dried, as chilled, frozen and canned juices, in

canned baby foods, and in jams and jellies were converted to farm commodity equivalents. Conversions for major items were made separately, others were grouped. The

general factor used for the "others" was from 1955 information on civilian use. Major

fruits were valued individually at their 19^7-^9 farm prices. Others were valued at

production weighted average farm price for the group in 19^7-49. Vegetables and

melons were handled in a comparable manner.

The -potato and sweetpotato category includes potato chips and sticks, frozen

potatoes, and canned sweetpotatoes^as well as the fresh or raw commodities. They were

handled according to the same procedure as that for fruits except that the potato content of mixed foods was ignored because of the small amounts involved.

Beans used in canned baked beans, chili con came, and other mixed foods, and

beans and peas in soups are included with the dry beans and peas. The faira commodity

equivalents were valued directly at 1947-49 fann prices.

Rough estimates of the nut content of candy were added to the tree nuts consumed

as such.

Coffee was priced at a green bean level. Reported purchases of tea were high

in relation to the time-series data, so the general level was adjusted downward.

Chocolate and cocoa used as such and in chocolate sirups and candies were priced in

terms of cocoa beans. Coffee, tea and cocoa were priced at 1947-49 New York bulk

prices, approximating their import or supplier'values.
- 101 -

D.1,3« Relative Importance of

Food Groups in Cross-Section

and Time-Series Indexes

The relative importance of individual foods in the overall averages for all

farm foods consumed by households in spring I955 differs from that for all civilian

use in calendar 1955« Tl^e primary reasons are seasonality in consumption of some

items, and some significant differences in home food patterns from those of meals and

snacks eaten out. Two exaiiç)les of seasonality are the relatively low rates for vegetables and turkey in spring household use. The higher proportions of total farm value

of annual civilian food allocated to beverages, sugars and sirups, and dairy products,

than in home use in spring may "be explained by their popiaarity in between-meal snacks.

Potatoes vere relatively higher in annual data, perhaps due in part to seasonality and

partly to possibly greater frequency in restaurant meals and institutional feeding

than in home meals, which include more breakfasts. Fruits and chicken were more important in the total value of farm foods consumed in homes in spring I955 than in the

all U. S. annual averages. The explanation for fruits may be their common use for

breakfast and as desserts for family meals. The greater importance of chicken in the

household total probably is related to its current widespread use for every day meals.

Finally, reference must be made to the fact that the same average prices were

used for all consumption of each food by every household group. For example, all

retail cuts of beef were converted to carcass weights by means of overall physical

conversion factors irrespective of differences in their grades and prices, and thence

to faim values. Although this handling did not affect the importance of individual

foods in the total for food consumed by all U. S. households, it probably led to some

understatement of degree of differences in use of farm resources in form of foods

among groups of households.

D.2. Cross-Section Index of Food Consumption Per Person.

All Commodities at Retail Level, Spring 1955 92/

The cross-section index of food consumption per person measures variations in

average consionçtion of all foods, at the retail level, among groups of households in

the spring of 1955- Tl^is index, identified as CFQ-2 in table 3.13, matches insofar

as possible the time-series index of per capita food consumption, PFQ-2 in table 3.1.

Subindexes for all foods and major food groups for households in the U. S. and each

region, grouped by urbanisation and income, are given in table D.3. 22/

D.2.1. Data Used

Quantities of individual foods consumed per household were derived from data of

the 1955 Survey of Household Food Consumption. They cover consumption of all food at

home (including fishery products) from all sources by households in a week of AprilJune 1955« In order to match the handling of some foods in the calciilations of the

time-series index, the commodity content of mixed foods had to be estimated and cora^

bined with primary commodities. Bakery products are the principal example. The

commodity equivalents or contents were calculated using conversion factors given in

Conversion Factors and Weights and Measures for Agricultural Commodities and Their

Products (72), factors developed from Department of Commerce reports on ingredients

used by food industries, reports from the Census of Manufactures and, .in one instance

at least, from recipes. The content of a few relatively minor items could not be

determined, such as the ingredients of soups and chocolate, nuts, and fruit in bakery

products.

92/ By Helen M. Eklund, Economic and Statistical Analysis Division.

22/ Matching regional data in the National Food Situation. July 1959 (-2S) •
- 102 -

Table D. 3 .—UNITED STATES: Cross-section indexes of per person food consumption (retail level) for

major commodity groups, by urbanization and family income, 1955 1/

(.Index: U. S. an household average « 100 I

: Livestock : Crops

« : t • Pota-:

Urbanization :

and income groups :

All

food ' Meat poul-

; Eggs

Dairy:

prod-: An !

live-;

stock;

:

Grain:

prod-:

Fats

and , Sugar

; and

[sirups

iFruits' Vegc- :

toes :

and : An

(dollars) ::

:

2/ 1 3/ : try ucts :

; ^ ;

ucts :

: T : 2/ stables:

; :

: :

sweet-:

pota-:

toes :

ALL URBANIZATIONS :

All housebolds : 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Households of 2

or more persons ' 99 100 99 99 100 100 99 100 100 99 99 100 ? Uhder 2,0CX) 82 74 89 92 78 81 109 96 90 68 76 93 83

2 - 3,000 93 94 95 91 92 104 93 95 84 90 103 93

3 - 1^,000 I 96 95 89 98 97 95 101 ^

103 92 97 109 98

k - 5,000 102 104 96 99 106 102 97 98 102 103 102 105 102

5 - 6,000 ! 105 109 109 101 107 106 100 101 103 no 104 98 104

6 - 8,000 i uo 112 n3 105 no no 9Î 104 107 120 109 1,04 109

6 - 10,000 : HI no no 108 in in 91 n5 113 ^^ n4 ^

n2

10,000 and over ! 119 119 130 n7 120 121 91 120 in 144 130 94 n8

URBAN :

