\ L. \ í3 >x A i-'i Y

SEP2 31S61

y s. mmm\ OF

6£ll ¿VILLE BRANCH

CONSUMPTION TRENDS AND

PATTERNS FOR

VEGETABLES • • *

•POTATOES

SWEET POTATOES

•DRY BEANS

AND PEAS

AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK NO. 215

Economic and Statistical Analysis Division

Economic Research Service

U,S DFPARTMEt^T OF AGRICULTURE
PREFACE

This handbook is the second in a series on consunçtion trends and

patterns for the major food groups. It is based largely on published research

findings on consumption trends and variations in consumption among population

groups. The handbook is intended as a nontechnical reference for Extension

personnel, market researchers in the food industries, and others concerned

with food consunrption. Reference tables, notes on data, and literature

references are provided as aids to the researcher.

Gertrude Gronbech had primary responsibility for drafting this report.

Helen M. Eklund assisted in designing the charts and tables. Marguerite C.

Burk, Thomas J. Lanahan, Jr.,and Will M. Simmons gave technical assistance.

Data in this handbook apply to kQ States; comparable data for Alaska

and Hawaii are not available.

The first handbook in the series is Meat Consumption Trends and Patterns.

Agriciilture Handbook No. I87, Jvily I96I.

Growth Through Agricultural Progress

July 1961

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

Jfeshington 2^, D.C. - Pï-ice 1^0 cents
CONTEINTS

Page

S^^Imnaxy n

Trends in consxamption ^ ^ ^^ 2

Vegetables •....!..!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2

Home-produced !!!!!!!!!!! 2

Commercial ^ !.!!!!!!!!!! k

Postwar trends for commercial vegetables !!!!!! k

Seasonality of fresh vegetables !!!!!!!!! 8

Potatoes and sweetpotatoes Q

Dry beans and peas [[[[ 3^0

Variations in consumption among population groups 11

Timing of the I955 sxirvey .*!.'!!!!!!.* 11

Distribution of the population !!!!!!!! 11

Vegetables ^ •••.•!.!!!!!!! 13

By form—fresh and processed ^ I3

Purchased vegetables ^ yj

Home production , ^o

Potatoes •. • 20

Sweetpotatoes « ••.... ...•• , 21

Dry beans and peas ^ 21

Consimiption outside households 22

Commercial eating places 22

Inplant food services ^. 22

Lunches served in schools 23

Regional shares of the U. S. market 2k

Vegetables 24

Potatoes 27

Sweetpotatoes 27

Dry beans and peas..• , , 27

Implications for future consumption. 28

Vegetables. • 28

Past changes in urban and rural areas 28

Availability at retail 29

Expected changes in consumption , 29

Potatoes 31

Sweetpotatoes 32

Dry beans and peas 32

Tables 33

Notes on data • •••••»••••••••••* ^3

Time-series data •••• k3

Survey data... • ,, ^ kk

Literature cited and related references••.. kd

1 -
GUIDE TO FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure NQ> Title Page

1 Vegetables consijmed per capita 3

2 Commercial vegetable consumption per capita 5

3 Commercial vegetables: Changes in per capita consumption

from 1947-^^9 to 1957-59 6

k Potatoes and sweetpotatoes consijimed per capita 9

5 Dry beans and peas consimied per capita 10

6 Distribution of household population, spring 1955 • 12

7 Vegetables consumed in urbaji households grouped by income,

per person in a week, spring 1955 1^

8 Fresh vegetables consumed at home: Differences by region and

by urbanization I5

9 Canned vegetables consimied at home: Differences by region

and by urbanization • • I6

10 Fresh vegetables purchased for use at home: Differences by

region and by urbanization I8

11 Potatoes consumed at home: Differences by region and by

urbanization 20

12 Regional shares of household expenditxires for vegetable items,

spring 1955 25

13 Regional shares of production and purchases of vegetable

items , 26

Table No.

1 Vegetables : Cons\jmption per capita, I909-60 33

2 Commercially produced vegetables: Changes in per capita

consumption, by form, l^kj-k^ to 1957~59 3^1-

3 Potatoes, sweetpotatoes, and dry beans and peas: Consumption

per capita, I909-60 35

h Vegetables: Quantity used at home per person, all households,

by urbanization and region, in a week, spring 1955 ••• 36

5 Vegetables : Quantity used at home per person, urban households, by region and income, in a week, spring 1955 37

6 Potatoes, sweetpotatoes, dry beans and peas: Quantity used

at home per person, all households, by urbanization and

region, in a week, spring 1955 • • 38

7 Potatoes: Quantity used at home per person, urban households,

by region and income, in a week, spring I955 38

8 Distribution of households and members of housekeeping

families, by region and urbanization, spring I955 39

9 Distribution of households and of members of housekeeping

families, in region and urbanization, by income, spring 1955 ^4-0

10 Disti-ibution of members of housekeeping families of 2 or more

persons in first quarter 19^ and spring 1955, by urbanization and income kl

11 Population: Total and number eating out of civilian food

supplies. United States, I909-6O k2

- ii -
CONSUMPTION TRENDS AND PATTERNS FOR VEGETABLES, POTATOES,

SWEETPOTATOES, AND DRY BEANS AND PEAS

Gertrude Gronbech

Statistical and Historical Research Branch

Economic and Statistical Analysis Division

Economic Research Service

SUMMARY

Vegetable consumption per capita is about I5 percent greater today than

50 years ago. Consuiic)tion increased moderately from the mid-1920's to a peaJc

in World War II. Since that time, use of processed vegetables has continued

to increase, but the increase has been offset by a decline in use of commercial

fresh vegetables. The continuing decrease in use of home-produced vegetables

resulted, in recent years, in some decline in the overall total. Per capita

consumption of potatoes, sweetpotatoes, and dry beans and peas is much less

than 50 years ago. But increased use of processed items has halted the decline

in consumption of potatoes, and it has sloved the downward trend in use of

sweetpotatoes.

In general, larger quantities of vegetables per person are consumed by

urban households than by rural households, though the difference has been

reduced as commercial supplies have become more widely available in rural

areas. High income groups tend to use more than lower income groups.

The West consumes the largest quantity of vegetables per person, followed

by the Northeast, the North Central Region, and the South. The much higher

proportion of low income families in the South, particularly in urban areas,

than in other regions results in the low overall rate of consumption there.

In contrast to vegetable use, urban households consume less potatoes

and dry beans and peas per person than those in rural areas. North Central

households consume the most potatoes, those in the South the most sweetpotatoes

and diy beans and peas.

Per capita consumption of vegetables and potatoes probably will not

change much in the decade ahead, but some further shift to processed forms is

expected. Recent developments in processing emphasize various dehydrating

techniques, some combined with freezing. Use of sweetpotatoes and of dry beans

and peas may show some further decline. With little change expected in use per

capita, expansion in aggregate consumption of all these commodity groups during

the next decade will roughly approximate the projected 20 to 25 percent rate

of growth in population.
- 2 -

TRENDS IN CONSUMPTION

Compaxed with fifty years ago, consiomption per capita is greater for

vegetables but less for potatoes, sweetpotatoes, and dry beans and peas, l/

Home production has declined. Commercial supplies have expanded and become

less seasonal, and a marked shift in consumption from fresh to processed forms

has taken place.

Vegetables 2/

Per capita consumption of vegetables, commercial plus home-produced, is

aro"und I5 percent larger than it was half a century ago. Consumption showed

an upward trend from the mid-1920*s to the end of World War II, then declined.

In recent years use has averaged about 260 pounds per capita per yeax, farm

weight equivalent (fig. l). 3/

Changes in total quantity consumed per capita have been less striking

than changes in soiorce (purchased or home-produced) and in form (fresh or processed). Over the last 50 years per capita consumption of commercially produced

vegetables has about doubled, but a large part of the increase has been offset

by a reduction in home-produced vegetables. Most of the increase in commercial

vegetables occurred in the processed component. Following World War II,per

capita consumption of commercial fresh vegetables as well as of home garden

vegetables declined.

Home-Produced

During the last few decades U. S. consumers have become less and less

dependent on home-produced vegeta^bles as market supplies have increased in

quantity and become more widely available. With the spread of urbanization,

fewer families have gardens. In some rirral areas specialized farming and offthe-farm employment also discourage family gardens.

The most rapid decline in home production per capita has occurred since

World War II. Consumption of home-produced vegetables, which ^0 years ago

amounted to almost half of total vegetable consumption, is now probably a fifth

to a fourth of the total.

1/ Farm weight of fresh items and equivalent farm weight of processed items

are used throughout this report; cleaned basis is used for dry beans and peas.

This section is based on time-se rie s data, discussed in the appendix. The National

Food Situation (7) and the Vegetable Sitxiation (8) regularly report current

consumption data, and latest revisions appear in annual supplements to Agr.

Handb. 62 Consumption of Food in the United States, 1909-^2 (3).

Underlined numbers in parenthesis refer to citations in Literatxore Cited

and Related References.

2/ Excluding melons as well as potatoes, sweetpotatoes, dry beans and peas.

3/ Based on data in table 1.
- 3 -

VEGETABLES CONSUMED PER CAPITA "^

Farm Weight Equivalent

POUNDS

300

200

100 ^^^•^

300

200

100

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

CIVILIAN CONSUMPTION. EXCLUDES MELONS, POTATOES, SWEETPOTATOES,

DRY BEANS AND DRY PEAS. ^APPROXIMATION.

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS86-ól(4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 1
Commercial

Although consumption per capita of total commercial vegetables—fresh

plus processed, farm weight equivalent—is almost a sixth above the 1937-39

average, it is below the peak levels at the end of World War II. kj Use has

remained steady during the past decade or so, the fairly consistent increase

of processed vegetables balancing a decline in commercial fresh vegetables.

Fresh.-- Per capita consumption of commercial fresh vegetables increased

through World War II and then declined to the level of the mld-1920's. However,

the postwar decline in home production was somewhat greater, and commercial

fresh vegetables now account for about two-thirds of total fresh vegetable

consumption.

Processed.- Per capita consumption of commercially processed vegetables

has increased steadily. On a farm weight equivalent basis, it is now about

equal to consumption of commercial fresh vegetables. Expansion in processed

vegetables has included both canned and frozen vegetables as well as vegetable

soups, baby foods, other vegetable products, and, more recently, frozen pre-,

pared foods with vegetables as an ingredient. Although consumption of frozen

vegetables has risen sharply since the end of the 1930*s, canned vegetables

even now comprise four-fifths of processed vegetable consumption.

Postwar Prends for

Commercial Vegetables 5/

For the last 10 to 12 years, annual consumption of commercial vegetables

has remained remarkably stable at around 200 pounds per capita, farm weight

equivalent ffig. 2). 6/ Declines for some items have offset increases for others

(fig* 3)* y Use of cabbage and spinach, along with several less important

items, declined. Increases occurred in per capita use of lima beans, broccoli,

sweet corn, cucxambers, and tomatoes.

Shift From Fresh to Processed.-> Striking changes in the form in which

the consumer buys vegetables have occurred since the 1920's (fig. 3)^ the

trend being in the direction of increased purchases of the processed items.

Consumption of processed vegetables increased about a fourth—from 79 poxinds

per capita, farm weight equivalent, in 191^7-14.9 to 97 pounds in 1957-59. §/ Of

this increase, a little over half was accounted for by canned items, and a

little less than half by frozen. The percentage increase in frozen vegetables

during the postwar period was especially sharp.

k/ The high levels of apparent consumption at the end of World War II probably were due largely to relative shortages in other food items, and to restocking of canned items at retail and by hoixseholds.

5/ From an article by Will M. Simmons (59).

6/ Based on data in table 1.

7/ From Agricultural Outlook Charts I96I (13, p. 1+-2).

8/ All weights are farm weight equivalent. ^See footnote 1.
5 -

COMMERCIAL VEGETABLE CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA

LB.

200

Total

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960

*FARM WEIGHT EQUIVALENT. CIVILIAN CONSUMPTION.

POTATOES, SWEETPOTATOES, DRY BEANS, DRY PEAS,

EXCLUDING MELONS,

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS 77-61(4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 2

Consxmption of commercial fresh vegetables per capita declined 15 percent—from about 120 poiands in the immediate postwar years to 102 pounds in

1957-59• Nevertheless^ fresh items still make up about half of total annual

consumption of ccammercially grown vegetables. Some salad items such as lettuce

ana. celery, used principally in the fresh form, have maintained their position

or declined only slightly* But for many items used in both fresh and processed

forms, the fresh has lost considerable ground. The rapid growth in the use of

frozen vegetables has played a large part in the decline for fresh. Frozen

items retain many of the desirable characteristics of the fresh, are easy to

prepare, and are widely available throughout the year at relatively stable

prices. On the average, each person now eats 15 poimds of frozen vegetables,

farm weight eq,uivalent, compared with almost 7 poimds in 19^7-^9• Consixmption

of canned vegetables increased substantially in the same period—from 73 pounds

per person to 82 pounds.

A closer look at 10 principal vegetables vised in both fresh and processed

forms points up the growing importance of processed. 9/ l^ile consiamption of

these items in all forms combined increased slightly, from 123 pounds per capita

2/ Asparagus, lima beans, snap beans, brœcoli, cabbage, corn, cucumbers^

green peas, spinach, and tomatoes; see table 2.
- 6 -

COMMERCIAL VEGETABLES: CHANGES IN PER CAPITA

CONSUMPTION FROM 1947-49 TO 1957-59^

ALL FORMS

FRESH

CANNED

FROZEN

-28%

-7% ^Hl

ASPARAGUS

BEANS, LIMA

BEANS, SNAP

BROCCOLI

CABBAGE

CORN

CUCUMBERS \//////////Á^\2%

PEAS, GREEN

SPINACH

TOMATOES*

OTHER

TOTAL NO CHANGE

^^+9^

BEANS, SNAP

CABBAGE

CARROTS

CELERY

CORN, SWEET

CUCUMBERS

LETTUCE O

ONIONS*

SPINACH

TOMATOES

OTHER

TOTAL

159?

-9%

-10%

ASPARAGUS

BEANS, LIMA

BEANS, SNAP

CORN, SWEET

CUCUMBERS*

PEAS, GREEN

SAUERKRAUT

SPINACH

TOMATOES

OTHER

TOTAL

3 + 1%

NO CHANGE

a +1^«

yyyyyyyyyy//////A^7^%

^^^^^^^^29%

y/yy//////y///yy^^^^^

ä+1%

'^ Y/xx/xxxxx/yx/x/yxj^/xA^

^^^+10%

^^^^ + 13%

ASPARAGUS

BEANS, LIMA

BEANS, SNAP

BROCCOLI

CARROTS

CAULIFLOWER

CORN, SWEET

PEAS, GREEN

SPINACH

OTHER

TOTAL

y//////Á +27%

^:^:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^?^ +74%

y///////////////^^^^^^ +177%

V/////////////y/^^^^^^ +217%

y////////////////////////////^^^^^

+ 293%

y/////////////////////////////////A +119%

W////////////////////////////////////^^^^^ , 179%

y//////////////////////////A +96%

y//////////////////////////^^^^^

y//////////////^^^^^^ +209%

y//////////////^^^^^^

^FARM VfEIGHT EQUIVALENT. CIVILIAN CONSUMPTION. EXCLUDES MELONS, POTATOES, SV/EETPOTATOES, AND DRY BEANS, DRY PEAS.

^TOMATOES AND TOMATO PRODUCTS. ^LETTUCE AND ESCAROLE. t ONIONS AND SHALLOTS. tcUCUMBER PICKLES.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. ERS 87-61 (4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 3
- 7 -

in 19^7-i^9 to 128 pounds in 1957-59, the fresh component declined from 50 to

40 pounds. Consumption of these products in canned form, however, increased

from 67 to 77 pounds per capita, and use of the frozen more than doubled—

from a total of 5.5 to 11.9 pounds. On a relative basis, use of canned vegetables increased from 55 percent of the total of the 10 major items in I9Í1.7-Í1.9

to 60 percent in 1957-59, while for the frozen the increase was from less than

5 to a little over 9 percent of the total. If we exclude the vegetables not

available in frozen form—cabbage, cucumbers, and tomatoes—frozen vegetable

consumption per person increased from 11 to 23 percent of the total.

