TRENDS and PATTERNS

in U. S. FOOD CONSUMPTION

I

LIBRARY

RECEiVFD

0CT2 6 1961

», s. mm.'^',- iii mimm

Agriculture Handbook No. 214,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Economic Research Service

Economic and Statistical Analysis Division

Washington,D.C.
CONTENTS

Chapter 1 • Introduction and Summary 1

1 • 1 Organization of the reference scheme 1

1.2 Summary of trends and patterns in U. S. consuiiçtion of all food 1

Chapter 2, Changes in the Sources and Uses of U. S. Food Supplies 3

2.1 Sources of U. S. supplies of farm foods 3

2.2 Fishery products 9

2.3 Users and uses of United States food supplies 12

2.k Effects of short-run commodity changes on total

food use l8

Chapter 3» Changes in Average Food Consumption 20

3.1 Changes in overall level of food consunçtion 20

3.2 Further consideration of changes in food use^ measured at the

farm level 22

3.3 Further consideration of food consunçtion, measured at the retail level •• 27

Chapter k. Variations in Food Consumption Among Population Groups 33

U.l The nonhousekeeping popula,tion and their food consun^tion • 33

U.2 Variations in food consumption indicated by annual value data 36

U.3 Variations in market value of food among household groups ^0

k.k Variations in expenditures for food ^7

^.5 Variations in quantities of food consumed at home among groups of

households ^2

If.6 Summary of changes from 19^2 to 1955 iii food consunçtion by household

group 57

Chapter 5. Variations in Use of Marketing Services 66

5.1 Objectives and scope 66

5.2 Trends in food marketing services 67

5.3 Changes in use of marketing services, I929-59 70

^.h Processing services: Historical changes and variations in use by

population groups 7^

5.5 Variations in use of commercial meal preparation and service 77

5.6 Variations in use of marketing services at one point in time 83

Chapter 6. Changes in the Value of Food Consumed 86

6.1 Value measures at the supplier level 86

6.2 Value measures at retail 92

6.3 Changes in market value of food 93

6.k E3cpenditures for food and food marketing services 98

Appendixes

A. Guides to USDA food quantity and value series ^^^

B. Regional quantity indexes and value data ^^3

Literature Cited and Other References ^^9

- i -
PREFACE

Research on trends in food consunçtion in the U. S. Department of Agricxolture

since World War I has eiiç)hasized mainly the development of data and the study of

changes in supplies and consunc)tion of major commodities. Some economic measures of

the production and consumption of all foods combined have been constructed. Another

dimension of the research on historical changes in U. S. food consunçtion has been

added by the gradual accumulation of statistics from household food consunçtion

surveys. Some of the findings of recent research axe reported in this bulletin -vrtiich

is designed to provide a conç)rehensive picture of major historical changes in U. S.

food consumption. It summarizes, for all foods, kinds of information pertaining to

major commodities in a series begun by Agriculture Handbook No. l87f ifegt ç^pfliiTnpt^^n]^

Trends and Patterns, published by the U. S. Department of Agriculture in I96O.

These bulletins draw in large pcurt on statistical data on per capita consunçtion

in The National Food Situation and in annual supplements to several statistical handbooks, published regularly by the Agricultural Marketing Service prior to April I96I,

now by the Economic Research Service. This report relies heavily on overall economic

statistics and special procedures reviewed in a companion work. Agriculture Handbook

No. 206, Measures and Procedures for Analysis 2Í Hi. £ä. Food. Consumption. Crossreferences in this bulletin frequently refer to this handbook, rather than repeating

data and text descriptions here.

The research on farm-retail price spreads and marketing services, to which

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

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

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

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

reports on current crop and livestock production and farm prices.

Contributions to this bulletin made by members of the staff of the Concunçtion

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

Service axe noted in the text.

June 1961

For sale by the Superintendent of Docuaentß,

U. S. Government Printing Office,

Washington 25, D. C. - Price 60#
xiuLiwo AND PATTERNS ^ U. £. KX)D CONSUMPTION

By Marguerite C. Burk

Agricultural Economist

Economic Research Service

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

^ ,n ^?^ aspects of food consunçtion in the IMited States are treated in this

bulletin. They are (l) the hroad outlines of trends in U. S. food supplies and consumption through the last 50 years, and (2) some of the more significant patterns of

cross-sectional variations within the country in selected periods during the half

century studied.

The study begins with a description of sources and uses of food supplies

(chapter 2). Historical changes in average food consunçtion for the whole country

are next considered (chapter 3). Description of variations in food consumption among

population groups at several points in time follows in chapter k. Variations in the

use of marketing services over the last 30 years and among population groups are

reviewed separately in chapter 5. The historical changes in food consunçtion in terms

of the value of civilian food at several levels of distribution are summarized in

chapter 6. Supplementary information is given in two appendixes.

1.1. Organization pf the Reference Scheme

The system of numbering text sections, tables, and figures in this bulletin is

one that is used in many technical works on statistics and economics for crossreferences and is intended to contribute to the use of the bulletin as a reference

work. The first digit of each text section number (¿.1.3), table number (¿.2), and

y^fi^re number (¿.l) refers to the number of the chapter in \fh±ch it is given. The

second digit in a text reference indicates a major section in the chapter. Headings

of these major sections of the chapter are included in the table of contents along

with the page number on which each begins. Numbering of subsections follows the same

system.

The same reference system is used in Agr. Handb. 206, Measures and Procedures

for Analysis of Uj, S¿^ Food Consumption (2). Cross-references to text sections, tables,

and figures in that publication are indicated by the prefix MP-(Measures and procedures) before the reference numbers. The coding system for time series pertaining to

quantities of food and food marketing services, and to value data developed in that

publication, is used at appropriate points in this publication. A key to this system

is provided in appendix A.

For standard literature on food consiomption cited, an abbreviated identification

is used for each major bibliographical reference in addition to the number assigned

to it in the bibliography at the end of the bulletin. Exanç>le; Agr. Handb. 62 refers

to Agriculture Handbook 62, Consumption of Food in the Ifeiited States. 1909-52 (and

its annual supplements), which is number 32 in Literature Cited and Other References.

1.2. SnmmAjrY of Trends and Patterns in

U. Sj. Consumption of All Food

Some of the more significant findings regarding historical trends in food

consumption and variations among population groups are the following:

1.2.1. Domestic production of farm food commodities, excluding quantities used for

for feed and seed in each year, increased by three-fourths from 192U to 1959

while U. S. population increased a little over a half.
- 2 -

1.2.2. U. S. production of farm foods generally supplies 90 to 95 percent of food

used in this country. Imports of nonconçeting commodities account for 3 or

k percent. The remainder is made up of inç)orts of supplementary items and

changes in stocks.

1.2.3. Home production of farm food commodities for household food use decreased from

22 percent of all foods consumed by U. S. civilians in 1924 to 7 percent in

1959.

1.2.4. Retail poundage of food consumed per capita has been about 100 noxinds less in

recent yeai« than in the years immediately before World War I, but several

economic and nutritional measures of consunçption indicate significant increases

have occurred in the overall level.

1.2.5. Significant changes in relative importance of foods in overall U. S. consumption during the last 50 years were the substantial decline in potatoes and

cereal products, the substitution of vegetable for animal fats, and the increase in poultry consumption.

1.2.6. Per cemita use of farm foods from al.I sources was I3 percent greater in 1955-59

than 30 years earlier, but the average use of purchased farm foods was

30 percent higher.

1.2.7. Statistical analysis of historical data indicates that the income elasticity

of purchased farm foods has been about twice as high as for farm foods hoioe

produced and purchased.

1.2.8. The shift from home-produced to purchased foods was an inçortant factor in

the 54 percent increase in average use of food marketing services from

1935-39 to 1955-59.

1.2.9. Income elasticities of per person expenditures for all food at home and away

from home by housekeeping household« in each of the three separate urbanizartion categories — urban, rural nonfeinn, and feu:Ta — declined from spring

1942 to spring 1955- Thus food expenditures varied less with income level of

households in the more recent than in the earlier period.

1.2.10. Household food surveys indicate food use varies much more with money income

among nonfarm households than among farm households. But the degree of

variation is much less among high-income than anüng middle-income households.

1.2.11. In spring I955 variations in food marketing costs paid per person among

households grouped by income were apparently two to three times greater than

coiiÇ)arable variations in use of food.

1.2.12. From 19i^7 to I955 the proportion or disposable money income allocated to food

expenditures decreased each year except in I95I. In I955-58 this proportion

was fairly stable at 22 to 23 percent, but it moved down to 21 percent in

1959.
- 3 -

Chapter 2. CHANGES TO TIffi SOURCES AND USES OF Uj. S^ TOpp SUPPLIES

This chapter deals with historical changes in the sources of U. S. food supplies

in tenns of domestic production for home use and for sale, imports, and stock changes.

The special problem of fishery products is treated separately. Uses and users of

these food supplies are described in terms of exports, domestic nonfood use, and

military food. At the end of the chapter the changing picture of the commodity group

makeup is surveyed briefly, l/

2.1. Sources of IL S^. Supplies of Faim Foods

2.1.1. Domestic production of farm food commodities ~ net of, or excluding

quantities used for feed and seed in each year ~ increased by three-fourths from

192l<- to 1959. During the same period, U. S. population increased a little more than

a half. 2/ Despite the great increase in domestic production, U. S. imports of food

commodities are still 8 or 9 percent of net utilization of such food commodities each

year.

Consideration of two questions helps to gedn perspective on sources of our food

supplies. These will be discussed in the following two sections.

2.1.2. BQ}¿ Self-Supporting

in Farm Foods Is IL S.Î

2.1.2.1. U. S. domestic production of farm food commodities generally has

supplied about 90 to 95 percent of net utilization of food commodities, excluding

feed and seed. The proportion during the I92U-59 period varied from 8I percent in

1936 and 83 percent in 193k to an equivalent of 100 percent in 19tó, the year that

feed grain stocks were rebuilt. ^ Low proportions in 1934 and I936 reflected the

effects of drought on current production and heavy withdrawals from stocks.

2.1.2.2. The contribution of inqports to U. S. net utilization of food varied

from a low of 6 percent in 19^2 to 11 percent in 1935-37• Submarine warfare and other

war-related factors in I9U2 cut down our inç)orts in that year. Imports loomed large

in 1935 and 1937 as operating stocks were rebuilt following years of drought. The

relationship of inçorts to net utilization of farm food commodities usually is arotind

8 or 9 percent of the total.

¿y Basic data for this chapter in the main are those developed in the confutations

of the master index of supply-utilization of all farm commodities, including sets of

data given in tables ^5-52 at the end of the Supplement for I959 to Agr. Handb. 9I

Measuring the Supply and Utilization of Farm Cnmmnditif^R {i¿) ,

2/ This change in production is measured by a subindex of the supply-utilization

index adjusted for the approximate amount of feed and seed supplied from domestic

production in each year. For further description see pp. 3^^k2 of Agr. Handb. 9I {2¿) •

2J Net utilization of farm food commodities is a measure of the net flow of such

commodities from production, imports, and commercial stocks (including those held for

price support) into domestic food and nonfood use except for feed and seed, into

exports, or into stocks. Only supplies from a decrease in stocks are reflected in

the measure. These data are in table if5 of the Supplement for I959 to Agr. Handb.

91 (35)-

Numbers in parentheses refer to Item numbers In Literature Cited and Other

References, beginning page 119.
- if -

On baleince, the quantity of farm food commodities ve inçort is greater than that

we export, kj Exceptions occurred in 19^5-^7^ years in \^ich substantial supplies of

food were shipped to feed civilian popxilation in liberated and occupied areas; and

again 195^-59^years in which surplus food supplies were shipped under "special"

programs like the one provided by Public Law 1*80 •

Imports exceeded exports by 20 percent in 1924, and the inçort balance increased

from I92U to 1936. Imports were almost 7 times the size of exports in 1936, but after

1936, the import balance declined as our exports recovered from the drought-enforced

cutback. Yet we remained a net importer until 19^5^ this in spite of wartime expansion in exports under the lend-lease program and the contraction of imports because

of enemy operations and use of commercial ships to carry military material. The

addition of exports under the military civilian feeding programs to those handled

through commercial channels and to deliveries by the U. S. Department of Agriculture

for the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration and other relief and

economic assistance programs caused total exports of faxm products having food uses to

exceed imports in 19^5-^7• "^ fact, the whole import situation was upset at the end

of World War II by low agricultural production in countries normally eacporters.

Only in 1957-59 were exports of food crop commodities larger than iiiç)orts. In

contrast, imports of food livestock products exceeded exports only in 1935"^^ years

in which domestic supplies were reduced by cutbacks in domestic production. We

exported large quantities of livestock products to our allies xinder the lend-lease

and postwar assistance programs in the years 19^2 to 1947.

2,1.3. What Foods Are Imported.

and How Much?

Imports of supplementary farm food commodities (those produced in the U. S. or

closely competitive with U. S. commodities) usually exceeded the imports of complementary items between 1924 and 1937. ¿/ In I938-I4O and from I9U5 to 1959 (except for

^958) > complementary commodities became somewhat more inçortant. Variations have been

greater in imports of supplementeüiy commodities than in complementary imports.

Changes in U. S. production and the relationships of domestic supplies to domestic

demand affect supplementary more than conçlementary products. Also, supplementary

products Qxe often subject to some form of restriction on imports. CoiiÇ)lementeu:y

imports are generally duty-free; they are principally affected by the availability

of supplies abroad, relative prices, and U. S. purchasing power. 6/

Total imports of food for civilian use, including fishery products, rose twothirds from 1929 to 1959. 2/ Low points were in the war years 19tó and 19^3, when

imports were cut back about a fourth from the 19^1 rate. Inçorts set a record in 1959.

kJ Indicated by data in table k^ of the Supplement for I959 to Agr. Handb. 9I (¿¿).

In this table commodities are valued in tenns of their 1947-í»-9 farm prices.

5/ Supplementary commodities include sugar, copra and other oils and oil seeds,

specialty fruits, seasonal vegetables, and tree nuts. Bie principal complementary

itemus are bananas, coffee, tea, and cocoa.

6/ For further description, see page Uk of Agr. Handb. 9I (3^).

2/ Change indicated by the isnport data of the supply-utilization index for farm

food commodities and import data on fishery products in terms of their I9l|.7-1#.9 prices.
- 5 -

2.1.At. Net Domestic Production

û£ FaJ^ Food Commodities

Overall domestic production of farm food commodities varied relatively little

from 192k to 1932 but, as indicated previously, it was substantially cut by drought

in 1933/ 193^/ and 1936. 8/ Domestic production net of or excluding feed and seed

used in each year was at the same rate per person in I9I4O as in I92U. In the five

succeeding years production expanded to meet accelerated wartime demand. The poor

com crop of 19^7 pulled per capita production down considerably. Since 19^^?, total

food production has increased about a fourth, reaching new high levels in 1956-59.

Owing to large postwar increases in U. S. popiilation, net production of food commodities per capita in the late 1950's was a little less than that during I9H and 19k6.

As changes in production have already been described and analyzed by production

economists, 2/ a brief summary only will be included here. These studies indicate

that production of crops \aiich have food uses has fluctuated more than that of livestock and livestock products, especially before World War II. Because of wartime

demands and abrupt postwar adjustments in Government takings and price controls,

production of livestock and livestock products varied more in the 191*0's than in the

preceding two decades. Generally, the ups and downs in crop production preceded turns

in livestock and livestock products by a year or two.

Basic data for studying changes in supplies of groups of commodities are given

in Agr. Handb. 9I (^, and for individual comiaodities in the appendix tables of

Agr. Handb. 62 (¿g) .

2.1.5. Effect ûf Stocks

on Food Supplies

2.1.5.1. Changes in stocks and how they have contributed to the supply of food

commodities in each year will be considered in this section, but first pertinent

information must be appraised. In general, the data on current stocks cover farm

stocks of grain and most of the food stocks in distribution channels other than dayto-day operating stocks and supplies in the hands of retailers. The data on stocks

incorporated in the supply-utilization index do not include the inventory of animals

on farms. 10/ Stocks held under price support are included with free commercial and

farm stocks beginning with 19^7^ t)ut stocks held under foreign supply programs of the

U. S. Department of Agriculture have been handled separately; these stocks are

unlikely to flow back into U. S. utilization. Net changes in stocks axe used as a

source of domestic supplies, ll/

8/ Table k6 of the Supplement for I959 to Agr. Handb. 9I (¿a)«

2/ As in Durost Changing Sources of Farm Output (12) and Loomis and Barton

Productivity of Agriculture, United States. 1870-1958 (ij) .

10/ This infoimation is available, but the inventory of animals is not included in

the supply-utilization measure. Ibat laeasurement starts with meat when slaughtered

and crops when harvested. Stocks held by the Armed Forces are also excluded, because

supplies taken by the Armed Forces are considered to be used when procured and not

returnable to utilization channels. The precise level of stocks is much less significant for the measure of changes in utilization than yeaa>-to-year changes in stocks.

The supply-utilization index is set up in terms of calendar years; in most instances

the stock data apply to January 1. [Detailed information on changes in stock coverage

since 1924 is given in Agr. Handb. 62 (32).]

11/ For further information, see pp. I7-I8 and pp. i^7-60 of Agr. Handb. 9I (^ and

the article "Measuring Stock Changes" by Harry Sherr and Leva C. Taylor in the

National Food Situation. Feb. I956 (22).
- 6 -

A comprehensive and strictly coiiç)arable measure of January 1 stocks of food

commodities over a long period of years cannot be developed because of changes in

commodity coverage and in the extent of reported coverage. Deficiencies in the data

have been minimized, hovever, by using changes in conqparable stocks during each year

rather than aggregate values of reported stocks* In developing the basic data,

comparability of stocks at the beginning and the end of each year was carefully

observed. The series developed for the supply-utilization index provides useful

indications of changes taking place in holdings of farm commodities throughout the

economy. Changes in stocks at several levels of distribution and of processing are

combined in terms of their farm commodity equivalents and of 19^7-^9 i'ann prices.

2.1.5.2. Changes in stocks of farm commodities normally add or subtract less

than 3 percent to or from the flow of fana commodities into use. 12/ Exceptions in

the 19214-59 period were (l) the drought period of 193^37> (2) the war year 19^3,

(3) the year I9I48 following the 19^7 drought, and {k) I958. In 193^ and I936, withdrawals from stocks (primarily grains) amounted to 6 percent of the year's use of farm

food commodities. Rebuilding of stocks amounted to 5 percent of total use in I935 and

8 percent in 1937. Reduction in crop production and heavy feeding caused stocks of

food and feed grains to drop in 19^3. The short com crop in 19^7> followed by a

record large crop a year later, accounted for most of the addition to stocks in 19^^

equivalent to 7 percent of 19^ food xise.

2.1.5.3. Although the effect of changes in stocks on food use is normally small

in percentage terms, these reserves provide a significant source of supplements for

current production and iniports. The magnitude of such food resources measured as

total stocks of farm commodities on hand on January 1 of each year is best evaluated

in terms of their relationship to annual use of farm commodities. I3/ Through the

1920's, stocks apparently amounted to about a fourth of the following year's use of

food commodities. After the drought years, stocks of grains were again built up, and

totaled 30 percent of use annually. In l^kk^kS, exports, heavy feeding of livestock,

and a poor com crop (19^7) cut the ratio back to a fourth. Since 19tô, stocks have

gradually increased; on January 1, 1959^ they amounted to kl percent of the total

flow of farm food commodities into use that yecwr.

2.1.5.4. As indicated by the tabulation that fo2J.ows, the commodity makeup of

stocks changed somewhat between I929 and 1959.

Percent of total stocks

on January 1

1Q2Q 1959

76

7

11

6

Grains 67

Fruits and vegetables 11

Oil crops 6

Other 16

12/ Based on data in table 10 of Agr. Handb. 91 (35) and detailed commodity data in

the appendix of Agr. Handb. 62 (¿2).

¿3/ ^is discussion is based on the statistical series of calculated available

stocks. This was estimated by working back from total stocks reported as of

Januaiy 1/ 1956, using changes in comparable reported stocks. These stocks include

processed and unprocessed supplies. For further information, see the references

noted in footnote 11.
- 7 -

The value of grain stocks (1947-49 prices) more than doubled betveen I929 and I959.

Stocks of oilseeds and oil vere 4| times as large in I959 as in I929. Most of the

year-to-year changes in stocks are in grains.

2•1.5.5. The supply-utilization index is a measure of flow into utilization in

each year. It does not take into account changes in inventory of food-producing

livestock units on fams. For exairç)le, the totals of (l) the estimated value of food

livestock on farms (in 1947-49 farm prices) and (2) the comparable value data for

available stocks, including harvested grains and identified supplies in distribution

channels, were $17.5 billion for January 1, 1924, and $27.3 billion for January 1,

1958. 14/ According to this measure, the increase in total stocks was 56 percent,

practically the same as the increase in U. S. population between the two years.

However, the productivity of breeding units of livestock on farms has increased

greatly and so has productivity in teims of yields of milk and other products.

2.1.5.6. The next question of significance in an appraisal of the importance of

stocks is : V^ holds tb^ stocks? The calculation of total available stocks excludes

holdings by the Armed Forces and by the Department of Agriculture for export, as under

lend-lease. They include stocks held by farmers as free stocks or under the pricesupport programs, holdings of marketing agencies and processors wherever reported,

and supplies held by the Federal CSovemment which were acquired under price-support

operations and under emergency programs. These types of holdings are combined because

they move into utilization channels in succeeding yeaj's.

"The question of ownership, whether Government or private, is not only difficult

to ascertain for some commodities held on certain dates, but it also conçlicates the

use of stock data for analytical puiposes. Privately-owned stocks held as collateral

for Government price support loans will often have a different effect on market

prices from those not under loan, depending upon the relationship between market

prices and the 'loan level. ' Inventories of commodities acquired by the Commodity

Credit Corporation under its price-support and emergency programs probably have even

less effect on current prices." 15/

Price-support operations of the Federal Farm Board in wheat resulted in the

holding of about 6 percent of total available stocks of food commodities in January

1931 and 1932. After these stocks were liquidated in 1933, the price-support holdings

of the Government were relatively small up to the 19l*0*s. From 194l to 1944, large

Commodity Credit Corporation stocks of wheat, peanuts, and soybeans were accumulated

under price-support operations. On January 1, 1944, CCC stocks under price support

were equivalent to a tenth of total available stocks of food commodities. Thereafter,

large transfers of these commodities were made to war and postwar supply programs.

CCC price-support stocks on January 1, 19^7 an<i 1948, were down to 1 percent of total

available stocks. 16/ Total price-support stocks, including those xinder loan but not

14/ Derived as follows: The total value of food-producing livestock on farms on

January 1, I947 to 1949, averaged $11.9 billion. Applying the index of the inventory

of meat animals and poultry on farms on January 1, 1924 and 1958,to this $11.9 billion,

one obtains estimates of the total value of livestock on farms of $11.1 billion for

January 1, 1924,and $13.1 billion for January 1, 1958,(in 1947-49 farm prices). These

approximations were added to the $6.4 billion estimate for available stocks on

January 1, 1924, (developed from the supply-utilization index data) and the $l4.2 billion for 1958.

15/ From page 50 of Agri. Handb. 9I (^ .

lb/ Based on data in table 50 of the Supplement for I959 to Agr. Handb. 9I.
- 8 .

actually held by the Department of Agriculture, gradually accumulated from 3 percent

in 19k8 to 21^- percent of all stocks on January 1, 1951- These supplies vere reduced

in 1952 and 1953 and then rebuilt in succeeding years. On January 1, 1959^ about

ko percent of total reported stocks of food commodities, mostly grains, vere held

under price support by the CCC or under loan. In sum, changes in stocks of crops have

resulted largely from (l) drought or recovery from droiight and (2) special programs

for price support and for export.

2.1.6. Home Production Versus

Commercial Production

2.1.6.1. Data used in measuring food supplies and utilization include production

for home use by farm families and by nonfaxm families. Estimates of home production

are generally less reliable than those of commercial production,particularly in the

case of nonfarm families. Throughout the following discussion all measurements are

in terms of the values of farm commodity equivalents at 19^1-7-^9 i'arm prices. 12/

Available data indicate that the home production of farm food commodities for

household food use has decreased from I5 percent of all measured production of these

commodities (including all nonfood use) in 1924 to 5 percent in I959 with practically

all of this decline taking place after 1936. The extent of the decline is about the

same when home production is compared with production of farm commodities net of feed

and seed use. Conçarison with U. S. civilian food use shows that the iiiç)ortance of

home production in the total quantity of food commodities used by civilians for food

declined from 22 percent in I92U to 7 percent in 1959.

2.1.6.2. dere was little change in the proportion home produced in the years

1924 to 1936. Over that period the farm population declined only in relative terms,

from 28 percent of the total population to 25 percent, but the nonfarm population was

becoming somewhat more urbanized. After 1936, the proportion home produced declined

from 15 percent to the 5 percent for 1959*

2.1.6.3. The greatest declines appear to have been in grain products, milk

production, and fruit. According to Crop Reporting Boeird data, home production of

meat has dropped from about 10 to U percent of the total in the 1920's to 5 percent

of all meat slaughtered in 1959, \rtiile such production of poultry and eggs has fallen

from 30 to 10 percent of the total. Milk production for home use declined steadily

from 32 percent of total output in I92U to 20 percent in 19to and 7 percent in 1959.