All households : 102 106 113 97 99 103 93 98 95 107 106 94 101

Households of 2 :

or mo^ persons : lOP 105 112 97 99 103 93 98 95 104 105 94 101

Uhder 2,000 • 83 90 104 83 64 83 94 83 78 76 79 82 82

2 - 3,000 90 96 96 88 82 90 96 86 84 79 ^

89 89

3 - 4,000 96 98 101 92 95 96 96 94 95 91 ^

100 96

k - 5,000 : 101 104 106 92 104 101 94 94 95 103 106 95 101

5 - 6,000 : 107 111 124 102 106 109 95 100 99 m 107 90 104

6 - 8,000 111 112 119 104 no 111 97 105 105 121 n3 98 no

8 - 10,000 : 109 107 n9 109 106 109 87 n3 108 135 n5 85 m

10,000 and over : 120 020 133 120 n7 IP? 90 123 no 149 135 87 n9

RURAL NONFARM

All households

; ^^ 92 82 99 94 93 107 100 104 94 93 no 100

Households of 2

or more persons '' 95 92 81 97 94 92 108 99 103 ?3 ^

109 99

Under 2,000 : ^ 75 61 77 86 71 71 n2 ^ 85 62 69 99 81

2 - 3,000 : 93 89 88 95 88 89 n3 94 99 86 90 108 98

3 - i^,000 : 93 89 68 101 92 88 in 95 108 90 95 n7 101

k - 5,000 : 101 101 78 105 105 100 103 106 108 100 96 n4 103

5 - 6,000 : 102 104 87 101 104 101 no 100 108 106 101 109 106

6 - 8,000 : 107 111 93 103 108 106 99 101 108 122 106 in 109

8 - 10,000 : 116 116 99 106 123 n5 98 n8 120 134 n9 109 n9

10,000 and over : 113 101 129 100 134 n4 SR n6 108 129 no 116 n2

FARM

All households i 100 92 81 n5 n5 103 llf> in n4 88 88 119 95

Households of 2 :

or more persons : 99 92 81 n3 n5 103 n2 in n4 88 86 n9 95

Uhder 2,000 : 88 74 82 105 100 90 n9 108 104 66 80 97 86

2 - 3,000 : 102 96 71 116 123 106 n4 no 120 96 87 127 98

3 - 4,000 : 104 97 82 129 122 109 109 n3 124 94 89 12? 98

h - 5,000 : 109 110 71 127 123 113 107 n3 1?? 106 9Î 134 104

5 - 6,000 : 110 no 86 n5 131 n5 108 107 122 107 95 135 103

6 - 8,000 : 106 104 113 1?? n9 n4 105 109 118 97 87 136 97

8 - 10,000 : 112 n7 65 109 130 n7 99 126 132 n8 96 150 105

10,000 and over : ^5 139 139 118 147 138 97 106 n9 129 107 124 in

1/ Derived from 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey data on household use of individual foods, using

average retail prices in 1947-49. Family money inccme in 1954 measured after inccne taxes. 2/ Includes fish.

^ Excludes lard, k/ Includes eOl ingredients in ice cream and condensed milk, excludes butter. 5/ Excludes

com sugar and sirup. 6/ Excludes peanuts and peanut butter. 7/ Includes melons. 0/ Includes some conmiodity

groups (dry becuis and peas^ coffee^ tea, and cocoa, etc.) not shown separately.
- 103 -

The unpublished data of the I955 Survey on use of specific items, available for

each region by urbanization, supplied more detailed breakdowns of some categories of

mixed foods. Since this information was not available for households classified by

income, it was assumed that the relationship for all households in each region and

urbanization group applied to the individual income groups.

PJ^^CQS used to value the quantities of each commodity as part of the total

value aggregates for all foods were essentially the average retail prices for 191^7-^9

used in coiiÇ)utations of the time-series index of per capita food consunç)tion. ^

As in the time-series index, the cross-section index was computed with changing

quantities and fixed price weights, this time for commodities used by all groups of

households. The value aggregates were first confuted for household averages for each

commodity group, then per person averages per year were calculated by dividing the

household values by the average household size in tenns of 21 meals per person, multiplied by 52. The U. S. average value per person (for all households) was set at 100,

and values per person for each region, urbanization and income group were coiiç)ared

with that average to derive the index numbers.

D.2.2. Notes on Procedures for

Ma.ior Commodity Groups

The following discussion of the handling of data for commodity groups includes

the assumptions that were made, reference to minor items not covered, and description

of adjustments that were necessary to use the price or quantity data in precisely the

same way as in the time-series index.

Meat.—Product weights were assumed to be equal to the "fresh-retail-cut

equivalent" basis used in the time series index. Mixed meats, such as luncheon meats,

were converted to retail-cut equivalents of beef or pork so as to price them separately, and content of meat in mixtures (except soups) was approximated by means of

conversion factors referred to above.

Fish.—Data for fresh fish and shellfish were put on an edible-weight basis

using factors derived for each region and urbanization group from conçarison of

edible weight computed from unpublished I955 survey data on the use of the several

species of fish and their reported weights. Fish in mixed foods was excluded,

because of the small quantities involved. Quantities used in soups could not be

measui^d because of lack of information.

Poultry.—A similar procedure to that described for fish was used to adjust

quantities of chicken and turkey to an eviscerated-weight basis. Quantities used in

mixed foods (except soups) were approximated, using some unpublished data for subcategories and conversion factors.

Eggs.—Unpublished I955 survey records provided data in pounds for the several

sizes of eggs. Quantities in salad dressings, flour mixes, and baked goods were included at the price of fresh eggs, as in the time-series index.

9k/ The time-series index is described briefly in 3«1*2.3> more fully on pages

132-159 of Agr. Handb. 62 (6) . To expedite computations, adjusted prices were

developed for use with the mixed foods, thus saving one step in the process of calculating commodity content and then valuing the resulting commodities.
- 104 -

Dairy Products. Excluding Butter.—The content of dairy products in candy

[derived using ingredients indicated by the Confectionery Sales and Distribution

report of the Department of Commerce (75)]. bakery products, and flour mixes (in terms

of nonfat dry milk solids) was estimated and combined with the retail weights of each

dairy product reported separately.

Fats and Oils. Including Butter.—This group includes the oil equivalent of

salad dressings, bakery products, flour mixes, candy,frozen potatoes and potato chips

and sticks. For pricing purposes, the uses of the several oils in these products were

approximated. Based on the Confectionery Sales and Distribution report for 1955^ "butter was estimated to be l^*- percent of the total fat used in candy, "other edible oils"

the remainder; all quantities used in salad dressings and for potato products were

assumed to be vegetable oils; the Census of Manufactures (ig) for 195^ indicated the

fats and oils used in bakery products to be to percent shortening, k^ percent lard,

and 15 percent "other edible oils."

Fruits.—The fruit content of jams and jellies was approximated from information

in recipes. Fruits in such foods as bakery products and ice cream were not included

in the cross-section index calculations because of lack of information and the relatively small quantities probably involved. The fresh fruit series includes homeproduced fruits, fresh fruits of minor inçiortance commercially, and berries that are

not included in the time-series index. Baby foods were omitted, as in the time-series

index. The price of the fruit content of jams and jellies for the cross-section index

was derived from the average price of those products by making an allowance for their

sugar content, then adjusting the derived price back to 19^7-59 price level. For the

time-series these fruits are valued at the prices of the fresh and processed fruit

items used in making jams and jellies. However, the difference between results of the

two approaches is probably negligible in the fruit subindex.