Only 2 of the 10 vegetables (sweet corn and cucimabers) escaped a decline

in per capita consumption in fresh form. Even for these, most of the overall

increase was in processed prod\acts. Consumption of canned corn gained only

slightly, but that of frozen was up sharply. There also was a substantial

increase for cucumber pickles. Asparagus consumption showed little change in

total, increases for canned and frozen offsetting a decline for fresh. Œhe

substantial decline for fresh snap beans was more than offset by sharp increases

in \ise of both canned and frozen forms. Almost a 50-percent reduction in fresh

broccoli occurred during the postwar years, but this was more than offset by a

tripling of consumption of the frozen product. Fresh green peas declined

sharply and canned were down materially, but these decreases were a little more

than coimterbalanced by increased use of the frozen product—from 2.3 to 4.5

pounds per capita. There was a gain of about 15 percent in total per capita

consumption of commercial tomatoes despite a decline in use of fresh. Use of

canned tomatoes ajad tomato products increased about a foxirth, with very sharp

increases for tomato Juice, catsup, and sauce.

Factors Affecting Shift to Processed Vegetables.-» Postwar changes in

consumption in favor of the processed products, particularly the frozen, reflect

the combined effects of several major socio-economic changes. These include the

continued shift of the population from farms to larban areas and the accompanying

decline in production of food for own use; increasing consumer incomes; increasing variety and availability of processed vegetables throughout the country and

throughout the year; much more stable prices for the processed than for the

corresponding fresh commodity; more uniform quality of the processed products;

and convenience in use.

Improved processing technology has resulted in more and better quality

processed products than ever before. ïhrough the use of large, more efficient

plants and labor-saving equipment, packers have been able to market processed

items competitively with the fresh. The shift toward more frozen vegetables

also has been materially influenced by the uptrend in average income during the

postwar period. Data from the 1955 Household Food Consimption Svirvey indicate

that, on the average, use of frozen vegetables per person is much larger among

higher than among lower income groups.

Better transportation facilities—^both rail and trxack—and more acceptable specifications for trading permit wider, more flexible distribution of

these higher quality processed products throughout the year.
- 8 -

Convenience in vise also has contributed considerably to expansion in

consumption of commercially processed vegetables• Demand for convenience

reflects the desire for foods which permit fast, easy meal preparation*

Seasonality of Fresh

Vegetables 10/

During the past 20 years, expansion of winter and early spring supplies

of commercial fresh vegetables from h of the southernmost states—Florida,

California, Texas, and Arizona—has been important in making consumption of

fresh vegetables less seasonal than formerly. Winter harvest has increased

twice as fast as annual output. Winter accounts for a fifth of annual consumption of commercial fresh vegetables; spring and summer each for a little over

a fourth; and fall, a fourth.

Other factors also are important in this fairly even consimiption of

commercial fresh vegetables from one season to the next* Heavier supplies of

some vegetables in a particular season tend to offset lighter supplies of

others. Also, development of early and late varieties has put many vegetables

on the market over a longer period of time than formerly. Due to improved

methods and facilities for handling and transporting fresh vegetables under

better moisture and temperature conditions, and to a faster, more flexible, and

more widespread distribution system, market supplies of even the most perishable vegetables have become less and less limited by local growing conditions.

This makes a larger variety and quantity of better quality fresh vegetables

available than formerly during more months of the year in all parts of the

United States.

Supplies of salad vegetables—those primarily served raw—show a seasonal variation similar to other vegetables. Production of both is lightest

in winter and heaviest in spring and summer. However, the greater availability

throughout the year has been particiilarly important for salad vegetables, which

are not available in processed form.

Most fresh vegetables are in fairly adequate supply during the spring

and summer. But asparagus, broccoli, turnips and rutabagas, and a number of

leafy greens are somewhat less abundant during the summer than in other seasons.

In early fall most fresh vegetables usually are still plentiful. By

late fall, cooler weather curtails production of snap beans, sweet corn, green

onions, cucumbers, green peppers, and tomatoes.

During winter nearly all tender vegetables—such as asparagus, green

beans, sweet corn, squash, cucumbers, peppers, and tomatoes—are in relatively

light supply. But for most hardy vegetables—broccoli, cabbage, carrots

cauliflower, celery, escarole, turnips and rutabagas, spinach and other cookmg greens—a fourth or more of the annual volume is available.

10/ Based largely on an article by Will M. Simmons (60).
- 9 -

Potatoes aad Sveetpotatoes

^ Consumption of both potatoes and sweetpotatoes per capita has decreased

sharply during tbe last half century (fig. 1+). 11/ -Ehe consumption of sweetpotatoes has decreased relatively more than that of potatoes. Though consumption of the processed cosnponent of both is increasing, the fresh form comprises

a much larger part of total constmiption than processed.

In 20 years the consumption of processed potatoes, farm weight equivalent, has increased from a negligible quantity to almost a fifth of total potatoes used for food. Processed items include chips, frozen french fries, puffs,

and patties; dehydrated flakes and granules; and canned potatoes. The rapid

increase in use of frozen prepared foods, many of which include potatoes as an

ingredient, also has increased consmption of processed potatoes. New and

improved processed products have helped to halt the decline in potato consumption in recent years.

Per capita consumption of canned sweetpotatoes declined during the late

1920's and 1930's, but since that period consumption has been increasing. New

processed products include frozen sweetpotatoes, and,though not yet on the

market, sweetpotato flakes, \ih±ch reconstitute into mashed sweetpotatoes.

POTATOES AND SWEETPOTATOES

CONSUMED PER CAPITA *

Commercial Plus Approximation of Home-produced

LB.

200 A100

Sweetpotatoes

I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1^.^.^. «»^

'' ' I ' I I I I II I I M I I I

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

FARM WEICHT EQUIVALENT, CIVILIAN CONSUMPTION.

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. ERS 78-61 (4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure lili/ Data given in table 3.
- 10 -

A fairly even flow of potatoes appears to be moving into consumption

channels throii^hout the year, but there is considerable seasonal variation in

the marketing and consumption of sweetpotatoes. About ^0 percent of the crop

is marketed during the fall, only 15 to 20 percent in the spring* Fall marketings are heavy, partly because sweetpotatoes, which are harvested mostly in the

fall, are rather perishable and difficult to store. Another factor is a sharply

higher demand for sweetpotatoes during the holiday season—Bianksgiving through

New Year's Day,

Dry Beans and Peas

Use of dry edible beans and dry field peas together amount to about

8 pounds per capita annxmlly, with consumption of peas only a small part of the

total. Per capita consxmiption, though fluctuating, increased from 1920 to 19^0,

but has since declined (fig. 5)« 12/ Home production of beans and peas, which

was an estimated 50 percent of the total consiamption 50 years ago, is now only

about 5 percent.

A sizable proportion of both beans and peas is commercially canned, peas

mostly in soups, and beans largely in pork and beans,baked beans, and soups.

LB.

DRY BEANS AND PEAS CONSUMED PER CAPITA *

Commercial Plus Home-produced

HOME-PRODUCEDA

BEANS, COMMERCIAL!;:!

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

CLEANED BASIS, INCLUDING PROCESSED, CIVILIAN CONSUMPTION. A APPROXIMATION

DRY BEANS AND PEAS.

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS 79-61 (4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figiare 5

12/ Data given in table 3.
- 11 -

VARIATIONS IN CONSUMPTION AMONG POPULATION GROUPS

nais section deals mostly with variations among population groups in

use of vegetables, potatoes, sweetpotatoes, and dry beans and peas, based on

cross-section data from the I955 Household Food Consumption S\arvey. 13/ Since

households in the survey represented 9I1. percent of total civilian population,

data on variations in use at home may in general be typical for total civilian

consumption. The section concludes with a brief discussion of food consumption

outside ho\iseholds.

Timing of the

19^5 Sioarvey

The 1955 survey covered food \ased at home in the spring, thus avoiding

seasonal extremes in the use of many foods> Ik/ In general, commercial quantities, both fresh and processed, were in average supply in the spring of 1955,

and consumer incomes were rising as they have been in most years since World

War II, Thus, from the standpoint of the supply and demand sitxiation, spring

1955 was fairly typical of recent years.

Distribution of

the Popiolation

In the 1955 survey, households were grouped by region—^Northeast, North

Central, South, and West; by degree of urbanization—urban, rural nonfarm, and

farm (fig, 6) I5/; and by family money income level. 1^

Since average consumption varies among population groups, the urban

character of the popxilation has considerable influence on national consumption.

In each region the urban population outnumbers the rural nonfarm population,

and the farm population is much the smallest of the three categories. The

Northeast and the West are the most highly urbanized. Bae sparsely settled

West, \*iich included only 11 percent of the household population in the I955

sirrvey, has m\ich less weight on national averages than the other regions. In

the distribution of population among income groups, the South differs the most

of any region from the others. It has a disproportionately large share of lowincome families, particularly in urban areas.

National riiral averages, particularly for lowr-income groups, are heavily

weighted by averages for the South. Almost half the fann population lived in

the South in the spring of 1955* A little over a third lived in the North

Central Region, and only a sixth in the Northeast and West combined. The South

also included two-fifths of the rural nonfarm population.

13/ From articles in the National Food Situation (36) and in the Vegetable

Situation {hi, Itô). Survey data from the 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey

Reports (23T"used in this section are disciissed in the Appendix.

lÂ/ See appendix.

33/ Based on table 8.

^ Œfebles 9 and 10.
DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD POPULATION, SPRING 1955*

DISTRIBUTION OF

U. S. HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

FARM

URBAN

NORTH CENTRAL REGION

RURAL NOKFARM

* REGIONS USED IN 1955 HOUSEHOLD FOOD CONSUMPTION SURVEY. SIZE OF CIRCLE

INDICATES PROPORTION OF TOTAL U. S. HOUSEHOLD POPULATION.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Figure 6

NEC. ERS89-6](4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE
" 13 -

Vegetables Y¡J

On the whole, urban hoixseholds use a larger qviantity of vegetables per

person than do rural households, and high-income households more than those

with lower incomes» 18/ Variations in average use among income groups are less

for farm than for nonfarm households. Variations among regions are less for

urban than for rural households. Use of processed vegetables per person differs

more among population groups than use of fresh vegetables.

Regional Variation.- Households in the West, in the spring of 1955, used

the largest quantity of vegetables per person, followed by the Northeast and

the North Central Region. This was generally true for both urban and rural

areas at similar money-income levels. Use in the South was relatively high

except in the lower income groups. However, because of its higher proportion

of low-income families, particularly in urban areas, average xise in the South

was as a whole slightly less per person than for the North Central Region.

Variation Among Urbanization and Income Groups.- Urban households in the

spring of 1955 used a larger quantity of vegetables per person than rural

households except in the West, where rural nonfarm households used more than

urban households. In other regions, use of vegetables in rural nonfarm and

farm households averaged about the same.

High-income urban households used a larger quantity of vegetables per

person than those with lower incomes (fig. 7). 19/ Variation in use among

income groups was greatest in the South, where average consumption in both

larban and rural areas was relatively low in income groups below $2,000, and

relatively hi^ in all others.

By Form—Fresh and

Processed 20/

In each of the four regions, both urban ajad rural households used a

larger quantity of fresh than of processed vegetables in the spring of 1955.21/

Many vegetables typically are bought mostly in the fresh form, some exclusively

in that form. For some other vegetables, the processed forms, such as sauerkraut, pickles, and tomato products^are substantially different, and are not

closely competitive at retail with the fresh forms.

17/ Farm weight equivalent; see footnote 1. Excludes melons as well as

potatoes, sweetpotatoes, and dry beans and peas.

18/ Averages per person are calculated from published household data from

the 1955 Survey using average household sizes, table 3, Survey Reports 1-5 (23).

See appendix.

19/ Based on table 5.

20/ Processed vegetables include only those commercially canned or frozen;

fresh vegetables, those brought into the kitchen in fresh form, include hcmecanned and home-frozen vegetables.

21/ Table h.
_______„^ -14 -

VEGETABLES CONSUMED IN URBAN HOUSEHOLDS

GROUPED BY INCOME *

Per Person in a Weelc, Spring 1955

POUNDS

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.1

100

Canned

/^

/

/

Frozen

/

^v

I I I

500 1,000 5,000

AVERAGE DISPOSABLE MONEY INCOME PER PERSON IN 1954 DOLLARS

* FARM WEICHT EQUIVALENT, EXCLUDES MELONS, POTATOES, SWEETPOTATOES,

DRY BEANS, DRY PEAS. INCOME PER PERSON IN HOUSEHOLDS GROUPED BY FAMILY INCOME,

-J. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS 88-61 (4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 7
- 15 -

Fresh vegetables (commercial pl\is hcme-produced) made up 6k percent of

the total quantity of vegetables used in U. S. households; however, there was

considerable variation among population groups. Fresh vegetables accounted for

a larger proportion of the total in tbe South than in the other regions. Except

m the West, fresh vegetables were relatively more important in rural than in

urban areas. In farm households fresh vegetable use ranged from 83 percent of

the total in the South, 79 percent in the Northeast, and 7U percent in the

North Central Region, to only 57 percent in the West.

With fresh vegetables accounting for 6k percent of total use, canned

made up another 30 percent, and frozen, the remaining 6 percent. Considering

only purchased vegetables, 7 percent were frozen and 35 percent canned.

^Qsh 22/.- Both urban and farm households separately used more fresh

vegetables per person than did rural nonfarm hoxiseholds in the spring of I955

except in the West, where average use was low in farm households.

Households in the South and in the West used larger quantities of fresh

vegetables per person than those in the Northeast, while North Central households used least of all (fig. 8).23/ Variation among regions was less in urban

FRESH VEGETABLES CONSUMED AT HOME:

DIFFERENCES BY REGION AND BY URBANIZATION

As % of U. S. Average Per Person, Spring 1955

U. S. AVERAGE

107%

N. E. N. C. SOUTH WEST URBAN RURAL FARM

NONFARM

* BASED ON POUNDAGE (FARM WEIGHT).

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS 80-61 (4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 8

22/ See footnote 20,

23/ Based on table k.
- 16

than in rural ai^as. In similar urlDanization-income groups, variations among

regions in use of fresh, though greater, followed much the same pattern as for

total vegetable use; ah exception vas the relatively lover rate of consuniption

of fresh in vestem farm households. In general, households in the South,

except in the lovest income groups, used roove fresh vegetables than did the

households in the other regions.

Variations among income groups in the quantity of fi^sh vegetables used

per person vas least in farm households; these had more home production.

Variations among income groups vas greatest in urhan households, for they

depended more on purchased vegetables.

Although the South used a larger quantity of fresh vegetables per person,

the retail ^alue averaged less in that region i^han in the others. This indicates that less expensive kinds of fresh vegetables vere used in the South and/

or prices vere lover. A larger part of the vegetables vere locally produced,

less transportation cost vas involved, and purchases probably included less

packaging and other services.

Canned 24/.- Farm households in the survey used a much smaller quantity

of canned vegetables per person than did rural nonfarm households (fig. 9). 2^

Rural nonfaim in turn used less than urban households except in the West, vhere

use of canned vegetables vas very high in rural areas.

CANNED VEGETABLES CONSUMED AT HOME*.

DIFFERENCES BY REGION AND BY URBANIZATION

As%o{ U. S. Average Per Person, Spring 1955*

U. S. AVERAGE

/

N. E. N. C. SOUTH WEST U^^BAN ^^ü^fi,, FARM NONFARM

BASED OH POUNDAGE (FAR/A WEIGHT EQUIVALENT),

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. ERS 81-61 (4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

2h/ See footnote 20.

2¿/ Based on table 4.

Figlare 9
- 17 -

Œhe large quantities of canned vegetables used in rtaral households in

the West and the large proportion of urban hoviseholds there resulted in a high

regional average. In North Central households, use was high in both urban and

rural areas. Althou^ the Northeast averaged less than the North Central Region in both urban and rural areas, the regional average for the Northeast was

relatively high because of its large proportion of urban households •

The South was the only region in which households in both urban and

rural areas used less than the corresponding U. S. averages. Furthermore,

since use is lower in rural than in urban areas, and since the South has a

higher proportion of rural population, use averaged much less in the South

than in other regions.

Use of canned vegetables at successively higher income levels increased

less above the middle inccme range than did use of fresh vegetables.

Younger households, as measured by the age of the homemaker, used more

canned vegetables per person than older households. 26/

^QzeQ 27/.- Use of frozen vegetables, which is only a small part of

total vegetable use, varied more among regional, urbanization, and income groups

than the use of fresh or of canned. Urban households \ised more frozen vegetables per person than did rural households, rural nonfarm more than farm, and

use increased at successively higher inccme levels.

Households in the West and in the Northeast, in both urban and rural

areas, used a larger quantity of frozen vegetables per person than did those

in the other two regions.' Ohe North Central Region ranked third, and the South,

with a high proportion of low-income families, ranked last. From region to

region, variation in use was less in urban than in riiral areas.