Home garden output was about half as inçortant at the end of this 3^year period as

at the beginning, and fruit and nuts home produced were down from 12 percent to 2 percent of total production. The fruit and nut data include only farm hoiae production;

no satisfactory basis for estimating nonfarm home production has been found.

2.1.7. Net nnTrrmPim^fli Production

of Farm Food Commodities

To appraise changes in output of food for sale we have to exclude home production, with these marked and continuing decreases, and the feed and seed used in

ultimate production of other food commodities. The measures constructed for this

purpose are the index of net commercial food production and the subindexes for

commodity groups. 18/

17/ Based on data in table 47 of the Supplement for I959 to Agr. Handb. 9I (¿a) •

^/ These indexes axe given in table U8 of the Supplement for I959 to Agr. Handb.

91 L2ä) . They are based on the production measure of the supply-utilization index.

This index is compared with the index of farm output and the index of volume of farm

marketings and home consunçtion on pages 37-39 of the text of Agr. Handb. 9I.
- 9 -

In reading the review of changes in production that follows one should bear in

mind that U. S. population increased a little over 50 percent from 1924 to 1959. I^e

all-food measure shows that net production of food commodities for sale doubled in the

period 192l<-59,most of the increase coming after 1939, when the index was 69 (1947-

49=100) compared with I29 in 1959- The food production measured here is the source of

those supplies that move through commercial channels toward ultimate consumer use.

Commercial output of milk and of poultry and eggs tripled during the last 36 years.

Fruits and nuts and grain products — excluding the quantities used for feed aod seed

and home produced — about doubled. Production of vegetables (including potatoes, dry

beans and peas) increased by 70 percent, and that of meat for sale by 60 percent.

2,1.8. Changes in Location

of Feirm Output

To measure changes in the location of farm output, regional breakdowns of net

farm output of all commodities and of major food commodities have been calculated from

value aggregates of the net farm output indexes constructed by the Farm Economics

Division, now ERS. 19/ The regional shifts that are indicated by percentages of the

U. S. totals given in table 2,1 can not be discussed at length in this report, though

they are significant in marketing research. People in all regions do not consumed

all foods at the same rate, as evidenced by data in chapter h, yet conçarisons of

changes in regional shares in output of commodities and in population provide prelimrinary indications of major shifts in food marketing. (Fig. 2.1.)

For example, in 1920, New England produced 7 percent of the total milk output

in the United States, and had 7 percent of the people. By I957 the population was down

to 6 percent of the U. S. total, but milk production wcus down to 5 percent. On the

West Coast, the Pacific States included 5 percent of the population in I920 and

11 percent in 1957. Their share in dairy output rose from 7 percent to 9 percent;

their output of truck crops for fresh market from 20 to 36 percent, and of vegetables

for processing from ik percent to hi percent. The East North Central Region produced

22 percent of our poultry and eggs in I92O, but only l^i percent in 1957/ while the

share of the South Atlantic Region rose from 11 percent to 22 percent and that of the

Pacific States from 7 to 10 percent.

2.2. Fishery Products 20/

2.2.1. The data on fishery products used in this bulletin exclude fish caught

for honie use. The only indication available of the significance of the so-called game

catch is that about a fifth of the fishery products used at home in spring I955 had

not been purchased. Taking into account the importance of the eating place market for

fishery products, the share of home-caught fish in the U. S. total may have been

19/ For description of data^ see chapter 3/ vol. 2 "Agricultural Production and

Efficiency, " of Ma.ior Statistical Series fif the U,. S,. Denartment ^f Agriculture, Agr.

Handb. II8 (W), and Changing Sources of Farm Output (12) . Here, net farm output

refers to the exclusion of feed for horses and mules and includes net changes in inventories of livestock on farms, crops harvested, livestock products marketed, and all

farm foods produced by farm families for household use. For livestock, this index of

output uses a product-added concept to avoid duplication of feed crop production,

which is counted in the year of harvest. Interfarm sales are also excluded.

20/ Prepared with the assistance of Harry Sherr, ERS. Federal responsibility for

fishery products data is in the Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior,

but consumption of these products is measured and studied along with other foods by

ERS.
Table 2.1,—Regional shai^s in net farm output of all commodities and of major foods, and

distribution of U. S. population, by region, selected years, I920 to 1957 Xl

Net farm output

\ All

Vegetables

Fresh Vegetables

PopuYear and region : farm Meat Poultry Food All vege- Other Fruit lation

: commod- animals Dairy and grains vege- tables for vege- and 6/

: ities eggs tables for tables nuts

: ^

-J sale

4/

processing ¿/

: Percent Percent percent Percent percent Percent Percent percent Percent Percent percent

1920

United States : 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

New England : 2 1 7 3 5 5 3 7 4 7

Middle Atlantic : 8 If 20 10 5 16 21 20 19 19 21

East North Central : 19 24 25 22 16 18 12 31 21 12 20

West North Central : 25 38 18 25 44 11 4 7 13 4 12

South Atlantic : 12 6 9 11 4 18 19 18 15 15 13

East South Central : 8 6 5 8 1 8 5 2 6 5 9

West South Central : 14 11 6 10 12 9 10 1 6 3 10

Mountain : 5 7 3 4 10 5 4 4 6 2 3

Pacific : 7 3 7 7 8 10 20 14 7 36 5

1930

United States : 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

New England : 3 1 6 4 6 3 2 11 5 7

Middle Atlantic : 7 3 16 11 4 12 14 17 13 12 21

East North Central : 17 22 25 21 13 14 10 35 13 6 20

West North Central ; 27 47 20 26 51 9 3 7 12 2 11

South Atlantic : 11 5 8 10 4 17 20 10 14 13 13

East South Central : 7 4 5 6 1 7 4 2 6 3 8

West South Central 12 7 8 9 11 10 11 2 6 3 10

Mountain : 7 7 4 4 9 9 7 5 15 3 3

Pacific 9 4 8 9 7 16 28 20 10 53 7

19itó

United States 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

New England 2 1 5 6 6 4 1 10 2 6

Middle Atlantic 7 3 16 13 4 13 17 17 14 7 21

East North Central 19 26 26 20 16 14 n 28 13 7 20

West North Central 24 40 19 22 42 9 2 7 12 2 10

South Atlantic 12 5 8 13 4 17 19 14 12 23 14

East South Central . 7 5 6 6 1 6 2 2 5 2 8

West South Central . 13 9 8 9 15 9 9 3 6 6 10

Mountain : 6 7 4 3 10 8 7 4 14 2 3

Pacific : 10 4 8 8 8 18 29 24 14 ^9 8

1950 \

United States : 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

New England : 2 1 5 7 6 3 1 11 3

8

6

Middle Atlantic 6 3 16 13 3 11 11 19 13 20

East North Central : 20 23 27 17 13 12 8 22 10 9

2

20

West North Central : 27 41 17 21 43 7 2 5 10 9

14 South Atlantic : 10 5 9 15 2 18 23 13 10 20

East South Central : 7 6 7 6 1 6 3 1 I4. 2 8

10 West South Central : 11 10 8 8 12 8 9 3 5

18

1|

Mountain : 7 7 3 3 15 10 8 4 2 3

10

Pacific : 10 4 8 10 11 22 33 32 19 50

1957 ':

United States : 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 New England : 2 -— 5 7 6 3

10

7 '

1 13

10

9

7

9

2

7

8

6

19

21

9

14

7

9

4

Middle Atlantic :

East North Central :

5

20

2

23

16

27

11

14

2

13

9

n "i

West North Central : 28 40 17 17 39 6 1 6 1

24

2

3

2

South Atlantic : 10 6 10 22 2 18 25

2

Ô

East South Central : 6 7 7 8 2 5

7

1

2

West South Central : 11 6 9 15 8

Mountain : 7 8 3 2 16 11 8 4 21 Pacific : 11 5 9 10 11 27 36 41 24 51 11

i/ Eased on data prepared by the Farm Economics Division, ERS. Description of coverage and methodology of fann output

indexes given in pp. 21-37, vol. 2, "Agricultural Production and Efficiency," Agr. Handb. II8 (44).

2/ Includes nonfood items but excludes horses and mules. —

3/ Includes fam garden output in addition to categories specified.

4/ Excludes potatoes and sweetpotatoes.

"' Includes dry beans and peas, potatoes, and sweetpotatoes. íj'Total,excluding Armed Forces overseas.
- 11

-

^•oo

3^

-

OOK

CM^ «O

^ "O O» O» O* 5 ^ - '\T7

o

oû

^o

-

M«AIAú^

z2

"^*^

-

o

PT«m

u

•* ^^1

» . s CM u

ijl ^1 CN

u

o o«

z

III j«

;S

9

<

a.

^ í/f i

il.

* "^^1 1.

«A

O

08Z

^3 ■■"

<¿ ! , 3

<zO

POP

ODIT

O

UJx

^o

o3

>o

C

u;s

^ a. Ou. u.

3o

o

v^

-s

«1^ fií

p:^

íM^

o

»

[^ j ^

i/) ¡í!

<

i^

s

^'

NAL

ELEC

z

MJ± u

m-

«/»

1

o t-z<

O (^

^

M

^^ OÉ

¿¡•

D ho tí: C <

IMo

2< o.M«1a0«

'3

uu

X3O

UJ <A

>

Oí

UJXu

o: uiozou

UJ

ti »^

Q. O

UJ

luQ

UJQ3

O. 3O

I O

UJ z

CVJ

Oí

»-

-Iuo<z

UJ<

o.
- 12 -

around I5 percent in the spring of 1955. For I955 as a \^ole, it probably was between

10 aad 20 percent. In the time-series data,for lack of something better, 1.2 poiinds

per capita per year are used throughout the 50-year period in confuting nutrient

supplies.

2.2.2. In terms of supplier values, the wharf value of the continental catch of

edible fish plus the value of fishery products brought in from foreign coimtries and

U. S. Territories made up somewhat less than $200 million out of the $10.^ billion

figure for total supplier value of food in I929, in current dollars. The figure for

1959 is estimated at $600 million out of the 2^.k billion total. In relation to the

retail value of per capita consuiiç)tion of all foods in 19^7-^9 prices, fish consumption reached a high of about 3 percent in I929 and again in 1935-38. It declined to

2 percent of all food consumed in the World War II years, and this proportion has

prevailed in the last few years.

2.2.3. ïb measure changes in the supply of fishery products in the last 30 years,

we use the data on total edible weight. ¿/ The total edible weight of fishery

products consiimed by U. S. civilians increased from about 1,^50 million pounds in

1929 to 1,870 million pounds in 1959, including fresh and processed fishery products.

Imports of fresh and frozen fish have become a much more important part of the picture

in recent years than before World War II. Imports and shipments of canned fisheiy

products into continental U. S., including those fix)m Alaska, were lower in the

1950*s than in the 1930's because of the big drop in the salmon catch. However, the

increased domestic catch and pack of tuna has been at least partly offsetting.

2.2.4. Variations over time in the tonnage of fish and shellfish landed in the

several regions reflect mainly the availability of resources in areas fished by commercial fishermen. The major landing axeas for commercially caioght food fish and

shellfish are the New England and Pacific Coast States. Over the last 25 yeaxs, these

two axeas have euîcounted for two-thirds to three-fourths of the commercial catch in

continental United States. (Table 2.2.)

For many years the Pacific Coast States have been the most inqportant area for

commercial fishery items. Hie high level in recent years has been maintained by the

uptrend in the catch of tuna, rockfish, and halibut, offsetting the decrease in sardines. In the New England States, the second leading area, the heavier landings of

ocean perch, flounder, whiting, lobster, and sea scallops have tended to more than

compensate for decreases in groundfish. 22/ The relative iiiÇ)ortance of the Middle

Atlantic and the Chesapeake Bay States in the national production picture has not

changed significantly in recent years. For Alaska the lower proportion reflects the

smaller catch of salmon.

2.3. Users and Uses of United States Food Supplies

Food supplies flow into a niimber of distribution channels for use in this

country and for export. These include exports and shipments, domestic nonfood use,

military takings of food, and civilian food.

21/ The development of such information ie described in the article, "The Supply

and Distribution of Fishery Products in the Continental United States, 1930-^7," by

Harry Sherr. National Food Situation. July-September I9Í48 (2l). The supply and

distribution tables for fishery products are published in the appendix of Agr.

Handb. 62 (^). The current situation and statistics are summarized regularly in the

National Food Situation.

22/ Includes cod, haddock, hake, pollock, and cusk.
- 13

-

O

• for; Ü. S.

and

[Alaska

4^ ft

¿1

en vo IPv

3

(M 8Í, CVJ

OH

§

'S.

ONH

oí Ta

.•g

tD +5

..1 í^ SI Ü

*rf r-H

en

H

vo9

H

en

en

-it

OJH

LTN

CVJ

en

CVJ

CVJ

Fi

00H

ITN

CVJ

CVJ

enm

CD

CVJ

en

ON

00

CVJ §

î

opd

îi

H•0

« ^< CQ »d^

6$

1Ü

2

•1 CM

-P CVJ

ITN

dá^

en 1

VO

voH

en

en 00

ITN

8i

en

en

H3

H

CVJ

LTV

en§

H

-4-

en§

1

o ír.íl ^ » 5!

D5

'S

5

•V •^ •i

o

4^W

ir\ 00 en ir\ en

H

CVJ

CVJ en§

o

0)

ft "2

J Î5^ vo C3\ -4- vo -it fi CVJ

8

H 0«

•o ol iq

Ö -p ¿3

5

i

Ö

irv

enH

^

t

-:t

LTV ft

CVJ

1»

0) o 3^ CVJ CVJ

(0

CO

1

(01(0

QQ

CQ

1

1

a

1

COa

s

î

hg

s

1

o +> •H

so 4^ •H •p

•H CO

^

s

•H CO +>

«d

•

t^

<

P

35

CO

o CO

<$

1a

r1

(0 5

CO 1

•H 0) !l

(0 :i

•

CD (0

1

a>

&

^

«

O

03 'JS

ta :3 (^ lá •H CQ fi

î4> 1« S 1 1 1 1

COu

CO

CO

P4

Tao

<sds

4)

CO

Í5o

CO

CO

Taâoo

4*
- lU -

2.3.1, Exports

2.3.1.1. Exports of U. S. produced farm food connnodities are considered only

briefly here because they represent a fringe area for review in this bulletin. 23/ In

the period 1924 to the 1930*s, exports declined from 5.5 percent of annual flow of

farm food commodities to less than 2 percent in the mid-1930's. Much of the decline

was in wheat, pork, and lard, and reflected the depression of the 1930's, repercussions

of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act, and droughts. Beginning in 1914-1, exports increased

greatly with the inception of the lend-lease program. During World War II, threefourths of the exports of farm food commodities were shipped by the Department of

Agriculture under various aid programs. Until 1950, the Department of Agriculture and

the U. S. military agencies continued to handle more of total exports than moved

through commercial channels, under the military-civilian feeding program and special

aid programs for our allies.

Since 1950, substantial quantities of farm commodities have been handled through

commercial channels but financed by U. S. government grants, loans, and credits. 2^^/

The wheat crop failure in Argentina in I95I and results of the Korean outbreak raised

e:q)orts in I95I and 1952. In I956 and 1957-59, special efforts to reduce accumulated

surpluses of farm food commodities resulted in exports accounting for the record of

8 percent of the total flow into utilization in those years.

2.3.1.2. During World II, emphasis was on shipment of high protein and high

energy foods for use by our allies. Accordingly, large quantities of dairy and meat

products and eggs were exported. Since 19k6, the U. S. haß exported much more grain

than other commodities and the only substantial quantities of livestock products

exported have been the surplus supplies of lard and dairy products accumulated under

price-support operations.

2.3.2. Domestic Nonfood Use

2.3.2.1. Most nonfood use of farm food commodities is for feed and seed, which,

in turn, contribute to future food output. In effect, this is a duplication in the

subindex of production of the supply-utilization index. But it is inherent in the

measurement of flow of farm commodities into use. The apparent double counting has

been eliminated from the net measures of domestic production used in eeurlier sections

of this chapter. In this section, feed and seed use must be considered as part of

all nonfood uses of farm food commodities. (Farm food commodities are defined as

those having any food use in the U. S.)

Feed accounted for 26 of the 3I percentage points of the total flow of farm

food commodities into all uses that went for nonfood purposes in 192if. Seed accounted

for 2 percentage points and the remainder went for soap, drying oils, leather, and

other minor items including a small quantity for production of alcohol and alcoholic

beverages. In 1959, 26 percent went for all nonfood uses — 21-^ percent for feed.

22/ The term "exports" is used in the general sense of its meaning, and includes

shipments to U. S. Territories. All conçarisons axe made on the basis of data compiled for the master index of supply and utilization of farm commodities. Exports

are valued in terms of their content of farm commodities at l^k^-k^ average farm

prices.

2k/ Described by Doris Detre Rafler in "Gtovemment Financing of Farm Exports in the

Postwar Period," Agr. Econ. Res., Oct. I955 (22) .
- 15 -

±2 percent for seed, 1 percent for alcohol and alcoholic beverages, and the remainder

for miscellaneoiis purposes. 25/

Feed and seed took progressively smaller shares of annual utilization from 1924

to the late 1950*s. The share of alcohol and alcoholic beverages was higher in the

1950's; other food uses remained about the same. The index data on utilization for

seed for crops show little increase in the quantities used since 1924, but in 1955-59

crop production averaged about half again as large as in the mid-1920's. Improved

seed, better production practices, and a great increase in use of fertilizer per acre

contributed to the lowering of the seed-production ratio.

2.3.2.2. The great change in agricultural production from use of »nimfli power

(horses and mules) to mechanical power (tractors, motor trucks, and automobiles) had

a great impact on use of feed. It made available for food crop production almost

75 million acres of crop land including acreages of hay formerly used for feed for

farm and nonfarm horses and mules. 26/

2.3.2.3« Use of farm food products in alcohol and alcoholic beverages rose after

the repeal of prohibition to a peak in the war years when the demand for industrial

alcohol was heavy. Such use of farm food products then tapered off as petroleum

products were substituted for grains and molasses as raw materials in production of

ethyl alcohol.

2.3.2.U. Crop products contribute the largest share to nonfood uses as they are

the principal sources of feed and seed. Since the period of World War II, the nonfood

use of livestock and livestock products has declined to much lower rates, owing largely

to the drop in the quantity of skim milk used for feed («nd waste) and a induction in

the use of pulled wool. At the same time, nonfood uses of crops have been well above

prewar rates; they made some^diat more than four-fifths of total nonfood use of

domestic farm food commodities in 1955-59 conçared with three-fourths in 1924-42.

2.3.2.5. As data on military takings of nonfood farm commodities aure not

available, domestic nonfood use cannot be subdivided between military and civilian

users.

2.3.3. Militarv Takings

far Food

2.3.3.1. Reliable and conçrehensive information on military food procurement

was first collected in 194l. Although the size of military takings in each year has

been greatly affected by the size of the Armed Forces, military withdrawals do not

measure their annual food consumption. Stocks of food at home and abroad were built

up and drawn down, substantial quantities were supplied to allied troops during World

War II and the Korean conflict, and, in some years, extensive purchases from foreign

sources were made« Food purchased and used abroad is not reported to the Department

of Agriculture, nor is it included in the measurement of military food procurement for

the supply-utilization index.

25/ Table 52 of the Supplement for 1959 to Agr. Handb, 9I (¿ä) contains the subindexes for major domestic nonfocfd uses and their relative importance in the total.

âê/ Tkie Durost bulletin. Changing Sources QI Farm Output (2¿), proflirides an extensive

discussion of this subject.
. 16 -

2.3-3.2. Military takings of food amounted to 4 to 9 percent of total utilization of'all farm food commodities in 19h2'k^. After a sharp drop to 2 percent in

19k6 and 19i^7, they ran 3 percent of the total in 19^ and 19^9/ years in ^ich very

large quantities of grain and grain products were procured for foreign aid programs.

Except iu the years 1951-5^, ^en huying was stepped up to meet needs of the Korean

conflict, military takings have been only 1 percent of total use of fám food

commodities, 2l/

Military shipments of all fam foods for use of the civilian population in

liberated and occupied areas reached substantial proportions in 1945-^9* 20/ As they

are tied to military operations, such shipments are not normally measured as part of

exports, though they ran from 5 to 21 percent of total calculated exports in 19'^^9.

By 1950 they had dropped to k percent and by 195^ to 1 percent.

2.3.k. Total Civilian

Food Use

2.3.4.1. Tbtal civilian food use is calcxilated as a residual after subtraction

of exports and shipments, Department of Agriculture purchases for export, military

food takings, and domestic nonfood use from total disappearance of farm food commodities in each year. 23/ During recent years total civilian food use has accounted for

66 to 67 percent of each year's flow of food into utilization, coxirpared with 63 or

6k percent in the mid-1920's. The relative lows of the 19214-58 period came in the

war years, 19tó-U5, when the civilian population was reduced by the build-up in the

Armed Forces and takings of food for the Armed Forces and our allies were substantial.

2.3.it.2. The increase in per capita use of faim resources converted into food

is indicated in figure 2.2 by the changes in the relationship of the index of civilian

population and total civilian food use of farm commodities. The figure also shows the

increasing importance of commercially produced farm foods in total civilian food use

of farm commodities. The subject of the shift from home-produced to commercially

produced supplies has already been discussed (2.1.6) and is further considered in

later sections (3*2.2 and 5-3.2).

2.3.1^.3. Shifts in commodity makeup of total civilian food use are the result

of a complex mixture of elements ranging from year-bo-year changes in supplies

available from current production to changes in consumer preferences. Their net

effect in the 192l*-59 period nas been a small but significant increase in the relative

importance of livestock products. This change in makeup can be evaluated thus:

In 192l*-27, the farm value of livestock products used for domestic food averaged

$10.7 billion (in 19li-7-lf9 farm prices) and represented 67 percent of the total. In

1955-59^civilian food use of livestock products accoxmted for 71 percent of the total.

The 16 percent increase of the per capita rate of use of livestock products added

$2.6 billion to the average annual use of farm resources* The decrease in the per

capita use of crops for food resulted in a total cutback of $0.6 billion per year.

27/ This subject is considered extensively by Harry Sherr in his article, "U. S.

Military Procurement of Food," National Food Situation. Feb. I957 (28). This article

gives some commodity detail; further details for individual foods are available in

the supply and distribution tables in the appendix to Agr. Handb. 62 (^).

28/ Based on data in table 25 of Agr. Handb. 9I (^.

29/ Reported in table 2 of Agr. Handb. 9] {2SL) Q^^^., for current years, in table 2

of each issue of the National Food Situation.
- 17 -

TOTAL CIVILIAN POPULATION AND

FOOD USE OF FARM COAAMODITIES

% OF 1947-49"

120

100

60

^^m^^ ^^ Y Purchased

-l—J I I I L_

Purchased only ^

_j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

1925 1935 1945 1955

Index of total civilian use of form food commodities from all sources, including home-produced supplies (farm level).

%* Index of total civilian use of purchased farm foods (form level).

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS 98-61 (4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 2.2

Therefore^ the net gain In use of farm resources resulting from the Increase In food

use and shift In pattern was $2.0 billion or 8 percent of average annual use for

civilian food In 1955-59•

The effects of such shifts can be described In another vay^ as ve shall Illustrate with the following exan^)le« A shift In consuiqptlon Involving a 10-po\md

reduction In per capita consuii;)tlon of wheat flour and an Increase of 10 pounds In

per capita consumption of meat means an Increase of a half billion dollars (in 19^7-

^9 prices) in the use of farm resources^ aside from changes in marketing services

(for the 1959 population). This demonstrates the major significance to U. S. fanners

of the makeup of the poundage of food that the civilian population eats.
- 18 -

2.3.^.^. An exploration of relationships involved in the changes in per capita

use of crops and of livestock products, by means of the regression analyses rei>orted

in the footnote belov 10/. led to these tentative concliisions: There was not enough

change in iisjg. Qî crops to provide the basis for a satisfactory analysis (Regression 2.1).

But the change of signs between the two periods seems to indicate lack of direct relationships among use of crops and income, crop prices, and use of livestock products.

In the prewar period, the depression years were acconçanied by droughts \^ich affected

fruit and vegetable supplies. Years of higher cons\iiiC)tion of crops apparently came in

the low periods of the livestock cycles. Historical changes in use of livestock

products have been more consistent with changes in income and their prices, but not

with use of crops. Probably the lack of "reasonable" historical relationships between

per capita use of crops and of livestock products results from the effects of the

depression and droughts and the timing of the livestock cycles.