Vegetables.—The relatively small quantities of vegetables in mixed foods were

omitted. Pickles, catsup, and chili sauce, classified under miscellaneous foods in

the survey, are included as canned vegetables, and, as in the time-series index, all

soups and baby foods and frozen potatoes and sweetpotatoes are in the "other processed

vegetable" category and canned potatoes and sweetpotatoes are included with "canned

vegetables." "Fresh vegetables" include quantities home canned or home frozen; fresh

weight equivalents of these items were estimated on basis of factors derived from

unpublished detailed data for regions and urbanizations.

Potatoes and Sweetpotatoes.- Potato chips and sticks were valued in terms of

fresh potatoes; canned and frozen potatoes were omitted from this category, but included in the processed vegetable groups. Minor quantities in mixed foods could not

be identified so they were omitted.

Beans« Peas, Nuts.—Except for canned baked beans (valued as dry beans), peanut

butter (valued in terms of shelled peanuts), and nuts in candy, this series excludes

quantities in mixed foods. The quantity of treenuts and peanuts in candy was estimated

on the basis of the relationship between ingredients and finished product as reported

in the Confectionery Sales and Distribution report and valued at the retail prices of

shelled treenuts and peanuts.

Cereal Products.—From the data on consumption of total grain products in flour

equivalents, given in Reports 6-10 of the 1955 Survey of Household Food Consunçtion

(kh), quantities of cereal products reported used as such were subtracted to derive
- 105 -

estimates of flour content of processed foods. Quantities in mixed foods were valued

at a weighted average price for flour in processed foods. 95/

Sugar and Sirups.—Except for sirup used in candy, sweeteners in processed foods

were valued at the price of cane and beet sugar in 191^7-49 adjusted for processing

costs. ^ The processed foods reported in the survey for which sugar content was

computed were: BaJkery products, flour mixes/ jams, jellies and preserves, candy,

chocolate sirup, dry milk products (dry cocoa mixes), sherbet and ices, and soft

drinks. Sugar in items such as ice cream, condensed milk and processed fruits and

vegetables, which were included in other commodity groups, was not included here.

Beverages .—Except for quantities in candy and chocolate sirup, cocoa used in

processed foods (such as bakery products and ice cream)was omitted, because of lack of

data. Quantities of tea reported as purchased in a week of spring I955 were nearly

twice as high as those indicated by the average disappearance rate. Because the

disappearance data for tea are considered to be quite reliable and the problem of

recalling infrequent purchases of tea difficult, the whole level of the tea data was

adjusted downward 50 percent. This was the only instance in which suirvey data were

not accepted as reported.

D.2.3. Differences in Qualities

of Food Consumed and in Food

Marketing Service

Use of the same price for each food consumed by all groups of households in the

cross-section index ignores the differences in food quality and amounts of some food

marketing services bought with food among regions, urbanizations, and income groups.

For example, 9 major fresh vegetable items were priced separately in the index and

the remaining items were combined. Even for the 9 items there were some differences

in price paid per pound by households at several income levels because of quality

differences and differences in marketing services required,which were ignored. Use of

a combined group of items glossed over variations in composition of the group as well

as differences in prices paid for each item.

In the meat group this difference is particularly apparent because the highest

income group of U. S. households used \ times as much beef steak, for exaiïç)le, as the

lowest income group, twice as much ground beef, and less than the lowest income

group's consumption of stewing beef. But beef cuts are valued at the same average

retail price in the two indexes. Because year-to-year average consumption of individual meat cuts varies directly with the number of animals of each type slaughtered, an

average price for all beef is reasonably satisfactory for time-series measurements.

Although a differentiated scale of prices for meat cuts, for example, appears desirable for cross-section measures,the survey data are not sufficiently detailed to permit

development of a scale to take all quality differences into account.

No consumption index can be constructed to take all such variations into

account, partly for lack of information^ and partly because of the size of the computational problem (although this could be handled by electronic machines, at a price).

The time-series index is built upon 95 separately priced food items. By its very

nature, an index is supposed to be a generalization from detailed data. If one

2S/ Described on pa^e I55 of Agr. Handb. 62 (6).

96/ Ibid.. pa^e I56. "
- io6 -

wants to study all of the details, one can study the information on over 250 food

items reported separately in Survey Reports 1-5.

D.2.U. Relative Importance

in Overall U,, S^ Totals

The relative inçortance in total food consumption was about the same in both

the cross-section index for all U. S, households and the time-series index for meats,

eggs, dairy products, fats and oils, and beverages —• which combined made up about

57 percent of the food consumed in 1955. In the spring, vegetables except potatoes,

at 10 percent of the total, were equal in inqportance with the annual retail index

data because the larger quantity of canned vegetables consiimed in the spring made up

for the slightly less than average rate of fresh vegetable consuDçtion. Lower potato

consumption in the spring resulted from seasonally lower supplies. The lower-thanaverage rate for the bean, pea, and nut group is explained by the exclusion of all

nuts used in processed foods except peanut butter and candy from the cross-section

index, for lack of data. Because a relatively greater proportion of sugar is eaten

outside the home than for many other foods, this item was significantly lower in the

cross-section total than in the 1955 annual index. Consuiiç)tion rates of fish,poultry,

and fruit groups were relatively more important in the spring household data than in

1955 civilian averages.

D.2.5. Notes on Use of the

Cross-Section Index With

the Time-Series Index

Three major factors must be kept in mind as the survey-based cross-section

index is used with the annual time-series index: (l) The possible effects of seasonality on spring consTunption patterns; (2) the cross-section indexes pertain only to

food eaten by housekeeping households at home, whereas the time-series index reflects

total civilian consungption; and (3) differences in coverage of minor items. Although

it is generally believed that spring is the season in which consunçtion of all food

combined is closest to the annual average, some items are affected. It is not necessary to go into details of these differences here because they are discussed in

chapter 3 and wherever they are pertinent to other sections.

D.3. Cross-Section Index of Food Cons\amption Per Person, All Commodities

At Retail Level. Spring lQi|.2 ^

This index matches the index for spring 1955 described in D. 2. The all-food

index is given in table 3*12. Subindexes for all foods and major food groups are not

published because of lack of sufficient detail for their construction. As mentioned

in chapter 3,the spring 19^1-2 food data are available only for household population subdivided by urbanization and income, not by region.

D.3.1. Data Used

Q^antities of individual foods consumed per person were derived from data in

Misc. Pub. 550, Family Food Consumption in the United States (to) . except for eggs.