The supply situation with regard to frozen and fresh vegetables may have

a bearing on these differences. Fresh vegetables are less available in some

rural areas of the West, and more available in the South than in other regions.

Furthermore, frozen vegetables may be less available in rural retail outlets in

the North Central Region than in the densely popiilated Northeast,where rural

households benefit by being close to urban markets.

Purchased Vegetables

Households depended on the market for about 85 percent of the vegetables

they used in the spring of I955. Of the fresh vegetables, 78 percent were

bought.

There was considerable variation among population groups in the quantity

of vegetables bought per person—greater than the variation in total quantity

used. For example, urban hoiiseholds used larger quantities of vegetables than

did rural households and bought 95 percent of the quantities used, while rural

26/ Survey Report l4 (23).

27/ See footnote 20,
- 18 -

nonfarm households bought 78 percent and farm households, 50 percent* For the

regions as a whole, the West and the Northeast used larger quantities per person

than the other two regions, and were more dependent on the market.

Total*- Compared with U. S. household purchases per person, the West

purchased 20 percent and the Northeast 11 percent more than the national average; the North Central Region about the same as the U» S* average; and the

South, 16 percent less* Prom region to region, variation was less for urban

than for rural hoiiseholds* Western households purchased more than those in the

South because the West used larger quantities of processed vegetables and, even

for fresh vegetables, depended more on the market. In the West, gardening is

limited to arid regions and to specialized farms that are typical of the West,

At the time of the sijrvey, gardens were more advanced in the South than in the

other regions; low-income families, more n\amerous in the South, bought less in

addition to what they raised than did the higher income households.

Fresh.- Considering only fresh vegetable purchases, variations among

regions in the quantity purchased per person (fig. 10) 28/ were similar to

veuriations for total quantities piurchased, fresh plvis processed. Relative to

FRESH VEGETABLES PURCHASED FOR USE AT HOME:

DIFFERENCES BY REGION AND BY URBANIZATION

AS %of U. S. Average Per Person, Spring 1955 *

35, U. S. AVERAGE m

i /

122%:

N. E. N. C. SOUTH WEST

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

URBAN RURAL FARM

NONFARM

BASEDON POUNDAGE (FARM WEIGHT).

__^ NEC. ERS82.61(4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 10

28/ Based on table k, Survey Reports 1-5 (23)•
- 19 -

tile U* S. average, however, piirchases of fresh vegetables were a little higher

in the Southland a little lower in the North Central Region, than were total

p\irchases. In the South, locally grown fresh vegetables were available in

greater abimdance and variety than in other regions, while in the North Central

Region,households bought more canned vegetables.

Home Prodviction

From urban to rural areas, and from rural nonfarm to farm households,

there is a marked increase in the proportion of households having gardens,

and in the average quantity of home-produced vegetables used per person. Variations among income groups are of less importance. According to the I955

survejç about a third of the households in the United States did some vegetable

gardening in 19514-—a sixth of the urban did, and half of the rural nonfarm, but

about 9 in 10 of the farm households. 29/

Estimated retail value of vegetables raised for home use in 195!^ ranged

from $91 in farm to $8 in urban households. The average was highest in the

South and in the North Central Region—these have the largest proportion of

rural households—and lowest in the West, a region which has a small proportion

of rural households, a smaller proportion of rural families that have gardens

than any other region, and a lower rate of home production per family garden.

On a quantity basis, home production in the South exceeded that in other regions,

even more than on a value basis.

Only two-thirds of the quantity of vegetables supplied from home gardens

was used in season. Almost a fourth was canned. The remainder was frozen or

stored without processing. More tomatoes were used, both fresh and for canning,

than any other vegetable.

Tlie degree of popularity of vegetables varied among home gardeners.

Tomatoes, snap beans, and onions were the three vegetables most commonly raised

for fresh use both by inrban and rural households. Home garden tomatoes were

reported by ik percent of urban respondents, altaost 50 percent of rural nonfarm,

and 75 percent of farm households.

Sweet com, cabbage, and peas were each raised in three out of five farm

gardens; radishes, cucimbers, carrots, beets, and dark green leafy vegetables,

in half of the gardens. Mustard greens, collards, and okra are grown mainly in

the South. Other dark green leafy vegetables, yellow squash, and lima beans are

also more caramon in the South than in the other regions, while carrots are less

common. Compared with farm households in the other regions, those in the Northeast raised the largest variety of vegetables.

Emphasis on individual vegetables for fresh use was quite different in

home gardens from that in commercial fresh marketing. By weight, tomatoes

amounted to only a tenth of fresh vegetables sold in I95U but acco\mted for a

29/ Survey Report 12 (23).
- 20 -

third of home-produced vegetables. Fresh sweet corn was also a smaller part

of commercial fresh sales than of home production. Lettuce and cabbage,

however, were a larger part of commercial than of home garden production.

Farm households in successively older age groups, measured "by age of

homemaJ^er, depended on home production for a larger share of the fi^sh vegetables used. 30/

Potatoes 3i/

In each region, household use of potatoes, fresh plus processed, is

larger per person in rural than in urban areas. Farrai households use more than

rural nonfarm households, except in the South.

The quantity of potatoes used per person in the spring of 1955 ^sts a

fifth smaller in the South than the U. S. average, and a fifth larger in the

North Central Region (fig. 11). ^ The Northeast ranked second and the West

third.

POTATOES CONSUMED AT HOME:

DIFFERENCES BY REGION AND BY URBANIZATION

As % of U. S. Averoge ?fíT Person, Spring 1955 *

V77?77X

U. S. AVERAGE

/

79%/; 107%

N. E. N. C. SOUTH WEST URBAN RURAL —•^«•. pARM

NONFARM

* QkSEO ON POUNDAGE (FARM WEIGHT EQUIVALENT).

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

NEC. ERS83.61 (4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

2QJ Survey Report ik (23).

31/ Farm weight. See footnote 1,

,3.2/ Based on table 6.

Figure 11
- 21 -

At successively higher income levels, the quantity of potatoes used per

person m urban households tended to increase among the lower income groups,

level off, and then decrease among the upper income groups. However, in the

South, where consumption was relatively low at all income levels, use did not

tend to decrease at the upper income levels. The South was the only region in

which use in urban households in the $8,000 and over income group averaged

more per person than those with less than $U,000. Variation among income groups

was least in the North Central Region.

Use of processed potatoes varied more among population groups than did

total use. The quantity of processed items used per person was greater in

urban than in farm households. Use increased at successively higher income

levels. Younger hoiiseholds, as measured by age of homemaker, used a larger

quantity of potato chips than older households. Among the regions, the North

Central averaged the largest quantity used per person. Average use in the

South was only half as large as the national average. Southern farm households

used an insignificant qviantity, and even \Arban hoixseholds in the South used

much less than those in the other regions.

Use of hcme-produced potatoes in farm households in 195^ was greater

per person in the Northeast and the South than in the North Central Region^

but much lower in the West. In nonfann households, home production was larger

in the South than in the other regions. Because of smaller purchases, however,

overall potato consumption in the South was lower than in the other regions.

Sweet-potatoes ¿2/

Consumers in the South use a much larger quantity of sweetpotatoes per

person than do those in other regions. ^ Among the lower and middle-income

groups, the quantity used per person in the spring of I955 tended to increase

at successively higher income levels, but use tended to decline at the upper

end of the income range. Excluding canned sweetpotatoes, use per person averaged more in households with less than $4,000 income than in those with

incomes of $4,000 and more.

Home production of sweetpotatoes was important only in the South.

Dry Beans and Peas 15/

Use of dry beans and peas — low cost, high energy protein foods —-

varies widely among population groups. Both dry beans and peas were used by a

larger proportion of households in the South than in the other regions in the

spring of 1955- The South also ranked first in the quantity used per person.

In the use of beans, the West ranked second. Urban groups in the West used a

relatively large quantity of beans per person.

•^l/ Farm weight. See footnote 1.

^k/ Table 6.

25/ Includes canned baked and other mature beans; table 6.
- 22 -

Rxiral areas used a larger quantity of dry beans and peas per person

than did urban areas•

At successively higher income levels smaller quantities of dry beans

and peas were used. In general^ this applied among urban, rural nonfarm, and

farm households in each region»

Consumption Outside Hoixseholds 36/

Canned vegetables constituted a much greater proportion of vegetable

consumption in mass feeding outlets than in households, according to a study

of ccmmercial eating places and national surveys of inplant food seirvices and

of Ixmches served in schools* Other comparisons with hoiisehold food consumption are also made*

Commercial Eating Places

No comprehensive survey has been made of commercial eating houses, the

largest sector of the nonhousehold market* A 1950 Minnesota study of eating

places in a large and in a small city showed that eating places in the large

city spent more of their food dollar for vegetables and potatoes than those in

the small city. 37/ Of total expenditures for vegetables, about half went for

canned vegetables in the large city, and about two-thirds in the small city*

The proportion varied among types of eating places* In the large city it was

lowest at Ixmch counters, greater in food services in department stores, cafeterias, and eating places serving the more expensive meals*

Inplant Food Services 38/

A nationwide survey of inplant food services in manufacturing plants

with at least 250 employees was made in January-February I956* Inplant food

services in this study spent 7 cents of their food dollar for vegetables and

dry beans and peas, 39/ while urban hoiiseholds in the spring of I955 spent 10

cents for these items. Seasonal availability—winter versus spring ^may account

for some of this difference, but there also seem to be other factors* Some

plants with lunch counter service, canteen, or mobile cart service offered

little or no choice of vegetables and often no green vegetables except lettuce.

36/ Includes food in purchased meals and snacks away from home by the household population and all food for those living outside hoiiseholds* ' The nonhousehold market comprises about a fifth of the food sold to the civilian population, but the proportion for individual foods is not known* See "Significance of Current Development in Food Statistics" (Í1.7, pp. 7-8)*

37/ Eating Places as Marketers of Food ProductsT29^ PP> 63, 65).

3B/ Buying Practices and Food Use of Employee Food"^rvices in Manufacturing

Plants (27, pp* 15-16) and Expenditures for Processed Foods-by Employee Fbo5—

Services in Manufacturing Plants (2Ö, pp* 19-21). ""^ "—

39/ Potatoes and sweetpotatoes not included.
- 23 -

and cabbage in cole slaw« There also was some indication that, even when

vegetables were offered, employees might not select them as often as when

served at home,

Inplant services, on the average, spent relatively much less for fresh

vegetables and more for canned vegetables than did urban households. However,

in the West, inplant services spent as m\xch for fresh as for canned vegetables •

Potatoes and sweetpotatoes claimed about 2 cents of the food dollar in

both the inplant food services and urban households* Potato chips were fairly

important in inplant food services; chips were most important in small plants,

where they amounted to 35 percent of the money spent by food services for

potatoes and sweetpotatoes. Only inplant services in the South used sweetpotatoes to any appreciable extent. More of both fresh and canned were used

in the South than in the other regions. Establishments in the North Central

Region were a poor second in use of sweetpotatoes.

Lunches Served in Schools ko/

A national survey of food served in schools covered the I957-58 school

year. Schools used about as much of their food dollar (9 cents) for vegetables

and dry beans and peas as did urban households; however, schools spent relatively more for canned and less for fresh vegetables than urban households. Of the

total amount spent for these items, schools spent 66 percent for canned, 26

percent for fresh vegetables, and the rest for dried and frozen items.

Potatoes and sweetpotatoes claimed a little more of the food dollar in

schools (2.3 cents) than in urban households, where the food dollar covers all

three meals plus snacks, not J"ust lunches.

Except for frozen items, the value per person of vegetables, potatoes,

and sweetpotatoes used was greater in rural than in urban schools. The latter

used larger quantities of frozen vegetables.

An expansion of the school market for vegetables may come from three

sources. First, the proportion of schools serving lunches, 60 percent in 1958,

may increase. Second, pupil participation in the schools serving lunches may

increase—only about half of those in such schools participated in 1958. Third,

the rapid growth in school enrollment is expected to result in a fourth more

pupils by 1970.

ko/ "Bie Market for Vegetables, Potatoes, and Sweetpotatoes in Public Schools"

(5!). For more detail on individixal vegetables, see The Market for Food in

Public Schools {2k).
- 2lf -

REGIONAL SHARES OF THE U. So MARKET

Household expenditiires for use at home provide a basis for estimating

the share of the aggregate U. S. market for vegetables, potatoes, sweetpotatoes,

and dry beans and peas for each region. This section compares the share of

the market for these items for each region, with its share of the population and

of the market for all food (fig* 12).^fl/ How regional shares of the qixantities

purchased differ from the regional distribution of commercial production is also

indicated (fig. I3). k&/

The share of the U. S* market for food for a region, in terms of value,

depends, in the first place, on its share of the population, and secondly, on

how much the region differs from other regions in quantity used per person,

proportion of the quantity used that is purchased, and average prices paid.

Variations among regions in average prices paid may reflect variations in the

general price level in an area, the proportion of the more and less expensive

kinds and forms bought, the services included with purchases, location in

relation to producing areas and transit routes, or other price influencing

factors.

Because of price differences, regional shares of purchases in terms of

value differ from shares measured in terms of quantity. In general, prices are

lower in the South. This is in part due to greater use of local supplies which

involves less expense for transportation ana. other services. Lress processing

is another factor — for example,use of fresh rather than canned vegetables and

sweetpotatoes, and of dry rather than canned beans and peas»

Vegetables h^/

In the spring of 1955^ the Northeast and the North Central regions constituted the largest markets for vegetables — each about 30 percent of the

U. S, total — followed by the South and the West. However,relative to population, the West ranked first and the Northeast second. The share of the market

in the South was only three-fourths as large as its proportion of the U. S.

population. Several factors contributed to the relatively small market in the

kl/ Since housekeeping households represent about 9^ percent of the civilian

population, it seems reasonable to generalize from regional shares of the

household market. Average household expenditures for an item in each region

and in the United States, spring 1955, given in Survey Reports I-5 (23) ,

weighted by the proportion of households in each region, table 8, give the regional distribution of the household market for the item. Regional shares in

spring are probably fairly typical of annual shares. Population distribution

is based on members of housekeeping families, table 8.

kg/ Quantities purchased, from Survey Reports I-5 (23); commercial production,

from Crop Reporting Board (£, 11, 12). Production data are for more recent

years than the survey data, but regional shares of quantities purchased have

probably changed little since the tijne of the survey.

¿2/ Excluding melons, as well as potatoes, sweetpotatoes, and dry beans and

pea^.
- 25

REGIONAL SHARES OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURES

FOR VEGETABLE ITEMS

A$%of U. S, Total, Spring 1955

POPULATION ¿B. m

EXPENDITURES:

ALL FOOD

VEGETABLES ^

TOTAL

FRESH

CANNED

FROZEN

POTATOES

SWEETPOTATOES

DRY BEANS AND PEAS

^^ií^í'íc'EíA^áíáá^^^

'Í'^'íÍ''í^1&ií'0«^^^K$S

y'OciyÄiÄiSS^^giß^ii

^^^.smc^^^mm^m&^m

.^^M^ymm^mmim^,

^mmm^

W/M:::*•: 13:::;

Wf/M :::i:J3:::i

W/M :i:|:'3:i:

v/??.mi'. i:i:i]3::|

^mm^^

/43

i.i.i.ii

:io:::

SN. E. ^N. C. ^ South OH West

^ BASED ON HOUSEKEEPING FAMILIES..

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

^EXCLUDES MELONS.

ERS 84-61(4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 12

South, With more persons per hoxisehold and a larger proportion of low-income

families and of rural families, the South used less per person than the other

regions; purchased a smaller proportion of the total quantity used; and paid

less per pound. However, the South claimed as large a share of the vegetable

purchases as of the total food market. Furthermore, use of home-produced vegetables was more important in the South than in the other regions • kk/

Of the four regions, in the spring of 1955 the West was the best market

for food, relative to size of population, and it had as large a share of the

market for vegetables in each form (fresh, canned, frozen) as for all food.

The Northeast, also an excellent market for food, had an even larger share of

the market for fresh vegetables and a much larger share for frozen vegetables

than for all food, but a smaller share for canned vegetables. Another good

market for food, the North Central Region, was not as good a market for vegetables except for canned. The South, the only region that shared less of the

total food market than its proportion of population, had about the same share

of the market for fresh and canned vegetables as for food in general, but a

smaller share of the frozen vegetable market.

kh/ Svirvey Report 12 (23).
26

REGIONAL SHARES OF PRODUCTION AND PURCHASES

OF VEGETABLE ITEMS*

As % of U. S. Total Poundage

VEGETABLES _„_

PRODUCTION FOR FRESH MARKET Rii6f^¿flK9at;%:^27^:^^^:;:i:::i:i:i:^^^ PURCHASES OF FRESH

PRODUCTION FOR PROCESSING

PURCHASES OF PROCESSED

^>jyá^.<>\<r^>i¡íi¡m'?mi¡ryjmm6m^Ass^

ó^:í:::í:í:::::¿:45::::::::::::!:!:;^

POTATOES

PRODUCTION fi^^fSfS^^^^T^^^^W^^^c^^^^^^^^^W^^:.