QQ, Ibtal Food Use

2.14-.1. The civilian food supply has been affected from time to time by special

cycles in some commodities 823d by unusual changes. Coosoditles havlog rather veilknown production cycles are beef, poi^, and sons of the fruits. Study of the more

significant shifts in per capita food use from year to year (excluding the var years)

and concurrent year-to-year ch«Dges in major eoñnodities lemis tio the conclusion that

y/ Regression 2.1^ Per capita eivi^lm fond use of trops {Ty) , real

diST>osable inooœ (Xg)^ food prieee for crops (X^),

aod per capita civilian food ue« of livestoek

products (Xi^,in logarithns:

(1) 1924-1^1: Log x[ . 1.53? + .327 log Xg - .021 log X. - .375 log X^.; R^ « .69

(-072) (.Ote) ^ (.359)

(2) 19i»ô-57: Log X( « 1.ÍH2 - .392 log X-, + .128 log X, + .55Ô log X. ; R^ = .95

^ (.119) ^ (^7) 3 (.320) ^

(3) Conlbination: Log X^ - 2.999 + .067 log Xg .0*^7 log X^ - .762 log XL; R^ . ^^^i^

(.09*^) ^ (.099) 3 (^5^5j ^^'

^ifrnitliBP Sa&L ^r capita ciTiliw food use of livestock (X-|^), real

disposable ineow (X2), food prices for livestock

(Xj), and per caçjita food uße of crops (Xj^), in

logarithms :

(1) 192i^lfl: Log XÍ - 1.645 .276 log Xg - .lU log r, . .072 log Xu; R^ . .7k

(.052) ^ (.037) ^ (-190) ^

(2) 19^-57: Log X^ « .355 + .262 log Xg - .100 log Xo - .722 log XL; R^ « .96

(.055) (.019) ^ (.104)

(3) Conbination: Log X^ - I.616 + .300 log Xg - .057 log X, .021 log XL; R^ « .93

(.017) ^ (.022) 2 (.082) * ^"^
- 19 -

changes in meats and fruits have cau{8«<i the sharpest shifts. ^/ The declines in

average food iise from I926 to 1927 and from 1931 "to 1932 were marked by unusually small

fruit crops in years following very large ones. A decrease in the fruit crop partly

offset the effect of increases in lotat production^ leading to increased food use from

1935 to 1936, From I938 to 1939 the decrease in fruit conqplemented the meat increase.

The ups and downs in food use in the mid-193D*s were related to the effects of

droughts on crop production and to special Govermoent operations in meat. The FedereüL

Government purchased large numbers of cattle^ calves, and sheep for slaughter on

Government account, mostly drought->strlcken animals. Most of the meat vas distributed

through Government agencies to persons on relief, and did not pass throvigh the usual

trade channeJjs. Likewise, substantial quantities of pork obtained from the emergency

hog purchase prc^rams in 1933 sod 193^ went for relief.

Since World War II, changes in meat production have been quite significant in

shifts in owrall food, use, as in Ibte iDttormdo fmni 1951 to 19^2 and from 19^5 to 19^6,

and in the decrease from I956 to 1957 to 1958«' In SCTK postwar years poultry production has been coming in part3^ to offset meat changes, though it operated in the same

direction from 1955 to 195^.

2.^.2. Regression 2.3 2&/ ^*^^ ^^"^ to ea^oxs the relationships between these

year-to-yeeo: changes in prodaietion of several major eooraoditles or commodity groups

and changes in per csgpita food use of farm coznaodlties. From this regression it

appears that changes in production of beef aiiad veal ajad of poik were about twice as

inportant to changes in use of all food as those for fruits and nuts and for

vegetables. The span of the postwar period is too brief for the relationships to be

clear-cut.

^/ Year-to-year changes measured by the I9U7-49 values of farm commodities used by

civilians for food.

2g/ Regression 2.3 In first differences of logarithcBs of these variables:

Xj^ = index of per capita food use

X2 = index of per capita beef and veal production

Xo = index of per capita pork production

Xh = index of per capita fruit and nut production

Xc = index of per capita vegetable production

(1) 192l*-4l: A log XT = .001 + .112 A log Xp + «090 A log X3

^ (.033) (-029)

+ .052 A log Xi^ - .035 A log Xc; R^ = .72

(.021) (.09^)

(2) I9I18-57: A log x[ - .006 - *Okl à log Xg + .015 A log X3

- .157 A log X» + .368 A log X ; R^ = .92

(.078) ^ (.112) ^

(3) Coni)ination: A log x[ » »001 + .11^ A log Xg -f .095^ log X3

•f JCA9 A log Xi, -^ »023 A log X,-; R^ - .70

(•017) (.059) ^
- 20 -

Chapter 3. CHANGES DJ AVERAGE FOOD CONSUMPTION

How U. S. civilian food consumption per capita has changed in the last 50 years

is discussed in this chapter. Changes in average quantity of food consumed^ measured

at the farm and retail levels, are conipared with changes shown by other measures of

food consumption. The treatment is largely descriptive, but the conçarisons provide

a basis for the study of why the changes occurred.

3.1. Changes in Overall Level ^f Food Consumption

3.1.1. Although poundage is not a satisfactory economic measure for overall food

consunçtion, as discussed in MP-3.1.2.1 ¿2/, it is worth^Äiile to note what has happened

to poundage at retail. In the years just before World War I, about 1,600 poiinds of

food were consvimed per capita per year, on a retail-weight basis. During the 1909-^^

period, poundage varied a little from year to year, because of shifts among foods and

among fresh and processed forms. Since World War II, the per capita poundage of food

consumed has decreased about 100 pounds as more processed foods have been used. More

frozen concentrated Juices are consumed, for example, and less of such bulky foods as

potatoes and fresh oranges.

3.1.2. Consumption Measured

At the Farm Level

The index of per capita food use of farm commodities, including those imported

but excluding fish (PFQ-la, described in MP-3.1.2.2. iV). provides the best measure of

changes in consumption of those commodities at the farm level. It has been calculated

only for the period beginning with I92U. Food consunçtion in 1924 was 7 percent below

the 1947-^9 average. The level of food used decreased during the depression and

drought years, reaching a low of 87 percent of the 19^7-49 average in 1935. Thereafter,

per capita food use rose gradually to the l^kS peak of IO5. Contributing to the peak

in 19^ were the facts that after the end of the war, pantry and retailers' shelves

were being restocked and that price controls were holding down food prices for much

of the year. After 19^, per capita use of farm commodities for food declined

gradually to a level of 97 in 1951; after I95I they rose again to another peak of

103 in 1956. Figure 3.I concares these changes in average food use with changes in

income from 1924 to 1959. 2ä/

3.1.3» Consumption Measured

At the Retail Level

The index of per capita food consunçtion (PFQ-2, described in MP-3.1.2.3),

measured at the retail level, follows the farm level index (PFQ-la) closely for years

I92Í4-59. 2ä/ ^is series has been extended back to I909, but for the years before

^/ This reference is to a section in Agr. Handb. 206 Measures and Procedures for

Analysis 2£ ILL ^ Food Consumption (2) . Further information on the reference scheme

is in 1.1. A key to the coding system for time series is in appendix A.

2îi/ Addition of fishery products to this index of use of farm commodities does not

affect these trends, aa shown by conçarison of PFC^la in MP-table 3.I with the combined index PFQ-6a in MP-table 3.2.

2ä/ See Agr. Handb. 62 C9psiy^tji;^n Qf Food ¿ß the United States (32) for details

of the two indexes. The variation in relative importance of individual items in the

two indexes, considered further in 3.1.^, apparently would result in an index of about

93 for per capita food use in I909, notably higher than the index of 89 computed for

the consumption index.
- 21 -

PER CAPITA INCOME AND FOOD USE OF FARM COMMODITIES

120

100

80

60

40

F 1947-49

Inr^me *

- VX/ ^^

--^

""--%,—-'

rjp

Food

"V

iico ^

—>%^^-

>****^'^>

1 1 1 1

^

-

_Li 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960

* PER CAPITA DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME DEFLATED BY CPI.

A IHDEX OF PER CAPITA FOOD USE OF FARM COMMODITIES. ALL SOURCES (FARM LEVEL).

U.S.DEPARTMENT CF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS 101-ó)(4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 3.1

192t it is based upon rough estimates for an increasing number of individual foods,

Tbe 1910-1^ average vas 88 percent of the 19^7-4^9 average. Consunçtion measured at

retail rose 5 percent betveen I910-IU and 1924, the year for vhich the index at the

farm level begins.

3.1«^. Comparison of

the Two Measures

Since one index ineasures food per se at the faxni level and the other includes

food and fajio-retail marketing services, an eaqplanation for their concurrent movements

is in order. The most significant reason is that they are derived from the measurement

of the saine flow of food into civilian consunçtion in terms of primary distribution

weights. But the index of per capita food consunqption combines the retail weight of

all foods, including fish, by means of retail prices in 19^7-^9/ aereas the index of

per capita food use involves farm weights and farm prices.

Wide differences between the two indexes in the 192^4-59 period are found in the

depression years and during World War II. In the war years, the consunqption of processed foods including fish was held down by noncivilian takings, while supplies of

fresh and fixDzen fishery products were reduced by the war. Close conpeurison of the

two series reveals that the farm level index ran about a point higher than the retail

index before World War II and about a point lower since the end of the war. The

reason for these variations is the inclusion of some marketing services in the retail

index, but none in the farm index.

Another reason for the closeness of tbe two measures is to be found in the

offsetting shifts among commodities. These shifts are indicated by data in table 3.I

on relative inçortance of the food groups in each index total for selected periods.
- 22 -

Meat and poultry products have made up a significantly larger proportion of the farm

level index of food use than of the retail consumption index. Consumption of meats

increased about a fifth from I925-29 to 1955-59, and poultry consumption ^st

doubled. The effect of these changes was much greater in the farm level index than in

the other measure, owing to the fact that marketing costs for meat and poultry products are lower relative to their farm value than these costs are relative to the farm

values of most other food groups. Another contributive fact is that the fam level

index was affected less by the decline in butter consunçition than was the retail index.

But the decrease in the use of food grains over the last 30 years has exerted

slightly more downward pressure on the farm level index than on the retail index.

The increased purchases of processing services, such as commercial baking and premixing, in addition to the processing of the flour itself, has tempered the pressure

on the retail measure. This phenomenon was even more striking for sugars and sirups

than for bakery goods. The shift to more processing practically held constant the

share of fruits (a^id melons) in the total, aereas their relative importance in the

farm price weighted measure dropped. The same was true for vegetables other than

potatoes and sweetpotatoes, dry beans and peas.

Another way of comparing the two indexes is to point out that those products

with low farmer's shai^ in retail value are relatively more inçortant in the index of

per capita food consunçtion than in the farm level index of per capita food use. ^

With the exception of meats and poultry products, these have been the items for which

major changes in consiwçtion rates have occurred.

3.2. Further Consideration gf Changes jLn Food Use,

Measui^d at the Faim Level

3»2.1. Because of changes in stocks and the channeling of supplies into processing, the index of per capita food use does not measure precisely the quantities of

each year's production and inçorts taken in that year for civilian use. But it does

measure the changing use of faun resources in the form of food. It reflects both

quantitative changes and shifts in takings from lower to higher cost or higher farnhresource-using products, as from potatoes to broccoli, or wheat to meat. For example,

this index (PFQ-la) indictites that U. S. civilians used about 10 percent more farm

resources in the form of food per capita in the 1950's than they did in the 1930*s,and

about 3 percent more than in 19^1. The greatest change in level of use occurred between 1938 and I9IA.

The relationships of changes in average food use of farm commodities to changes

(1) in real disposable income and (2) in the ratio of farm food prices to the general

price level were practical 1 y the same in recent years as before the war. .^7/ They are

indicated by the regression coefficients of regression 3*1 in table 3*2. The coefficient of .2 for income means that with each 1 percent change in income per capita, the

average use of íSTBí food commodities rose 0.2 percent.

3.2.2. iQcye^ed Use gf

piiT^h^Pfi Farm Foods

Second only in significance to the shift in use among farm food commodities has

been the rather dramatic Increase in purchases of farm foods as home production has

declined (figure 3*2). The exactness of the data for measuring this shift leaves

36/ This approach was developed by Kemieth £. Ogren.

2J/ Use of Fisher "t" test Indicated no statistical difference.
- 23 -

Table 3.1,—Relative importaace of food groups in the indexes of per capita food consumption

(retail level) and per capita food use (farm level), selected periods l/

(Percentajes of U. S. totals^

Food group and index 1925-29 \ 1935-39 ': 19U2-lt5 : 19^^7-'^9 : 1956

Meats and lard

Consumption

Food use

25.8

35.0

2k.k 26.2

35.3

25.9

35.7

27.7

38.1

Poultry

Consunqotion

Food use

U.O

í^.9 5.0

5.5

6.8

5.0

6.2

6.5

8.2

Eggs

Consunçtion

Food use

6.1

9-^ 8.6

5.8

9.2

6.4

10.0

6.1

9.2

Dairy products, including butter :

Consunçtion 2/

Food use

20.1

16.7

20.U

17.5

20.0

17.2

19.5

16.7

18.4

16.1

Vegetable fats and oil£

Consunçtion

Food use

'i/

'. 3.1

! 2.1

3.9

2.8

3.6

2.3

3.7

2.4

4.5

2.5

Fruits y

Consunçtion ¿/

Food use

! 7.0 7.6

5.2

6.2

k.k

7.3

5.0

6^

4.4

Vegetables 6/

Consumption ¿/

Food use

: 10.8

: 7.9

11.7 12.2

8.5

11.3

7.7

10.8

6.9

Potatoes and sweetpotatoes

Consusçtion

Food use

i 3.2

: 3.3

2.9

3.0

2.6

2.7

2.3

2.2

1.8

1.9

Dry beans, peas, treenuts

Consunçtion

Food use

\ 1.8

1.1

1.9

1.3

1.6

1.1

1.6

1.2

1.4

1.2

Cereal products jj

Consun^tion

Food use

: 9-6

: 7.1

8.7

6.2

8.5

5.5

7.6

4.9

6.5

4.4

Sugars and sirups

Consumption 8/

Food use

': 6.2 6.h

3.0

6.4

3.1

6.9

2.9

Coffee, tea, cocoa

ConsuQçtion

Food use

i 2.3

: 3.8

2.7

k.6

2.h

k.O

3.0

^.9

2.6

4.2

1/ The index of per capita food consunçtion nieasuree foods at the retail-store level (weignwa

by average 1947-49 retail prices); the index of per capita food use measures quantities of faim

coBifflodities used for food (veighted hy average 1947-49 fai» prices). /or this conparison

fishery products have been excluded; they constitute 2 to 3 percent of total food Pleasured hy

Se^alTindfiX. g/ Includes sugar in ice c«a»i and condensed milk. 3/ Includes all peanuts.

4/ Excludes melons. ¿/ Includes sugar in processed items. ^ Includes melons. 2/ Excludes

Mm sugar and sirup, â/ Excludes quantities used in processed fruits and vegetables, condensed

miIV and ice cream.
- 2U .

PER CAPITA USE OF FARM FOODS AND

OF FOOD MARKETING SERVICES

1930 1940 1950 I960

^Index of per capita food use of farm food commodities, all sources (form level).

**Index of per capita use of purcftosed farm food (form level).

%n* Index of marketing services bought wittj U.S. farm foods.

U.S. DEPARTMEfyJT OF AGRICULTURE N EG. E RS 97-6 I (4) ECONOMIC R E SE ARCH SE R VIC E

Figure 3.2

something to be desired, but the general picture is undoubtedly correct. Since the

inid-1930's, the use of purchased farm foods has risen almost twice as much as the

increase in use of farm foods from all sources. Home production supplied about a

fifth of civilian consumption of all farm foods in the mid-1930*s, whereas in 1959

the proportion was about 7 percent. Most of the change occurred after 19^3. Home

production of both livestock products and crops fell MD percent from 19^5 to 1959.

But decreases in farm population, combined with problems of livestock production in

increasingly urbanized areas, have reduced the proportion in civilian consumption of

home-produced livestock products more than crop items.

Income elasticity of purchased farm foods has been about twice €is high as for

farm foods home produced and purchased. ^/ This is revealed by coinparing changes

in the use of purchased farm foods with changes in real income and with changes in the

ratio of farm food prices to the general price level (regression 3.2 in table 3.2).

On the other hand, changes in the use of purchased farm foods have been related little

to changes in farm food prices (regressions 3.^4- and 3.5).

38/ The same is generally true for the price elasticities, but the standard errors

for these are rather high. Addition of home-produced food as a separate variable in

regression 3.3 had little effect on the coefficients.
Table 3.2.—Summary of least-squares regressions iE"or time-series measures of quantity of food consumed with incomeÎ and other factors l/

Measure of per capita

quantity of food ;

consumed (X^) ]

Variables

2/

Period Constant

term

Xo Xo X..

Regres-1

sien ;

number [

Identification

-.Regres-

: sion

:coeffi-

: cient

Identification

:Regres-

: 6 ion

:coeffi-

: cient

Identification

:Regres-

: sion

:coeffi-

: cient

R2

: ^/ : V : V

3.1 : Index of food use, all : 1. 192U-41 +1.69 Real disposable income + .23 Farm food nrices .5/ -.09 .66

farm foods (PFQ-la) : per capita hj (.05) CPI (.04)

Do. : do. 2. I9I48-57 +1.75 do. +.17

(.13)

do. -.05

(.06)

_— .80

Do. ': do. 3. Combined 6/ +1.68 do. +.21 do. -.06 .93

(.02) (.02)

3.2 ! Index of use Dî purchased :

farm foods (PF(^lb) :

Actuals 1. 1929-ifl +I.IU do. +.42

(.05)

do. -.19

(.04)

— .91

Do. : do. 2. I9Í4O-57 +1.21 do. +.35

(.13)

do. -.10

(.06)

**" " .9^

Do. ': do. 3. Combined 6/ +.95 do. +.i*5 do. -.12 .97

(.02) (.03)

3.3 •

Index of use of purchased : Actuals 1. 1929-41 +1.37 do. + .38 do. -.18 Per capita use of home- -.08 .91

fann foods ()'PQ-lb) : (.07) (.05) produced farm foods (.18)

Ho, : do. 2. I9U8-57 +1.28 do. + .33

(.22)

do. -.09

(.08)

do. -.01

(.10)

.9»^

Do. do. 3. Combined 6/ +1.37 do. +.32 do. -.07 do. -.09 .98

(.06) (.04) (.04)

3.h '' Index of use of purchased Actuals 1. 1929-i^l +1.68 Farm food prices S/, + .10 Use of marketing + .35 Price of marketing -.28 .84

fam foods (PF^lb) CPI (.04) services per

capita (PFQ-3)

(.13) services 7/ (.24)

CPI

Do, do. 2. 19I48-57 -I.5U do. +.05

(.12)

do. + .88

(.32)

do. +.79 .95

Do. do. 3. Combined 6/ +.1+9 do. -.01 do. +.54 do. + .22 .96

(.03) (.03) (.11^)

3.5 Index of use of purchased

farm foods (PFQ-lb)

First

differences

1. 1929-i+l + .00 do. +.04

(.07)

do +.38

(.19)

do. + .14

(.33)

.38

Do. do. 2. I9I48-57 + .00 do. +.00

(.19)

do. +.83

(.37)

do. +.34

(.50)

.55

Do. do. 3. Combined 6/ +.00 do. +.02 do. +.42 do. + .22 .38

(.05) (.lU) (.20)

3.6 : Index of food consvunption, Actuals 8/1. 19214-ltl +1.87 Real disposable income +.23 Retail food -.17 .85

. retail (PFQ-2) per capita k/ (.03) CPI (.06)

: Do. : do. 2. I9W-57 +2.11 do. +.18

(.06)

do. -.24

(.15)

.88

1 Do. : do. 3. Combined 6/ +1.76 do. +.25 do. -.14 .97

(.02) (.04)

3.7 : Index of food consunçtion,

: retail (PFXi-2)

: First

: differences

1. 192l*-4l + .00 do. +.19

(.06)

do. -.14

(.11)

— .46

: Do. : do. 2. I9I+8-57 -.00 do. +.28

(.15)

do. -.31

(.22)

.51

: Do. ! do. 3. Combined 6/ -.00 do. +.21 do. -.17 •1*5

(.05) (.08)

3.Ô : Composite quantity index

: of all food used plus

: all marketing services

: (PPQ-Ô)

: Actuals- 1. 1929-41 +2.09 do. tM) do. -.42

(.17)

.72

: Do. : do. 2. 191*8.57 +1.80 do. +.24

(.06)

do. -.14

(.13)

.92

'. Dc.. : do. 3. Combined 6/ +I.08 do. +.1^3 do. +.02 .92

(.06) (.16)

1/ Linear regressions of logarithms. 2/ Using either actual index numbers or dollars or first differences, i.e. year-to-year changes. ^ Standard errors given in paj:^ntheses.

4/ln 1947-49 dollars. ¿/ Index of farm value of AMS farm food market basket. 6/ Combination of prewar and postwar periods in parts 1 and 2 above, jj Index of farm-retail

marketing costs or margin for USDA farm food market basket. 8/ Slightly revised from data published in table 912 of Jour. Am. Stat. Assn. December I958 (lO), because of slight

change in price series used.
- 26 -

3.2.3. Comparison of Changes in Quantities

and Values at Farm Level

Per capita use of domestically produced farm food commodities (PFQ-M over the

last 30 years has varied much less than the average farm value of these products

during the period. 2BJ ^® measure of food quantity excludes changes in prices. The

low point of the per capita farm value of all domestic farm foods for the last

30 years was in 1932, $36 per capita. In that year, the index of domestic farm foods

consumed was 90 percent of the 19^1-7-49 average. The high point in the value measure

was $156 in 19^10 ~ that year the per capita index for use of domestic fana foods

was 98. Part of the price change in farm foods reflected the general change in pur^

chasing power of the dollar. This factor can be handled by adjustment of the I932

and 19^*8 value figures according to the change in the Consumer Price Index. This

computation reveals that farm value per capita in 19^7-^9 dollars rose from $62 in

1932 to $151 in 19tô, almost two and one-half times that of 1932. Over this l6-year

period, the quantity of farm resources iised in the form of foods went up only 9 percent per capita.

3.2.U. Comparison With Changes

in Use of Marketing Services

The shift from home-produced to purchased foods increased significantly the use

of food marketing services bought with domestic farm foods, measured by series PF^7

of MP-table 3.2. to/ (Fig. 3.2.) While per capita use of domestic farm foods from all

sources increased 13 percent (PF¿4a) between 1935-39 and 1955-59^ and those purchased

increased 33 percent (PFQ-to), use of marketing services with those foods rose

58 percent.

Changes in use of marketing services needed to get the food from farmers to

consumers have been closely tied to changes in the use of purchased farm foods. The

relationship has been closer since World War II than before. 4l/

3.2.5. Commodity Changes

Although the analysis of changes for individual commodities is outside the scope

of this bulletin, it is worth noting that there have been some slight changes over the

years in the shares of crop and livestock items in overall per capita food use. In

1909 livestock products made up about 68 percent of the total,and crops 32 percent. ¿2/

With the decline in meat production and consuiiÇ)tion relative to the population, the

livestock share was down to 6G percent in 19^9 and in 19^1, rising to 69 percent in

19ÍI-9 and 7I percent in 1959.

2QJ Derived from TFV-1 plus TFV-2 in MP-table 3.3. Because these data exclude

imported farm foods, the food quantity series for domestic farm foods (PFQ-ifa) was

used for the comparison instead of the more usual series, PFQ-la.

Uol Described in MP-3.5.2.

41/ As indicated by coiiç)arison of coefficients of X3 in parts 1 and 2 of regressions

3.*rand 3.5. However, their standard errors are rather high.

¿2/ Estimated by applying changes from I909 to I92I*- in per escita rates for major

foods to 1924 value aggregates for civilian use of farm foods.
. 27 -

3.3« Further Consideration of Food Consiamotlon.

Measured at the Retail Level

3.3*1« The Index of per capita food consumption^ the measure of food quantity

at the retail level, reflects changes In the use of farm resources In the form of food

and In the use of most processing services. It does not reflect changes In the use

of other marketing services because It uses the same retail prices as velghts for all

years and the prices for purchased "fresh" commodities are applied to foods home

produced.

Changes within the overall picture of food consunçtlon during the 50-year period

from 1909 to 1959 fall Into several subperlods (fig. 3-3). In the first period, I909

to 1924, consumption of meat, cereal products, and potatoes was high relative to the

consunqptlon of other foods. Overall food consumption per capita was lower In the

years just before and after World War I than at any time on record. From 1924 to I931,

the second period, consunç)tlon was higher than In the preceding period, with significant Increases in vegetables and sugar consuiiç)tlon. In the years I932 to I938, a

third period, food consunçtion was reduced by droughts and by economic depression.

From 1939 to 19k6 greatly increased consumption of livestock products pushed up the

level of food consunçtion year by year. !me averages for 19tó and 1947 were raised

by restocking of shelves and by the favorable price and income situation. Thereafter,

food consuiiçtion declined to the postwar low point of 1951, recovering as production

and consui!Ç)tion of livestock products rctee cyclically. In I956, when meat consumption

reached record levels, the average rate for all food consumed per capita was only

slightly below the 19k6 peak. Another near-record high was reached in 1959.