Information was available for only I05 items in this survey report as coinpared with

250 Items in Reports 1-5 of the 1955 Survey. While some of the additional items in

the later survey resulted from the development of new food products (such as the

97/ By Helen M. Eklund, Economic and Statistical Analysis Division.
- 107 -

frozen fruits and vegetables) , rauch of the item increase reflects a more detailed

breakdovn of combined food groups. Because of lack of detailed data for spring 19^,

a number of general assuiiç)tion6 had to he made in matching quantity and price information. In several instances relationships derived from the I955 data were applied.

No attenç)t was made to include the ingredients of such miscellaneous items as canned,

cooked food mixtures, packaged desserts, and other proprietary foods because these

items were of relatively minor importance in 1942. Revised data on eggs used in urhan

households in spring 19^2 were obtained from revised táb\ilations given in table 55,

Agr. Inf. Bui. 132 (^ .

The prices used in computing the index were average retail prices in 19^7-49^

the same as those used for the time-series index and for the 1955 cross-section index.

Wherever several commodities were combined in an unidentified total, the combined

price estimated fix)m more detailed information for spring 1955 wajs used. Such a procedure implies, for example, that any change in proportions of shortening, lard, and

vegetable oils used in bakery products would not affect their combined price relative

to prices of other foods. The necessity for frequent use of combined prices and lack

of knowledge of identity and relative importance of commodities in certain grouped

categories rendered greater precision useless.

D.3.2. Special Procedure

for Beverages

The only departure from methods used in the I955 cross-section index was in the

cases of coffee, tea, and cocoa. For spring I9U2 these items were reported in terms

of value of quantities purchased rather than poundage. These expenditures data appeared to be too high on the basis of indications from time-series data. Therefore,

a U. S. average value per person for the 3 items was approximated from I9U2 per capita

data and I9U7-U9 retail prices. Variations among urbanizations and income groups

shown by the survey expenditure data were applied to this calculated average.
- 108 -

Appendix E. GUIDE TO SOME RELATED TIME SERIES OF ECONOMIC

AM) SOCIAL STATISTICS ^

This appendix is a reference to the major time series of economic and social

statistics used in analysis of historical changes in food consxmiption. These statistics include information on population from the Bureau of Census, on national income

and expenditures for major categories of consumption from the Office of Business

Economics of the Department of Commerce, on farm income developed by the Agricultural

Marketing Service, and price data assembled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the

Agriciiltural Marketing Service.

Among the more convenient general references for such statistics are Historical

Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957 (l¿) ; Statistical Abstract of

the United States (ij) ; Agricultural Statistics H2) i Agriculture Handbook II8 (2^ ;

Survey of Current Business (26) andTits supplements such as IL S^^^ Income and Output

(27) and Regional Trends in the United States Economy (31); the National Food

Situation (13) j the Farm Income Situation (j) ; and the Marketing and Transportation

Situation (lO). ^

E.l. Population Data

The Bureau of the Census is the principal collector and reporter of population

data, but the Agricultural Marketing Service maintains a series on farm population.

A key to the publications providing pertinent major types of population statistics

is given in table E.l. Characteristics of the population closely related to the

kinds and amounts of food and food services used are: Urbanization category of the

family; income, both per person and per family; region; occupation of the head of the

family; and age and sex distributions of population classified by these categories.

Measures of changes in many of these characteristics in the past are needed for

any analysis of changes in food consumption. The most comprehensive sources of this

information for the U. S. as a whole, for regions and divisions, for individual States,

standard metropolitan areas, counties, and for some central cities are the decennial

census reports. In addition, yearly estimates of some of these measures are available

from 19^U on in the Current Population Reports (l4), which bring some of the decennial

measures up to date for the intercensal periods. Unfortunately, not all of these

measures are available for each of the sections of the population mentioned.

The Bureau of Census also makes projections of the population from time to time.

Sources of these data are indicated in table E.l.

Another veiy useful measure of population for consuorption analysis is the series

of estimates of the population eating out of civilian food supplies. This is developed by the AMS from Census data and is published annually in the Supplement to

Agr. Handb. 62, table 53 (6).

E.2. Income and Expenditure Data

The National Income Division of the Office of Business Economics, Department of

Commerce, pispares the official estimates of national income and expenditures as part

of its work on the national income accoimts. The periodic publication on national

98/ By Marguerite C. Burk and Robert J. Lavell, Economic Research Service.

99/ A list of recent publications related to food consumption carried in each issue

of the National Food Situation announces new reference materials as soon as they are

issued by the Federal Government.
- 109 -

income, of which the latest edition was entitled Ih S¿_ Income and Output (2?) , 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 (25). State data on personal income are published in

Personal Income by States Since 1929 (ji), a supplement to the Survey of Current

Business, issued in I956 but brought to date in the Survey each year, usually the

August issue. The Commerce series for the United States on disposable income per

capita in current dollars, in 19i+7-i|-9 dollars, and related indexes (developed by AMS)

are published regularly in table k^ of the Supplement to Agr. Handb. 62 (6) •

Estimates of the distribution of families and unattached individuals by size of

income for selected years, 19^^56, wei^ published in Ih Sj^ Income and Output.

table 11-11 (21).

The Agricultural Marketing Service regularly prepares and publishes estimates of

farm income for the United States and for individual States. Such information includes statistics on cash receipts by type of commodity. These data are published

regularly in the Farm Income Situation {j) .

Time series of U. S. aggregate expenditures by type of product, 19tó-57; were

published in table II-U of Ujt Sj^ Income and Output. The Commerce total consumption

expenditure series is also published for reference purposes in terms 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 (6).

E.3. Price Data

The Bureau of Labor Statistics collects urban retail price data and calculates

the official Consumer Price Index. The Consiomer Price Index is published regularly

in the Monthly Labor Review (2l), and in monthly press releases issued by that Bureau.

A monthly report. Retail Food Prices b^ Cities (22), carries the average prices for

the cities and indexes. For reference use, the food subindexes and the CPI are

reprinted in the last table of the National Food Situation each quarter. These indexes and the nonfood index are published in table 52 of Agr. Handb. 62 (6) .

Farm price data are collected by the Agricultural Marketing Seivice. The

current information is published in the monthly report, Agricultural Prices (¿).

Time series of prices received and paid by farmers are summarized annually in

Agricultural Statistics (23).