PURCHASES KS.^.^^s'S'^mmimií-miiímíímimjsssi

SWEETPOTATOES

PRODUCTION A

PURCHASES

DRY BEANS AND PEAS

PRODUCTION A

PURCHASES mMMMÉmmá

N. E. N. C. South West

^RELATIONSHIPS BASED ON CO««ERCML PRODUCTION OF VEGETABLES IN IÍ57-Í0 AND OF OTHER

ITEMS IN 1957-59, AND ON HOUSEHOLD PURCHASES FOR USE AT HOME IN SPRINC 1955.

^BJIIED ON POUNDAGE SOLD. LESS SEED.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. ERS 85-61 (4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 13

Commercial production is much more concentrated geographically than the

consuming market (fig. 13). Furthermore, production is light in the Northeast,

where population is densest, and much greater in the West, which has the smallest share of U. S. population.

The West, by far the smallest market for vegetables because of its relatively small population, has accounted in recent years for almost half of U S

annual production of both commercial fresh and processed vegetables. Much of *

^e increased production for processing in the West has gone into freezing, and

the West now produces aMost two-thirds of the total frozen pack. The South

contributes a fourth of commercial fresh vegetable production, almost as much

as Its share of purchases, but produces only a tenth of the vegetables for processing. The Worth Central Region produces a third of the vegetables for processing, about the same as its share of purchases, but a little less than a

tenth of the total for the fresh market. In the Northeast, commercial production for both the fresh market and processing, amounts to much less than the

quantities purchased.

Even within regions, commercial production for the fresh market has

become largely concentrated in specialized areas. Relatively few States-mainly

Florida and Texas m the South, and California and Arizona in the West-have the

climate to supply fresh vegetables in all seasons of the year.
- 27 -

Potatoes

The North Central Region is by far the largest market for potatoes,

followed by the Northeast, the South, and the West (fig. 12). The South, with

32 percent of the household population in the 1955 survey, comprised only 23

percent of the potato market; it was the only region that had a share of the

market less than its proportion of U. S. popvilation.

Only the North Central Region has a larger share of the market for

potatoes than for vegetables or for all food.

Regional distribution of camnercial potato prodviction is somewhat different from that of the market for potatoes for food. The West has expanded its

production rapidly, and in recent years has produced about k^ percent of the

total commercial potato crop (fig. 13)» The Northeast, with about 30 percent

of the total, is the second most important producing area. Production in the

North Central Region has been about a sixth of the total in recent years.

Sweetpotatoe s

Though the South had only a third of the population in the I955 survey,

and an even smaller share of the market for total food, vegetables, and potatoes, it accounted for a little over two-fifths of the market for sweetpotatoes

(fig. 12). Each of the other regions was a poor market for sweetpotatoes ccmpared with its purchases of vegetables, potatoes, and total food.

Production is concentrated in a few states—about 80 percent of it in

the South (fig. 13).

Dry Beans and Peas

About half of the total market for dry beans and peas is in the South

(fig. 12). In the 1955 survey the North Central Region and the Northeast

ranked second and third in share of the market, but each had a small share of

the market relative to their shares of popiaation. The share of the market

for the West was smaller than its share of the vegetable or total food market.

However, relative to population, it was a better market for dry beans than

either the Northeast or the North Central Region,

Tlie West accounts for two-thirds of the total U. S. production of dry

beans and peas (fig. 13)»
- 28 -

II^LIGA!riQIiS--FOR FUTURE CONSUMPTION

Consiomption trends for vegetables, potatoes, sweetpotatoes, and dry beans

and peas have reflected a variety of changing circumstances. These include

decline in farm population; long-run increases in purchasing power; decline in

production for home lose; ever widening availability of these products at retail,

in both densely and sparsely popxilated areas; development of processed products

for quick, easy food preparation; and increasing similarity in constmiptiou pat-,

terns of farm and nonfarm households. These forces will continue to exert an

influence, but their effect may be less in the future than in the past.

Both increasing availability at retail of fresh and processed items at

competitive prices, and the appeal of new processed products as they reach the

market, will influence future levels and patterns of consumption. Increases in

variety and in the relative importance of processed items are expected to occur.

But it is likely that the total quantity consumed per capita has reached a

level that will change little during the next few years. Aggregate consxanption,

however, will expand along with the expected 20 to 25 percent growth in population during the next decade.

Vegetables 4^/

Despite rising incomes and continued decline in home production, per

capita consumption of total commercial vegetables, fresh plus processed, has

not increased during the last decade. Even though changes in use in various

population groups are likely, per capita consumption for the country as a \Aiole

will probably change little.

Fast Changes in Urban

and Rviral Areas

Although urban households used more vegetables per person than rural

households did both in 19^1-2 and 1955> survey data indicate that the difference

between the two was less in 1955 • W In the interim between 1942 and 1955^

average use increased in rural houienolds, but it changed little in urban households. Wider availability at retail in rural areas made a difference in consumption patterns through increased use of vegetables among rural families• Of

particular note was the greater vise in farm hoxiseholds of commercially canned

vegetables in 1955* In rural nonfarm households, a shift of population up the

income scale probably was a major cause for increased use of vegetables per

person between 19^2 and 1955•

^5/ Excluding melons, as well as potatoes, sweetpotatoes, and dry beans and

peas.

k6/ Data for spring 19^12 derived from Family Food Consumption in the United

States, Spring 19^2. (15). For problems involved in comparing 1942 and 1955

data, see the appendix.
- 29 -

Availability

At Retail

Consumption trends and differences in consumption among population

groups reflect availability as well as demand or preference, Vflaile home production declined and commercial production expanded^use of commercial vegetables

increased more in urban than in r\rral areas. More widespread availability will

tend to lessen difference in use among population groups.

Ease of transporting canned vegetables and of storing them both at

wholesale and at retail has made them widely and readily available. Ease of

storage at home as well as easy preparation for serving adds to their popularity, even though consumers often prefer some items in the fresh or frozen

form because of color, flavor, and texture.

Among population groups, availability of frozen vegetables varies more

than does that of canned vegetables. Compared with canned or fresh vegetables,

the need for refrigeration from packer to retailer and in the home puts frozen

vegetables at a disadvantage. Less of the frozen is available in areas of

scattered population than in more densely populated areas, and less generally

is available in neighborhood grocery stores than in supermarkets.

Because of perishability and the need for special handling, the relatively higîi cost for fresh vegetables is a handicap to some retail outlets in maintaining supplies. A small retailer frequently will offer less choice than a

larger one. Waere population is widely scattered, fresh vegetables cannot be

supplied as easily as canned, or even frozen vegetables, beca\ise fresh items

must be delivered to retail stores more frequently than are those that are

processed. Rural nonfaxm households use less fresh vegetables than urban

households because fresh items on the market are less available to these

households,

Expected Changes in

Consxmption

On the basis of observable trends, fresh vegetable consumption per

capita is expected to decline slightly over the next decade, consumption of

canned to increase slightly, and frozen to increase substantially. In balance,

however, overall vegetable consumption per capita, farm weight equivalent, is

not expected to change a great deal. It is likely,however, that some changes

will take place among various population groups.

As commercial vegetables become more widely available in rural areas,rural

households will tend to increase their use of total vegetables more in line

with the larger quantities used per person in urban households. However, in

both \irban and rural areas, vegetables will be competing for the food dollar

with growing supplies of other foods, including many prepared ready-to-serve

items.
- 30 -

Further increase in the per capita consiamption of canned vegetables

probably will not be large becaxise canned vegetables will be meeting more competition from fresh and frozen vegetables. But since the quantity of canned

vegetables used, and also of all forms combined, is less per person in rural

than in urban areas, some increase is likely in rural, particularly farm, house«

holds. In the South, and in rural nonfarm households generally, where use of

canned vegetables tends to increase at successively higher income levels, an

increase in real incomes might tend to raise consumption. Younger homemakers

are also giving a boost to canned vegetable consumption.

Per capita cons\miption of frozen vegetables, which is only a small part

of total vegetable consumption, is likely to continue to increase. An increase

in real incomes should raise consumption, for use of frozen vegetables per person increases at successively higher income levels. New and improved products,

stepped-up promotion, and continued expansion of refrigeration facilities in

marketing channels and in homes should raise the general level of consumption.

The frozen vegetable industry increasingly emphasizes the importance of keeping

frozen vegetables at a temperature of 0^ Fahrenheit or below. V// For many

frozen vegetables, the proportion of families buying them, and the average

qxiantities that these families b\iy, can be expected to increase. it8/ In rural

households, where total vegetable consumption averages less per person than in

urban households, a higher level of use for frozen vegetables might raise the

total.

Fresh vegetable consimiption per capita has been declining since World

War II. Because use of fresh vegetables increases less at successively higher

income levels than does xise of frozen vegetables, and as most of the increase

is at the upper end of the income scale, the expected increase in real incomes

is likely to have less effect on the use of fresh than of frozen vegetables.

It probably will have less effect in farm than in \irban households; a higher

proportion of the fresh vegetables used is purchased in urban households. Extension of recent improved marketing practices is increasing the availability

at retail of fresh vegetables of good quality at competitive prices. This

might result in maintaining or raising the general level of use of fresh vegetables among some population groups, particularly among the rural nonfana

population, whose use of fresh vegetables per person now is less than the quantities consumed by either the urban or the fann population. The decrease in

use of commercial fresh vegetables per capita diiring a decade of rising incomes,

and continued decline in home production in the same period, reflect largely the

greater competition from processed vegetables and other foods. For all popxxlation groups combined, per capita consumption of fresh vegetables is likely to

decline further, both home-produced and commercial.

New product possibilities emphasize various dehydrating techniques.

Dehydrofreezing and foam-mat drying have been developed at the U. S. Department

of Agriculture's Western Laboratory. To date, dehydrofrozen vegetables are not

available in family size packages. However, they are being siiccessfully \ised for

WjJ See Protect Frozen Foods From Temperature Damage (88) .

Ijo/ See Family Purchases of Selected Frozen Fruits and Vegetables (56).
- 31 -

pimentos for processed cheese, and vegetables for soup making, and later are

likely to be put up in retail packages. In dehydrofreezing, vegetables are

dried to about 50 percent of their original weight, then frozen and held frozen.

The process effects savings in freezing, packing, storage, and shipping costs.

Quality of the cooked product is reported to be about the same as that of the

regular frozen product.

In the foam-mat process. Juices or purees are beaten to a foam, usually

with the aid of emulsifiers, and dried in an airblast. Wiile potential usefulness of foam-mat drying for vegetable juices cannot be assessed until further

work, now under way, is completed, the process appears to have some cost-saving

advantages over several commercial drying methods now available.

Freeze-drying of vegetables is now in the advanced developmental stage,

as a result of work by a number of food firms and the Army. In this process,

food is frozen, then dehydrated xinder vacuimi. Properly sealed, these freezedried foods can be stored at rocm temperature for long periods of time. They

apparently do not become toiighened or shriveled, and when rehydrated, largely

regain their original flavor and texture. Tho\i¿h the process resiats in obvious

saving in transportation, storage, and packaging costs compared with fresh,

frozen, and canned, it is still not known whether it will save enough to offset

the higher cost of processing.

Prospects appear good for perfection and commercial adoption of an instantizing process which shortens drastically the cooking time for dehydrated vege-.

tables. Development work is underway at the Eastern Laboratory of the U. S.

Department of Agriculture.

Potatoes

Per capita consumption of potatoes decreased fairly consistently from

1910 until the early 1950's. According to 19^2 and 1955 survey data, decreases

during the intervening years occurred in each urbanization group and, in

general, took place at all income levels. Since nonfarm households use

smaller quantities per person than farm households, the shift in population

off the farms also tended to lower consumption. Expected increases in real inccme are likely to have little overall effect on consumption per person.

Increased consumption of processed potatoes in recent years has halted,

at least temporarily, the downward trend in total potato consimrption per capita.

Since use of processed potatoes per person increases at successively higher

income levels and with greater degree of urbanization, both the expected increase in real incomes and the continued shift of population off farms will

tend to raise consuniption of processed potatoes. The popularity of processed

potatoes, particularly with younger homemakers, is stimulating the shift to

processed forms. Any overall increase in consumption of processed items,

however, is expected to be largely offset by a decline in fresh use.
- 32 -

The instantizing process discussed in connection with vegetables also

holds promise for use with dehydrated potatoes.

Sweetpotatoes

Consumption of sweetpotatoes per capita has been declining for several

decades. Use is more regional and more seasonal than that for potatoes.

Canning has expanded^ and more recently marketed items such as frozen candied

sweetpotatoes are likewise extending the use of sweetpotatoes. Also, sweetpotato chips, and sweetpotato flakes which reconstitute into mashed sweetpotatoes, have recently been developed. Increased use of processed sweetpotatoes

is likely to slow, and may halt or even reverse, the downward trend in

consumption.

Dry Beans and Peas

Consumption of dry beans and peas per capita has declined some since

World War II. Use is greater in rural than in urban areas, and greater in low

than in high-income households. Thus, further increases in real incomes and

in degree of urbanization might be expected to result in some decline in use

per person. However, improved processed products may tend to offset these

influences.
- 33 -

Table 1.—Vegetables : Consumption per capita, by source and form, 1909-60 l/

Year : Total

Homeproduced

Coinraercial 3/

2/ Total Fresh :

Canned Frozen

; ^

: Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds

1909 \ 228 (126) 102 ilh) 27.5 —

1910 ! 225 (126) 99 (73) 26.1

1911 : 222 (126) 96 (68) 28.1

1912 : 232 (126) 106 (72) 33.7

1913 : 227 (121) 106 (70) 35.6

19ll^ : 230 (125) 105 (70) 3l*.6

1915 : 22k (120) lOif (72) 32.1f

1916 : 222 (120) 102 (73) 29.0

1917 : 227 (120) 107 (73) 31*.0

1918 : 237 (120) 117 (77) 1*0.1

1919 : 231 (116) 115.0 76.6 38.1f —

1920 ! 21^1+ (116) 127.8 95.0 32.8

1921 : 228 (116) ^^?,k 82.2 30.2

1922 : 235 (112) 123.3 92.8 30.5 -__

1923 : 236 (108) 128A 90.1 38.3

192li- : 2k7 (105) li*2.1 100.9 1*1.2 ._-

^^ : 252 (1P5) 11*7.1 101.3 1*5.8

1926 255 (105) 11*9.9 100.6 ii-9.3 •——

1927 : 21*6 (100) 11*8.5 106.0 1*2.5

1928 : 2i*7 (IDO) 1U7.0 10I+.2 1*2.8

1929 : 259 ( 99) 159.7 11?.6 1*7.1 —

1930 : 265 (102) 162.7 111.9 50.8

1931 255 (101), 151^.2 108.3 k^'9 ___

1932 255 (106) 11*8.9 108.8 1*0.1 ___

1933 251 (106) ll*5.2 10l*.5 ifO.7 «__

193»^ 260 (103) 156.8 115.2 lfl.6 -—

1935 262 (10^) 158.2 111.2 1*7.0

1936 266 (103) 162.7 n?.5 50.2

1937 267 (103) l6l*.3 ni.o 52.3 1.0

1938 272 (102) 170.1 iiif.5 5U.6 1.0

1939 275 (100) 171*.6 116.6 56.8 1.2

19^1-0 279 ( 99) 179.9 116.9 61.6 1.1*

19^1 277 ( 96) 180.5 113.5 65.^ 1.6

19i^2 292 ( 99) 192.7 118.3 71.8 2.6

19i^3 293 (106) 186.6 116.1* 68.5 1.7

19^^^ : 302 (107) 195.2 123.5 67.9 3.8

191^5 : 326 (lol^) 221.6 133.8 83.1* k.k

19U6 : 316 ( 92) 223.8 129.9 89.2 k.l

19h7 : 293 ( 87) 206.0 122.If 77.5 6.1

I9U8 : 283 ( 83) 199.5 123.0 69.5 7.0

19^1-9 : 270 ( 77) 193.3 115.8 70.7 6.8

1950 ; 272 ( 73) 198.8 111*.6 76.8 l.k

1951 : 272 ( 71) 200.6 in.6 79.7 9.3

1952 : 267 ( 68) 199.2 111.0 76.9 11.3

1953 : 265 ( 65) 199.7 108.3 79.6 11.8

195^^ : 261 ( 6k) 196.6 107.3 76.8 12.5

1955 : 263 ( 6k) 198.6 ioi*.6 80.5 13.5

1956 : 265 ( 62) 202.5 106.9 81.5

Ql.k

ll*.l

1957 : 261 ( 60) 200.5 ioi*.6 li^.5

1958 : 260 ( 60) 200.2 102.1 82.7 15.i^

1959 : 259 ( 60) 198.7 100.1* 82.6 15.7

i960 6/ ; 262 ( 60) 201.5 101.9 83.7 15.9

1/ Excludes melons, potatoes, sweetpotatoes, dry beans and peas.