TRENDS IN OUR EATING HABITS*

%OF 1909-13

Dairy products

(incl. butter)

^^ Cereal products

Potatoes

I ' I I ' ' ' I ' * '

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

S-y«. mOVING AY. CENTERED. DATA FOR YEAR I960 SHOWN BY SYMBOL.

*PER CAPITA CIYILIAH CONSUMPTION, U.S. (USING 1947-4^ RETAIL PRICES AS WEIGHTS).

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AORICULTURE NEC. ERS93.61(4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE.

Figure 3,3
- 28 -

3.3-2. Changes in Ma.ior

Food Groups

Changes in the consumption of major groups of foods have ^f^^^^^^f^^^^f^

changes S^all foods combined. Among the crop items, the most significant changes in

the ?ast 50 years vere substantial declines in the ^^^^^^^J^^f^J^fr^^^

potatoes and cereal products, though these downtrends were temporarily reversed during

World War II.

Thei^ was little net change in the consumption of dry beans, Peas, and nuts

between 1909-13 and the late 1950*s. Data on fruit consumption show a 10 to ^ veranrincS2¡ Lm Just befox. World War I to recent years, but ^-^-^^^^^-^^^^^3

probable concurrent decline in production of fruit for home use by ^f^f Jf^^^f

is lacking. Tbtal per capita consumption of fruit probably increased slightly. A

notable shift from apples to citrus and from fresh to processed fonns has occurred.

Consumption of vegetables other than potatoes and sweetpotatoes, as measured by

the retail consumption subindex, rose a third from 1909-13 to 1955-59- But the increase in poundage of these vegetables made up only about half the drop in the average

number of pounds of potatoes aQd sweetpotatoes consumed. Per capita consumption of

sugars and sirups in all forms combined has been significantly higher in recent years

than ko to 50 years ago, but less than average use in the 1920's. Consumption of

coffee and cocoa is up considerably, but consumption of tea is down.

Average consumption of fish and of fats and oils changed relatively little

between I909-I3 and the late 1950's. Consideration of the ups and downs and certain

significant shifts among foods in these groups lies beyond the scope of this bulletin.

Per capita consumption of most livestock products in recent years has been

greater than in the years immediately preceding World War I. Meat consunçtion in the

last several years has averaged only slightly higher than it was to to 50 years ago,

but the low level of the 1930*s makes current rates appear high by comparison.^ The

doubling of the quantity of poultry consvimed per capita supplemented the supplies of

red meat. The increase of about a fourth in egg cons\imption per capita (poundage

basis) was largely in the form of egg content of purchased prepared foods.

Consumption of dairy products, excluding butter, gradually increased to a peak

in 19k6 and reached a level almost 50 percent higher than that of 1909^ ^ut in 19^-59

it was practically stable. The increases from the pre-World War I rates were primarily in the manufactured dairy products, other than butter, and in fluid whole milk.

The decline in butter consxamption since 1939 has held down the trend line for all

dairy products on figure 3.3. ¿¿/

3.3.3. Changes in Relative

Importance of Ma.ior Food Groups

Changes in consumption of major foods described in the previous section resulted

in changes in their relative importance in the total. The meat, poultry, and fish

group contributed 3^ percent of total food consumed in I909-I3 (measured in terms of

retail value in 19^7-% dollars), 29 peinent in 1935-39> and 35 percent in 1959-

Significant shifts appearing in the relative importance of foods consumed over the

to-year period include substantial declines in consumption of potatoes and cereal

products, the change from animal fats to vegetable fats in our diet, and the increase

in poultry consiunption.

If^/ Detailed data for all major foods are published in annual supplements to Agr.

Handb. 62 (¿2) . Current estimates are given in the National Food Situation each quarter.
- 29 -

nf ^J^^ °î^^^^ ^^í^® production of cattle and of hogs are well knovn. The question

of whether the resulting swings of meat consultation are conipensated by changes in the

consu^tion of other foods often arises. Figure 3A proviSs clues. ExSti^n of

tT^.Z î^^ other than World War II and the immediate postwar years, 19k6 aíd 19Î7,

ä?ftS Í ^°"^1"«^°5 that meat consunçtion has tended to increase oí- decrease aioi^

wath the consunçtion of all foods combined. This means that the swings in meat consunçtxon tend to cariy the general level of consumption along with them. Almost half

of the time, meats and other foods changed in the same direction from year to year.

In 6 out of the 22 years under consideration, there were some counterchanges in the

consunçtion of other foods, but they failed to offset the concurrent ch^es in Sat

consuirçtion in tenas of retail value. In three years, consumption of oSfr foodT

changed enough to balance the change in meat consunçtion.

CHANGES IN MEAT CONSUMPTION *

Per Copifo

A. Compared with changes

in all food consumed

B. Compared with changes

in all other foods consumed

•47

•31

• '54

•53 .40

• '34 -43 .56

•38 -50

•52

/41

'42 1930 ^

•37

•58

•35

•49

4

0

-4

-8

-12

-16

N tAEÁ\\

•«:•>-.«'

•36

•44•

\S

•33« • 43 1 • •

'i'l " •"

•38 .50 ».4,

• •

•« 1930

%'49

••37

•58

•48•

45•

•35•

12 -8-4 0 4 8 12 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12

$ CHANGE IN ALL FOOD $ CHANGE IN OTHER FOODS

* rEAft.rO-rEAff CHANCE IN VALUE OF QUAMTITIES CONSUMED, IN TERHSOF 1947-49 «TAIL PRICES;

PLOTTED AS OF SECOND YEAR.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS45-6I(5) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 3.k

3«3«^. Comparison With Changes

in Nutrient Supplies

In computing supplies of nutrients per person per day for each year, the

Institute of Home Economics uses the AMS, now ERS, estimates of per capita consunçtion. kk/ Several of the series have been plotted in figure 3.5 for comparison with

changes in overall food consunçtion. The figure shows the relatively close relationship between changes in the food consuniption index and supplies of protein available

kk/ Described on page 69 of vol. 5 of Agr. Handb. II8 {hk) and on pp. I60-I69 of

Agr. Handb. 62 (^).
- 30 -

FOOD CONSUMPTION AND AVAILABLE SUPPLIES

OF SELECTED NUTRIENTS

Per capita

% OF 1947-49-

1910 1930 1940 1920 1950 1960

* FOOD CONSUIAPTtON inOEX (QUANTITIES VALUED AT 1947-49 AVERAGE RETAIL PRICESt

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE KEG. ERS 100-61 (4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 3*5

in the foods from animal sources and of calcium. Most of the calcium consumed is in

dairy products. Also, the chart reveals the gradual decrease in food energy supplies,

as measured in calories, contrary to the trend in the consunçtion index, which

measures food consunçtion in economic terms. Food energy was affected much more than

the economic measures of food consuaçtion by reductions in consumption of cereal

products and potatoes.

3»3*5- Comparison of Changes in

Consumption With Changes in

Income and Price

Changes in per capita food consunçtion measured at the retail level are related

closely to changes (l) in disposable income and (2) in the relationship between prices

of food and the general price level. These relationships have been studied, using

the least-squares regression technique, as summarized in regressions 3.6 and 3.7 of

^^^^o?"^* ^® relationship of changes in the retail measure of food consumption

lPFQ-2) to changes in real income is practically the same as the relationship of

changes in the fam level index of per capita food use (PFQ-la) to changes in income.

^ ! ?i elasticity of food consumption appears to be slightly higher when measured at the retail level than at the fam level. The slight decrease in income

elasticity from the years before to those after World War II, indicated by parts 1

and 2 of regression 3.6, is not statistically significant, nor is the increase in

price elasticity.

The low R2 values (coefficient of detemination) for the three parts of

regression 3-7 in table 3-2 indicate that yeai-to-year changes in food consumption are

not closely related to chai^ges in income and in price relationships. They appear to
- 31 -

result primarily from changes in food supplies. However, the coefficients are close

to those of regression 3»6.

3.3.6. Chapges in Consumption

At Retail and Changes in

Retail Value of All Food

Per capita food consuniption, measured at the retail level, has increased about

15 percent since the low point of 1932, "but the retail value of food per capita

(pFV-9 of MP-tahle 3.U) in current dollars has tripled. The BLS index of urban prices

for food at home averaged II6 in I959 compared with k2 in 1933(19^7-^9 average = lOO) •

In the 19^9-59 period, per capita consumption index varied from 98 in I95I to 10^ in

1956. However, the retail value of all foods consumed rose from $332 per capita in

19Í^9 to $385 in 1958. Because of relatively short supplies of meats and of fresh

fruits and vegetables, retail food prices reached new highs in 1958«

3.3.7. Comparison of Changes in

Quantity Measures for Food

With Changes in Market Value

Partly because of general inflation, the market value of food, including taxes

and tips (PFV-lOb), rose from the low of $111 per capita in 1933 to the all-time high

of $^U in 1958. Adjustment of the series for the change in the general price level

indicates that the peak was in 19ÍÍ-7, as shown by figure 3.6. This I9U7 high was

SEVERAL MEASURES OF FOOD QUANTITY AND VALUE

Per Capita

% OF 1947-49

1930 1940 1950 1960

* RETAIL WEIGHTSOF ALL FOODS COMBINED WITH 1947-49 RETAIL PRICES.

° TOTAL MARKETING BILL DIVIDED BY INDEX OF MARKETING MARGIN.

^ IN 1947-49 DOLLARS, DEFLATED BY CONSUMER PRICE INDEX.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS 102-61(4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

FJgure 3.6
- 32 -

77 percent above average market value in constant dollars in 1933» ß^'t the retail

index of per capita food consumption was up only l6 percent. ]¿J Part of the increase

in market value from the 1930's to the mid-igto's was due to the shift from home production (valued at the farm level) to purchased foods (valued mostly at retail), hut

it was influenced also hy some additional outlays for meal preparation and serving.

Although per capita consumption in 1957-59 was equal to that of 19^7, the market value

of all food per capita measured in constant dollars was 8 percent lower. In part at

least, this decline reflects a substantial reduction in the ratio of food to nonfood

prices in the Consumer Price Index.

¿¿/ From 1933 to 19^7; the conçiosite index of quantity of food plus food marketing

services rose twice as much as the retail price-weighted index for food. The difference was in the substantial increase in use of marketing services, as indicated by

figure 3»6. The concurrent increases in use of food marketing services and real

income per capita result in a somewhat higher income elasticity for this food measure

than for the retail index. (Regression 3.8,coiiç)ared with regression 3.6.)
- 33 -

Chapter k. VARIATIONS IN FOOD CONSUMPTION AMONG POPULATION GROUPS

Back of the U, S, averages described in chapter 3 He considerable variations in

food consiinqption among individual families and among groups of families in the

population. This chapter considers the variations in food consumption among certain

specified groups in the population. k6/

Special surveys of food consumption are usually confined to housekeeping households. Such households included 9^+ percent of the U. S. civilian population in

1955- iil/ Tl^e principal bases for subdividing the housekeeping household popiilation

are region^ urbanization, size of family income, and family size.

This chapter begins with consideration of available information on the inrportance

of the nonhousekeeping sector in terms of its numbers and of its food consumption.

Then the variations in food consumption among groups within the housekeeping population are described, using first alternative measures of food value then the new crosssection indexes for quantity. Particular eniphasis is given to changes in variability

from one survey to another, as from spring 19^2 to spring 1955« These provide

inqportant clues to historical changes in U. S. average consumption. The survey data

and adjustments for price level and household size made in them are reviewed in

MP-section 3.7. The adjusted data in MP-tables 3*10 to 3*l6 are used in this chapter.

i+.l. The Nonhousekeeping Population and Their Food Consumption

About 6 percent of the civilian population in 1955 lived outside private housekeeping households. This population group included 1.6 million people in institutions,

1.2 million in permanent hotels and rooming houses, and about 6.5 million in households

in which few meals were prepared. kOj Many of the group last named were people living

alone. Comparison of these data with information for the mid-thirties leads to the

conclusion that the proportion of the nonhousekeeping population in the total population changed relatively little from 1935 to 1955-

As no overall surveys of food consunçtion outside private housekeeping households

has been made, to study the subject one needs to subdivide the heterogeneous total as

follows: (l) Food Consumption in institutions such as prisons, homes for the aged and

orphans, and mental hospitals; (2) consumption of noninstitutional residents who eat

practically all their meals in private or public eating places; (3) food consumption

away from home by the housekeeping population. The three sectors are merged in such

away-from-home food data as are available, and are discussed in section 5.5.

A pilot survey of food consumed in I6 non-Federal institutions consisting of

nonrandomly selected case studies provides only preliminary indications of possihle

1^.6/ Other ways in which total food consumption can "be viewed or analyzed include the

channels through which food reaches consumers, considered in the next chapter, and the

commodity conçonents of the vhole food picture. Study of the latter lies outside of

the scope of this study.

¡jjj In spring 1955 the civilian population included 162.3 million people, 800,000

of whom were members of the Armed Forces who ate at home.

k8/ The criterion for a housekeeping household for the 1955 food survey was the

preparation of at least 10 meals from household food supplies for consumption by one

person in the week preceding the interview.
^3hpatterns of food consumption in institutions, and no measure of the total market. hSJ

There is no basis for judging how representative the institutions were.

The only available data on food consumption by nonhousekeeping people outside

institutions are market value and expenditure statistics obtained in surveys of consumer expenditures by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. ¿O/ These are recalls of

expenditures and food received as pay during 19^1, during the first quarter of 19*^2,

and during 1950, by people residing in schools, hotels, rooming houses, and private

households, but not qualifying as housekeeping. Data for urban households in the first

quarter of 19^2 (table ^.l) indicate how housekeeping and nonhousekeeping averages for

value of all food and other measures differ at several income levels. With I95O data

one can study differences between the two population categories by size of city and

region, as demonstrated in table U.2. Practically all nonhousekeeping households

Table k.l.—Market value and expenditure data for food per person in housekeeping

and nonhousekeeping urban households in first quarter

1942, by income level l/

Market value of_ Food at home Exper

fO]

iditui«s

Value of food : - food

Family money ;

income, annual]

a.ll rood ana

beverages 2/ Expenditures received in :

kind ^/ :

away from

home h/

rate of first

quarter ]

(dollars) ] House- Nonhouse- :HbuseNonhouse- :House- :

Non- '

house- HouseNonhousekeeping keeping :keeping keeping :keeping keeping keeping keeping

Pol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol. Dol.

Under 5OO ; 32.90 1)8.22 2U.6I 1.6k 6.96 16.56 1.11 20.67

500-1,000 : 33.58 89.14 29.61 11.45 1.84 15.58 l.ltO 54.39

1,000-1,500 . 39.50 95.05 32.If? 8.12 2.16 12.22 3.90 68.39

1,500-2,000 ^7.91 85.59 39.82 11.09 1.75 9.36 5.05 56.02

2,000-2,500 . 52.81^ 96.Í+3 kk.37 2.13 •51 .37 5.80 80.33

2,500-3,000 : 59.23 125.05 1+6.06 6.37 .66 2.1^1 10.35 101.63

3,000-5,000 ; 65.18 107.51 50.53 0 1.09 5.62 10.09 82.14

5,000-10,000 . 77.37 0 5^^.38 0 1.57 0 16.72 0

10,000 and over : 98.27 0 6U.57 0 .85 0 23.03 0

1/ Derived from p. 122, BLS Bui. 822, ^m^ 17 Spending and Saving iß Wartime (¿2).

Family size estimated on basis of unpublished card counts of household sizes in first

quarter 19^ and 1955 relationships between household and family sizes.

2/ Includes expenditures for alcoholic beverages.

¿/ Includes value of food received as gift, payment in kind, and relief grants.

k/ Includes board in household where person lives.

¿2/ Food quantity data were reported in Tlae Market for Food in Selected Public and

private Institutions by Hoofnagle, Dwoskin, and Bayton. Mktg. Res. Kept, ok (Ik) .

50/ Data from the Study of Spending and Saving in Wartime for 19^1 and first

quarter 19^2, reported on pages 121 and 122 of BLS Bal. 822 (iig) ; data from survey

for 1950 reported in table 13-3^ vol. Ill of Study of Consumer Expenditures. Incomes

and Saving IkS).
- 35 -

Table 4.2.—Average expenditures for all food and beverages and disposable money

income per person in 1950 for urban families, tjr region, class of city,

and housekeeping status l/

Region, class of city

and housekeeping

status

DisposaMe

money

income

per

person

Expenditures per person

Food

Total At home Away

Alcoholic

beverages

Distribution of

family members

By housekeeping

status

By region

and class

of city

Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Percent Percent

U. S. - All

Housekeeping, all year

Nonhousekeeping 2/

Mbrth

Large cities - All

Housekeeping, all year

Nonhousekeeping 2/

Suburbs

Housekeeping, all year

Nonhousekeeping 2/

Small cities - All

Housekeeping, all year

Nonhousekeeping g/

South

Large cities - All

Housekeeping, all year

Nonhousekeeping 2/

Suburbs - All

Housekeeping, all year

Nonhousekeeping 2/

Small cities - All

Housekeeping, all yeair

Nonhoiisekeeping 2/

West

Large cities - All

Housekeeping, all year

Nonhousekeeping 2/

Suburbs - All

Housekeeping, all year

Nonhousekeeping £/

Small cities - All

Housekeeping, all year

Nonhousekeeping 2/

1,290

1,265

1,917

1,319

1,298

2,106

1,466

1,455

1,728

1,183

1,181

1,485

1,171

1,117

1,886

1,250

1,213

1,723

931

892

1,563

1,388

1,339

1,999

1,312

1,280

1,999

1,298

1,290

1,743

373

368

508

397

395

544

409

4o8

435

343

344

403

340

327

490

350

338

516

282

271

442

381

367

555

367

359

541

359

357

469

302

311

160

320

335

162

335

342

163

292

301

153

271

276

153

282

283

144

236

233

161

290

299

157

299

301

216

297

307

161

71

57

347

77

60

383

74

65

272

51

43

250

68

52

338

68

55

371

45

37

281

92

69

398

68

58

325

61

50

308

22

20

55

26

25

66

25

25

28

15

15

25

19

16

66

19

18

34

9

9

14

24

20

73

20

18

56

17

16

43

100.0

94.9

5.1

100.0

94.4

5.6

100.0

95-7

4.3

100.0

95.8

4.2

100.0

94.3

5.7

100.0

96.1

3.9

100.0

97.1

2.9

100.0

93.1

6.9

100.0

96.4

3.6

100.0

95.3

4.7

100.0

36.0

11.4

9A

8.4

2.4

6.7

12.9

4.1

8.7

i/ Derived from tables 1-3 and 13-3, volume III of Study û£ Cgngtmey Kmend;L1;;^rep, Incpmpp,

and Savings (48).

2/ Includes people not keeping house for full year.
. 36.

consist of adults; Toy definition they eat more meals away from home than do housekeeping households. Because of this^ they pay more costs of meal preparation and

serving. Accordingly, the significantly higher averages per person for value of the

food for nonhousekeeping households than for housekeeping households given in these

tvo tables are not surprising.

According to the data on average expenditures for food and alcoholic beverages

by urban families in I95O (table 4.2) the higher nonhousekeeping household average

for all food expenditures had little effect on the U. S. all-urban average, owing to

the smiall proportion of this group in the whole popxilation. If rural nonfarm and

farm households had also been taken into account here, the small proportion of nonhousekeeping households in those population groups would probably have reduced even

more the effect on the average of higher nonhousekeeping household outlays. One may

conclude, therefore, that analysis of food patterns of housekeeping households provides the key to the overall picture of U. S. food constimption. But the average

expenditure per person for food away from home for the nonhousekeeping population is

naturally much greater than that for the housekeeping population — this must be taken

into account in any study of the away-fromr-home food market.

Knowledge of patterns of food consumption in eating places is meager. The

subject is discussed in chapter 5. In the remaining portion of this chapter we are

concerned with food consunçtion of housekeeping households — primarily at home,

though away-from-home expenditures by members of housekeeping households are covered.

k.2. Variations Jj^ Food Çnnfin^t.inn la^lçat^Çl

by Annual Value Data

Variations in food consumption among groups of households indicated by alternative measures for food are studied in this and some of the succeeding sections, using

the variability laethod described in MP-section ¿+.2.3.

U.2.1. Changes Through Time

From 1935-36 to 19^1 there was no substantial change in the variability with

income for the market value of all food among U, S. households, grouped by income,

summarized by data in table 4.3. But the market value of all food at all income

levels for all U^ S¿^ households was some\rtiat higher in 19^1 than in 1935-36. This

finding accords with the fact that food consumption averaged 9 peinent higher in 19^1

according to the per capita food consumption index. The degree of variation with

income in the market value of all food was slightly higher for households above the

mean income level for 19^1 than for households in that same real income range in

1935-36. But this was offset by less variation in lower income groups, hence the

income elasticities are equal. (Regressions CS-II Al and 2 in table k.k.)

Variability of total expenditures for food and beverages at home and away from

home by urban households in k selected years is summarized in table 4.5, based on data

in MP-table 3-11. The closeness of the averages at ro-ughly comparable real income

levels throughout the middle income range is quite remarkable. So is the fact that

the difference between food and beverage expenditures by middle and high income households was practically the same as in 194l. But lower income urban households differed

significantly less in their average food expenditures from households at the mean in

1950 than in 19^1. The income elasticities of food expenditures by urban households

in 1944, 1947, and I95O were significantly lower than in 194l, on the basis of the

Fisher "t" test. (Regressions CS-II B in table 4.4.)
- 37

Table k.3.—Variability of market value of all food at home and away from home

with total disposable income, years 1935-36 and 19^1, averages

per person, all U, S. households l/

(In IQl^l dollars)

Year Unit

Percentage below

19^1 average income

-75 -50 -25

Average:

disposable

income

in

19^1,

¿680 2/

Percentage above

19^1 average income

1935-36

Market value

Variation ¿/

19^1

Market value

Variation ¿/

Dol.

Pet.

Dol.

Pet.

90 130 160 185

-51^ -30?t -1^^ 0

105 1^5 175 200

-tô^t -28^ -12^ 0

205 220 250 275 295

+11^ +19f> +35^^- +^9?^ +59/c

220 250 290 325 it/350

+10^ +25^ +45^ +62^ +75^^

1/ Based on data in MP-table 3.10. Values for the several income points have been

read from charts so they are not precise. See MP-text section 4.2.3 for description

of methodology.

2/ Includes money and nonmoney income.

^ Represents percentage change from the market value at the 19^1 mean income level,

k/ Approximated from nearby observation.

I1.2.2. Variations ¿n 1950

Expenditures bjr City-Size ¿1/

Within the urban category there are variations in food e:q)enditures by families

according to the degree of urbanization or class of city and region. The 1950 BLS

data for families in the North provide the exaiiçle used here. The families living in

the suburbs of large cities had somewhat higher eacpenditures for food per person than

the families inside the limits of the large cities. The small-city families had

considerably lower average expenditures than the other two groups. These differences

among the city-size groupings are probably related to differences in the distributions

of families by income level, food items used, importance of food away from home, and

family characteristics. Proportionately more suburban families were in the higher

income classes.

Average expenditures per person for all food at home and away from home in the

urban North were higher at each successively higher income level. In the lower range

of income at eax^h given point of income per person the large-city ^^«^iJ^^^^P^^jJ^^

than the suburbanites for all food. Groups of these households m the middle income

range had about the same food expense. The average outlayB per person of the suburban

iSies ran higher in the upper range of incomes. Small-city families -^^ generally

lowest in purchase of all food at all income levels. In 1950, more was spent per

51/ Prepared with the assistance of Thomas J. Lanahan, Jr., ERS, using data from

tables 1-3 and 3-3 in vol. Ill, Study Qî Consumer Expenditures, Incomes, and

Saving (M)*
Table k.k,—Summary of least-squares regressions with cross-section data on

selected measures of food and income l/

Food measure

(per person) (X^)

CS-I.- Quantity-structural index of

A. Use of farm foods - all sources

Do.

Do.

Do.

B. Use of farm foods - purchased

Do.

Do.

Do.

C. Consunçtion of all food - retail

Do.

Do.

Do.

D. Consuiqptlon of all food - retail

Do.

Do.

Do.

CS-II.- Value

A. Total market value of food and

beverages at home and away

Do.

B. Food and beverage expenditures at

home and away

Do.

Do.

C. Food e3q}enditure8 at home and away

D. Total market value of food at home

and avay

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

E. Food expenditures at home and away

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Period

Spring 1955

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

Spring 19^2

do.

do.

do.

Spring 1955

do.

do.

do.

1935-36

19^1

19^1

19kk

1947

1950

1950

Spring

Spring

Spring

Spring

Spring!

Spring

Spring

Spring

Spring

Spring

Spring

Spring

Spring

Spring

Spring

Spring

Spring

19tó

1955

I9U2

1955

19i*2

1955

19U2

1955

19U2

1955

19U2

19*18

1955

19U2

1955

19^

1955

Number

1

2

3

k

1

2

3

k

1

2

3

k

1

2

3

k

1

2

3

k

5

6

7

8

1

2

3

h

5

6

7

8

9

Household

group ;rou

2/

Income (X^)

Measure

per person

Period

covered

Regression equation

Constant

term

Coefficient

U.