The AMS series on farm and retail value and the marketing cost for the market

basket for farm food commodities purchased by urban consumers are published currently

in the Marketing and Transportation Situation (lO) and summarized in Misc. Pub. 7^1

and its supplements {¿}.
- no -

Table E.l.—Key to population data %]

Infonnatlon on: : Segment Dates : Published in: 2/

Total population : U. S. - Total (all urbaniza- : Decennial 1950-1790 : (a) Table 6

(excludes armed forces : tions combined^ : I9I1O to date :

serving overseas) : Projections i960,-65,'70,: (b) No. 187

•75/80 :

- by urbanization ¿/ ; Decennial 1950-1790 1 (a) Table I5

(urban and rural :

only) :

- by urbanization : Decennial 195O; 19^, i (a) Table 58; (c) Table 5

(urban, rural non- : •30,«20,'10 :

farm and farm) :

Regions - Tbtal (all : Decennial 1950-1790 ! (a) Table 6

urbanizations : Annual 19i»0 to date :

combined) : Projection i960,«65,'75 : (b) No. 160

- by urbanization : Decennial 1950-1790 1 (a) Table I5

(urban and rural

only) :

- by urbanization Decennial 1950, 'liO; \ (a) Table 58; (c) Table 21

(urban, rural non- 19iiO,'30 :

faim, and f am)

Farm population i/ U. S. - Fam population Annual 1920 to date : S^\ Regions - Farm population Annual 1920 to date : (d)

Number of households.

families ¿/ U. S, - Tbtal (all urbanizap- Decennial 19505 i9i»o, ; (a) Table 1^7; (e) Table 1;

• tions combined) '30; 1930 : (f) Table 1

Annual 1950 to :

date 6/ :

(g)

Projection i960 (g) Ho. Itô

! U. S. - by urbanization Decennial I95O; 19i<0, • (a) Table 1^7; (e) Table 1;

(urban, rural non- •30; 1930,'20 (f) Table \2

: farm and faxm.) Annual 1950 to date :

I95O5 I9ÍÍO,

(g)

: Regions - Total (all Decennial (a) Table 69; (e) Table 1;

: urbanizations •30; 1930,'20 .CX).'Table liO

: combined)

: - by urbanization . Decennial 1950; 19^*0, (a) Tables llld and l|f9

: (urban, rural non- '30; 1930, «20 (e) Table 1;

: farm, and faxm) (f) Table \2.

Population by country of : U. S. - Total (all urbaniza^ ; Decennial 1950, 'ItO, «30 (a) Table If9

birth of foreign bom : tions combined) •20, '10

: - by urbanization : Decennial 1950; 19^*0, (a) Table lf9; (c) Table \h

: (urban, rural non- '30

: farm, and faxm)

: Regions - Total (all : Decennial 195O; 19^; I (a) Table 71; (c) Table 36;

: urbanizations 1930 (h) Table 5* p. 23Í

: combined)

Age distribution of popu- : U. S. - Total (all urbaniza- : Decennial 1950-1880 ; (a) Table 39

lation by sex : tions combined) : Annual 1900 to date ! (b) No. 98 and U.k.

:

: Projections i960,«65,'70,

'75/80

I (b) No. 187

: - by urbanization : Decennial 1950,'ii0; : (a) Table 38; (c) Table 7

: (urban, rural non- I9Í4O, '30

: faxm and faxm)

: Regions - Total' (all : Decennial I95O; 19^*0; : (a) Table 6I; (c) Table 26;

: urbanizations 1930 : (h) Table 2k, p. 603

: combined) : Annual 19Í16 to date

'' i""} : Projections .1960/65,'70 : (b) No. 160 (no sex break)

Î .

See footnotes at the end of table.

Continued •
- in

Table E.l.—Key to population data l/ - Continued

Information on: : Segment : Dates Published in: 2/

Age distribution of popu- :

lation by sex - Continued:

Regions - by urbanization : Decennial 1950 ! (a) Table 61

(urban, rural non-:

farm and farm) :

Distribution of population : U. S. - Total (all urbanize- : Decennial 1950; 19^; • (a) Table 76 & 79; (l) Table

by major occupation : tions combined) : 1930,'20,-10: 58 & 6I; (J) Table 2

groups : Annual 19^*0 to date : (k)

- by urbanization Decennial I95O; 191^ (a) Table 53; (i) Table 59

(urban, rural nonfam and farm)

Regions - Total (all Decennial 195O; 19^; (a) Table 76 & 79; (i) Table

urbanizations 1930 5Ö & 6I; (J) Table 10

combined)

Distribution of population U. S. - Total (all urbaniza- Decennial 195O; 19^ (a) Table 80 & 83; (i) Table 7^

by major industry groups tions combined) Annual 19it6 to date (1)

- by urbanization Decennial 1950 (a) Table 55

: (urban, rural non-

: farm and farm)

: Regions - Total (all : Decennial 1950 ; 19^ . (a) Table 80 & 83; (i) Table

: urbanizations 7^

: combined)

Distribution of families : U. S. - Tbtal (all urbaniza^ : Decennial 19^9; 1939 ! (a) Table 57; (m) Table 1

by size of family income : tions combined) : Annual I9U4 to date

(total money income

before taxes) jj : - by urbanization : Decennial 19^9; 1939 i (a) Table 57; (m) Table 1

: (urban, rural non- : Annual 1944 to date : (n)

: farm, and farm)

: Regions - Tbtal (all urban : Decennial 19'*9; 1939 : (a) Table 8U & 85; (m) Table 1

: urbanizations : Annual I95U to date : (n)

: combined)

: - by urbanization : Decennial 1939 : (m) Table 1

(urban, rural non-

: farm and farm)

i/ other than those obtained in connection with income and consunçtion surveys. Region refers to the four Census of

Population regions.

2/ Titles of published sources referred to by letters in parentheses.

Publication

1950 Census ^f Population. Volume II, Characteristics of the Population. Part 1, United States Summary (^.

Current Population Reports. Population Estimates, Series P-25 (lU).

I9Í4O Census ßf Popiaation. Volume II, Characteristics of the Population. Part 1, United States Summary (20).

Farm Population. AMS-80. U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service (8).

Sixteenth Census - I9I4O - Housing. Volume II, General Characteristics, Part 1, United States Summary (20) .

Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930, Population Bulletin. Families, United States Summary (20) .

Current Population Reports. Population Characteristics, Series P-20 (ly•

Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930, Population. Volume II, General Report, Statistics by Subject.

19^ Census £f Population. Volume III, The Labor Force, Part 1, United States Summary.

Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930, Population. Volume V, General Report on Occupation.

Current Population Reports. Labor Force, Series P-5O (1^).} Carried in Monthly Report on the Labor Force,

Current Population Reports. Labor Force, Series P-57 (iit) J l)eginning July 1959- U. S. Dept. of Labor (2Ö).

Sixteenth Census of the United States, 19^, Population. Families (20) . Family Wage or Salary Income in 1939-

Current Population Reports, Consumer Income, Series P-60 (ifc) .