Data in parentheses are approximations. 2/ Rough approximation of consumption of vegetables from home gardens.

Prom table 36, Supplement for 1956 and latest annual supplement to Agr. Handb. 62, Consumption of Food in the

United States 1909-52 (3). 3/ From Agr. Handb.. 62 supplements (3). Beginning with 1919, data from table 21; prior

to 1919, approximations for fresh vegetables from table 3I* and data for canned vegetables from table 18, both

conveirted to farm weight equivalent, k/ Excludes quantities used for soup and baby food. 5/ Includes some

quantities used in manufacture of so\ips and other products. 6/ Preliminary.
Table 2.—Commercially produced vegetables: Changes in pe-.-

by form, 19krj-k9 to 1957-59 l/

(Farm weight equivalent)

capita consumption,

Vegetable : 19k'J-k9 1957-59 Change, 19U7-i^9 : Vegetable 191^7.49 1957-59 Change, 1947-49

and form : average average to 1957-59 : and form average average to 1957-59

Pounds Pounds Percent : Pounds Pounds Percent

: All vegetables 1/ : 10 selected items 2/ -Continued

Fresh : 120.if 102.1 -15 : Cabbage

Canned : 72.6 82.3 13 : Fresh 16.1 11.2 -30

Frozen : 6,6 15.2 130 : Canned kj 2.39 2.18 -9

Total : 199.6 199.6 0 : Total 18.1+9 13.38 -28

: 10 selected items 2/ : Com ¿/

Total, 10 items Fresh 8.0 8.1 1

Fresh ^9.9 39.6 -21 : Canned 13.25 13.35 1

Canned 67.Í+I 76.61 14 : Frozen .90 2.73 179

Frozen i^.5^ 11.93 115 : Total 22.23 24.19 9

Total 122.86 128. lif h :

Cucumbers

Asparagus Fresh 2.6 2.6 0

Fresh 1.0 .8 -20 ! Canned 6/ 3.2U 3.96 22

Canned .86 1.03 20 : Total 5.8U 6.56 12

Frozen .26 .33 27 :

Total 2.12 2.15 1 : Peas, green ^

Fresh .9 .3 -67

Beans, lima ^ Canned 9.52 8.07 -15

Fresh .6 .3 -50 ; Frozen 2.31 4.53 96

Canned .51 .66 29 : Total 12.74 12.90 1

Frozen .92 1.60 Ih

Total : 2.03 2.56 26 : Spinach

Fresh 1.9 1.0 -47

Beans, snap : Canned .98 .88 -10

Fresh : k,l 2.7 -3h ': Frozen : .k9 1.04 112

Canned : 2.09 3.02 kk : Total : 3.37 2.92 -13

Frozen : .35 .97 111 :

Total : 6.5^^ 6.69 2 : Tomatoes

Fresh ': 13.Ö 12.1 -12

Broccoli : Canned j/ : 34.57 43.46 26

Fresh :

.Q .5 -h^ : Total 48.37 55.56 15

Frozen : .23 .73 217 :

Total : 1.13 1.23 9 :

1/ Excludes melons, potatoes, sweetpotatoes, and dry beans and peas. Data for processed vegetables exclude quantities consumed in

commercially produced soups and baby foods. Civilian consumption. 2/ Those items shown separately in this table. Data for canned

vegetables exclude quantities in vegetable mixtures such as peas and carrots, and succotash. 3/ "In pod" basis. 4/Sauerkraut canned

and bulk. 5/ "On cob" basis. 6/ Pickles, canned and bulk. 7/lncluding canned whole tomatoes and tomato products other than soup.

4^

I
- 35

Table 3.--Potatoes, sweetpotatoes, and dry beans and peas: Consumption per capita, 1909-60 l/

(Farm weight equivalent)

Potatoes

Total

Commercial Nonfarm

pl\is farm homehome- produced

produced 2/ 2/

Sveetpotatoes

Total

Commercial

plus farm

homeproduced hj

NonfeüiTD

homeproduced

3/

Dry edible beans and

dry field peas

Total

Commercial 5/

Beans : Peas

Homeproduced

Lb.

201

211

170

192

201

169

196

156

181+

162

114-9

165

151

182

161

16I+

135

ll+T

153

165

138

li+2

llfl

139

1U2

II+9

137

133

136

129

130

135

133

132

Ikk

128

129

132

111

116

111

118

106

111

111

112

106

113

106

109

113

Lb.

187

198

157

179

189

157

1Ö5

li^3

11+6

17I+

152

ii+o

156

ii^3

17I+

157

128

li+l

1I+7

159

132

136

13^^

132

135

1I+2

130

126

129

122

123

128

127

125

136

122

123

127

106

111

107

Ulf

102

107

107

108

102

110

103

106

110

Lb.

(11+)

( 3)

Lb.

27.7

7.7

Lb.

26.2

(13) 27.7 26.2

(13) 25.1+ 2I+.0

(13) 2^,k 2I+.0

(12) 2I+.9 23.6

(12) 23.1»- 22.1

(11) 26.5 25.3

(11) 25.7 2I+.5

(10) 29.1+ 27.9

(10) . 28.2 26.7

(10) 30.6 29.3

( 9) 30.8 29.5

( 9) 28.6 27.5

( Ö) 30.3 29.2

( Ö) 26.1 25.1

( 7) 18.9 17.9

( 7) 19.0 18.0

( 7) 22.3 21.3

( 6) 26.1 25.2

( 6) 21.8 20.9

(6) 23.1^ 22.6

( 6) 19.2 18.1+

( 6) 21.5 20.7

( 7) 28.6 27.8

( 7) 2I+.9 2I+.I

( 7) 25.U 2I+.5

( 7) 26.1+ 25.7

( 7) 20.5 19.9

( 7) 22.3 21.7

( 7) 22.1 21.5

( 7) 20.1+ 19.8

( 7) 17.0 16.1+

( 7) 19.1+ 18.8

( 6) 21.2 20.7

( 7) 22.2 21.7

( Ö) 20.8 20.1

(6) 19.5 18.7

( 6) 18.7 17.9

( 5) 15.8 15.0

( 5) 12.5 11.8

( 5)1 12.9 12.3

( ^) 13 A 12.9

( ^) 9.0 8.5

( ^) Ö.7 8.2

( ^) 9.3 Q.ç>

( ^) 9.2 Ö.7

( ^) 9.6 9.1

( M 9.0 3.5

( 3) Ö.5 8.1

( 3) 8.3 7.9

( 3) 8.7 8.3

7.3

Lb.

(1.5)

( A)

Lb.

13

Lb.

6.Q

Lb.

(0.5)

7.9 7.3

Lb.

(6)

(1.5) 13 6.5 { .5) (6)

(1.^) 13 6.3 ( .5) (6)

(1.^) 13 6.8 ( .5) (6)

(1.3) 13 6.1 ( .5) (6)

(1.3) 12 e.k ( .5) (5)

(1.2) 11 5.8 ( .5) (5)

(1.2) 11 5.1 ( .5) (5)

(1.5) 13 7.5 .5) (5)

(1.5) 13 1.^ { .5) (5)

(1.3) 10 ^.h { .5) W

(1.3) 10 5.7 .5) (^)

(1.1) 9 Í+.8 ( .5) W

(1.1) 10 5.1 .5) W

(1.0) 10 5.9 ' .5) W

(1.0) 11 7.8 { .5) (3)

(1.0) 11 7.3 ' .5) (3)

(1.0) 11 7.6 ; .5) (3)

( .9) 12 8.7 : .5) (3)

( .9] 12 8.6 .5 (3)

( .0) 11 7.8 .1+ (3)

( .0] 13 9.5 .5 (3)

( .0] 13 8.8 .7 (3)

( .0] 11 l^h .6 (3)

( .0; 11 7.1 .9 (3)

( .9: 13 9.1 .8 (3)

( .7: 12 8.1+ .5 (3)

( .6] 13 9.0 .6 (3)

( .6; 11 7.8 .6 (3)

( .6] 13 9.6 .6 (3)

( .6] 13 9.3 .7 (3)

( .6. 12 Q.k .7 (3)

( .6] 12 8.8 .5 (3)

( .5 15 11.1 .6 (3)

( .5. 13 8.9 .8 (3)

( .7^ 12 8.1 .8 (3)

( .0 12 7.8 .8 (3)

( .8^ 11 8.7 .7 (2)

( .8^ 9 6.5 .5 (2)

( .7 10 6.8 .8 (2)

( .6 9 6.9 .1+ (2)

( .5 n Ô.6 .8 (2)

( .5 10 8.1 .7 (1)

( .5 ) 10 8.1 .5 (1)

( .5 ) 8.9 7.6 .6 ( .7)

( .6) ( .5 ) 9.h 8.2 .6

( .5 ) 8.2 7.3 .1+ ( 'ñ

( .5 ) 8.7 8.0 .7 ( •^)

( .^ ) 8.1+ 7.5 .6 ( .3)

( .^ ) 8.2 7.7 .2 ( .3)

( .^ ) 8.1+ 7.6 .5 ( .3)

( .3)

1/ Civilian consumption only beginning 19I+I. Calendar year basis except for dry field peas for -which crop year

begins approximately in September of year indicated. Data in parentheses are rough approximations. 2/ Includes

quantities used for mixtures, flour, dehydration, chips, shoestring potatoes, and quanties frozen and canned.

From tables 18, 20,21, and 22 of Supplement for 1956 and latest annual supplement to Agr. Handb. 62 Consumption of

Pood in the United States, 1909-52 (3). Processed products converted to faj:Tn veight. 3/ Excludes fann-garden

outputT Ç7"From tables 1Ö and 22 of Agr. Handb. 62 supplements (¿). Quantities canned converted to farm weight.

5/ Cleaned basis. From tables 35 and 36 of Agr. Handb. 62 supplements (¿). Includes quantities used on farms

dere grown. 6/ Preliminary.
- 36 -

Table 4.--Vegetables: Quantity used at home per person, all households,

by urbanization and region, in a week, spring 1955 1/

(Farm weight equivalent)

Urbanization

' Total ; Presh i/

: Conimerciaxj.y

; processed

and

region

; All

1 sources

1 Pur-

\ chased .

' All •

sources *

Purchased .

: Canned rFrozen

: Pounds Pounds Po\mds Po\mds Pounds Pounds

All urbanizations ; 5-02 4.26 3.23 2.47 1.47 0.32

Northeast

North Central

South

West

: 5-20

; If.82

1^.76

if.23

3.62

5.16

3.19

3.00

3.44

3.32

2.75

2.29

2.24

3.04

1.58

1.64

1.17

1.69

.43

.30

.21

.43

Urban ! 3-3h 5.09 3.27 3.02 1.66 .41

Northeast

North Central

South

West

! 5A5

: 5.36

: 5.12

: 5 Al

5-33

5.10

4.'67

5.24

3.27

3.09

3.41

3.38

3.15

2.83

2.96

3.21

1.72

1.86

1.39

1.55

.46

.41

.32

.48

Rural nonfarm ] k.6l 3.56 3.02 1.97 1.36 .23

Northeast

North Central

South i

West

• k.kg

k.36

: 5.76

3.51

3.44

3.34

5.37

2.85

2.70

3.27

3.29

1.87

1.78

2.00

2.90

1.27

1.48

1.18

2.10

.37

.18

.16

.37

Farm : kM 2.19 3.47 1.19 .91 .09

Northeast !

North Central ;

South !

West :

k.63

4.19

1^.58

4.89

2.33

2.29

1.78

4.16

3.68

3.11

3.79

2.80

1.38

1.21

.99

2.07

.72

.99

.74

1.91

.23

.09

.05

.18

1/ Derived from 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey, Reports No. 1-5 (23)-

Excludes melons, potatoes, sweetpotatoes, and dry beans and peas; also, vegeta-

'bles in catsup and other tomato sauces, pickles, relishes, soups and food mixtures, canned baked and other mature beans. Average quantities used per person

vere adjusted to farm wei^t equivalent using the following factors (pounds of

farm wei^t in a pound product wei^t): Presh tomatoes, 1.333; other fresh

vegetables, 1.177; canned -vAiole tomatoes, I.892; canned tomato puree and paste,

4.200; tomato and other vegetable juices, 1.666; other canned vegetables, 1.554;

frozen vegetables, 2.288. Factors are ratios of farm to retail weight of 1955

annual per capita consumption (3)•

2/ Includes items in fresh fonn \dien first brought into household but in

other forms at time of consumption in spring 1955--e.g., home-canned or homefrozen vegetables.
Table 5.—Vegetables: Quantity used at home per person, urban households, by region and income, in a week, spring 1955 l/

(FaiM weight equivalent)

Region, household size, ; Commercially : ] Region, household size, Commercially

195^ money income ;

Total Fresh

2/

proceseed : ; 1954 money income

after income taxes : Total Fresh

2/

processed

after income taxes ] •

(dollars) ;

Canned : Frozen : ; (dollars) Canned Frozen

United States : Pounds Pounds Pounds Founds : : Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds

Households of 2 or

more persons 3/ 5.29 3.22 1.66 O.Ul : : South

Under 1,000 If.44 3.ÖO 1.23 .21 : Households of 2 or

1-2,000 4.22 2.82 1.22 .18 : : more persons 3/ i 5.03 3.32 1.39 0.32

2-3,000 4.88 3.09 1.58 .21 : : Under 1,000 : 3.83 2.7U 1.07 .02

3-U,000 : 4.92 2.94 1.68 .30 : : 1-2,000 4.02 2.72 1.19 .11

1^-5,000 5.14 3.06 1.67 .Ul : : 2-3,000 4.57 2.99 1.33 .25

5-6,000 5.38 3.30 1.71 37 : : * 3-4,000 4.47 2.93 1.36 .18

6-8,000 5.50 3.30 1.65 .55 : : 4-5,000 5.62 3.62 I.U3 .57

8-10,000 5.70 3.40 1.71 .59 : : 5-6,000 : 5.65 3.88 I.U3 .31^

10,000 and over 6.60 4.01 1.65 .9h : : 6-8,000 6.13 3.90 1.68 .55

Northeast : 8-10,000 5.43 3.25 1.52 .66

Households of 2 or : 10,000 and over 7.91 5.22 1.84 .85

more persons 2/ 5.39 3.24 1.69 M i : West

Under 1,000 kj -— — : : Households of 2 or

1-2,000 3.78 2.51 1.05 .23 : : more persons 3/ 5.33 3.33 1.52 .1*8

2-3,000 5.06 2.99 1.91 .16 : : Under 1,000 4/ — —

3-^,000 5.22 3.11 1.72 .39 : : 1-2,000 5.57 3.93 .97 .67

1^-5,000 5.45 3.11 1.86 .ItÔ : : 2-3,000 5.13 3.22 1.61 .30

5-6,000 5.72 3.56 1.70 M : : 3-4,000 4.57 2.66 1.57 .31+

6-8,000 5.34 3.4o 1.39 .55 : : 4-5,000 : 4.97 3.15 l.Ul .Ui

8-10,000 5.21 3.17 1.49 .55 : : 5-6,000 5.14 3.03 1.8U .27

10,000 and over 5.83 3.62 1.32 .89 : : 6-8,000 5.84 3.77 1.50 • 57

North Central Region : 8-10,000 : 6.07 3.91 1.29 •§7 Households of 2 or : 10,000 and over : 6.60 3.98 1.73 .89

more persons 2/ \ 5.33 3.06 1.86 M ':

Under 1,000 hj : — ... -— :

1-2,000 : 4.87 3.10 1.67 .09 :

2-3,000 : 5.05 3.27 1.67 .11 :

3-^,000 : 5.15 2.81 2.0k .30 :

if-5,000 : 4.75 2.72 1.78 .25 :

5-6,000 : 4.92 2.83 1-75 .34 :

6-8,000 : 5.20 2.81 1.8U .55 :

8-10,000 : 6.14 3.50 2.11 .53 :

10,000 and over : 6.74 3.99 i.-jk 1.01 :

1/ Derived from 1955 Household Food Consiomption Survey, Reports No. 1-5 (23). Excludes melons, potatoes, sweetpotatoes, and dry

beans and peas; alsc^ vegetables in catsup and other tomato sauces, pickles, relishes, soups, and food mixtures and canned baked and

other mature beans. Average quantities used per person were adjusted to farm weight equivalent using the following factors (pounds

of farm weight in a pound product weight): Fresh tomatoes, 1.333; other fresh vegetables, 1.177; canned whole tomatoes, 1.892;canned

tomato pxiree and paste, 4.200; tomato and other vegetable Juices, 1.666; other canned vegetables, 1.554; frozen vegetables, 2.288.