U.

u.

u.

u.

u.

u.

u.

u.

u.

u.

u.

u.

u.

u.

u.

all

urban

rural nonfarm

fSLrm

all

urban

rural nonfarm

farm

ell y

urban kj

rural nonfarm k/

farm ¿/

all

urban

rural nonfarm

farm

Disposable money

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

U, s, all y

U. S. all

U. S. urban

do.

do.

do. 4/

do. i/

all

all

urban k/

urban 5/

rural nonfeirm k/

rural nonfarm

farm k/

fann

all k/

U. S. all

U. S. urban k/

U. S. urban

do.

U. S. rural nonfarm k/

U. S. rural nonfarm

U. S. fann k/

U. S. farm

U. S.

U. S.

U. S.

U. S.

U. S.

U. S.

U. S.

U. S.

U. S.

Disposable

do.

Disposable money

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

1954

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

First quarter 191+2

do.

do.

do.

1954

do.

do.

do.

1935-36

I9IH

I9UI

19hh

19^7

1950

1950

First

First

First

First

First

First

First

First

quarter I9U2

1954

quarter 19l(.2

1954

quarter 1914-2

195^

quarter 19U2

195^^

quarter I9U2

1954

quarter I9U2

19^*7

195^

quarter 19lf2

195^*

quarter 1914-2

195^^

1.65

1.62

l,k6

I'll

1.26

62

21

36

62

49

kh

1.71

1.61

1.58

1.10+

1.1k

¿/.88

¿/.93

6/.6k

ffl.hl

6/1.61

¿/1.22

¿/1.28

I/-.01

1/ .15

I/-.06

1/ .11

I/-.12

I/-.01

1/ .29

1/ .50

I/-.73

I/-.21+

I/-.26

I/-.01

1/ .01+

' 60

- .^-^5

2/ .03

Í:

.12 (.01)

.12 (.02)

.17 (.02)

.09 (.01)

.21+ (.02)

.11+ ( .02)

.26 (.02)

.15 (.02)

.13 (.02)

.17 (.02)

.19 (.02)

.12 (.02)

.13 (.01)

.11+ (.02)

.18 (.01)

.09 (.01)

I48 ( .02)

^9 (.01)

" i:Si

.03)

.01+)

.01+)

.58

.33

.31

.140

.37

.30 (.03)

.25 (.03)

.31 (.03;

.27 "

.32

.30 (.02)

.19 (.02;

.13 (.02¡

.52 (.02;

.37 (.02)

.38 (.02)

.30 (.03)

.29 (.03)

M (.01+)

.I4O (.02)

.31 .06)

.22 (.03)

(.03)

[ i

.96

.90

.95

.97

.97

.93

.9^^

.86

.95

.94

.96

.88

.96

.91

.96

.96

.99

.99

.99

.95

.96

.95

.9»^

.95

.92

.95

.89

.97

.96

.96

.78

.99

.98

.98

.95

.91

.97

.97

.88

.88

"é

i/ Linear regression in logarithms. 2/ Households of two or more persons except where indicated. 3/ StandaiM errors given in parentheses. kJ Including

singles. 5/ Computed in 1935-39 dollars. 6/ Confuted in current dollars, jj Confuted on same dollar basis, 195** dollars for income and sprini^l955 prices for

food.
- 39 -

Table If.5.—Variability of total expenditures for food and beverages at

and away with disposable money income, averages per person in

urban households, years 19kl, 19kk, I9Í7, I950 l/

home

(In IQ^S-^g dollars^

Unit

: Below mean income

: 1950

: mean

, disposable .

Above mean income

Year

; -75í¿ ; -50^ ; -25Î& '

, money ,

income,:

¿758 •

+25^ ; +50^ ; +75i> : +100^

I9U1

Ejcpenditures

Variation

'. Dol.

: Pet.

90

• -599&

145 180

-18^

220

0

2U5 265

+20^6

285

+3D1Í

3^*0

+55?t

19Mf

Expenditures

Veuriation

: Dol.

: Pet.

''. 135 165

-275t

200

-Hi,

225

0

235 250

+11^6

260

+16^

191^7

Expenditures

Veiriation

: Dol.

Pet.

'. 155

. -35í¿

170

-29?^

215

-IO5Í

2li0

0

260 275

+15i>

285

+19^

—

1950

Expenditures ;

Variation

, Dol.

: Pet.

: — 175

-26^

205

-13ît

235

0

265

+135t

290

+23?t

310

+3256

360

+535t

1/ Based on data In MP-table 3,11, Expenditure figures for the several income

points have been read from charts so they are not precise. See MP-text section 4.2.3

for description of methodology.

person for food avay from home by large-city families than by families in other

classes of cities across the \^ole income range, except for the highest income levels,

vhere suburban families spent more.

Factors other than income entering into the variations in food expenditures by

degree of urbanization can be explored further by means of 1950 data. The effect of

the makeup of consumer units on such variations — as with single adults versus

families with a number of children — can be avoided, for example, by comparing the

1950 survey data for husband-wife units with oldest child 6-I6 years among city-size

groups of the urban North. This type of large-city and suburban family of conrparable

income per person differed little in food expenditures per person. But all across

the income scale, food expenditures of small-city families were lower than those of

suburban and large-city families. No reseeurch has been conducted in the measurement

of separate effects of the probable causes for these situations. Small-city family

expenditures are lowest because of greater reliance on home-produced food (especially

in the smaller cities), the use of fewer prepared and other foods, \rfiich include

relatively more expensive services, and proportionately higher purchases of foods

grown commercially in nearby areas, to mention the more prominent causes.
- IfO -

4.3. Variations in Market Value of Food

Among Household Groups

This section traces the variations In food consumption among household groups

Indicated by three market value measures: (l) Market value of all food at home and

of food and beverages away from home (described below as market value of all food),

(2) market value of food at home only, and (3) market value of home-produced food.

The difference between the first two measures Is found In the expenditures for food

and beverages away from home. They both Include home-produced food and that received

as gift or pay, valued at prices paid by households of the same urbanization group. ¿2/

The interrelationships among the market value and expenditure measures for all

food and for food at home are shown in figures k.l and k.2 for all U. S. families

grouped by Income, spring 19^2 and spring 1955* The overall changes in relationships

of the per person food values to per person Income are quite apparent.

In the following sections discussions for each measure begins with a description

of variations among urbanization categories in spring 19^2, then moves on to spring

1955, and concl\ades with comparison of the Engel curves of the two periods. MP-tables

3.12 to 3.16 give the actual survey averages for eax:h urbanization used. In order to

limit the range of detail, little use is made of the urban data for spring 19^*8 and

spring 1951, but these data are available in MP-table 3*15•

^.3.1. Market Value

of All Food

Spring 19^2.—The market veCLue of all food consumed by farm and rural nonfarm

households at home and away from home in a week of spring 19^2 averaged 30 percent

below the urban average. But comparison of the Engel curves by means of the variability method reveals that farm households with money Income per person equal to the

U. S. average had an average for market value of all food only slightly below the

urban rate (table k.6, sec. A. ¿3/). Ttie all-food average for rural nonfarm households at the average U. S. Income level was I3 percent less than the urban all-food

average.

Farm households differed much less in their market value of all foods from one

income level to another in spring 19^ than did households in the other two urbanization categories. 54/ For households in all urbanizations combined, there was significantly less variation in market value of all food for households with incomes per

person above the U. S. mean 55/ than for those below the mean.

Spring 1955.— Despite substantial changes in distributions of families by size

of income since 19^2, the Veuriations in the U. S. averages for the several urbanization categories shown in MP-table 3.16 were still greatly influenced in I955 by the

differences in distribution of families by income level. Farm average was 22 percent

below urban average, rural nonfarm I8 percent below. But at the mean income for all

¿2/ This pricing differs from that used for the time-series measure which uses

prices received by fanners.

5,V Tables k.6 to 4.10 are grouped together at the end of this chapter.

¿If/ Regression coefficients measuring Incomes elasticities are given in

section CS-II D of table k.k.

55/ Average money Income per person in families in first quarter 19^2 times

k equaled $1,038 in 195Í*- prices.
- lu -

VALUE MEASURES OF FOOD USED PER PERSON

¡n All U. S. families in a Week, Spring 1942^(1955 Prices)

DOLLARS

10

8

Market value of all food

- Market value of food at home

,Total food expenditures.

-L

^^ Expenditures for food at home

_L _L

TOO 200 400 600 1,000 2,000 4,000

DISPOSABLE MONEY INCOME PER PERSON ( IN 1954 DOLLARS)

DATA FROM vm STUDY OF FAM/LY SPENDING AND SAVING IN WARTIME

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS 142-61(5) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure ^.1

VALUE MEASURES OF FOOD USED PER PERSON

(n All U. S. Families in a Week, Spring 1955 *

.^^^ I /

Total food expenditures

J \ \ L

itures

food at home

_L

100 200 400 600 1,000 2,000 4,000

DISPOSABLE MONEY INCOME PER PERSON IN 1954 (DOLLARS)

DATA FROM 1955 SURVEY OF HOUSEHOLD FOOD COKSÜMPT/ON

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEO. ERS 141-61 (5) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure k.2
- te -

urbanizations, farm households used food valued only about 11 percent less than the

average for urban households at that point. The rural nonfann average was still closer

to the urban (fig. 4.3 and table k.T, sec. A).

MARKET VALUE OF ALL FOOD CONSUMED PER PERSON

In U. S. Families Grouped by Urbanization, in a Week, Spring 1955 *

15 h

10

8

6

LLAKS

Urban

Äft^^^

- Farm ^^

-

•*-

\_-r:n?7*if* -

-

'**TT -

-

1 < 1

Rural nonfarm

L-. 1 [ 1 1 1 Í

-

50 100 200 400 600 1,000 2,000 4,000

DISPOSABLE MONEY INCOME PER PERSON IN 1954 (DOLLARS)

* INCLUDING FOOD AT HOME AND FOOD AND BEVERAGES AWAY FffOM NOME.

DATA FROM 1955 SURVEY OF HOUSEHOLD FOOD CONSUláPTION..

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS 143-61(5) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure k.3

All U. S. households grouped by income at points 25 and 50 percent below the

mean had market value of all food differing from those at the mean to about the same

extent as the households with incomes 25 and 50 percent above the mean. Through this

middle range of income, the averages for market value of all food varied about kO per^

cent as much as average income. But the market value of food among households at

substantially higher income levels varied much less than did their average incomes

Up to the $2,500 level of income per person (in I954 dollars), rural nonfarm households grouped by income differed much more in the market value of all foods they used

than did the urban or the farm households of conçarable money income. Farm households

varied the least in value of food used. These general findings from the variability

table are backed up by the income elasticities confuted from linear regressions in

logarithms (table k.k) . ou,

h.3.2. Changes j£ Market

Value £f All Food

Although the knowledge of how specific population groups have varied in food

consungption at one point in time is useful for many purposes, peiiiaps even moi^ useful

for marketing research is the knowledge of how food conBUiiç)tion among these groups has

changed over the years. No available infonnation measures the consumption of particular families through time for all foods. But it is possible to draw certain valid
- h3 -

conclusions of marketing significance from comparisons of the food consumption averages

for groups of households with approximately the same major economic characteristics,

such as income, urbanization, and household size.

The all-urbanization average of the market value of all food consumed at home

and away from home in a week of spring I955 was about 20 percent higher than the average for spring 1942 (in conçarable prices). Differences among the averages for the

three urbanization categories for households decreased from 19^2 to 1955. Whereas the

farm average was 29 percent below the urban average in spring 19^2, it was only

22 percent lower in 1955- "This change in variability resulted from changes in food

used by households with real disposable money incomes below the I95U mean of $1,250

per person. In I955 households of all urbanization categories below this income point

consumed food much closer in value than was the case for spring 19li-2 (table 4.8 and

fig. k.k). At the mean level of income (the base for this measure of variability)

households of the three urbanization categories also were closer together in the market

value of all food used per person in the spring of 1955. ¿6/

MARKET VALUE OF ALL FOOD CONSUMED PER PERSON

/n All U. S. Families in a Week, Spring 1942 and 1955^

15 h

10

8

LLAKS

( 1955 PRICES 1 1955

»

-

^

s>^^ -

- ^ ^ ^5^ -

- """""r.L!IT" -

1

f

1942

1 1 1 1 1

-

100 200 400 600 1,000 2,000 4,000

DISPOSABLE MONEY INCOME PER PERSON (IN 1954 DOLLARS)

* IHCLUDIMG FOOD AT HOME AND FOOD AMD BEVERAGES AVAY FROH HOME.

DATA FROM 1942 AND 1955 SURVEYS BY U. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEO. ERS 144-61(5) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure k.k

56/ The shift of the variability meajsurement for 19tó to use of 195^ n«fi^ income is

described in MP-U.2.3.
-1+4 -

Lover income households in all three urbanizations used more food in spring 1955

on a value basis than households in the lower range of income in spring 19^1-2. The

market value of food consiimed by urban households below the mean varied less from the

average at the mean, but households with incomes above the mean varied more in value

of food used in spring I955 (and 19tô) than in spring 19^1-2. Lower income rural households differed much less in their food average from households at the 195^ mean income

level in I955 than in 19^2.

ifr.3-3. Market Value

of Food at Home

Spring 12ii2.—Urbanization averages per person for a week of spring 19^2 were:

Urban - $6,79, rural nonfam - $5.l8, farm - $5.45. At the level of U. S. mean income

per person, rural nonfarm households consumed food at home valued at $6.15 V^^ person,

the lowest among the three urbanizations. Farm households consumed the most, valued

at $6.95. This value measure shows much less variation from households in one urbanization category to those in another than does any other value measure of food consunç)-

tion (fig. Í.1). It comes closest to the index of quantity of food consumed described

in section 4.5.I but it shows much more variability with income than does the quantity

measure. (Compare variabilities in table 4.9 and section D of table 4.6.) The

relatively high level of farm food consumption was possible because of the contribution of home-produced food. However, the use of money incomes as the basis for

grouping households understates the economic status of farm households, for these

generally have significant nonmoney income in the forms of food, fuel, and housing.

Section D of table 4.6 reveals little variation in 1942 in the market value of

food at home among farm households with money incomes above $500 per person in 1954

dollars. The plateau or levelling-off point of market value of food with income was

at a substantially higher level of incoiae for urban households than for farm households*

It is significant to bear in mind that below the mean income level, market value varied

only about 40 percent as much as did money income for households in all urbanizations.

Above that level, variation in market value of food at home was only 20 percent as

much as the variation in average income per person.

Spring IQSS.—The average market value of food consuiaed at home in farm households was 11 percent less than the urban average, but the quantity of food they

consumed per person, as measured by the index of per person consunçtion of all food,

was only 3 percent lower (table 4.10). ¿2/ At the mean income level, the market value

of food at home in households in each of the three urbanizations was practically equal.

At that point the average quantity of all foods consiamed by farm households was 6 percent above the rural nonfarm and urban averages (section C of table 4.10). This

difference between the two measures reflects some difference in prices paid or used in

valuing the food, but it also indicates fewer marketing services bought by farm

households.

There was less variation with income in the market value of food used at home

among households grouped by income than was the case for other food value measures.

For example, at the income point 50 percent below the mean for all urbanizations, the

value of farm household food averaged only 3 percent less than the rate at the mean.

At the point 50 percent above the mean, farm households used only 5 percent more food

in terms of value. There was relatively little difference between the value of food

consiimed at home by urban and by rural nonfarm households at coiiç)arable levels of

disposable money income per person.

¿1/ Average use of faim foods by farm households equaled the urban average, as

indicated by measure CFQ-la.
-U5 -

Only in the highest income groups (over $8,000 family income) did farm households

go in for extensive buying of food marketing services. This is shown by the fact that

at the point 50 percent above mean income, farm households used only 2 percent more

farm foods with value 5 percent more than those used at the mean level (section A 4 of

table If.lO). At the point 100 percent above the mean income, they used 5 percent more

food in teims of quantity of fam foods and ll^ percent more in terns of market value

of all food at home. At the income level 200 percent above the mean the farm households used an 11 percent larger quantity of farm food commodities, but valued at

26 percent more per person.

For rural nonfarm households, the variation in market value was practically the

same as the variation in use of farm foods in terns of quantity. At the income point

75 percent below the all-urbanization mean, rural nonfarm use of farm foods per person

was 2i*. percent below the rate at the mean and the market value was 26 percent lower.

Among urban households having incomes below the U. S. mean, there was substantially greater variation in their market value of food than in their use of food per

person. This apparently reflected use of successively fewer marketing services and

lower priced foods at lower and lower levels of income. On the upper side of mean

income, only households in the highest income groups had market values of food \fh±ch

varied much more than the degree of variation in their use of the quantity of farm

foods per person.

4.3.^. Changes in Market

Value of Food at Home

4.3.4.1« Differences among the average market values of food used at home by

the three urbanizations were reduced from igtó to I955 by the substantial increase in

the value of food used at home by rural nonfarm and farm households. This increase

apparently resTilted from three factors: (l) The change in the proportion of households at the several levels of income; (2) generally higher levels of food consumption

by households at all income levels; and (3) increases in loeat and poultry consumption.

4.3.4.2. The only significant change indicated for this measure of relationships

among households in the three urbanization categories at the I954 mean income level

was the increase for rural nonfarm households. But the general rise in the market

value of food consumed at home by lower income households of all urbanizations decreased the differentials between their average market value and the averages for

households at the U. S. mean income point. No marked changes were indicated by the

value data for higher income households. Coiiç)arison of data for urban households in

1942, 1946, and 1955 indicates that this upward shift in food value had occurred for

at least those hoxiseholds between 1942 and 1948.

4.3.5* Value Qf HomeProduced Food

Home production varied greatly among the three urbanization categories. In

spring 1942 the value of home-produced foods used by farm households was three times

as high as the rural nonfarm average. Data for detailed comparisons are given in

section F of table 4.6, at the end of this chapter. Figures 4.5 and 4.6 show the very

significant changes in the Engel curves for home production from 1942 to 1955. The

levels of both the rural nonfarm and farm curves droj^ed significantly. These

phenomena and the sharp reduction in the proportion of farm people in the U. S.

population contributed greatly to increased demand for commercially produced and

marketed food supplies. But in spring 1955, farm households grouped by income did
- l^6 -

EXPENSE FOR FOOD AT HOME AND VALUE

OF HOME-PRODUCED FOOD

P«r Ptrion in U.S. Rural Nonfam Familni in a Wnk. Spring 1942 and J955 *

.Expm's«, 1955 J._

50 100 200 400 600 1,000 2.000 4,000

DISPOSABLE MONEY INCOME PER PERSON IN 1954 DOLLARS

• OAr« mOlá 1*42 ANO IflS IVltVfTS $V U. I. OffMTMfNr OF AMICULTURC

J.S. OEPARTMENT OF ACRICULTÜIie NEO. ERS43-«! (S) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 4.5

DOLLARS'

8

1

EXPENSE FOR FOOD AT HOME AND VALUE

OF HOME-PRODUCED FOOD

Per Person in U. S. Form Families in a Week, Spring 1942 and 1955 *

(1955 PRICES)

Home production, 1942

-^4

Expense, 19554

50 100 200 400 600 1,000 2,000 4,000

DISPOSABLE MONEY INCOME PER PERSON IN 1954 DOLLARS

DATA PROH 1942 AND 19SS SUR^fEYS BY U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. ERS44-6I(5) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure k.6
- í+7-

not differ much in the value of home-produced foods per person except for the slightly

lower level among households vith family incomes of $10,000 or more.

h.k. Variations in Expenditures for Food

Households differ much more in their expenditures for food than in the value of

food consumed, including supplies received without direct expense. The principal

elements in the differences among households grouped by urbanization and by income is

the extent of home production.

In this section, differences among households are indicated for three expenditure measures ~ (l) expenditures for food at home and for food and beverages avay

from home, ¿8/ (2) expenditures for food at home only, and (3) expenditures away from

home.

^.^.1. EpcpeqdAtyiyep

for All Food

Spring 19^2.—Having much more home-produced supplies, farm households spent only

$2.23 per person for all food in a week of spring 19^4-2, conçared with the $7.92 for

urban households and $^.43 for rural nonfarm. Such averages for all households in

each urbanization category are affected by the proportion of these hoiiseholds at each

money income level. This effect is avoided by considering variations among households

at the mean level of money income for all urbanization groups, shown in the center

column of table k.6. At this level, the faj:Ta household average per person was k2 percent of the urban, and the rural nonfarm was Jk percent.

The variability method used in this chapter highlights the differences among

households for the market value and eacpenditures for all foods. For example, at the

money income level 75 percent below the $1,038 average, average expenditure for all

foods by households in all urbanization categories combined was a little less than half

of the average at the mean income level. In contrast, market value of all food including home-produced food was down only a third.

Expenditures for all food by farm hoxiseholds grouped by income varied less with

income than did such expenditures by urban households. But the whole level of fann

expenditures was much lower, as shown by table 4.6. Here, too, there was significantly less variation in eacpenditures among households with incomes above the mean

than below. For example, urban households with incomes per person 50 percent above

the mean spent 17 percent more for food than those at the mean. But urban households

whose incomes were 50 percent less than the mean spent 29 percent less for food per

person than those at the selected base.

Spring 1955.—Farm households spent only about half as much as urban households,

on the average. The variations are traceable to differences in home production

and in eating away from home. At the mean income point, farm households spent

almost ko percent less for all food than urban households per person. Rural nonfaim

e3cpenditu37es were about a tenth below the urban rate.

58/ To simplify the reference, this measure will be referred to as "expenditures

for all food" or "total food expenditures" without specific reference to expenditures

for beverages away from home.
- l4Ô .

In general, food e3q)enditures of urban households grouped by income varied from

the average at the mean income somewhat more than did those for farm households and

at quite different levels. Rural nonfarm households grouped by income differed much

more than the other two urbanizations in their food expenditures. In fact, within the

range of 50 percent more and less than the mean income of $1,250 per person, rural

nonfarm households ' food expenditures varied half as much as did their average

incomes. These differences are borne out by the regression coefficients reported in

section CS-II E of table k.^ for the general relationships between variations in per

person income and variations in all fciod expenditures for households of each urbanization grouped by income.

Detailed market value, expenditure, and quantity data for households grouped by

region, urbanization, and income are available for spring 1955 for use in comparable

analyses, but are not covered in this bulletin. However, figure 4.7 shows regional

variations in total food expenditures per person for households grouped by income.

Pertinent data are given in appendix B.

TOTAL FOOD EXPENDITURES PER PERSON

In U. S. Families Grouped by Region, in a Week, Spring 1955 *

15 -

10

8

6

LLARS

Vmi

West

^

^

-

^-^^ -

- Northeast \ r?i^

^>^^ -

-North Cenfr

1

A

7 ,1-'i"^-

-

1

1

South

1 1 1

-

100 200 400 600 1,000 2,000 4,000

DISPOSABLE MONEY INCOME PER PERSON IN 1954 (DOLLARS)

* FOR FOOD AT NOME MO FOOD AMD BEVEffACEJ AWAV FffOM NOME.

DATA FROM ^955 SURVEY OF HOUSEHOLD FOOD COMSUUFTIOH.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. ERS 145-61 (5) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure k.7

if.i*-.2. Changes in Expenditures

for All Food

The average expenditures per person for food at home and away from home by all

U. S, housekeeping households increased 27 percent from spring 19tó to spring 1955, a

third more than the increase in market value of all food. The variation between the

per person averages for farm and urban households was halved. The all-urbanization

average for expenditures for all food at the I95U mean income point was practically
-49 -

unchanged, but it was made up of a lover rate of expenditures by urban households and

a substantially higher level of expenditures by rural households. For each urbaniza.,

tion category, there was less variation from the average for households at the 1954

mean income in expenditures for food by all three urbanizations in I955 than in 1942

This is reflected in figures 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 and in the income elasticities given in

section CS-II E of table 4.4. The variation in urban expenditures among households

with incomes above the mean increased between the two periods. The changes in the

urban variability apparently occurred between 1942 and 1948.

TOTAL FOOD EXPENDITURES

Per Person in U. S. Urban Families in a Week, Spring 1942 and 1955*

100 200 400 600 1,000 2,000 4,000

DISPOSABLE MONEY INCOME PER PERSON (IN 1954 DOLLARS)

* FOR FOOD AT HOHE AND FOOD AND BEVERAGES AVAV FROU NOME.

DATA FROM 1942 AND 1955 SURVEYS BY U. 5. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS 46-61(5) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure U.8

U.lf.3. Expendltiires

fQT Food at Home

Spring 19te.—The data on e3q)enditures for food at home in a veek of spring 19if2

were reported independently of the data on use of food during the week. Accordingly,

there is a conceptual difference, but not a practiceil one, from the so-called

"expenditure" figures for spring 19tô and 1955. îbr the latter two years, these data

represent the value of purchased food used during the week. In spring 19^1-2, farm

households spent only about three-tenths as much for food at home â£ did urban

households. The rural nonfairm average was about three-fifths the average per person

in urban households. The variations in the Engel curves are indicated by data in

section E of table 4.6.