^ Definition of "urban" category changed in 1950. Some tables present data under both definitions.

i/ The series on farm population has a different definition than either "rural farm" or "rural" used in other series.

¿/ Definition of "household" changed in I95O. "Dwelling units" in 19^ and "private families" in 1930 are the same.

6/ 19^7-^9 annual data not comparable with data from I95O on.

2/ Definition of income changes slightly for each series; user must check definitions in each source closely.

Letter

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

(J)

(k)

(1)

1:1
- 112 -

LITERATURE CITED AM) OTHER REFEREIJCES

Under the reorganization of the U. S, Department of Agriculture, effective April 1961,

statistical reports on agricultural production and prices, formerly published by the

Agricultural Marketing Service.will be issued by the Statistical Reporting Service. Other

periodic publications of the Agricultural Marketing Service listed here will be issued by

the Economic Research Service.

i. Sources of Time-Series Data

(1) Gtoldsmith, Selma F. "Size Distribution of Personal Income." Sur. Cur. Bus.. 38;i|-:10-19.

Apr. 1958,

(2) Goldsmith, Selma F«, Jaszi, George, Kaitz, Hyman B., Lie"benberg, Maurice. "Size

Distribution of Income Since the Mid-Thirties." Rev. Econ. Stat, XXVII:1. Reprinted.

32 pp., Feb. 195^.

(3) Goldsmith, Selma F., Kaitz, Hyman B., Liebenberg, Maurice. Income Distribution in the

United States, by Size. 194^50. Supplement to the Survey of Current Business. U. S.

Dept. Com., Office of Bus. Econ., 86 pp., illus.,1953.

{k) Schwartz, Charles F. and Graham, Robert E., Jr. Personal Income by States Since 1929.

A supplement to the Survey of Current Business. U. S. Dept. Com., Office of Bus. Econ.,

229 pp., illus., 1956.

(5) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Agricultural Prices. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv.

Monthly, (issued by Statistical Reporting Service beginning April I96I.)

(6) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Consumption of Food in the United States. 1909-52.

(Issued by U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ., predecessor of U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv.) U. S. Dept.

Agr. Agr. Handb. 62, 2li-9 pp., illus., Sept. 1953.

Data superseded by Supplement for I956, issued by U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv., 120 pp.,

Sept. 1957> Súciá by annual supplements thereafter. Some data published currently in

The National Food Situation (I3) . Agr. Handb. 62 superseded Misc. Pub. 69I Consumption

of Food in the United States. 1909-i*8.

(7) U- S. Agricultural Marketing Service. The Farm Income Situation. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv.

(Currently published four times each year.)

(8) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Farm Population. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. AMS-80.

Annual.

For further information regarding pertinent data, see table E.l. in appendix E. of

this bulletin.

(9) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Farm-Retail Spreads for Food Products. U. S.

Dept. Agr. Misc. Pub. 7^1, I65 pp., illus., Nov. I957.

Some of the data are published currently in The Marketing and Transportation

Sj.t^^t^Jl9ft (10). A Supplement for I956-6O was issued January I96I.

(10) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. The Marketing and Transportation Situation. U. S.

Bur. Agr. Econ. and Agr. Mktg. Serv. (Currently published quarterly.)

(11) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. "The Marketing Bill for Farm Food Products."

U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Transp. Sit. 13lf:10-21. July I959. Reprinted as AMS-32é.
- 113 -

(12) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Measuring the Supply and Utilization of Farm

Commodities. U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Handb. 9I, llU pp., illus., Nov. I955.

Data superseded by Supplement for 1956. 52 pp., Oct. I957, and by annual supplements

thereafter. Some of the data for food commodities published currently in The National

Food Situation (I3).

(13) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. The National Food Situation. U. S. Bur. Agr.

Econ. and Agr. Mktg. Serv. (Currently published quarterly.)

{Ik) U. S, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports. U. S. Bur. Census (issued since

Feb. I9IA).

Several series with releases of data obtained from the Current Population Survey,

(monthly), special censuses, and estimates. See also table E.l, of appendix E.of this

bulletin.

(15) U. S. Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United States. Colonial Times

to 1957. 789 pp., i960.

(16) U. S. Bureau of the Census. Monthly Retail Trade Report. Monthly.

Reports estimates of monthly retail sales by kind of business.

(17) U. S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States. U. S. Bur.

Census. Annual.

(18) U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Business. (Complete Censuses of Business

were taken in I929, I933, 1935, 1939, 19I48, 1954. Sometimes called Census of

Distribution.)

Censuses for 1939, 19^> and 195^ issued with separate volumes for retail trade,

wholesale trade, and selected service trades.

(19) U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S« Census of Manufactures. (Part of Decennial Census

from 1810 on. Taken quinquennially I905-20, biennially I92O-Í1O, then 19^7 and 195^.)

Censuses for I925, I929, 1935, 1939, 19^7, and 195^^ are particularly valuable

sources of information on food processing.

(20) U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Population. U. S. Bur. Census. Decennial

report, beginning 1790.

For key to population data for use in analysis of food consumption, see table E.l.

in appendix E. of this bu3J.etin.

(21) U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Monthly Labor Review. U. S. Bur. Labor Stat. Monthly.

(22) U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retail Food Prices by Cities. U, S. Bur. Labor Stat.

Monthly.

(23) U. S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics, U. S. Dep.. ..,r. Annual.

(2li-) U. S. Department of Agriculture. Ma.ior Statistical Series of the U. S Department of

Agriculture. How They Are Constructed and Used. U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Handb. II8.

(Each volume issued as a separate publication.)

Vol. 1. Agricultural Prices and Parity. 87 pp., Aug. 1957•

Vol. 2. Agricultural Production and Efficiency. 7^ PP«, Sept. 1957-

Vol. 3- Gross and Net Farm Income. IO6 pp., Dec. 1957-

Vol. Í. Agricultural Marketing Costs and Charges. 35 PP*^ 1957-

Vol. 5- Consumption and Utilization of Agricultural Products. 9I pp., Dec. 1957-

Vol. 6. Land Values and Farm Finance. 56 pp., Oct. 1957-
- Ulf -

Vol. 7. Fann Population, Employment, and Levels of Living. 25 pp., illus., Sept. 1957-

Vol. 8. Crop and Livestock Estimates. 2k pp., Oct. 1957*

Vol. 9. Farmer Cooperatives. 7 PP-^ Sept. 1957«

Vol. 10. Market News. 62 pp., Sept. I96O.

(25) U. S. Department of Commerce, Office of Business Economics. National Income. 195^

Edition. A supplement to the Survey of Current Business. U. S. Dept. Com., 2k9 pp.,

illus., 195^.