Factors are ratios of farm to retail weight of 1955 annual per capita consumption(3). 2/ Includes items in fresh form when first

brought intohousehold but in other forms at time of consumption in spring 1955—e.g. home-canned or home-frozen vegetables.

3/ Includes some households not reporting income. 4/ Insufficient data.
- 38-

Table 6.—Potatoes, sweetpotatoes, dry beans and peas: Quantity used at home per

person, all households, by urbanization and region, in a week, spring 1955 l/

(Farm weight equivalent)

: Potatoes

Urbanization Sweet- Dry beans and

and : Total : Fresh : Other 2/ potatoes peas 3/

region

: Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds

All urbanizations : 2.06 1.88 0.18 0.09 0.15

Northeast : 2.18 1.99 .19 .06 .00

North Central 2 M 2.20 .26 .07 .10

South 1.62 1.5^ .08 .12 .26

West 1.89 1.71 .18 .06 •15

Urban 1.90 1.69 .21 ^02 .11

Northeast 1.97 1.78 .19 .08 • 07

North Central : 2.27 1.9^ .33 .09 .08

South IM 1.3^^ .12 .Ik .19

West : 1.66 IM .18 •07 .14

Rural nonfarm : 2.21 2.07 ,1k .08 .20

Noiiiheast : 2.5^ 2.33 .21 .05 .10

North Central : 2.61 2.35 .26 04 .U

South : 1.77 1.73 .01+ .11 .32

West : 2.31 2.10 .21 .05 .18

Farm : 2.^0 2.^2 .08 .08 .22

Northeast 3 AT 3.33 ,1k .07 .10

North Central : 3.12 2.96 .16 .ok .13

South : 1.61 1.61 ... .11 •32

West : 2.62 2.1^6 .16 .02 •17

1/ Derived from I955 Household Food Consumption Survey, Reports No. 1-5 (23). Average quantities used per person were adjusted to a farm wei^it equivalent by application of following

factors (pounds of farm wei^t in a pound product wei^t): Fresh potatoes, 1.075; frozen potato products, 2,k; potato chips, sticks, k,0; fresh sweetpotatoes, 1-155; canned sweetpotatoes,

1.11^4-; canned baked beans, Q.3I and dry besms and peaë, 1.0 (3). 2/ Includes potato chips ^ and

sticks, frozen potato products, but excludes potato salad. ¿7 Includes canned, baked and other

mature beans.

Table 7. -Potatoes: Quantity used at home per person, urban households,

by region and income, in a week, spring 1955 1/

(Farm weight equivalent)

Income after United North

taxes, 195^ States Northeast Central South West

(dollars) Region

Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds

Households of 2 or

more persons 2/ 1.89 1.96 "f 1.43 1.71

Under 1,000 1.5a |/ 1.07 3/

1-2,000 1.53 1.Z6 2.11 1.29 1.70

2-3,000 1.73 2.04 2.20 1-33 1.72

3-4,000 2.02 2.27 2.45 1.41 1.83

i<-5,ooo 2.01 1.92 2.38 1.67 1.62

5-6,000 1.97 1.81 2.11 1.65 1.60

6-8,000 2.06 1-91 2.38 1.64 1.76

8-10,000 1.T8 1.64 2.25 1.52 1.27

10,000 and over 1.84 1.98 1.83 1.68 1.88

1/ Derived from 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey, Reports No. 1-5 (23). Average quantities used per person were adjusted to a fresh equivalent basis by application of the following

factors (pounds of fresh weight in a pound product wei^t) : Fresh potatoes, 1.075; frozen

potato products, 2A-; and potato chips and sticks, k,0 (3). 2/ Includes some households not reporting their income. 3/ Insufficient data.
Table 8.—Distribu-bion of households and of members of housekeeping families,

by region and urbanization, spring 19$5 \J

Urbanization

Proportion of households

United

States

Northeast

North

Central

Region

South West

Proportion of members of

housekeeping families 2/

United

States

Northeast

North

Central

Region

South West

All urbanizations

Urban

Rioral nonfarm

Farm

All urbanizations

Urban

Rural nonfarm

Fann

Pet.

100.0

100.0

62.2

26.8

11.0

Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet.

Relative importance of region in United States total

27.7 30.i^ 30.3 11.6 100.0 27.0 30.1 32.1 10.8

100.0 32.6 29.5 2h.5 13.i^ 100.0 32.6 29.7 21+.8 12.9

100.0 23.8 29.6 37.6 9.0 100.0 23.If 27.9 ito.5 8.2 '

100.0 9.6 37.6 i^5.3 7.5 100.0 9.2 36.3 lf7.2 7.3

Relative importance of urbanization group in area total

100.0

73.1

23.1

3.8

100.0

60.3

26.1

13.6

100.0 100.0

50.3

33.2

16.5

72.1

20.9

7.0

100.0

59.2

27.9

12.9

100.0

71.^

4.4

100.0

58.5

25.9

15.6

100.0 100.0

45.8

35.2

19.0

70.3

21.0

8.7

1/ Derived from I955 Household Food Consumption Survey. Based on tables 1 and 2, Survey Reports 1-5 (23).

2/ Based on number and size of the primary economic families. For further explanation, see glossary of the

1955 Household Food Consumption Survey Reports 1-5 (23).
ko.

Table 9,—Distribution of households and of members of housekeeping families,

in region and urbanizatáion^by income, spring 1955 1/

Urbanization,

household size,

195^ income after

income taxes

(dollars)

All urbanizations

One-person households

Households of two or

more persons - total

Under 1,000

1-2,000

2-3,000

3-4,000

J+-5,ooo

5-6,000

6-8,000

8-10,000

10,000 and over

Not classified

Urban

One person households

Households of two or

more persons - total

Under 1,000

1-2,000

2-3,000

3"^,000

il-5,000

5-6,000

6-8,000

8-10,000

10,000 and over

Not classified

Rural nonfarm

One person households

Households of two or

more persons - total

Under lyOOO

1-2,000

2-3,000

3-4,000

4-5,000

5-6,000

6-8,000

8-10,000

10,000 and over

Not classified

Farm

One person households

Households of two or

more persons - total

Under 1,000

1-2,000

2-3,000

3-4,000

4-5,000

5-6,000

6-8,000

8-10,000

10,000 and over

Not classified

Proportion of households

in area

United

States

Pet.

100.0

8.1

91.9

5.4

8.4

10.8

15.3

15.9

9.6

10.0

3.3

3.8

9.4

100.0

9.1

90.9

2.0

5.9

9.4

15.0

17.2

10.6

12.0

4.1

5.0

9.7

100.0

7.9

92.1

7.5

10.7

12.7

17.6

15.5

9.2

7.7

2.0

1.9

7.3

100.0

2.8

97.2

19.1

17.4

13.5

11.4

9.4

5.0

4.9

1.9

1.1

13.5

Northeeist

North

Central

Region

South West

Proportion of members

of housekeeping families 2/

United

States

North-:

east :

North

Central

Region

South

Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet.

100.0

7.8

92.2

2.2

4.8

8.7

16.0

18.2

11.9

11.4

3.3

3.3

12.4

100.0

8.7

91.3

1.2

3.8

7.7

15.9

18.9

11.4

11.6

3.8

3.9

13.1

100.0

5.8

94.2

4.1

6.5

11.0

16.2

17.5

14.4

11.7

2.1

1.4

9.3

100.0

2.1

97.9

10.4

13.4

15.0

16.6

9.3

5.7

6.2

1.6

2.1

17.6

100.0

7.8

92.2

3.4

6.5

8.6

13.4

18.0

10.4

12.8

4.5

5.5

9.1

100.0

7.9

92.1

1.2

3.7

6.8

12.6

19.2

11.6

15.5

5.4

7.4

8.7

100.0

10.2

89.8

4.7

8.8

10.0

16.3

17.7

9.4

9.7

3.0

3.3

6.9

100.0

2.7

97.3

11.1

14.1

14.1

11.8

13.6

6.9

6.8

2.9

1.4

14.6

100.0

8.1

91.9

11.6

14.9

15.2

16.5

11.2

5.9

6.1

1.9

1.4

7.2

100.0

10.4

89.6

4.5

12.4

15.7

17.8

12.5

7.2

8.6

2.7

1.9

6.3

100.0

7.4

92.6

13.7

15.3

15.3

18.3

12.0

5.4

3.9

1.1

1.1

6.5

100.0

2.8

97.2

29.3

22.0

13.4

9.0

5.1

2.7

2.9

.8

.4

11.6

100.0

9.7

90.3

1.7

5.5

9.5

15.0

17.1

11.8

9.7

4.4

6.5

9.1

100.0

10.8

89.2

1.6

3.7

7.9

12.4

17.4

12.7

11.1

4.7

8.2

9.5

100.0

7.3

100.0

5.3

94.7

8.0

12.0

8.7

16.6

l4.o

8.7

6.0

4.7

2.7

13.3

100.0

2.4

97.6

5.1

8.2

11.2

16.8

17.5

10.8

10.9

3.8

4.2

9.1

100.0

2.8

97.2

1.6

5.4

9.5

16,5

19.3

11.8

13.3

4.8

5.9

9.1

100.0

2.2

92.7 97.8

0

6.3

9.1 10.3

15.4 13.9

23.6 19.8

17.3 16.9

10.0 10.9

6.4 8.3

2.7 2.3

1.8 2.1

6.4 7.0

100.0

.7

99.3

18.5

16.4

13.5

11.7

10.2

5.9

5.9

2.4

1.2

13.6

100.0

2.3

97.7

1.9

4.3

8.4

17.6

20.2

13.2

12.7

4.2

3.7

11.5

100

2

97 <

3

7

17

21

12,

12,

4,

4,

12.

100.0

1.7

98.3

3.6

5.4

11.4

17.8

18.9

16.3

12.9

2.3

1.9

7.8

100.0

.5

99.5

9.6

11.5

13.6

18.4

10.0

6.8

8.1

2.3

1.6

17.6

100.0

2.3

97.7

2.8

5.3

8.6

14.5

20.1

11.5

14.5

5.0

6.6

8.8

100.0

2.4

97.6

.9

2.9

6.6

12.9

21a3

12.4

17.6

100.0

3.1

96.9

3.4

6.8

9.9

19.5

20.5

11.2

11.0

3.9

3.9

6.8

100.0

^7

99.3

9.1

11.8

14.0

11.7

14.7

8.8

8.3

4.0

1.7

15.2

100

2

97

11

15

17

18,

12,

6,

6.

2,

1,

7.

1/ Derived from 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey,

reports based on the survey because of sampling limitations

2/ Based on number and size of primary economic families

Reports 1-5 (23).

100.0

3.1

96.9

3.9

12.2

17.2

20.9

13.7

8.7

9.1

3.3

1.9

6.0

100.0

1.9

98.1

11.0>

15.9

18.3

20.2

13.0

6.3

4.1

1.1

1.1

7.1

100.0

.7

99.3

29.3

21.7

13.9

9.3

6.0

2.7

3.4

.7

.4

11.9

96.5

1.1

2.7

7.6

14.3

20.2

14.4

12.0

5.1

9.7

9.4

100.0

-2.3

97.7

0

9.0

12.4

24.6

18.4

16.9

6.5

2.8

1.7

5.4

100.0

1.4

98.6

6.7

10.7

8.3

18.4

15.7

10.6

7.0

6.1

2.7

12.4

Data for some income groups are eombineà in the

Based on tables 1 and 2, Survey Reports 1-5 (23).

For further explanation, see glossary of Survef
-1+1

Table 10.—Distribution of members of housekeeping families of

2 or more persons in first quarter I9I+2 and spring 1955,

by urbanization and income l/

In first quarter 19lt2 In spring 1955

Family income \

(income at anmml rate) : (Í954 income)

-îr> ríollo-rQ p/ *

" • u

; s

nited

tätes

: Urban ; Riu-al ;

[ nonfarm |

Farm :

United

States

Urban *. Rural

\ nonfarm : Farm

Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. : Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet.

All : 100.0 57.9 21.9 20.2 ': 100.0 58.9 28.6 12.5

In cvirrent dollars In current dollars

Under 5OO :

500-1,000 :

16.2

12,6

2.9

8.9

18.2

19.3

52.1 •

15.8 • }" 1.8 6.9 21.6

1,000-1,500 :

1,500-2,000 :

13.1

13.5

11.0

IU.6

21.ll15.610.4

7.8 } 9.2 6.1 11.4 19.1

2,000-2,500 : ^

2,500-3,000 : J

r 21.9

/I6.5

\12.8 \l6.0 7.4 1 12.7 10.8 15.3 15.8

3,000-1^,000 : ^

1^,000-5,000 : J

4.0 19.0 18.8 21.8 13.6

r 15.7 22.6 8.0 19.7 21.9 18.6 12.0

5,000-6,000 : ^

'

^ ; 12.2 13.4 12.0 6.9

6,000-7,000 : 1 :^

7,000-7,500 : - 7.0 8.1+ '1.5 2.5 : \ 12.4 15.1 9.1 6.9

7,500-8,000 : J

8,000-10,000 : > : 4.3 5.4 2.6 2.8

10,000 and over : ^ 2.3 J : 4.8 6.7 2.3 1.3

In 1954 dollars : In spring 1942 dollars

Under 500 : "1

500-1,000 : J

^18 5 21 55 ': 6

: 6

2

3

7

7

20

15

1,000-1,500 : ^

1,500-2,000 : ^1« 10 25 17 : 9 7

15

12

15

15

12

2,000-2,500 : 1

2,500-3,000 : J

^16 15 21 11

)-

/17

ll8

18

16

11

9

3,000-4,000 : 16 20 15 6 : 17 20 14 10

1^,000-5,000 11 15 8 k : 8 10 7 4

5,000-6,000 : 7 10 1+ 3 : 3 4 1 2

6,000-7,000 : ^ : 1

7,000-7,500 : ^ 8 12 3 2 : V 2 2 1 1

7,500-8,000 : > :J

8,000-10,000 h 6 2 1.5 : 1.5 2 1 1

10,000 and over : 5 7 1 .5 : 1.5 2 1

: ,-i„ -,

3/

' a

~ 1/ Distribution of family members in current dollars for first quarter 19li-2 derived

fr^ data in Bur, Labor Statis. Bui. 822 Family Spending, and Saving ±n^ Wartime ( l6)

and for spring 1955 from 1955 S\irvey Report 1, Food Consumption of Households inThe

United StateÖ^ (23). Distributions in terms of ^tollars of other period derived by

graphic adjustment of cimiulative curve of income-size distribution for change in price

level measured by change in Consumer Price Index. 2/ Net money income in first quarrter 19^2 at annual rate; disposable money income in 195^. 3/ Negligible.
- k2 -

Table 11.—Population: Total and number eating out of civilian food

supplies. United States, I909-60 1/

Year

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

19li^

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

193^

Total, including

Armed Forces overseas .,

January 1 : July 1

Year

Total, including

Armed Forces overseas

January 1 July 1

Ninniber eating out of

civilian supplies 2/

January 1 July 1

Millions

91.5

93.2

9*^.7

96A

98.2

•9

.3

99.

101.

102.7

104.0

104.8

Millions

90.5

92.4

93.9

95.3

97.2

99.1

100.5

102.0

103.4

104.

105.