Spring ¿255*—^ "^^ spring of 1955, farm households spent only half as much per

person for food at home as did urban households. But at the U. S. mean level of income, their expenditures were only one-third lower. At this income point, rural
-50-

TOTAL FOOD EXPENDITURES

Per Person in U. 5. Rural Noniarm Families in a Week, Spring 1942 and 1955 *

DOl

8

6

4

2

1

5

U.S.

.LAKS (1955 PRICES) .---'

-

1955 --'

/^

-

".V>

'

^

y^

-

1942

y^

1 1 1 1 1 1

0 100 200 400 600 1,000 2,000 4,000

DISPOSABLE MONEY INCOME PER PERSON IN 1954 DOLLARS

* FOR FOOD AT NOME AMD FOOD AHD BEVERAGES AWAY FROH HOME.

DATA FROH 1942 AHD 1955 SURVEYS BY U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. ERS 41-61(5) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure ^,9

TOTAL FOOD EXPENDITURES

Per Person in U. S. Farm Families in a Week, Spring 1942 and 1955*

LLAKS

( 1955 P RICES ) -

-

,,-""

- 1955

iï'--

.--

••

..-^—'

y

----"•""' y

/^ y

-

-

1

1942

1_.. ... 1 1 1

-

50 100 200 400 600 1,000 2,000

DISPOSABLE MONEY INCOME PER PERSON IN 1954 DOLLARS

* FOR FOOD AT HOHE AHD FOOD AHD BEVERAGES k^AY FROH HOHE.

DATA FROH J942 ANO ?955 SURVEYS BY U. 5. DEPARTMENT OF AGR/Cl/LTÜRE.

4,000

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. ERS 42-61 (S) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 4.10
- 51 -

nonfarm households spent only 10 percent less than did urban households. Further

details are found in section E of table k»T.

Variations in expenditures for food at home among the three urbanizations at the

I95U mean income level were generally comparable with their variations in the quantity

of purchased farm food used. 59/ In groups of all U. S. households having incomes

below $1^500 per person, expenditures for food at home varied in practically the same

degree as variations in the quantity of purchased farm foods used per person. Above

that point, expenditures were progressively greater with variations in income than the

use of purchased farm foods. Urban households grouped by income differed more in their

expenditures for food at home than in the quantity of purchased farm foods used,

indicating more marketing services and/or higher cost of such services. Among rural

nonfarm households grouped by income, only those with disposable money incomes per

person above the mean had expenditures varying more from the average at mean level than

their use of purchased foods. Only the highest income groups of farm households

stepped up their expenditures for marketing services more than their use for purchased

foods.

i<-.U.ifr. Changes in Expenditures

for Food at Home

Average expenditures for food at home by urban households changed relatively

little from spring 19l*-2 to spring l^kS and again to spring 1955 • But substantial

increases in the averages for farm and rural nonfarm households from 19^2 to 1955

raised the all-U. S. average about a fifth. Expenditures by urban households at the

195^ mean income level were apparently lower in 1955 than those by households of

conçarable real income in 19521 (However, the price adjustment probably is not

entirely satisfactory.) Higher levels for expenditures by rural households at that

real income level offset the apparent reduction by urban households (figs, k.^ and

k.6).

The decrease between I9U2 and 1955 in the difference between average expenditures for food at home by all-U. S. households at the mean income point and averages

at income levels below the mean was significant. Urban households with income above

the 19514- mean differed more in their expenditures for food at home in spring I955

than did comparable households in 19^2. 60/

If.4.5. Expenditures for

Food and Beverages

Away From Home

Outlays for food consvimed away from home differ greatly among households grouped

by urbanization and income. In a week of spring 19^2. such expenditure by farm households averaged only 13 cents, but the urban average per person was $1.10. Variations

at the point of mean income for all urbanizations were much less than among the

weighted averages for each category. Variability data in section C of table k.6 indicate that the income elasticity of such e3q)enditures was rather high in each

urbanization.

Comparison of section E of table U.7 with section B of table If.10.

Regression equations were not calculated for this food value measure.
- 52 -

In spring 1955 > urban households spent more than three times as much per person

for food and "beverages away from home as did farm households. However, at the mean

income point the urban average per person was less than twice the farm average. Farm

households grouped by income differed less in such expenditures than did nonfarm

households, but rural nonfarm varied somewhat more than did urban.

Households in all three urbanizations increased their average expenditures for

food and beverages away from home from 19^2 to 1955. but the increases in the arural

nonfarm and farm averages were much greater proportionately than the urban. The

Engel curve for each urbanization was higher in 1955 than in 19^2, with the greatest

rise in the faxm curve.

From 19^2 to 1955 the variability of food and beverage expenditures away from

home between households at the 195^ mean income point and those with lower incomes

decreased in all urbanization categories. There was no major change in general

variability with income for all households above the mean income point. More rural

households fell in this group in 1955 than in 19^2. But urban households at higher

income levels stepped up their expenditures proportionately more from 19^2 to 1955

than did urban households at the mean income level.

^•5« Variations in Quantities of Food Consiamed at Home

Among Groups of Households

Cross-section indexes of per person food consioinption provide the means for

summarizing variations in the quantity of farm foods used at home from all sources

and purchased only and in the retail quantity of all foods, including fann and fishery

products. 61/ The U. S. average of each of these indexes is its base, set equal to

ICX).

^.5-l* Variations in

Spring 1942

Only the retail level consumption index has been calculated from 19tó data to

measure cross-section variations in average quantity of all foods consumed. The urban

average in spring 1942 for food consumed at home per person was 5 percent above the

farm average per person and I5 percent above the rural nonfarm average. At the U. S.

1942 mean level of money income, the rural nonfarm average was only 2 percent below

the urban, but the farm average was 9 percent above the urban. Here, again the

relatively high level of farm food consuiiç)tion reflects the substantial amount of

nonmoney income in the form of home-produced food, fuel, and housing.

61/ The retail index for spring 19^2 is described in MP-section 3.7.5.4 and given

in MP-table 3.12. The 3 cross-section indexes for spring I955 are discussed in

section MP-3.7.5.5 and given in table MP-3.I3. The following references to matching

time-series indexes may be helpful:

Cross-section Time-series

(a) Index of per person use of farm

foods, all sources, farm level CFQ-la PFQ-la

(b) Index of per person use of purchased

farm foods, farm level CFQ-lb PFQ-lb

(c) Index of per person food consunçtion,

retail level CFQ-2 PíQ-2
- 53 -

Variation in the quantity of food consumed at home per person with variations in

income are shovn in table U.9. These data and figure U^ll show that for households

in all urbanizations combined there was much more variation in quantity of food consumed below the mean income level than above it. At the point 50 percent below mean

income per person^ food consumption was ik percent lower than the average at the mean;

whereas, at the point 50 percent above, consumption per person in terms of quantity

was up only 5 percent.

PER PERSON FOOD CONSUMPTION AT HOME, SPRING 1942*

Cross-Section tndex

% OF ALL U. S. AVERAGE

100 200 400 600 1,000 2,000 4,000

DISPOSABLE MONEY INCOME PER PERSON IN FIRST QUARTER 1942, ANNUAL RATE IN 1954 DOLLARS

tiNDEK CALCULATED FROM (At AVERAGE QUANTITIES OF INDIVIDUAL FOODS REPORTED IN 1942 STUDY OF

SPENDING AND SAVING IN WARTIME CONVERTED TO RETAIL WEIGHT EQUIVALENTS. PER PERSON. AND <B} 1947-49

RETAIL PRICES, INCLUDES SUPPLIES PURCHASED. HOME PRODUCED, AND XECEIVED AS GIFT OR PAY. INDEX

FOR HOUSEHOLDS IN EACH INCOME GROUP PLOTTED AGAINST AVERAGE INCOME PER PERSON OF THAT GROUP.

U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS )03-61{4i ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure k.H

Overeill patterns of food consunçtion by urban and by rural nonfarm households

in relation to their incoiae were similar. At the income point 75 percent below average income per person, food consunçtion was 23 percent below the average per person

in households of the same urbanization category at the mean. There was much less

vatriation in farm food consuniption with income than for nonfarm households, especially

above the $500-per-person income level. Even at very low money income levels ($100

per person in I95U dollars), farm food consumption was only 12 percent below the allU. S. average for food consumed at home in the spring of 19^2.

k.^.2. Variations Jj^

Spring 1955

U.5.2.1. The average quantity of all farm foods usçd per person at home in U. S.

farm households equaled that of U. S. urban households in spring 1955 (CFQ-la). But

the urban index for the retail price-weighted measure for all foods (050-2) was about

3 percent above the farm average, reflecting in part their differences in use of food

marketing services. The rural nonfarm average for these indexes was 4 to 5 percent

lower than the all-U. S. average.
However, the index vhich measures variations in use of purchased farm foods

gives a different picture. Fann households used only half as much purchased foods in

spring 1955 as did urban households. Rural nonfarm households averaged a sixth less

than urban.

4.5.2.2. Per Person Food Use. All Sources. Farm Level.—Among households with

per person money income equal to the U. S. mean, farm households used about ik percent

more farm food commodities than did urban households (table 4.10). Rural nonfarm

households also slightly exceeded average use by urban households. As noted in the

discussion of 19^2 food variations, this differential reflects both the contribution

of home-produced foods and the fact that money incomes are not a satisfactory measure

of economic status of farm households in coniparison with nonfarm households. Many

farm families have a substantial amount of nonmoney income. Also, they are subject to

greater year-to-year variations in money income.

In spring I955 those U. S. households with income per person about 50 percent

below the mean level of disposable money income per person used only 8 percent less

farmr-produced food than the average for households at the mean level of income. The

same degree of variation in food use with income was found aiaong households 50 percent

above the mean in te uns of income. But among households with incomes three times as

large as the average per person, food use was up only 16 percent from the average for

households at the mean. Food use varies much more with money income aïoong nonfana

households than among fann households.

Income-food relationships derived from linear regressions of logarithms of this

and other structural indexes measuring food consunçtion by U. S. households in spring

1955 and disposable money income per person for each group of households are given in

table 4.4. Tests of the relationships between income and the use of faim foods from

all sources for the three separate urbanization categories indicate that the income

elasticity for rural nonfarm households was significantly higher than the urban, and

that for farm households significantly lower. 6g/

Discussion of regional variations indicated by cross-section data for the

four regions is omitted, but data are given in appendix B.

4.5.2.3. Food Consumption Per Person. Retail Level.—At the mean level of money

income farm households consumed only about 6 percent more food per person than urban

households in terms of this retail price-weighted index. This index takes commercial

processing services and some of the other farm-to-retail marketing services into

account by means of the retail prices used 63/ along with farm resources in the form

of farm food comnodities. Therefore, the differential between farm and urban averages

indicated by the farm food index (CPQ-la) is halved.

Among households of all urbanization categories grouped by income, the average

amounts of food consumed by those below mean incone differed more than did the averages

for households with incomes above the mean (table 4.10). Moreover, their consunçtion

of food plus faiTtt-to-retail food services varied more than did their use of food per

se. 64/ Here, too, nonfarm households showed greater variation in food consunrotion

with money income than did farm households (fig. 4.12).

62/ The Fisher '^t" test va^ UAPH .

But the same retail prices are used for home-produced as for purchased farm

foods.

64/ Indicated by con5)arison of the variations under A 1 with those for C 1 in

table 4.10.
- 55 -

PER PERSON FOOD CONSUMPTION AT HOME, SPRING 1955 *

Cross-Section Index

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

4

«

CON

PUR

AVE

U.S. DE

r^ MLi. U. 3 . AVCKA19C

1

-

-"

|X

- 1

Form ^ ^^£^^

-

\i- y

•

^

^T

- ^-^ •'

^1

^ — -

• ^

*• *^

7^•N Urban

-All

1

urbo

1

niz

1

afions—^'^

r^

\ 1 1

Rural nonfarm

_ _,. 1,1, 1 1 1

0 60 100 200 400 600 1,000 2,000 4,000

DISPOSABLE MONEY INCOME PER PERSON IN 1954 (DOLLARS)

IMDEX CALCULATED FKOM (A) AVEffACE QUAMTITIESOF INDIVIDUAL FOODS REPORTED IN 1955 SURVEY OF HOUSEHOLD FOOD

SÜMPT/ON CONVEÄTEO TO RETAIL WEIGHT EQUIVALENTS, PER PERSON. AND (B) 1947-49 RETAIL PRICES. INCLUDES SUPPLIES

CHASED, HOME PRODUCED, AND RECEIVED AS GIFT OR PAY. INDEX FOR HOUSEHOLDS IN EACH INCOláE GROUP PLOTTED AGAINST

RACE INCOME PER PERSON OF THAT GROUP.

PARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS 140-61(5) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure if.I2

The Income elasticities of con6\J2i^)tion measured by this index were practically

identical with those for the all-farm-food measure for all U. S. households and for

each of the 3 urbanization categories (indicated by the regression coefficient in

CS-I A and C in table hX). However, the elasticities varied from one category to

another. The urban and rural nonfarm income elasticities differed less significantly

for the food consunçtion index measured at the retail level than for the index of

per person use of farm foods from all sources, measured at the farm level.

^.5.2.4. Per Person Use of Purchased Farm Foods, Farm Level.—Rural nonfarm

households with approximately the same money income per person as the U. S. average

used about 5 percent less purchased farm foods than did urban households, but half

agedn as much as did farm households at that money income level. The impact of home

production on purchases of food was much greater among households with less than mean

income per person than among those with higher income. Rural families make up a larger

proportion of all families in the lower money income groups.

For households of all urbanizations with average money income approximately

50 percent below the $1,250 mean, use of farm foods from all sources was only 8 percent less than use by households at the mean income level, but use of purchased farm

foods was 20 percent less. On the other hand, at the inccme point 50 percent above

mean income per person, use of all farm foods and use of purchased foods only were

both 8 percent above the average at the mean income level.

Farm households in the group with money income per family over ¿10,000 used

about as much purchased farm food per person as urban households with incomes t?lgy

¿1,000. Most farm households used substantially less purchased food. But table U.IO
- 56-

shows that fam households at all levels of money income used substantially more farm

fooS, inçluâlns ÜQm. t^^duced foods, than did nonfam households of conçarable money

income per person.

The relationship to income of the index for purchased foods measured at the fam

level Sffered from tLse for the two indexes which include ^ome-produced supplies

The use of purchased faun commodities rose significantly more ^^^^^^^^f^^^^^^"^"^^^

sivelv higher classes for (l) all urbanizations combined, (2) rural nonfam, and

(^f^ houLh^^^ than tL other two measures. The urban coefficients for the three

measures with income were not significantly different because home P^^^^J^^^^%°°Jy

a minor source of food for urban households. In the case of the purchased ^^^ f^^J

index, the rural nonfam income elasticity was even higher than the urban. Differences

in levels of food purchased by households in the three urbanizations tilted the regression line for all urbanizations combined. Proportionately more fam households have

low money incomes and low average purchases of fam foods, whereas the opposite is

true for urban households, thus increasing the elasticity. This phenomenon is cornpexable in some respects to that observed vhen the prewar and postwar sets of time-series

data for income and purchased food are combined. Apparently, the more people differ

in economic characteristics other than income, the more their food consumption rates

tend to vary with income.

Purchases of fam foods varied more among rural nonfaim hoxiseholds grouped by

income than was the case for fam or urban households. This probably reflects the

fact that low-income rural nonfam households are more similar to fam households in

their food producing and buying patterns; whereas, higher income rural nonfam households are more likely to be suburbanites and tend to buy food as urban households do.

4.5.3. Changes in Quantity of

Food at Home. Spring 19^2

and Spring 1955

From comparison of the cross-section indexes for the quantity of food consumed

at home per person in spring I9U2 and in spring 1955^ these findings have been

developed:

The indexes of per person food consunç>tion for spring 19ÍI-2 and for spring 1955

have the all-U. S. averages for their bases, as eacplained in MP-sections 3*7.5-4 aj^d 5«

Because they were both confuted using 19^7-49 average retail prices from the timeseries index of per capita food consuiiç)tion at the retail level, they can be related.65/

65/ The value aggregates for 19^4-2 were confuted from the data given in Misc. Pub.

550 (iü) and 19if7-49 average retail prices. The 19tó survey data for meat and

poultry consunçtion at hoios appeared to be somewhat low, though the Engel curves were

internally consistent. Con5)ari6on of quantity and value data from the two surveys led

to the conclusion that the average quantity of all food consumed per person in hoviseholds in spring 19^2 was probably about 85 percent of the I955 average. ISiis represents a much larger difference between the two sets of survey data for the U. S.

average quantity of food consumed at home than the differential in the time-series

data. Hovever, the differential in time-series data measures differences in total

food consumption per capita of the ^ole civilian population at home and away from

home between the calendar year 19^2 and calendar year 1955* Possibly food consumption at home in the spring of 19^2 was significantly below the annual average for

all food consumed per capita in the year because of short supplies and a dispropor^

tionate number of children among the civilian population eating at home. Starting

from the premise that the I9U2 all-U. S. average consunçtion was 85 percent of the

1955 all-U. S. average, the index numbers for 19^2 given in MP-table 3.12 were converted to a 1955 base for these conçarisons.
- 57 -

Comparison of the results shows that a substantial increase in average food consumption

occurred between 19^2 and I955 for each urbanization category. The weighted averages

for the three urbanization categories varied less from one to another in I955 than they

had in 19^.

At the 19514- mean income level, the range of variations among the urbanizations

was about the same. The rural nonfarm average was equal to the urban in 1955; it had

been lower in 1942. Farm households at the I954 mean income level consumed significantly more food than did nonfarm households in both years.

In general, the degree of variation in food consumption among households below

the mean income of 195^ from the average for households at the mean decreased. For

urban households the decrease in the variation in food consunçtion by households below

the mean was substantial and so was the increase in variation from the average at the

mean level of income for those with incomes above the mean. For rural nonfarm and

farm households, there was only a slight change in variations in the quantity of food

consumed among households having less than 195^ mean income from the average rate at

that point. 66/ Only a small proportion of farm and rural nonfarm households had per

person money incomes above $1,250 in 1914-2 (in 1955 dollars) so comparisons cannot be

made for that sector.

k.6. SnTrnnflTY of Changes From 1942 t^ 1955 in Food

ÇQpgifflptlgn iix Hpugghold groupe

Average consumption of all food per person in urban, rural nonfarm, and farm

households was substantially higher in spring 1955 than in spring 1942. The rural

nonfarm increase was the greatest. The material reduction in differences in food

consunqption and e3q)enditures among the urbanizations was partly due to changes in

income. Also inçortant was the change in food consumed by households at the same real

money income levels. These are reflected in the changes in the levels of the Engel

curves for the several quantity and value measures described above and the decreasing

elasticity with income measured by the regression coefficients in table 4.4.

In 1955 there was much less difference in market value and expenditures for food

at home and away from home for all urbanizations between lower income households and

those of average income than was the case in 1942. The differentials between the

market value and expenditures for food by higher income households and those at the

1954 mean income point increased substantially between 1942 and 1955- Tbis change

indicates the possibility of further changes in the future.

Description of commodity changes in the consunçtion of food by population groups

is generally outside the scope of this bulletin. But households in each urbanization

category, and at most income levels, increased their use of meat and poultry and commercially processed foods between 1942 and 1955. Also, they shifted much of their

consumption from butter and lard to margarine and shortening.

66/ This finding differs from that for the market value of food at home reported in

4.3.4.2. The possible reasons for the difference merit further analysis.
. 58 -

Table Í4-.6.—Variability of market value and expenditure measures for food used in a week of

spring 1914-2 with average disposable money income first quarter 19^2, based on 19^2

mean income, averages per person, by urbanization \¡

fin snrinH 1955 dollars 2/)

: Below mean income At 191*2

mean

Above mean :Income

Item : Unit

; -905È -13$ -5OÍ6 -25^ Income,

$1,038

+25^ • +50?i • +100^

Sec. A.- Market value of

food at home and away ¿/

All urbanizations

Market value : Dol. • k,^3 5.80 6.70 7.60 8.25 8.70 10.00

Variation : Pet. : -m -2kio -12Í& 0 ^9f> +lk1i +325&

Urban

Market value : Dol. ; ^.95 5.85 6.80 7.70 9.05 9.00 9.70

Variation : Pet. : — -365^ -2ki, -125t 0 +I85Í +17^ +26it

Rural nonfarm

Market value : Dol. ; It.itO 5.20 6.20 6.70 7.to — —

Variation : Pet. : -IH -22$ -n 0 +10^ — —

Farm

Market value :* Dol. i^.70 5.1)0 6.75 7.20 7.35 — — —

Variation : Pet. : -36?i -27^ ^ -2$ 0 — — —

Sec. B.- Expenditures, at

home and away ^

All urbanizations

Expenditures : Dol. : — 3-30 4.65 5.90 7.15 7.95 8.1*5 10.00

Variation : Pet. : — -3k$ -35ÎÈ -2.n 0 +11^ +m +1K)ÍÍ

Urban

Expenditures : Dol. 4.U5 5.55 6.65 7.80 9.10 9.10 9.85

Variation : Pet. -h% -29^ -m 0 +17ÎÎ +nii +26ÍÍ

Rural nonfarm

Expenditures : Dol. 3.05 h.\5 5.00 5.75 6.55 .

Variation Pet. . — -hli, -ZBfi -13$ 0 +1U^

Farm

Expenditures . Dol. 1.6? 2.00 2.70 3A5 3.30 ___ «.

Variation Pet. ; -h9h -zs$ -18^ +5ÍÍ 0 — —-

Sec. C- Expenditures for

food away from home ¿/ j

All urbanizations

E3q)enditures Dol. : .Ik • 33 .56 .83 1.08 1.30 2.00

Variation :

Urban ;

Pet. : — -B% -60^ -33^6 0 +30^6 +57i^ +ihiio

Expenditures : Dol. : .20 .37 .67 .85 1.1*5 l.i^5 1.85

Variation : Pet. : — -1(4> -36IÍ -21?i 0 +nl' +71^ +ll8?t

Rural nonfarm :

Expenditures : Dol. : — .08 .2k .1*6 .53 .76 »..^ mmmm^

Variation : Pet. : — -855Í -33i> -13ÎÈ 0 ^yli ._.

Farm :

Expenditures : Dol. : .02 .08 •13 .28 .39 ^_^

Variation : Pet. : -9^i -19t> -67^6 -28?6 0 —

Continued
- 59

Table k.6*—Variability of market value aad expenditure measures for food used in a week of

spring I9U2 with average disposable money income first quarter 19^2, based on 19^2

mean income, averages per person, by urbanization l/ -Continued

(In SDriniî ig^,s dollars 2/)

Below mean income At I9U2

mean

Above mean income

Item : Unit :

-901t -i^i -^(4 -25^. income,

$1,038

+25^. +50^ +100^

Sec. D.- Market value of :

food at home

All urbanizations :

Market value : Dol. : I+.80 5.50 6.15 6.80 7.20 IM 7.90

Variation : Pet. : -29^ -19Í. -lO'JÎ, 0 +6^ +10fo +16^

Urban :

Market value : Dol. : 1^.75 5.1^5 6.10 6.85 7.55 7.5í> 7.80

Variation : Pet. : -i^i -•20$ -11^ 0 +10^ +10^; +li+^u

Rural nonfann :

Market value : Dol. U.30 lt.95 5.75 6.15 6.60 —

Variation : Pet. -JPi -20ÍÍ -n 0 +n —

Farm

Market value Dol. k.io 5.30 6.60 6.90 6.95 — —

Variation Pet. -32?i -Zkf, -5?í -lit 0 —

Sec. E.- Expenditures for

food at home

All urbanizations

Expenditures . Dol. : 3.10- it. 30 5.30 6.30 6.85 7.10 7.85

Variation : Pet. : -5IÍÍ -32^ -16^ 0 +9 +13^ +25?^

Urban

Expenditures : Dol. ; 4.25 5.20 6.00 6.95 7.65 7.6b 8.00

Variation : Pet. : — -39ÍÍ -25ít -Ihi, 0 +10ÎÈ +10ÍÍ, +155^

Rural nonfarm

Expenditures : Dol. : — 2.95 3.90 lt.6o 5.20 5.75 —

Variation : Pet. : -h^ -25^ -12^ 0 *xii>

Farm

Expenditures : Dol. ; 1.65 1.90 2.55 3.20 2.85 —

Variation ; Pet. : -k2$ -33ifc -11^ +12^ 0 —. —_—

Sec. F.- Market value of

home-produced food

All urbanizations

Market value ': Dol. : y y y y y y y

Variation : Pet.

Urban

Market value : Dol. ; y y y y y y y

Variation : Pet.

Rural nonfarm

Market value : Dol. • 1.22 1.02 1.20 1.05 .82 — —

Variation : Pet. : ^1(4, -3^ +1^ 0 -22^ — --"-

Farm

Market value : Dol. ': 3.05 3.1K) 3.90 3.75 4.20 — — —-.