(26) U. S. Department of Commerce, Office of Business Economics. Survey of Current Business.

U. S. Dept. Com. Monthly.

(27) 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., 2lH pp., illus., 1950-

This is the I958 edition of the supplement formerly titled National Income.

(28) U. S. Department of Labor. Mr^^nthly Report on the Lahor Force. Monthly.

Beginning July 1959 carries distribution of population by occupation and industry

groups, formerly reported in Current Population Reports. Series P-50 and P-57.

(29) Waldorf, William H. "Indexes of Factory Production of Domestic Farm Food Products."

U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Transp. Sit. 13i|-:22-28, illus., July 1959-

(30) Waldorf, William H. Output of Factories Processing Farm Food Products in the United

States. 1909-58. U. S. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bui. 1223, 1^3 PP.> Sept. I96O.

(31) Wardwell, Charles A. R. Regional Trends ia the United States Economy. A Supplement to

the Survey of Current Business. U. S. Dept. Com., Office of Bus. Econ., 121 pp., illus.,

1951.

B. Sources of Cross-Section Data

(32) Brady, Dorothy S. "Eacpenditures and Savings of City Families in l^kk." U. S. Bur.

Labor Statis. Monthly Labor Rev. Jan. I9U6.

Contains data on food expenditures by city families grouped by income.

(33) Clark, Faith, Murray, Janet, Weiss, Gertrude S., and Grossman, Evelyn. Food Consumption

of Urban FaîniHf^R \n the United States. U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Inf. Bui. I32, 203 PP-^

illus., Oct. 195^^.

Final report on urban food surveys by Institute of Home Economics in 19li8-i<-9.

(31*.) Lámale, Helen Humes. "Methodology of the Survey of Consiuner E3q)enditures in I95O."

Monograph in Study of Consumer Expenditures. Incomes, and Savings. Philadelphia, Pa.

University of Pennsylvania, 359 pp. 1959»

(35) Lavell, Robert J. 'Introduction of New Regional Indexes for Food Consumption Analysis."

Nat. Food Sit, 89:17-39- July 1959* Reprinted as AMS-3to(5) •

(36) Life Magazimî« Life Study of Consumer Expenditures. Vol. 1. Published by Time, Inc.

11*6 pp., illus., 1957.

(37) National Resources Committee. Consumer Expenditures in the United States. Estimates

for 1935-36. National Res. Com., I95 pp., illus., 1939-

Reported expenditure data from the Consumer Purchases Study.

(38) Stiebeling, Hazel K., Monroe, Day, Coons, Callie M., Phipard, Esther F., and Clark,

Faith. Family Food Consumption and Dietary Levels. Five Regions. (Consumer Purchases

Study - Farm Series^ U. S. Dept. Agr. Misc. Pub. kO^, 393 PP.> illus.,19^1.
- 115 -

(39) Stiebeling, Hazel K., Monrce, Day, Phipard, Esther F., Adelson, Sadye F., and Clark,

Faith. Family Food Consumption and Dietary Levels. Five Regions. (Consumer Purchases

Study - Urban and Village Series^ U. S. Dept. Agr. Misc. Pub. U52, 268 pp., iUus

19^1. '

The preceding two publications reported the food data obtained in the Consumer

Purchases Study of 1935-36, in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the

Works Progress Administration, and other agencies.

(ko) U. S. Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics. Fflmiiy Food Cnngiimption in the

United States. Spring 1QU2. U. S. Dept. Agr. Misc. Pub. 55O, 157 pp., 19^^.

This report contained food data obtained in the Study of Family Spending and Saving

in Wartime.

{kl) U. S. Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics. Rural Family Spending and Saving in

Wartime. U. S. Dept. Agr. Misc. Pub. 520, I63 pp., June 19*^3.

This information on expenditures and savings of rural families and single consumers

during 19ÍÍ-1 and the first quarter of 19^2 was obtained in the Study of Family Spending

and Saving in Wartime. Urban data published in BLS Bui. 822 (¿3).

{k2) U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Family Expenditures in Selected Cities. 19^5-^6.

Vol\ime II Food. U. S. Bur. Labor Statis. Bui, 6U8, ko6 pp., illus., I9IK).

Publication contains food expenditure data for largest cities obtained as paurt of

the Consumer Purchases Study.

(1^3) U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Family Spending and Saving in Wartime. U. S. Bur.

Labor Statis. Bui. 822, 2l8 pp., illus., 19if5. Printed as House Docximent No. ikf A.

79th Congress, 1st Session, 19^5.

This volume contains data on incomes, expenditures, and savings obtained in the

19^1-42 nationwide Study of Family Spending and Saving in Wartime. Detailed tabulations for urban families 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 Ikl).

{kk) U. S. Department of Agriculture, Household Food Consunçtion Survey, 19555

Report 1. Food Consumption of Households in the United States. I96 pp., illus.,

Dec. 1956.

Report 2. Food Consumption of Households in the Northeast. 195 pp., illus.,Dec. 1956.

Report 3. Food Consumption of Households in the North Central Region. 196 pp.,

illus., Dec. 1956.

Report k. Food Consumption of Households in the South. 196 pp., illus., Dec. 1956.

Report 5. Food Con^iimptinn of Households in the West. I9U pp., illus., Dec. 195^.

Report 6. Dietary Levels of Households in the United States. 68 pp., illus..

Mar. 1957.

Report 7. Dietary Levels of Households in the Northeast. 68 pp., illus.. May 1957-

Report 8. Dietary Levels of Households in the North Central Region. 68 pp., illus..

May 1957.

Report 9. Dietary Levels of Households in the South. 68 pp., illus.. May 1957-

Report 10. Dietary Levels of Households in the West. 68 pp., illus., July 1957-
- 116 -

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. 88 pp., illus., Jan. I958.

Report 13. Home Baking by Households in the United States — by Region. I30 pp.,

illus., June 1958.

Report ik. Food Consumption and Dietary Levels of Households as Related to the Age of

Homemakerj United States — by Region. 13^ pp., illus., Oct. 1959«

Report 1^. Food Consumption and Dietary Levels of Households as Related to Employment

of Homemaker, United States — by Region. I30 pp., illus.. May 1960.

(45) University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce. Study of Consumer

Expenditures. Incomes, and Savings. Philadelphia: U. Pa. I8 vols. 1957-

Vol. I. "Summary of Family Accounts." ^Ok pp.

Vol. II. "Summary of Family Expenditures for Current Consunçtion. " 50^ PP«

Vol. III. "Summary of Family Expenditures for Food, Beverages and Tobacco." 50^1- pp.

Vol. XII. "Detailed Family Expenditures for Food, Beverages and Ibbacco." 212 pp.