.6

.1

105.7

107-6

109.4

111.1

113.1

115.0

116.7

118.3

119.8

121.2

122.5

123.6

124.5

125.2

126.0

106.5

108.5

110.1

112.0

114.1

115.8

117.4

119-0

120.5

121.8

123.1

124.0

124.8

125.6

126.4

: 1935

: 1936

: 1937

: 1938

: 1939

: 1940

: 1941

: 1942

: 1943

: 1944

19í^5

; 1946

: 1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

Millions

126.9

127-7

128.5

129.4

130.4

131.5

132.8

134.2

135-9

137.7

139.2

l4o.7

142.8

145.5

148.0

150.6

153.1

155-8

158.4

161.1

164.0

166.8

169.8

172.7

175-7

i960 : 178.6

Millions

127-2

I28-I

128-8

129.8

130.9

132.1

133-4

134-9

136.7

138.4

139.9

141.4

144.1

146.6

149.2

151.7

154.4

157.0

159.6

162.4

165.3

168.2

171.2

174.1

177.0

179-8

Millions Millions

132.0

132.3

129-8

128.8

128.7

134-5

140-9

144.1

146.4

149.0

150.7

152-3

154-9

157.7

160.7

163.9

167.0

170.1

173.1

176.1

131-8

131.5

128.9

128.6

129-1

138-4

142.6

145.2

147.6

150.2

151-1

153.4

156.0

159-1

162-3

165-3

168.4

171.4

174.5

177.4

mates computed from data supplied bv several TíÍH.ÍÍÍ througb January 1, I946, estiNOTE: Population series for July 1, the midpoint of the calendar year is used In com

Data on military use were not available prior to IQl^l hut h^^««^..^ ^ -.^i n

have been deducted and per capita consuSpíion der^veá usîng SrSfie^ '^w

eating out of civilian supplies." ^ series number
- 43 -

NOTES ON DATA

Two general types of nationwide food consuinption data are included in

this handbook on consirngption of vegetables, potatoes, sweetpotatoes, and dry

beans and peas, hßj One is the annual time series of U, S. civilian consuinption

and the other is coDiposed of cross-section data from surveys of household food

consxinçtion, mainly the I955 survey, with some conçarison of the I955 and the

1942 survey data.

Time-Series Data 50/

Time-series food consximption data are series of annual aggregates or per

capita averages extending over a period of years. The consumption estimates

are calculated by adding production, imports, and beginning stocks, and subtracting ending stocks, exports, and military takings,to determine supplies disappearing into civilian distribution channels. The time series show the trend

in annual consiMption over a period of years for the population as a whole, but

not variations in consvmiption among population^groups. For this purpose, crosssection data are used.

Bae population series used in estimating time series of food consumption

per capita is shown in table 11.

Commercial Fresh Vegetables

Official U. S. Department of Agriciature estimates of total production

of vegetables for the fresh market have included in recent years both the output of areas shipping to more or less distant markets and the output of most

of the important growing areas near large cities, Bie per capita civilian

consumption series, farm weight, are derived from these data, with adjustments

for items going to processors, production not harvested, stocks of cabbage and

onions on farms and in commercial storage in producing areas, military takings,

and foreign trade.

Approximate retail weights are derived from farm weights, using average

waste and loss factors assembled from soxirces in the trade and industry. As

additional information is gradually assembled, better factors for deriving

retail weights can be developed.

Processed Vegetables

Estimates of consumption of processed vegetables, net weight, are based

largely on information from trade associations, supplemented in some cases by

data from the Crop Reporting Board on quantities used for processing. The

ij9/ Two guides dealing with research in food consiimption, although not specifically concerned with individual food groups, can be useful for research on consumption of items in this handbook (46, U9),

$0/ See Major Statistical Series Q~th~U, S, Department of Agriculture—How

They Are Constrxocted and Used, Vol. ^ (IjL^ PP, 21, 46), ~
- 44 -

extent of reporting of stocks in the hands of packers and distributors has varied over the years, but the series for consumption data have been kept internally consistent* In the canned vegetable data in table 1, quantities used for

soup and baby food are excluded« The frozen vegetable data include seme quantities frozen when harvested and later used in manufacture of soups and other

prepared food products•

To derive estimates of total vegetable consumption, processed vegetable

data are converted to farm weight equivalents for addition to the farm weight

of commercial fresh vegetables. Conversion factors used are those in Conversion

Factors and Weights and Measures for Agricultural Commodities and IBheir Products

Home-Produced Vegetables

Approximations of farm garden output were developed with the advice of

several home management supervisors of the Farmers' Home Administration with

long experience in advising on and recording output of farm gardens in their

States. For nonfarm geirdens, rough approximations were developed by \ising weekly data from household food consvmiption surveys, information from wartime victory

garden surveys on proportion of households having gardens, and population data.

Benchmarks for the series on home garden vegetable cons\imption take into account

the 1954 annual data from the I955 Household Food Consumption Survey. 51/

Potatoes, Sweetpotatoes,

Dry Beans and Peas

The series for potatoes, sweetpotatoes, and dry beans and peas differ

from vegetables in that farm home production is included with commercial production data in those States where commercial production is estimated. Rough

approximations of other production for home use are made on the basis of meager

information. Data include quantities ixsed in processed products.

Publication of Data

Each issue of the National Food Situation (7) carries current data for

the per capita consumption series in terms of primary distribution weight—farm

weight of fresh items, and net processed weight of processed items. Bae fall

Outlook Issue of the Vegetable Situation (8) also includes per capita consumption data. Agricxilture Handbook 62 Consumption of Food in the United States,

1909-^2 (3) and its annxial supplements include, in addition, a series on retail

weight of fresh items.

Survey Data

Siirveys of household food consumption provide one type of cross-section

data. They show the variations in consumption among subgroups of the population

at one point in time. Thus, generalizations from the survey data can best be

31/ Survey Report 12, Food Production for Home Use by Households in the United

States—by Region (23). " "" "
-45 -

made for those time periods in vhich the demand and supply situation is similar

to the situation existing at the time of the survey.

Major surveys were made in I936, 19i^2 (l^), 1948 (l^), 1952 (2i) and

1955 (22) . The spring 19^2 survey covered housekeeping households subdivided

hy urbanization and income. The 19^8 survey included only urban households of

tvo or more membere. A report on the 19146 survey. Food Consumption Q1 Urban

Families in the United States (ig, p. 89), provides, for broad food groups,

data by income classes for two areas: (l) the North and West and (2) the South.

The same report, page JL05^ includes a special tabulation of urban data from

the 1942 survey.

Household food consunçtion survey reports generally contain, for food

groups and individual items, data on average quantities used at home in a week.

Quantities from all sources, and for some items, quantities purchased, in

terms of average pounds and retail value are shown, together with the percentage of households using the items. The reports also include average household

sizes computed by totaling the weekly number of meals served in households in

each group and dividing by 21 {3Q, pp. 87-88). .Average household sizes are

used to confute consunption averages per person. Average family size biased on

number of family members is also included.

Tbe 1955 Survey 52/

For the I955 survey, the U. S. was divided into k regions, 3 urbanization categories, 1-person households and households of 2 or more, and income

groups for households of 2 or more persons. ¿2/ Urbanization^groupings were

based on definitions used in the 195l|- Census of Agriculture. Urban households

were those in cities and towns of at least 2,500 persons or in fringe areas

aroiind cities of 50,000 population or more. Rural households were divided

into farm households, which had a feirm operator, and rural nonfaj:Ta households.

Income groupings in the survey were based on family money income in

195'<- after income taxes. Income per person (fig. 7) was derived by dividing

average income per family by average family size,table 2, Survey Report 1 (23).

The survey included housekeeping households only, that is, those in

vhich at least one person had 10 or more meals at home during the seven days

preceding the interview. The survey did not include quantities of food in

meals purchased away from home or food for the population living in nonhousekeeping households or such places a^ institutions, hotels, and rooming houses.

The survey covei^d food consunrption in spring. For vegetables, 5k/

spring probably is as representative of annual consumption as any other single

season for the broad grouping of items in this report. Processed vegetable

consumption in spring is somewhat between the peak consumption of winter

52/ For a more technical discussion, see article by Burk and Lanahan (^ .

53/ Figure 6; tables 8-10.

5,4/ In this report the term vegetables excludes melons as well as potatoes,

sweetpotatoes, dry beans and peas.
- 46 -

and the low point of summer• Althougb consiimption of commercial fresh vege-*

tables is a little larger in spring than the annual rate^ ¿¿/i home-produced

vegetables are less abundant then than later in the year. For some individixal

vegetables, however, spring is not typical of annual consumption* Extreme

examples illustrate this—it is the low season for fresh caxaiflower and Brussels

sprouts, the high season for fresh asparagus.

Spring probably is also fairly representative of regional differences in

the relative importance of fresh and camnercially processed vegetables* Fresh

vegetables grown locally, available diaring a greater part of the year in the

South than in the other regions, are also more abundant there in the spring.

For potatoes there appears to be relatively little seasonal variation in

the quantity moving into consimiption channels, but for sweetpotatoes the spring

consumption rate is only three-fifths as large as the annxial rate.

Qxiantities reported by the households are published in the survey reports

(23) in retail weight of fresh and product weight of processed items. To add

tKe two in comparable units, data for bolh were converted to farm weight equivalents. Conversion factors are given in tables k, 5, 6 and 7. The factors

are the ratio of the farm to the retail weight for the 1955 annual per capita

consumption (3).

In the survey data, some items made from vegetables or potatoes, or

including either as an ingredient, are classified as miscellaneous. Quantities

used in their preparation are not included with the vegetable and potato data.

Examples are catsup and other tomato sauces, pickles, relishes, soups (except

canned baby soup), food mixtures, and such items as ptirchased potato salad and

cole slaw.

In xising survey data, it shoixld be kept in mind that the degree of

reliability is less for progressively smaller groups of ho\iseholds and for

items normally used in small quantities or relatively infreqioently.

Comparing 19^$ With

Earlier Sxirveys ^6/

A comparison of consimiption reported in the I955 survey in urban and

rural areas, and in vario\is income groups, with consumption in these population

groups at the time of the earlier surveys helps to explain changes in national

consumption.

In the household food consimiption surveys of 19*^2 and 19tó, home-canned

and home-frozen foods were combined with commercially processed items. The

classification was changed for the I955 household survey so that processed items

would inclxide only commercial quantities. Vegetables brou^t into the household in fresh form, regardless of form at the time of consiamption, were

55/ See discussion of seasonality in section I.

^/ See article by Lanahan (36).
-hl -

classified as fresh except the quantities canned as vegetable Juice, mainly

tomatoes. Consequently, data on use of fresh vegetables in the I955 survey

include home-canned and home-frozen vegetables.

This change in classification necessitates adjustments in the vegetable

figures in the early surveys for comparison with data from the I955 survey.

The change is significant mainly for the rural areas, especially farm households, >^ere home canning and freezing of vegetables are more important.

The 19l<-2 survey covered consumption during April and May, \oiile the

period for the I955 survey was April through June, The addition of June to the

survey period may have meant a little greater use of fresh and a smaller use

of commercially canned vegetables in I955 than would have been the case if the

survey months had included only April and May. Also, because of better sorting

in production aireas and improved haiiling practices, it is likely that purchased

fresh vegetables reported in the two surveys differed in amount of trimming.

Table 10 shows the distribution of members of housekeeping families into

family income groups of comparable purchasing power for the 19l|-2 and I955

surveys. Such distributions axe useful in calculating the change in average

consxmçtion of a food group that may be attributed largely to improved real incomes between the two time periods. The procedure involves (l) weighting average consunçtion per person in each income group in the 1955 survey by the

percentage distribution of the family members among income groups in each of

the two surveys in terms of the same (195^) dollars, and (2) noting,for the

calculated average consumption, the diffei^nce between the two time periods.

To extend this comparison to all urbanization groups combined, the calculated

average consumption for each urbanization group, for both 19^1.2 and 1955, is

weighted by the I955 percentage distribution of family members among the urbanization groups.

In addition to any change in constmiption attributed to iniproved real

Incomes between the time of the two surveys, there may also have been changes

in the level and pattern of consunçtion among various income groups. The

actual change measured by the two surveys conçared with the calculated change

due to improved real incomes indicates whether there has been a change in level

or pattern of consiomption, and, if so, whether it has been in the same

direction as any change attributed to improved real incomes.

The distribution of the population aiûong urbanization groups in the two

surveys is also shown in table 10. The greatest net shift in population from

the 1942 to the 1955 survey was from farm to rural nonfarm. For those items

for which there is a difference in consumption between farm and rural nonfarm

households, this shift in population tended to affect consumption rates. The

difference in use per person between farm and rural nonfarm households in the

1955 survey was proportionately greater for potatoes than for vegetables, and

it was greater for processed than for fresh items. 57/ To the extent that

people left the farm for better incomes, the shift in degree of urbanization

involved also a shift to higher income groups.

57/ Tables h and 6.
- tô -

LITERATURE CITED MD RELATED REFERENCES

NOTE: Because of a reorganization of agricultural economics services

in the' U. S. Department of Agriculture, which became effective

April 3, 1961, some of the publications formerly issued by^

Agricultural Marketing Service are now available from Statistical Reporting Service or from Economic Research Service.

A. Statistical Sources

!• Time-series data

(1) National Association of Frozen Food Packers, Frozen Food Pack

Statistics. Washington, D. C, yearly.

(2) National Canners' Association. Canned Food Pack Statistics.

Washington, D. C, yearly.

(3) U. S. Agricxxltxjral Marketing Service. Consumption of Food in the

United States, 1909-$2. (issued by U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ.,

predecessor of U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv.) U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr.

Handb» 62, 2l4-9 pp., illus., Sept. 1953• I>ata superseded by

Supplement for I956, 120 pp., Sept. 1957^ and latest ann\ial

supplement.

(k) • Farm-Retail Spreads for Food Products. U. S. Dept. Agr.

Misc. Pub. 7^1, 165 VV*f illus., Nov. 1957» Supplement for

1956-60, ^0 pp., Jan. 1961.

(5) . Marketing and Transportation Situation. Quarterly.

(6) . Measuring the Supply and Utilization of Farm Commodities.

U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Handb. 9I, im- pp., illus., Nov. 1955.

Supplement for 1956, 52 pp., Oct. 1957> and latest annual

supplement.

(7) • National Food Situation. Quarterly.

(8) . Vegetable Situation. Quarterly.

(9) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service, Crop Reporting Board. Crop

Production, 196O Annual Summary, Acreage, Yield, Production,by

States. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Cr Pr 2-1 (60), 10Ö pp., Dec.

19Ö0-

(10) . Potatoes, Sweetpotatoes, Revised Estimates, by States,

19^9-55> U. S. Dept. Agr. Stat. Bull. I90, 31 PP., Aug. I956.

Annixal summaries (Pot. 6).
-1^9 -

(il) . Vegetables for Fresh Market—Acreage^ Prodxaction^ and

Value^ 1949-^5i, U. S. Dept* Agr. Stat. Bull.212, I50 pp., J\me

1957» Monthly supplements (Vg 2-1) and the annual summaries

(Vg 2-2) in December.

(12) . Vegetables for Processing->-^Acreage, Prodxaction, and Value,

'by States, 1949-$^> U> S. Dept. Agr. Stat. Bull. 210^ ^0 PP>i

May 1957* Current releases during the year (Vg 3-1) and annual

summaries (Vg 3-2) in December.

(13) U. S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Outlook caiarts,

1961. 88 pp., illus., Nov. i960. Issued each fall with statistical tables.

(ik) . Major Statistical Series of the U. S. Department of

Agriculture-^Hov They are Constructed and Used. U. S. Dept.

Agr. Agr. Handb. 11Ö.

Vol. k. Agricultural Marketing Costs and Charges. 35 PP»> 1957»

Vol. 5« Consumption and Utilization of Agric\iltural Products.

91 pp., Dec. 1957.

Vol. 8. Crop and Livestock Estimates. 2k pp., Oct. 1957»

Vol. 10. Market News. 62 pp., iUus., Sept. 196O.

II. S\rrvey data

a. 19l|-l and spring I9I42 household survey data:

(15) U. S. Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics (now Institute

of Home Economics). Family Food Consumption in the United StatesSpring 191^2. U. S. Dept. Agr. Misc. Pub. 550, 157 PP*^ 19^*

(16) U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Family Spending and Saving in

Wartime. U. S. Bur. Labor Statis. Bull. Ö22, 21Ö pp., illus.

Printed as House Docxmient 1Í4-7A, 79th Congress, 1st Session, 19^5»

b. 191^7 and spring 19tô data for three types of southern farming areas:

(17) Dickins, Dorothy, Gillaspie, Beulah, Moser, Ada M., and others.

Family Food Consumption in Three T;ypes of Farming Areas of the

South—I. An Analysis of 1947 Food Data. Miss. Agr. Expt. Sta.,

State College, Miss., and others. Southern Cooperative Series

Bull. 7, ihQ pp., illus., June 1950*

(18) Moser, Ada M., Dean, Willamay T., Gillaspie, Beiilah, and others.