Variation : Pet. : -27i -19ít -n -11^ 0

j j j..j 4-^

achieve conçarability with spring 1955 data. See 1€^-table 3.1^. Includes sin^^le person households. Value figures for the several income points have been read from charts so they are not

precise See MP-text section if.2.3 for description of methodology. 2/ Disposable raoney

income ¿er person in first quarter 19¿^2 at annuax rate converted to 195^ dollars using change in

the Consumer Price Index; food value data converted to spring 1955 dollars using change in

Retail Food Price Index from April-May 19^2 to AprU-June 1955- i/ Includes alcoholic beverages

away from home, kj Not available.
. 6o -

Table if.?.- Variability of market value and expenditure measures for foods used in a week of

spring 1955 with average disposable money income in 195^*-, based on 1954 mean

income, averages per person, by urbanization l/

\ Unit

: Below mean income :At 1954

: mean

lineóme.

: Above mean Income

Item

: -90?^ : -75^ -30^ ': -m \ +25?í \ +30$ : +100^ +200ÍÉ

:$1,250

Sec. A.- Market value of

food at home and away 2/

All urbanizations

Market value : Dol. \ 3 M 6.00 6.85 7.65 8.45 9.20 9.90 10.75 12.90

Variation

Urban

: Pet. : -36ÎÈ -29í> -19ÍE -9Í0 0 *S^ +17^ +2nlo +53Í

Market value : Dol. 6.25 6.70 7.80 8.75 9.U5 10.25 10.50 13.0c

Variation

Rural nonfarm

: Pet. . _— -29í¿ -23$ -II5Í 0 +85É +17^ +20^ +1^9?^

Market value : Dol. : — 5.30 6.80 7.35 8.10 8.85 9.75 10.75 B—»

Variation

Farm

: Pet. : -— -35?¿ -lOfí -s^ 0 *9$ +20?6 +33^

Market value : Dol. ; 5.80 6.55 7-35 7.55 7.80 7.85 8.30 9.20 10.55 Variation : Pet. : -26i -1656 -6?& -3^ 0 +1?È *e^ +lBf> +35ít

Sec. B.- Expenditures at

home and away ^

All urbanizations

Expenditures : Dol. 3.70 í^.55 5.85 7.05 7.90 8.75 9.35 10.25 12.to Variation

Urban

Pet. , -331Í -k2^ —¿O70 -ivf> 0 +X14, +18?6 +30?í +57?t

Expenditures : Dol. \ — 5.90 6.45 7.65 8.50 9.20 9-95 lO.iiO 12.85 Variation :

Rural nonfarm :

Pet. : ~"— -3LÍE -2ki, -10^ 0 48^ +17?í +22^ +511^

Expenditures : Dol. \ — 1..15 5.90 6.65 7.50 8.35 9.25 10.35 Variation :

Fann :

Pet. : —- ->^5Í -21^6 -xii 0 +1156 *23$ +38^

Expenditures :

Variation :

Dol. !

Pet. :

3.00

-k2<f,

3.60

-315É ¡^.35 k.io

-xc4

5.20

0

5.05

-3$

5.35

*3$

6.35

+22^

7.95

+535t

Sec. C- Expenditures for:

food away from home ^ :

All urbanizations :

Expenditures :

Variation :

Urban :

Dol. :'

Pet. :

.30

-ni .h3

-655Í

.75

-i^25í

1.02

-22^6

1.30

0

1.60

+23ít

2.05

+58ÍÍ

2.55 3.70

+1Q%

Expenditures :

Variation :

Rural nonfarm :

Dol. \

Pet. : —

.72

-52?i

.85

-¡^3Í>

1.10 1.50

0

1.60 2.25

+5OÍ6

2.55

+70Í6

3.80

+153SÍ

Expenditures :

Variation :

Farm :

Dol. :'

Pet. : —

.28 .80

-3(4

.90 1.15

0

1.50

+30Î&

1.80 2.80

*\k3$

—

Expenditures :

Variation :

Dol. \

Pet. :

.26

-29ít

.29

-69?^

.3h

-36í6

.67

-20?6 0 -I5Í

1.00

+19?^

1.22 1.62

*93$
- 61 -

Table Í4-.7.- Variability of market value and expenditure measures for foods used in a week of

spring 1955 with average disposable money income in 195^, based on 19^4 mean

income, averages per person, by urbanization l/ -Continued

Unit ;

Below mean income At I95U:

mean :

income,:

Above mean income

Item ;

-90^ i -15Í ': -50^ : -25^ +25^ ': +50% ': +100ÍÍ: +200^

¿1.250 .

Sec. D.- Market value of :

food at home 2/ :

All urbanizations :

Market value : Dol. ': 5.20 5.55 6.15 6.65 7.15 7.60 7.85 8.10 9.10

Variation : Pet. : -27^ -22^ -Iki -n 0 +65Í +10^4 +13?Í +275Í

Urban :

Market value : Dol. : 5.50 5.90 6.75 7.20 7.80 7.95 8.00 9.25

Variation : Pet. : -2lf?í -18^ -&^ 0 ^ +10^6 +11^6 +28^

Rural farm : Market value : Dol. ': 5.10 6.05 6.k^ 6.90 7.35 7.85 8.05

Variation : Pet. : -26ÍÓ -12ÍE -n 0 +756 +H^í6 +17ít

Farm

Market value : Dol- ! 5.60 6.30 6.80 6.85 7.00 7.05 7.35 7.95 8.85

Variation Pet. : -20^ -10^ -3ít -2$ 0 +lít +3Í *xk<i, +26^

Sec. E.- Expenditures for:

food at home

All urbanizations

Expenditures Dol. 3.to 1^.10 5.15 6.05 6.65 7.15 7.35 7.70 8.70

Variation Pet. .49í¿ -38?6 -23í^ -9Í 0 *6i +U$ +16Í0 +3IÍ6

Urban

Expenditures : Dol. 5.15 5.60 6.55 6.95 7.65 7.70 7.85 9.00

Variation : Pet. , — -26Í, -19^ -Of. 0 +1(4 +11?& +13Í +29?i

Rural nonfarm

Expenditures ': Dol. ; 3.85 5.10 5.70 6.30 6.85 7.1tO 7.55

Variation : Pet. : -m -19ÍE -10^6 0 +9?6 +17í¿ +20?í

Farm

Expenditures : Dol. ': 2.75 3.30 3.80 4.00 í^.35 if.20 í^.35 5.05 6.35

Variation : Pet. : -37ÍE -2kÍ -13ÍE -8^ 0 -3^ 0 +l65¿ •i465é

Sec. F.- Market value of

home-produced food

All urbanizations

Market value : Dol. i 1A5 1.10 .Ih .i^7 .35 .3»^ .3^ •^-. .25

Variation : Pet. : +31^ +214^ +111^6 +3^9^ 0 -39Í -31o -lit^í -29^

Urban

Market value : Dol. _» y y y y y y y y

Variation : Pet. : —

Rural nonfarm

Market value : Dol. ; .7k .56 .U8 .39 .ko .38 .30 —

Variation : Pet. : +90* +h¡4 +235È 0 +3$ -3^ -23ít """^

Farm

Market value : Dol. : 2.60 2.75 2.80 2.65 2.U5 2.70 2.85 2.60 2.25

Variation : Pet. : +6^ +12<f> +11^^ *&f, 0 +10'ji +16^ +6?í -Qfjo

1/ Based on data from the 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey given in MP-table 3.16.

Except where noted, excludes alcoholic beverages. Value data for the several income points have

been read from charts so they are not precise. See MP-text section k.2.'i for description of

methodology.

2/ Includes food received as gift or pay as well as purchased and home produced.

¿/ Includes expenditures for alcoholic beverages away from home.

h/ Negligible.
- 62 -

Table if.8.—Variability of market value and escpenditure measures for food used at home in a

week of spring 191^2 with average disposable money income in first quarter 19^2, based

on I95U mean income, averages per person, by urbanization 1/

iln s-nrinfic 1Q-;-; and 1QS4 doU

Below mean income

ars 2/)

At 195*^

mean

Above mean income

;

Item Unit ;

-90?^ : -1% ! -50^ : -2% : income,

$1,250

+25^ ': +50?¿ : +100?^

Sec. A,- Market value of

food at home and away ¿/

All urbanizations

Market value : Dol. : 5.05 6.20 7.25 8.10 8.70 9-55

Variation . Pet. : -38^ -23^ -10?& 0 +7^ +l8?i —_

Urban

Market value : Dol. : 5.10 6.30 7.20 8.80 9.00 9.te 10.35

Variation Pet. • -^•2$ -26?& -18^ 0 +2^ +7^ +I85È

Rural nonfarm

Market value . Dol. : 4.50 5.60 6.45 7.25 —

Variation : Pet. -m -23?^ -x\$ 0

Farm

Market value : Dol. if.85 5.60 7.00 7.30 i/7.'»0

Variation : Pet. : -m> -'¿M> -% -1^ 0 "—"• """ " """—

Sec. B.- Expenditures at

home and away 2J

All urbanizations

Expenditures . Dol. — 3.55 5.15 6.65 7.85 8.U5 9.1K)

Variation : Pet. — -55^ -3^ -y% 0 ^$ +aoiÈ

Urban

Expenditures : Dol. — U.70 6.00 7.30 8.85 9.10 9.55 10.to

Variation : Pet. — -^n -32^ -\^ 0 +3?i rô^ +I8ít

Rural nonfarm

Expenditures : Dol. — 3.20 U.55 5.140 6.35 — —

Variation : Pet. — -50^ -28ii -155Í 0 — —

Farm

Eacpenditures . Dol. 1.73 2.08 3.22 3.30 it/3.50 — —

Variation : Pet. -515& -h\<^ •^P -6i& 0 — —

Sec. C- Expenditures for

food away from home ¿/

All urbanizations

Expenditures Dol. : — .15 A3 .70 l.OU 1.30 1.75 —

Variation Pet. — -86?i -59it -33it 0 +25^ +é8ît —

Urban

Expenditures Dol. — .21 .5»* .77 1.30 ^M 1.70 2.20

Variation Pet. — -8^ -'M -hv^ 0 +12^ +31^ +69ít

Rural nonfarm

Expenditures Dol. .10 .31 .i)8 .70 ... —M.

Variation Pet. ; — -86?i -565Í -31^6 0 —

Farm

Eacpenditures Dol. .05 .09 .19 .36 ii/.35 — .

Variation Pet. -86?i -m> -1*6^6 +3Í6 0 — -—

Continued -
- 63 -

Table 4.8.-Variabillty of market value and expenditure measures for food used at home in a

week of spring 19^2 with average disposable money income in first quarter 191+2, based

on 1954 mean income, averages per person, by urbanization 1/ -Continued

(In SDring IQSS and 125kdollars 2/1

'; Unit

Below mean income At 1954

mean

AboveÏ mean Innnmp

Item .

! -90?i '■■ -1%: -50^ ': -25^^ ': income,

$1.2S0

+25^. \ +bOii : +100^^

Sec. D.- Market value of

food at home

All urbanizations

Market value

Variation

Urban

: Dol.

: Pet. :

1+.90

-31?^

5.80 6.50 7.10

0

7.45 7.75+9ÍÍ

Market value : Dol. : 4,90 5.75 6.50 7.i^5 7.55 7.70 8.10 Variation

Rural nonfarm

: Pet. . -Zhf -23^ -13^ 0 +lf. +% +9^¿

Market value : Dol. I h.35 5-25 6.00 6.50

Variation : Pet. : -33^ -19Í& -Qi. 0 —.—

Farm

Market value : Dol. ': 4,80 5.50 6.80 6.95 ii/7.05 —~»

Variation : Pet. : -32^/^ -2srlo -kfo -1^^ 0 — — —

Sec. E.- Expenditures for

food at home

All urbanizations

Expenditures : Dol. — 3.to U.70 5.90 6.75 7.10 7.60 Variation

Urban

: Pet. : -505^ -30^ -13ÎÎ 0 +% +13^ —

Expenditures : Dol. — 4.50 5.50 6.55 7.50 7.65 7.85 8.2b Variation : Pet. — -J40^ -27^ -13^ 0 +^ +5i^ +10i^

Rural nonfarm

Expenditures Dol. 3.05 4.25 4.95 5.65

Variation Pet. -kèio -2-yi -12^ 0 .—.

Farm

Expenditures Dol. ': 1.68 1.98 3.05 2.95 ii/3.15 .. —-._

Variation Pet. : -hr^ -yii -35Í -6i 0 — —

Sec, F.- Market value of :

home-produced food :

All urbanizations :

Market value : Dol. : — ¿/ 5/ ¿/ ¿/ ¿/ i/

Variation : Pet. :

Urban :

Market value : Dol. : — i/ 5/ 5/ ¿/ ¿/ 1/ ¿/

Variation : Pet. :

Rural nonfarm :

Market value : Dol. : 1.20 1.05 1.12 .85 —.— _——

Variation : Pet. : — ^kxio +21+^ +32^ 0

Farm :

Market value : Dol. : 3.10 3.50 3.65 Í+.10 ii/3.80 -.

Variation : Pet. : -l8?i -8^ -kf +8* 0

1/ Differs from table k,G because of shift to 195^ mean income base. Basic data from reports

on Study of Family Spending and Saving in Wartime, eidjusted to achieve comparability with spring

1955 data. See MP-table 3«1^- Includes single person households. Value figures for the several

income points have been read from charts so they are not precise. See MP-text section Í4-.2.3 for

description of methodology. 2/ Disposable money income per person in first quarter I9Í+2 at

annual rate converted to 195^ dollars using change in the Consumer Price Index; food value data

converted to spring 1955 dollars using change in Retail Food Price Index from April-May 19^4-2 to

April-June 1955« ^ Includes alcoholic beverages away from home, kj Approximated on basis of

nearby observation. ¿/ Not available.
- 64 -

Table k.9.—Variability of the quantity measure of food consumption at the retail

level in a week of spring 19^2 with average disposable money income in first

quarter 19^1-2, based on 19tó mean income and 195^^ mean income,

averages per person, by urbanization l/

Below mean income

; At 19Í+2

\ mean

• dispos- -

; able

' money

• income

level,

•$1,038 2/

: Above mean income

Urbanization

; -90?^. ; -75^ ; -5ofo ; -25f.

•

; +25^ : +50^ • +100^

A, Based on 19^2 mean income

United States

Consumption index

Variation ^

Urban

Consumption index

Variation ^

Ri^ral nonfarm

Consumption index

Variation ^

Farm

Consumption index

Variation ^J

: (Index: U. S. average consumption in spring 19^1-2=100)

\ 85.5 92.0 99.5 106.5 110.0 112.0

: — -20fo ''lki> 'lio 0 +3^ +5^ —

! — 80.0 88.5 95.0 IOÍ+.5 113.5 11^-5 115-0

: — ^2jjo -155^ "910 0 +8^ +10?¿ +10/0

79.0 87.0 98.0 102.5 107.5 —

-23fo -15ÍE -hio 0 +5?^ —

88.0 97.5 11^.0 116.0 llif.O

-23?i "ihii 0 +2^ 0

Below mean income At 195^

mean

money

income

level,

$1,250

Above mean income

-90^ i -755^ '• -50?¿ \ -25^ : *2'yi \ +50^ \ +100Î&

B. Based on 19^k mean income :

United States :

Consumption index :

Variation ^ :

Urban :

Consiomption index :

Variation ¿Z :

Rural nonfarm :

Consumption index :

Variation ^ :

Farm :

Consumption index :

Variation ^J :

(Index: U. S. average consumption in spring 1955=100)

7^.0 80.8 88.0 93.5 95.2

-21^ -ll^o^ -6?¿ 0 +2í¿

69.7 77.4 8i^.2 95.2 97.3 97.3 98.2

«27?¿ -19í¿ -12^0 0 ^2$ +2^ +3^

— 68. if 77.8 85.8 91.0 it/95

-25/a -lif/o -6?& 0 +5fo

76.5 85.0 99.^^ 97.3 it/98

-22^ -135¿ +2^ 0 0

1/ Index of per person food consunçtion (CFQ-2) derived from (a) quantities of food used per

household as reported in Misc. Pub. 55O, Family Food Consumption ia USE United States (¿l)

adjusted to terms of primary foods as sold in grocery stores, and (b) multiplied by average

1947-1^9 retail prices used in time-series index. MP-appendix D provides a description of

indexes. The figures for the several income points have been read from charts so they are not

precise. MP-text section 4.2.3 describes the methodology.

2/ In 195ÍJ. dollars.

j|/ Variation from average quantity consumed at the mean money income level.

hj Approximated from nearby observation.
- 65 -

Table U.IO,—Variability of the quantity measures of U. S. food use and consunçtion, at farm and

retail levels, in a week of spring 1955,with average disposable money income in 1954,

based on 195^ mean income, averages per person, by urbanization l/

(Index: U. S. average consumption in spring 1955=100)

Below mean income

At 195!^

mean dis- Above mean income

posable

money Item

; -90i> -75Î& -y4 -25i income

level,

Í1.2S0

+25* +50^ +100^ +200^

A.- Per person food use

(farm level) — all sources

(CFQ-la)

1. All urbanizations

Index of food use

Variation 2/

2. Urban

: 80.0

: -20^

85,0 92.0 95.5

-kf,

100.0

0

106.0

46^

108.0 110.0

+10^

116.5

+16^

Index of food use

Variation 2/

3. Rural nonfarm

: —

84.0

-l4?i

87.5 -ni 94.5

-4it

98.0

0

105.5

+8^

110.0

+12^

108.0

+10^

116.0

+18^

Index of food use

Variation 2/

k. Farm

:

76.5

-2Uit

92.5

-810

95.0 100.0

0

105.5

+6^

110.0

+10^

113.0

+13^

Index of food use

Variation 2/

: 91.0

: -19^

96.0 104.5

-n

108.0

-456

112.0

0

m.o

-1^

114.0

+2^

118.0

+5^

I2U.O

+11^

B.- Per person food use

(farm level) — purchased

(CFQ-lb)

1. All urbanizations

Index of food use

Variation 2/

2. Urban

i 56.5

: -1^5^

70.0

-35ÍÍ

86.0

-aoit

97.5

-9f>

107.0

0

113.5

+6^

116.0 117.5

+10^

125.5

+17*

Index of food use

Variation 2/

3« Rural nonfaj:Tn

91.0 96.5

-135Í

105.0

-656

111.5

0

118.5 122.0 121.5 128.5

+15^

Index of food use

Variation 2/

h. Farm

: —

67.5 88.0

-17it

95.5

-9?i

105.5

0

110.0 115.0

+9^

120.0

Index of food use

Variation 2/

: k7.0

: -31^

51.5

-25ÍÍ

58.5 62.0

-95Í

68.5

0

63.5

-7^

63.5-7Í 72.5 87.5

+28^

C- Per person consuiiç)tion

(retail level) — (CFQ-2)

1. All urbanizations

Index of food

consumption

Variation 2/ j

2. Urban :

78.0 83.0 91.0

-Hit

96.5

-65t

102.5

0

107.0

+4^

110.0

+7^

112.5

+10^

117.5

+15^

Index of food :

consun^tion :

Variation 2/ :

3. Rural nonfarm :

82.5

-195t

86.5

-15Í

95.0

—6^

101.5

0

107.5 110.0 110.0 117.5

+16^

Index of food :

consuiq>tion :

Variation 2/ :

k. Farm :

:::

75.5 91.5

-10<f,

9^.5

-7*

101.5

0

105.0

+3^

109.5

+8^

11U.5

+13^

Index of food :

consumption :

Variation 2/ :

87.0

-19*

94.0

-135Í

102.0

-6^6

106.0

-2^

108.0

0

109.0 112.5 117.0

46^

12lf.O

+15^

i/ Based on data in MP-table 3.13. Description of indexes given in text, MP-sec. 3-7.5.5> an<i MPappendix D. The figures for the several income points have been read from charts so they are not

precise. See MP-sec. if.2.3 for description of methodology.

2/ Variation from quantities consumed at the mean money income level.
^ 66 -

Chapter 5« VARIATIONS m ^E OF MARKETING SERVICES

Marketing services are an integral part of food purchases made by consumers, but

to describe and study many of the variations in U. S. food consumption, marketing

services have to be separated from food per se.

To do this, one must understand the meaning of "marketing services." Following

the practice of most agricultural economists—particularly those in the U. S. Department of Agriculture who work in its program of marketing research—this chapter uses

".. .a broad definition of marketing, covering not only buying and selling but also

such subjects as transportation, processing, and storage. ..." 6jJ As Harry C.

Trelogan and Kenneth E. Ogren have stated, 68/ the use of this broad concept is "...

directly related to the questions agricultural economists are asked to answer and the

problems they are trying to solve. ..." Accordingly, this chapter describes, insofar

as possible, changes through time in all economic inputs applied to food commodities

between the farm and the consumer.

5.1. Objectives and Scope

Die central objective of this chapter is to provide an overall framework for

st\jdy of changes in the interrelationships between consumption of food per se and use

of food marketing services. Although several new measures permit us to quantify historical changes in the overall picture and in a few of the major sectors, 69/ many

aspects of changes in marketing institutions and the services provided by them axe so

difficult to analyze that as yet they can only be described, as they are in the following section (5«2).

Following the general description of trends in food marketing services (5.2) is

a section quantifying major historical changes in the lose of these services, insofar

as possible (5-3)- Becaiise of substantial changes in prices and quantities, two types

of marketing services—food processing and meal preparation eind serving—^have attracted particular attention of the public and of marketing firms. Section 5.^, \diich

treats processing, reviews several studies of alternative aspects of the subject.

Although section 5.5 deals with several aspects of commercial meal preparation

and serving, special emphasis is placed on the piirpose of answering the question:

How has the role of eating places in the total food picture changed?

Tlie last section of the present chapter reports preliminary research on variations in use of marketing services at one point in time, among households grouped by

urbanization and income.

Many of the findings reported in this chapter are preliminary in character;

they are presented here primarily to encourage and to assist in further research.

Several economists in the Department of Agriculture have worked with the basic data.

Œheir experience indicates that the data yield reasonable answers, when used with

care, in analysis of specific problems such as description of historical changes in

this chapter.

6jJ Page 4, Waugh, (Editor) Readings on Agricultural Marketing (¿l).

œ/ Page lf04. Jour. Mktg., April 1956r"in "whai is -fclie Marketing Margin for Agricultural Products? A Rejoinder" (^).

^ E.g., value series TFV-14 for all foods and TFV-I5 for donestic farm foods and

matching quantity series PFii-3 and PPft-7^ described in MP-3.5.2.
. 67 -

5.2. Trends in Food Marketing Services 70/

5.2.1. Marketing is getting products to consiwiers—in the form^ time, and place

desired. The major services involved include assembly, transportation, storage, processing, wholesaling, retailing, and commercial meal preparation and serving. To

perform these services requires several million workers, hundreds of "üiousands of

marketing firms, and billions of dollars invested in processing plants, retail stores,

wholesale markets, railroad cars and motortrucks, and many other types of facilities.'

Changes in the resources used in marketing food products indicate the increased

importance of food marketing services in the dollars consumers are spending for food.

Between I939 and I959, for example, the number of full-time Jobs in marketing domestically produced food products rose from 3.8 million to 5.2 million, an increase of

nearly ^0 percent. 71/ During this same period, the numbers of workers on farms

declined by a third. 72/ A part of these relative changes in numbers of workers may

have been caused by the faster productivity gain among agricultural workers than among

marketing workers; however, the relative increase in services performed by the marketing system appears to have been the more important factor.

Investments of food processing firms in new plant and equipment have totaled

more than $10 billion since the end of World War II. While similar data are not available for other segments of the food ind\istries, trade sources indicate that retailers

have spent up to a billion dollars in some years in building new supermarkets and

renovating old stores.

Marketing is changing constantly—the institutions, their organization and

structure, and the services they perform. Some of the changes are primarily related

to "internal" factors such as development of new product forms, new processes for

preserving quality, and improved methods for transporting and handling food products.

Other changes may be in the nature of adjustments to "external" factors such as higher

consumer real income, changes in the size and location of population, greater proportion of women working away from home, and developments in production technology on the

farm that affect the supply of farm products. Whatever the primary cause of changes

in the marketing system, these developments are an integral part of changes in food

production and consumption. 73/

7^ Written by Kenneth E. Ogren, Director, Marketing Economics Division, ERS.

Ty For a description of the labor series, see pp. 20-25, vol. k, Agr. Handb. II8

72/ The numbers of workers on farms declined from 11.3 million in I939 to 7.5 million in 1958. Biese numbers are not directly comparable with those for food marketing

because they include full- and part-time family and hired workers (not adjusted to a

full-time basis) and include workers in production of nonfood prodvicts as well as food

prod\xcts.

73/ For further information, see the 195^ USDA yearbook—Marketing (^5), the

research reports of the Marketing Research Division, State experiment stations, and

other Government reports and industry publications. Other selected references are:

fl) Part I of Farm-Retail Spreads for Farm R-oducts, Misc. Pub. 71^1 (33).