Vol. XVIII. "Summary of Family Incomes, Expenditures and Savings, All Urban Areas

Combined." 2k^ pp.

Statistical data from BLS Survey of Consumer Expenditures in I95O. Vols. I, II,

III, XVIII pertain to calendar I95O data, while Vol. XII contains detailed data for a

week of spring 1951> as well as some I95O statistics. The methodology of the survey

is described in Lámale, Helen Humes "Methodology of the Survey of Consumer Expenditures

in 1950." (^

(46) Williams, Faith M. and Zimmerman, Carle C. Studies of Family Living ia the United

States and Other Countries; An Analysis of Material and Method. U. S. Dept. Agr. Misc.

Pub. 223, 617 pp., Dec. 1935.

C. Other Information

(^7) Allen, R. G. D. Mathematical Analysis for Economists. London: Macmillan and Company,

5tó pp., illus., 19U2.

{kQ) Brady, Dorothy S. and Williams, Faith M. "Advances in the Techniques of Measuring and

Estimating Consumer Expenditures." Jour. Farm Econ. Vol. XXVII:2:315-W4-. May I9U5.

(k9) Burk, Marguerite C. "Distribution of the Food Supply of the United States." Agr. Econ.

Res. IV:3:83-87, July 1952.

(50) Burk, Marguerite C. "Introduction to I955 Household Survey Data on Eggs." Poultry and

Egg Sit. 189:13-19> 51. May 1.957.

(51) Burk, Marguerite C. "Some Analyses of Income-Food Relationships." Jour. Am. Stat. Assn.

53:905-927. Illus., Dec. 1958.

(52) Burk, Marguerite C. and Gronbech, Gertrude, (l) "Home Food Production: How and Where

Important." Nat. Food Sit.. Apr. I958, pp. 3^^7; (2) "Home Food Production: Livestock

Products, Historical Changes and Future Prospects," Nat. Food Sit.. July 1958,pp. 32-52.

(53) Burk, Marguerite C. and Lanahan, Thomas J., Jr. "Use of I955 Food Survey Data for

Research in Agricultural Economics." Agr. Econ. Res. X:3:79-98. July I958. Reprinted

as AMS-262.
- 117 -

(5^) Croxton, Frederick E. and Cowden, Dudley J. Applied General Statistics, New York:

Prentice-Hall, Inc., 9^^^ pp., illus., I9H.

(55) Daly, Rex F. "Prospective Domestic Demands for Food and Fiber." Policy for Commercial

Agriculture — Its Relation to Economic Growth and Stability. Papers submitted by

panelists appearing before the Subcommittee on Agricultural Policy. Joint Economic

Committee. Nov. 22, 1957, pp. IO8-II8- (Reprinted by U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv.)

(56) Ducoff, Louis J. "The Farm Population and the Agricultural Labor Force in I975."

Pages 70-72 of Bogue, Donald J. (Editor). Applications of Demography; The Population

Situation in the U. S. in 1975. Published by Scripps Foundation for Research in Population Problems (Miami University) and Population Research and Training Center (University

of Chicago). 96 pp., illus., 1957.

(57) Ezekiel, Mordecai. Methods of Correlation Analysis. Second Edition. New York: John

Wiley and Sons, Inc., 53I pp., illus., 1914-1.

(58) Ferber, Robert. Statistical Techniques in Market Research. New York: McGraw-Hill Book

Company, Inc., ^k2 pp., illus., I9U9.

(59) Fisher, R. A. Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Eleventh Edition-Revised.

London: Oliver and Boyd, ^^k pp., illus., I95O.

(60) Foote, Richard J. Analytical Tools for Studying Demand and Price Structures. U. S.

Dept. Agr. Agr. Handb. itó, 217 pp.> illus., Aug. I958.

(61) Liebenberg, Maurice. "Nomographic Interpolation of Income Size Distributions." Rev.

Econ. Statis. XXXVIII;^:258-272. illus., Aug. 195^.

(62) Liebenberg, Maurice and Kaitz, Hyman. "An Income-Size Distribution from Income Tax and

Survey Data." Pages 378-tó2 of volume I3, Studies in Income and Wealth. Conference on

Research in Income and Wealth. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.,

587 pp., illus., I95I-

(63) Meyers, Trienah. "Predicting Market Acceptance." Jour. Farm Econ.. XXXVII:5:1387-139^>

Dec. 1955.

(6k) Mills, Frederick C. Productivity and Economic Progress. New York: National Bureau of

Economic Research, Occas. Paper 38^ 3^ pp., illus., 1952.

(65) Mills, Frederick Cecil. Statistical Methods: Applied to Economics and Business.

Revised. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 7k6 pp., illus., 1938.

(66) Ostheimer, Richard H. "Who Buys What? Life's Study of Consumer Expenditures." áfíülx

Mktg. XXII:3:260-272. Jan. 195Ö.

(67) Ostle, Bernard. Statistics in Research: Basic Concepts and Techniques for Research

Workers. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press, i*87 pp., illus., 195^.

(68) Sartorius, Lester C. and Burk, Marguerite C. Eating Places as Marketers of Food

Products. U. S. Bureau of Agrictiltural Economics in cooperation with Division of

Agricultural Economics, University of Minnesota. U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ. Mktg. Res.

Rept. 3, 118 pp., illus., 1952.

(69) Snedecor, George W. Statistical Methods. Revised, Ames, Iowa: Collegiate Press, Inc.,

388 pp., illus., I93ST

(70) U. S. Agriciiltural Research Administration. Market Demanrl and Pmduet Quality. U. S.

Dept. Agr., Agr. Res. Admin. A Report of the Marketing Research Workshop, July 13-21,

1951 at Michigan State College. 188 pp. 1951-
- 118 -

(71) U, S. Department of Agriculture. Ihe Agricultural Estimating and Reporting Services of

the United States Department of Agriculture. U. S. Dept. Agr. Misc. Pub. 703. 266 pp.,

illus., 19^9-

(72) 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.

(73) Wallis, W. Allen and Roberts, Harry V. Statistics; A Nev Approach. Glencoe, Illinois:

The Free Press, 6k6 pp., illus., 1956•

(7^) Waugh, Frederick V. Graphic Analysis in Agricultural Economics. U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr.

Handb. 128, 69 pp., illus., July 1957-

(75) Winger, Earl L. Confectionery Sales and Distribution — 1955. U. S. Dept. Com., Busand Defense Serv. Admin., Food Industry Div., 56 pp., illusT, Oct. 1956-

Report on annual survey of the U. S. confectionery industry.

1^ U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1961 O - 597491
Growth Through Agricultural Progress