Family Food Consumption in Three Types of Farming Areas of the

South—II> An Analysis of Weekly Food Records, Late Winter and

Early Spring, 194¿r S. C. Agr. Expt. Sta., Clemson, S. C. and

others. Southern Cooperative Series Bull. 20, 2Ö7 PP*^ illus.,

Nov. 1951*
- 50 -

c. i<^kd^k9 urban household survey data:

(19) Clark, Faith, Murray, Janet, Weiss, Gertrude S*, and Grossman,

Evelyn. Food Consumption of Urban Families in the United States.

U. S- Dept. Agr. Agr. Inf. Bull. 132, 203 PP-. lllus., Oct. 195^.

d. 1951-52 North Central Region rural household survey data:

(20) Orshansky, Mollie, Blake, Ennis C, and Moss, Mary Ann. Food

Expenditures, Preservation, and Home Production by Rural Families

in the North Central Region, 1951-52. U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Inf.

Bull. 113, Ö6 pp., illus., Aug. 1956*

(21) Orshansky, Mollie, Le Bovit, Corinne, Blake, Ennis C, and Moss,

Mary Ann. Food Consumption and Dietary Levels of Rural Families

in läie North Central Region, 1952> U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Inf.

Bull. 157, 210 pp., illus., Nov. 1957.

e. Spring 1955 household survey data:

(22) Lavell, Robert J. "Introduction of New Regional Indexes for Food

Consumption Analysis." National Food Situation, pp. 17-39^

J\ily 1959. Reprinted as AMS-3^0(5).

(23) U. S. Department of Agriculture. Household Food Consumption

Survey, 1955:

Report 1. Food Consumption of Households in the United States.

196 pp., illus., Dec. 1956.

Report 2. Food Consimption 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 Consuiïiption of Households in the South. 196 pp.,

illus., Dec. 1956, "" '

Report 5. Food Consumption of Households in the West. 19^«- pp.,

ill\is., Dec. 1956. ~"^

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. 6Ö pp., illus.. May 1957. """
- 51 -

Report 9. Dietary Levels of Hoiiseholds in the South* 68 pp.,

illus.. May I957. ~~ '

Report 10. Dietary Levels of Households in the West. 68 pp.,

illus., July 1957. ~" ~

Report 11. Home Freezing and Canning by Households in the United

States>-by Region. 72 pp., illus., Oct. I957.

Report 12. Food Production for Home Use by Households in the

United States->-»by Region. ÖÖ pp./illus., Jan. I950.

Report Ik. Food Consxjmption and Dietary Levels of Households as

Related to the Age of Homemaker, United States—by Region.

13^ pp., illus., Oct. 1959. '

Report 15. Food Consumption and Dietary Levels of Households as

Related to Employment of Homemaker, United States—by Region;

130 pp., illus.. May I960. ~

Report 16. Dietary Evaluation of Food Used in Households in the

United States. (In Press)

f. Survey data on consxmption outside households:

(24) Anderson, Kenneth E., Hoofnagle, William S* Market for Food in

Public Schools. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Res. Rept. 377,

50 pp., illus., Jan. i960.

(25) Badger, Henry T. Ihe Use of Frozen Foods by Restaurants. U. S.

Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Res. Rept. m^i^, 32 pp., illus., Nov. I956.

(26) Hoofnagle, William S., Dvoskin, Philip B., and Bayton, James A.

The Market for Food in Selected Public and Private Institutions.

U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Res. Rept. ö^l-, 30 pp.. Mar. 1955.

(27) Lifquist, Rosalind C. Buying Practices and Food Use of Employee

Food Services in Manixfacturing Plants. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv.

Mktg. Res. Rept. 326, 135 PP.> illus., June I959.

(28) . Expenditxires for Processed Foods by Employee Food

Services in Manufactxiring Plants. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg.

Res. Rept. ¿^50, 5^ PP., illus.. Mar. I96I.

(29) Sartorius, Lester C, and Burk, Marguerite C. Eating Places as

Marketers of Food Products. U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ. in cooperation with Div. Agr. Econ., Univ. of Minn., U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ.

Mktg. Res. Rept. 3, II8 pp., 1952.
- 52 -

B« Consumption References

!• On the I955 Hoiisehold Pood ConsiJmption Siirvey Reports (23)

a. In the National Food Situation (7)

(30) "Dietary Levels of Households in the United States." Pp. 18-23,

illus., Apr. 1957*

(31) "Food Consumption in the North Central Region." Pp. 39-50, Apr.

1957. Reprinted as AMS-.3^0(2).

(32) "Food Consumption in the South." Pp. 29^0, Feb. 1957* Reprinted

as AMS-3^0(3).

(33) "Food Consumption in the West." Pp. 22-29, Oct. 1957* Reprinted

as AMS-3^0(8).

(314.) "Food Consumption of Households in the Northeast." Pp. 16-29,

July 1957. Reprinted as AMS-.3l|-0(6 ) •

(35) "Home Food Production"

Part I. Pp. 3^-^7, Apr. I958. Reprinted as AMS-3^0(lO)a

Part II. Pp. 32-52, illus., July I958. Reprinted as AMS-3l4.0(l2).

(36) "Household Consumption Patterns for Vegetables, Potatoes and

Sweetpotatoes, Dry Beans and Peas." Pp. 20-35, Feb. I958.

(37) "Review of U. S. Food Expenditure Patterns, Spring 1955." Pp. 32-

krf, Nov. 1956.

(38) "Some Highlights of the Urban Household Market for Food." Pp. 2k^

38, Apr. 1957.

b. In other publications

(39) Burk, Margiierite C, and Lanahan, Thomas J., Jr. "Use of 1955

Food Survey Data for Research in Agricxatural Economics." Agr.

Econ. Res., Vol. X, No. 3, PP. 79-98, illus., JuJy I958. RÜ"

printed as AMS-262.

(ko) Murray, Janet. "Food Consumption and Dietary Levels of Households

with Employed and Nonemployed Homemakers." F»Tpily Econ. Rev.,

Inst. of Home Econ., U. S. Agr. Res, Serv., pp 9-13> June I96O.

(kl) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. "Consumption of Vegetables

by Regions, Urbanization, and Family Income, Spring of 1955."

Vegetable Sitxxation, pp, 21-25, July 1957.
- 53 -

(^2) . "Consumption of Potatoes, Sweetpotatoes, Dry Beans and

Dry Peas by Regions, Urbanization, and Family Income, Spring of

1955." Vegetable Situation, pp. 23-29, Oct. 1957*

II • Other Consumption References

(i|-3) Anderson Kenneth E., and Hawes, Riissell L, The Household Market

for Selected Canned Fruits and Vegetables> U. S, A^. Mktg,

Serv. Mktg. Res. Rept. ¿1-27, 33 PP., illus., Sept. I96O.

(kk) Burk, Marguerite C. "An Economic Appraisal of Changes in Rural

Food Consumption." Jour^ Farm Econ., Vol. XL, No. 3, pp. 572-

590, illus •, Aug. I95BT

(^5) • Consumption of Processed Farm Foods in the United States >

U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Res, Rept. if09, ^'J pp., illus.,

June i960.

(k6) . Measxires and Procedures for Analysis of U. S. Food

Consumptiocu U. S, Agr. Mktg. Serv. Agr. Handb. 206, 11Ö pp.,

illus., June 1961.

(^7) • "Significance of Current Developments in Food Statistics." Address, session on Federal Statistics, American Marketing Association Convention, Cleveland, Ohio, I6 pp., June I8,

1959.

(U8) . "Some Analyses of Income-Food Relationships." Jo\ir.

Am. Stat. Assn., Vol. 53^ No. 283, pp. 905-927, illus., Dec. 1958.

{k9) . Trends and Patterns in U. S. Food Consiamption. U. S.

Agr. Mktg. Serv. Agr. Handb. 21^+/ 123 pp., illus., June I96I.

(50) Cavin, James P. . "Food Consumption Trends suad Their Significance

to the Canning Industry." Address, Marketing session. National

Canners Association Convention, Miami, Florida, 15 pp.> illus.,

Jan. 20, i960.

(51) Hoofnagle, William S., and Anderson, Kenneth E. "The Market for

Vegetables, Potatoes, and Sweetpotatoes in Public Schools."

Vegetable Situation, pp. 17-21, Jiay 1959•

(52) Kolmer, Lee, and Putrell, Gene. Consumer Marketing Handboofc--

III. F^-gits and Vegetables. Iowa State Univ. (In Press;.

(53) Levine, Daniel B. Consumers Appraise Canned and Frozen Foods,

their Packages and" Labels in Atlanta, Kansas City, and San Francisco^ U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Res. Rept. 270, 77 PP*^

Sept. 1958.
- 54 -

(5^+) Manchester, Alden C., and Podany, Joseph C, Shifts in Supply

Areas and Consumption Rates for Vegetables, 1939 to 19^?» U. S,

Agr. Mktg. Serv, Mktg. Res* Kept* 221, 30 pp., illus,. Mar. 1958.

(55) Orshansky, Mollie. "Changes in Farm Family Food Patterns." Farm

Family Spending in the United States, U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Inf.

Bull. 192, pp. T-13^ illus., June 1958.

(56) Reese, Robert B. Family Purchases of Selected Frozen Fruits and

Vegetables. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Res. Rept. 317, 110 pp.,

illus., Apr. 1959*

(57) Shuffett, D. Milton. Ohe Demand and Price Structure for Selected

Vegetables. Ü. S. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bxill. IIO5, 133 PP»> illus.,

Dec. 195^*

(58) Simmons, Will M. "Bae Changing Patterns of Vegetables and Potato

Consumption." Vegetable Situation, pp. 25-30, Apr. I958.

(59) . "Postwar Trends in Vegetable Consumption." National

Food Situation, pp. 25-28, Nov. I96O.

(60) . "Seasonal Variation in Supply of Fresh Vegetables and

Potatoes." Vegetable Situation, pp. 25-30, Apr. 1959.

(61) University of Minnesota Agriciatural Experiment Station. Policies

for Expanding the Demand for Farm Food Prodiicts in the UnrEe^"

States. "" ""^

Part I. History and Potentials. Wetmore, John M., Abel, Martin

E., Learn, Elmer W., and Cochrane,Willard W. Tech. Biill. 231,

Í27 pp., Apr. 1959.

Part II. Programs and Results. Abel, Martin E., and Cochrane,

Willard W. Tech. Bull. 238, 104 pp., illus., Apr. I96I.

C. Marketing and Production References

(62) Cook, H. T. Supplements to Refrigeration. Reprinted by U. S.

Dept. Agr. Mktg. Serv., Chapter 29 of I959 ASRE (American Society

of Refrigeration Engineers) Refrigeration Applications Data

Book, Dec. 1958*

(63) Cook, H. T., and Pentzer, W. T. Antibiotics as an Aid in the

Preservation of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables, Meat and Poultry.

Paper presented in Moscow, printed in Supplement to the bulletin

of the International Institute of Refrigeration, vv. 51^-52*^ 1958. > ^^ ^ o ^ J,

{6k) Dvoskin, Philip B. "Prospects for New Products and Changes in the

Marketing System—Fruits and Vegetables." Address, 37th Annual

National Agricultural Outlook Conference, U. S. Dept. Agr.,

Washington, D. C^, k pp., Nov. I8, I959.
- 55 -

FaJiey, James V. Potatoes—Sxjmmary of 195^ Crop Census with

Comparisons> U. S. Dept» Agr* Stat. Bull« I90, 6Ö pp., illiis,,

Nov. 1956.

Gale, Hazen F. Seasonal Variation in Farm Food Prices and Price

Spreads. U. S. î)ept. Agr. Misc. Pub. 81^0, 1+7 pp., illus./jan,

1961 • ^Supplement to information in Misc. Pub. 71+1 (14-).

Gray, Roger W., Sorenson, Vernon L., and Cochrane, Willard W.

An Economic Analysis of the Impact of Government Programs on

tfae Potato Industry of the United States. Univ. of Minn. Agr.

Expt. Sta. Tech. Bull. 211, 239 PP., Ulus., June Í95I+.

Hanes, John K. Marketing Margins for Fall Potatoes. U. S. Agr.

Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Res. Rept. 1+50, 2^ pp., illxxs., Feb. I96I.

Hee, Olman. "Die Effect of Price on Acreage and Yield of

Potatoes." Agr. Econ. Res., Vol. X, No. Î, pp. I3I-II+I, illus.,

Oct. 1958. Reprinted as AMS-283.

Motts, George N. Marketing Handbook for Michigan Fruits and

Vegetables. Mich. State Univ. Agr» Expt. Sta. Spec. Bull. ^l8,

100 pp., illus. Dec. 1957.

National Canners Association. Seasonal Patterns in Retail Sales

of Canned Foodg^ National Canners Association, Washington, B» C,

Philadelphia Project Report No. 3, 52 pp.

Reese, Robert B., and Miller, Earl B. Geographic Distribution of

Western Frozen Fruits and Vegetables. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv.

Mktg. Res. Rept. Wl, 40 pp., illus., Nov. 196O.

Scott, Forrest E., and Williams, Willard F. '^Changing Marketing

Channels for Farm Foods." Marketing and Transportation Sitxxation,

pp. 17~31> Oct. 1959. Reprinted as AMS-350.

Sherr, Harry. "A Basis for the Reconsideration of Wastes and

Losses in Food Marketing." Agr. Econ. Res. Vol. XII, No. 2,

pp. 52-57, Apr. i960. Reprinted as AMS-37T.

Simmons, Will M. "A Decade of Growth in the Frozen Vegetable

Industry." Vegetable Situation, pp. 20-23, Jxxly I96O.

. "Trend in Canned Vegetables to Smaller Retail Sizes."

Vegetable Situation, pp. 32-35^ Oct. 1958.

. "Trend to Smaller Retail, Larger Institutional and Biilk

Containers for Frozen Vegetables." Vegetable Situation, pp. I8-

21, Jan. 1959.
. 56-

(78) . "Trends Affecting the Marketing of Friiits and Vegetables."

Vegetable Sitixation, pp. 26-32, illus., Oct. 1958.

(79) . "Trends in the Geographic Pattern of Production of Late

Crop Potatoes." Vegetable Situation, pp. 20-27, illus., Apr. I96I.

(80) . "Trends in the Geographic Pattern of Production of Tomatoeß for Processing." Vegetable Situation, pp. l8-29, iHus., Apr.

(81) . "Trends in the Geographic Pattern of Prodxjction of Vegetables for Commercial Processing." Vegetable Situation, pp. 22-

33, illus., July 1959.

(82) Smith,Diomas B., and Validejuli, Juan Jose. Fresh Produce Prepackaging Practices in the United States. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv.

Mktg. Res. Kept. 3^1> lH PP.; illus., July 1959*

(83) Stokes, Donald R. "New Source, Terminal, and Central Warehoiise

Packaging Practices." Address, National Produce Executives»

Conference, Chicago, 111., 6 pp.. May 2k, I96O.

(8U) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Checklist of U« S> Standards for Farm K-oducts. Ü. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. AMS-2¿lo (Revised]^

16 pp#, Jan. 1961. ^

(85)

Commercial Vegetables for Fresh Market—^Usual Planting Dates,

Usual Harvesting Dates, Principal Prodiocing Areas, by Seasonal

Groups and States^ U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Handb. Ö0, 120 pp.,

illus., Dec. 1954.

Vegetables for Commercial Processing—Usual Planting and Harvesting Dates and Principal Producing Counties, by States. U. S.

Dept. Agr. Agr. Handb. 05, 5I pp., illujs., June 1955.

(86) . Developments in Marketing Spreads for Agricultural

Products in 1959* From Hearings (Part 2) before the Subcommittee

of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives,

Eighty-Sixth Congress, Second Session, 32 pp., illus•, May I96O.

Reprinted as AMS-3714-.

(87) U. S. Agrlciatioral Research Service. New Uses for Farm Products.

U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Inf. Bull. 209, PP* 1Ö-23, June 1959*

(88) > Protect Frozen Foods from Temperature Damage U. S.

Agr, Res. Serv. ARS-74-9, 11 pp., Illus., Sept. I959.
- 57 -

(89) U, s. Department of Agricultiare. Production and Marketing Administration, Conversion Factors and Weigbits and Measxires for Agricultxiral Conmiodities and their Products> 96 pp.. May 1952.

(90) Waldorf, William H. Output of Factories Processing Farm Food

Products in the United States, 1909-1955^ U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv.

Tech. Bull. 1223, pp. 22-25, lllus., Sept. I96O.

•¿rU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: I96I O - 598799

Growth Through Agricultural Progress