(2) "The Food Marketing Industries, Recent Changes and Prospects" by Forrest E.

Scott, Mktg. Transp. Sit., Nov. 1957 (26).

(3) Reports of the Censuses of Retail and Wholesale Trade and Manufactiires (39,

1^0).

(k) "Marketing Coordination and Buyers* Requirements" by George L. Mehren in

Policy for Commercial Agriculture (I9).

(5) Facts in Grocery Distribution, Annual Report of Progressive Grocer (22 ).

(6) Supermarket Industry Speaks, Ann\ial Report of Supermarket Institute"X30).
- 68 .

5.2.2. Retallliis

Consumers now make most of their food purchases at large departmentalized supermarkets • The 5,000 or more items found in many of these stores represent a wide

variety of fresh and processed products brought together from all parts of the United

States and foreign countries, available for the most part on a year-round basis. Bie

rapid growth of supermarkets is probably the major development in the food marketing

industry affecting the choice of foods and related services available to today's homemakers. It also has had a strong impact on the organization and structure of the

entire food industry.

One-stop shopping is now customary for most food shoppers. Combination grocery

stores now account for more than 90 percent of sales of all food retail stores. Other

food stores, such as meat markets, bakeries, fruit and vegetable markets, and delicatessens, make up less than 10 percent. In 1929, sales through these specialty food

stores constituted almost a third of the total.

Supermarkets are a small but growing proportion of the total number of grocery

stores, but they account for a large part of total grocery store sales. In 1959>

11 percent of the stores had sales of $375,000 or more, but these stores accounted for

69 percent of grocery store sales. This was an increase from ^3 percent of sales in

1952. Superettes (annual sales of $75^000 to $375>000) accounted for another 2k percent of total sales in 1959. Die remaining 200,000 grocery stores—two-thirds of the

total nimiber—accounted for only 7 percent of total sales. Jk/

The current trend is toward fewer retail stores, ledger supermarkets with more

items, and greater emphasis on nonfood lines. But some evidence indicates a saturation point is being reached in size of stores, ajs seules per square foot are now

averaging higher in smaller supermarkets than in some of the new larger ones. Different trends are developing in some axea^. These inclijde "delicatessen" chains qn^

miniature supermarkets with a relatively complete merchandising line but with minimum

selection. Small retailers can offer location, service, and convenience features that

may compete effectively with large supermarkets.

5.2.3. Wholesaling

The growth of large-scale retailing has affected the organization and services

performed by the \^olesale trade. As in retailing, the number of wholesalers is

declining. A small number of large \^olesalers with efficient mechanized operations

now handles a large share of the grocery \^olesale business. Small wholesalers are

declining in number, and they are receiving a small share of the total business.

Many chain retailers and large independent retailers now own and operate their

own warehouse facilities and perform many of the functions formerly done by independent wholesale houses. Seme \^olesalers have strengthened their position by sponsoring

successful voluntary retail groups who merchandise and operate under a common name,

deir operations are similar to those of a chain organization except for ownership.

Some independent retailers have Joined cooperative wholesale buying groups to obtain

the advantages of large-scale buying and merchandising.

TV The definitions of supermarket (over $375,000 in sales) and superette and these

statistics are based on the I96O edition of Facts in Grocery Distribution of the

Progressive Grocer (22).
. 69 -

ttese various forms of retailer owned and operated wholesale establishments have

concentrated the buying of foods from processors and other suppliers into a much

smaller number of oranizations than formerly. Also, many of these groups now own

their own processing facilities or contract for manufacture under private label brands.

Ohe increased coordination of retailing with the wholesaling and other functions

of the marketing system has reduced the flow of products through organized terminal

and wholesale markets. More fruits and vegetables now move directly from suppliers to

retailers or retail-owned wholesalers. For example, the volume of fruits handled by

terminal fruit auctions dropped from l60,000 carlots in 1929 to about 55,000 carlots

(with somewhat larger loads per car) in 1957. 75/

The volume of eggs and butter moving through produce exchanges has fallen off so

much that prices based on transactions in these exchanges cover only a small proportion of the total supply. In Chicago, for example, about half of the eggs move

directly from country points to retail outlets. 7^ The importance of central markets

for livestock has declined markedly in recent decades. The percentage of all hogs

slaughtered under Federal inspection dropped from 77 percent in terminal markets in

1923 to 37 percent in 1955. 77/

5.2.4. Processing

The variety, availability, and total output of processed foods has increased

greatly in recent years. Technological developments in processing, the rapid growth

of large supermarkets, and increased consumer demand for convenience foods have contributed to these upward trends. Quick freezing of foods is perhaps the outstanding

development in processing that in recent years has affected the rate and seasonal

consumption of many food products. 78/ Developments of other processed foods such as

cake mixes and various ready-to-serve ceinned and packaged products also have affected

consumption trends and availability of marketing services to homemakers.

The scale of operation in processing many food products has increased greatly

in recent years, accompanying technological improvements in these products and increased consumer demand for them. However, in V)^h two-thirds of the plants in 30

food manufactviring industries employed fewer than 20 workers. Of the total value

added by the 30 industries, these small plants accoointed for only 8 percent. Smaller

plants are still important in industries such as natural cheese which historically

have been largely family operations.

Trends in food manufacturing have varied greatly among industries. The growth

of large-scale plants and reduction in numbers of small plants have been much more

pronounced in some industries than others. Chauiges in production sireas have caused

changes in locations of many plants in some industries.

5.2.5. Transportation

Improvements in the transportation system were a key element to many changes in

food marketing services. Refrigerated CCLTS eind trucks, improved packaging materials

and methods, and better higihways are among the improvements leading to more wide15/ Manchester The caianging Role of the Fruit Auctions (18).

Toj Pedersen, Mitchell, Pritchard Movement of Shell Eggs Into Retail Channels in the

Chicago Metropolitan Area (21).

77/ Engelinan and Pence Livestock Auction Markets in the United States (13).

78/ Developments in the frozen food industry and possible future trends were discussed in "The Outlook for Frozen Foods," Mktg. Transp. Sit. Nov. 1957 (37)-
- 70 -

spread distribution of perishable foods. In general, these products are hauled longer

distances and during more months of the year than formerly. Motortrucks with their

speedier services and greater flexibility are hauling a larger share of food products

particularly the more perishable ones.

5.2.6. Storage

Food products may be stored at several different stages in the marketing process and by different institutions—assemblers, processors, wholesalers, retailers, or

public warehouses. In general, storage facilities have improved markedly both in

quantity and quality in recent years. Tlie greater ability to store food products

makes them available over a longer period of time and thus at a more even rate of

supply to consumers. For example, frozen foods could not be sold in laurge volume

imtil adequate cold storage facilities were available from the processing plant

through the retail store.

5.2.7. Assembly

Assemblers are the first link in providing markets to farmers for their food

products. Die number of assemblers is declining. In part, the reduction was a long

delayed adjustment to improvements in transportation facilities. With improved roads

and use of motortrucks, large establishments drawing products from a wider area became feasible and more economical than formerly. Die functions of assemblers have

been integrated into the activities of other marketing firms as direct deliveries to

processors and other buyers have become more frequent. Die location and type of

assemblers also have changed in response to changes in location of production and in

marketing practices.

5.3. Changes in Use of Marketing Services, 1929-59

In this section, attention is focused principally on changes in the amoxints and

kinds of marketing services bou^^it with food; all food veLLue series are considered in

chapter 6. A description of historical changes must begin with such key facts sus

these: The marketing bill for all foods (TFV-lte) in current dollars increased from

$11.7 billion in I929 to $1^.5 billion in I959. Allowing for the change in prices of

farm-retail marketing services as in MP-table 3.8, one finds that the total marketing

bill for all foods in constant dollars doubled over this period. Stated in other

terms, the aggregate quantity of food marketing services bought by U. S. civilicuis

was about twice as large in I959 as 30 years earlier, \Aiereas per capita use was up

by somewhat less than half (PFft-3).

5.3-1« Components of Changes

The increase in use of food services has been closely related to changes in

economic prosperity and to increased reliance on purchased food. To comprehend the

major facts of the overall change, one must subdivide the time period and the components of marketing services insofar as possible. 72/ The rate of per capita \ise of

services was practically the same in 1939 as in 1929, and so was average real income.

72/ Tlie following description is based on lata for the total marketing bill in

I9IÎ7-U9 dollars (MP-table 3.8),the approximate markup of eating-place meals over the

retail value of the food in 19^7-1^9 dollars (difference between market value in MPtable B-2 and retail value in MP-table B-1 divided by index of marketing margin for

AMS market basket of farm foods from farm to retail in MP-table 3.8),and thé index of

total purchased foods (using taipublished data coniparáble to PFQr-6b in MP-table 3,2

adjusted for the population change given in MP-table 3.1).
-71 -

Between I939 and I959 aggregate xjse of food marketing services rose 90 percent, compared with the 62 percent rise in total use of pxirchased foods, ThuB, marketing services per \jnit of foods handled went up about I7 percent. A little of this ceui be

identified as increased commercial meal preparation and serving; other components

have not yet been measured separately.

ühe per capita series on use of food marketing services indicate the periods of

most rapid changes were 1939-lH, I9l4.1i.-l|.6, and 1952-56. In 1939-41, the percentage

increase in use of services was twice as great as that for volume of food purchases.

The proportional increase in services of eating places was about the same as for sill

other marketing services. The farm-retail marketing margin indicated little change

in price of the services.

During World War II, rougbly a third of the increase in marketing services was

in ihe eating place sector.

In the period 19^ to 19^6 the percentage rise in use of services was heuLf again

as great a^ that for the volvnne of food purchases. Sharp increases in prices of

marketing services began after decontrol of food prices in mid-1946. Since that time

the overall use of food marketing services has only kept pace with the increase of

about a fourth in the volume of food moving through the marketing system. Prices of

farm-retail marketing services increased noticeably in 1950-52 and in I956-58.

In both the prewar and postwar periods, the use of marketing services varied

about a third as much as real disposable income per capita (as measured by regression

5.1 for total income and 5.2 for money income. 80/) The difference in level between

the two periods caxised the apparent relationship to income for the combined period to

double, a rather misleading measurement.

ô^/ Regression 5.I; Xj^ = per capita use of food marketing services (PF5-3)

X2 = real total disposable income per capita

1929-41: Log X] = 1.127 + -331 log Xp; R^ = .48

(.103)

1948-57: Log X^' = 1.077 + .375 log Xg; R^ = .91

^ (.041)

Combined: Log x\ = .128 + .675 log Xp; R^ = .91

(.046)

Regression 5.2: Xj^ = per capita use of food marketing services (PFQ-3)

Xp = real disposable money income per capita

1929-41: Log x[ = 1.186 + .31^ log Xgj R^ = .47

(.100)

1948-57: Log xî = 1.100 .371 log Xgj R^ = .92

(.039)

Combined: Log X.' = .218 + .65I log X^; R^ = .91

^ (.045)
- 72 -

5.3.2. caianges Related to Shift From

Home Production to Purchases

About half of the increase in the average use of marketing seiwices from 1929

to 1959 appears to have come from the shift from home-produced supplies to purchased

supplies. 81/ Olie stages in the shift are demonstrated by two charts. Figure 5.I

shows the relationship between the reduction in the percentage home produced and the

rise in the index of marketing services.

Figure 5.2 has three series pertaining to domestic farm foods which depict: ^J

(1) Œhe actual overall changes in food marketing services as measured by the index

PFQ-7; (2) chaxiges in actual average use of purchased farm foods \diich reflect how the

use of marketing services would have varied if the amoimt of marketing services

bou^it per unit of food purchased had not changed; (3) how the use of marketing

services would have changed if there had been no change in average consumption of

farm foods from the 1925-29 level and only the proportion purchased had varied. Bie

latter assîmes no change in services per \mit and no increase in average food consumption, Just the actual shift from home-prodxaced to purchased siipplies. The difference

between the line representing the actual change in marketing services and that for

purchased farm foods resiilts from increased services per unit of food handled, Bae

difference between the top line and the line for pvirchased farm foods represents the

increase in the volume of services due to Isurger quantity of these foods consumed.

The change in the level of the top line reflects the hypothetical changes in the

amount of marketing services bought with a fixed amount of food resulting only from

changes in the share of total consumption pvtrchased. Note that this line underestimates the actual increase in marketing services due to the shift from home production

to purchases becavise it does not take into account the relationship of the shift to

the increase in average food use which occxurred between I929 and 1959. ^is shift

from home-produced to commercially produced supplies has affected the volume of most

marketing services.

5.^. Processing Services; Historical Changes and

Variations in Use by Population Groups

Several alternative approaches to study of food processing have been used,

aese include: (l) The qxxantities of food processed in various ways, quantities

being measured by farm values so as to reflect the farm resources ixsed; (2) retail

value of purchased processed foods, including the price and quantity of food, of processing services, and of other marketing services; and (3) the value of processing

services added. Processing services are supplied by factories or by all commercial

firms, including wholesale and retail processing, or processing by farmers as well.

The value of processing services added may exclude material and energy costs, th\is

considering only the contribution of capital, land, and labor to processing. For

other purposes it may be desirable to measure the total value of all processing

services.

01/ Calculated by these steps: \JL) Applying I929 proportion of foods purchased

(81 percent) to the aggregate 1959 supplier value of civilian food in 191^7-1^9 dollars

to estimate purchases in 1959 if 1929 proportion had held. (2) Obis showed 5.6 percent increase over I929. (3) Applying this percentage to 1929 marketing bill of

$15.3 billion in 19^7-1^9 dollars yielded estimated total value of services (indicating

total volume) of $23-9 billion. (1^) This estimate is $8 billion less than actual

value of services or marketing bill in 19if7-^9 dollars, a difference related to change

in home food production. (5) The total change in the marketing bill from 1929 to 1959

was $17 billion in constant dollars.

^ Ohe pulling together of the three series in the 19^7-^9 period on the chart is.

of course, the result of basing all three indexes in that period.
-73 -

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOME FOOD PRODUCTION

AND USE OF MARKETING SERVICES*

% h OME-PRODUCED

•32

•33-»

'35 • •31

20 * '34 • .lO-JO

'37 «

•^•30

• '»î. : .?. '40• •44•

1 •45•

1 y •47

V48

L! '5?•'51

10

".3- f

•58. '59 •

• '57

0. 1 1

60 70 80 90 100 110 120

INDEX OF PER CAPITA USE OF FOOD MARKETING SERVICES Í1947-49 -100)

* NOME PRODUCTION MEASURED IN FARU-VALUE EQUIVALENTS

U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS 104-61(4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 5,1

MARKETING SERVICES RELATED TO

INCREASES IN FOOD PURCHASES

{Per Capita)

% OF 1947-49

100

90

80

70

60

Purchases estimated

^without change in -

average consumption*

1930 1940 1950 I960

* Holding consumption constant at 1925-29 overage and ctianging purchases to reflect only ttie decline in home production.

%*lndeM of per capita civilian use of purchased farm foods (farm level).

•^^lUndex of marketing services bought with U.S. form foods. Reflects changes in quantify of commodities handled and

additional services per unit.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. E RS 95-61 (4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 5.2
-7k-

(k) Still other approaches to the subject of food processing are those compeuring

money costs of factory preparation with time costs of home kitchen preparation, as in

the path-breaking studies of the Institute of Home Economics, and the detailed

research on relative costs of convenience foods now being conducted jointly by that

Institute and the Marketing Economics Division, Economic Research Service.

For each of these alternatives there are subsidiary alternatives of (l) commodity coverage and the choice among (2) use of data on production or total civilian

consumption, or average civilian consumption, or (3) between domestically produced or

all foods regardless of source.

5.Í4-.1. Findings of Research on

Quantities of Food Processed

Basic to the study of changes in the use of processing services is the problem

of defining such seiwices. One analytical approach heis been that of identifying

stages or degrees of processing within the overall area. 83/ Practically all foods

purchased by consumers pass throu^ some form of processing. The degree of processing

varies from trimming, grading, and washing, to complete pre-preparation of elaborate

dishes and meals. Also, some foods go through several forms of processing. For this

study, four stages of commercial processing are identified and the flows of food

throu^i them measured. Operations performed by fanners and by households for their

own use are excluded because our objective was to measure changes in voliime of food

to which are added services supplied by commercial marketing agencies between the farm

gate and the kitchen door.

The study of the flow of the food supply into processing was designed to answer

the question: How much of U. S. farm food output moves into what stages of processing? The text of Mktg. Res. Rept. lK)9 (7) describes related changes in civilian use

of foods processed to e ach specified degree so that area of research is not reviewed

here.

The share of food output handled commercially rose from 79 percent in 1925 to

91 percent in 195^^ increasing at the expense of both home food production and farm

processing. 8|j/ Most of the increase occurred between 1939 and 19if7. The quantity

of domestic Tarm foods moving into commercial channels rose 77 percent over the 30-

year period.

Alüiough the relative importance of the first stage of processing (\Aiich includes foods sold in fresh form or as little processed as consumers can use them—

e.g., flour) in total output of farm foods rose sli^tly, such foods declined relative

to all farm foods moving into commercial channels (from 66 percent to 62 percent).

Most of this decline occurred between 19^7 and 195!^ as second stage processing rose

in importfiuice.

Whereas the volume of fresh or relatively unprocessed farm foods was 67 percent

hitler in 195^ than in 1925, the volume of foods processed as single cammodities,

identified as the second stage, almost doubled, Ihe proportion of farm output of

food canned, frozen, dried, or cured, and not mixed with other commodities, went up

8V Used in Consumption of Processed Foods in the United States. Mktg. Res. Rept.

409 (7). The historical data for this"itgy"^e?g"assembled and collated by

Leva C. Taylor, Statistical Assistant, Econ. Stat. Anal. Div.

8k/ Based on slightly revised data conQ)arable to those in table 8 of Mktg. Res

Rept. 40Q. Revision made to exclude all nonfood, use of meat animals.
- 75 -

from only 22 percent in I925 to 27 percent in 195^. "me most significant changes were

the increase in qxxantity canned from I939 to 19^7, the development of frozen foods in

the postwar period, the increase in milk drying, and the decline in butter production.

Mixed foods of the older types such as chili con carne and ice cream, the third

stage, accounted for 5 percent of total farm foods output in I925 and 7 percent In

19^*^7 and 195^« "^^ volume of such food doubled in the 30-year period. Canned mixtures and ice cream were the major growth items up to 195^. It is possible that a

small part of the foods classified in this category in I95U properly belong in the

fourth stage, as newer types of mixed foods. Reporting of output of new products

often lags several years behind their introduction.

By definition, the fourth stage contains only the newer items. Insofar as we

could determine, only 1 percent of farm food output in 1954 went into these mixed

foods. Even if o\ir data were underestimated by 50 percent (which we doubt), the

importance of these foods as an outlet for farm products was much smaller than

popularly assxamed. True enough the big increase in frozen prepared foods has come

since I95U. 85/

5.U.2 Retail Value of

Purchased Processed Foods

No time series of the retail value of purchased processed foods has been constructed, but data on variations in retail veú.ue of such foods consumed by groups of

households have been assembled from surveys made in spring 19k2 and spring 1955. Bie

data and description of variations revealed by them are reported in Mktg. Res. Rept.

to9 (7) pages 17-23 and 26-28.

Retail values are significantly more vciriable with income than are the farm

values, dis is shown by comparing variations in the retail vcúLue of purchased processed foods (second to fourth stages) in spring 1955^ with variations in their fcuraiveuLues. The variability revealed by the survey results from the greater amounts of

marketing services, including those of processing, bou^t with food by high-inccme

households than by low-inccme households. Study of these sets of data indicates also

that greater difference exists between the income elasticities of the retail values

and farm values for processed foods than for the income elasticities of retail and

farm vaJLues of the relatively unprocessed foods.

5.U.3. Historical Changes in

Factory Processing

Reported in this section are the results of research by William H. Waldorf,

reported in Tech. Bui. 1223, Output of Factories Processiig Farm Food Products in the

United States, 1909-58. (49).Ö6/ Thë^ulletin presents an annual index of factory

prodxiction of domestic feirm foods. This index is an approximate meas\are of the net

physical, output of manufacturing establishments engaged in processing domestic farm

foods for civilian and noncivilian use. It was designed to measure changes in factory

veilue added in constant prices (net physical output). Feu^tory processing, as used in

this report, includes the processing of fluid milk and cream, products that are

85/ Data for 195^1- and I955 given in Reese Production of Frozen Prepared Foods,

193^-55 (24).

86/ First reported in "Indexes of Factory Production of Domestic Farm Food Products,"

Mklg. and Trans. Sit. July 1959 (50).
-76-

difficiat to classify, Waldorf carefully notes that part of the upward trend in the

factory production index res\ilted from the shift from farm and retail and \iholesale

processing to factory processing. He writes:

"Olhe index of factory production of all processed domestic farm food products

rose at an average annual rate of nearly 2.6 percent during the last half century.

This long-term rate was substantially affected by the upsurge in production during

and immediately after World War II: Between 1939 and 19^7, the annual rate was nearly

twice as large as -the 50-year average. In the postwar period, 19^7-58^ factory production grew 2.6 percent per year compared with 1.9 percent per year in the prewar

period 1909-39-

"Roughly three-fourths of the rise in factory prodiiction for the 50-year period

as a whole can be directly associated with increased volume of food marketings by

American farmers. The remaining fourth reflects shifts from home, on-farm, and wholesale and retail processing to factory processing; increased piirchases of processed

relative to unprocessed farm products; and changes in the degree of factory processing

per unit of farm raw material used in factory production. The picture has been about

the same since the end of World War II as for the entire 50-year period. "87/

"Factory production of domestic farm foods per person 88/ was 77 percent greater

in 1958 than in I909. The increase was I8 percent during the first decade of this

period; 6 percent in the second decade; and 3 percent in the third, depression-marked,

decade. Between 1939 and I9U7, per capita production rose 30 percent; since 19U7 it

has increased only 5 percent. Unlike total factory production, per capita output has

not risen steadily since 19Í48." 89/

^.k.k. Foods Processed in Factories

and by All Commercial Firms

Waldorf's study of value added by factory processing and this author's

study of changes in quantities of-food processed raised this question: Has the

ratio of factory-processed foods to total foods processed changed in the last 30 years

or so?

Deriving an answer to this qixestion required the following clarification: Ihe

index of factory processing reflects factory processing at successive stages, e.g.,

flour milling, then baking of bread. But to avoid double counting, measxxrement of the

quantity of foods processed in factories must count the grain milled into flour but

not the flo\ir used in baking bread, therefore, it was necessary to measvire quantities

of foods processed in factories and in other commercial establishments in terms of

their farm values. Commercial processing of several foods is carried on in factories

by definition.

For this comparison, we adopted the definitions of processing used by Waldorf in

his research on factory processing. Ohese include slaii^íitering, milling, refining

sugar, grinding oilseeds and peanuts, canning, freezing, processing of dairy products,

commercial handling of fluid milks, drying of eggs; canning, dehydrating, freezing,

and pickling of vegetables and fruits. Factory processing excludes processing by

farmers, wholesalers and retailers—following the classifications of the Census of

Manvifac tures.

07/ Otecii. Bui. 1¿23, page 3 {h9).

OT/ In computing per capita factory production, the popiaation figures are based on

total popiilation including Armed Forces overseas as of July 1.

89/ Tech. Bui. 1223, page 5 (H9).
- 77 -

The results of this research, indicate ao significant trend in the ratio of

quantities factory processed to total commercial processing in the period 1925-5^.

At first sight this finding may come as a surprise, in view of the often-noted decline

in processing by retailers and wholesalers. But much of this processing was in later

stages—in baking and candy-making, for example. These stages are not separated in the

measurement of flow of domestic farm food commodities into any of the forms of

commercial processing. Meat animals constitute the largest commodity group in terms

of aggregate farm value. The well-known decline in slaughter by retail butchers would

lead one to expect a significant increase in the proportion factory processed. An

offsetting factor is the increase in slaughtering operations by locker plants for

nonfann patrons and for \^olesale and retail sale. Another element affecting the

comparison is the extent of coverage of the meat packing industry by successive

Censuses—factory processing data are based directly on the Censuses of lilanufactures.

We find for example, that the 19^7 Census reports the meat packing industry slaughtered Qk percent of the liveweight of all commercial slaughter (as estimated by USDA),

\Aiereas the industry reported in 195^ 90 percent of all commercial slaughter. Adequate check data are not available to judge whether Cens\is coverage or the relative

importance of the industry changed that much or \^ether both changed.

5.5. Variations in Use of Commercial Meal Preparation and Service

5.5«1*1« Four types of information concerning the eating place business are

available for description of variations in the use of these marketing services. Best

known are the time-series data on meals and beverages sold and fvirnished employees, as

estimated by the Department of Commerce. Benchmarks for these series developed by the

commodity-flow method from the Census of Manufactures are checked with sales data.

Extensions from the benchmarks are made on the basis of sales by a sample of eating

and drinking places. A series on nonconsumer pvirchases is estimated by the Department

of Commerce, using supplementary information from the Internal Revenue Service. This

series is excluded from the Commerce data on food expenditures, but is vised by this

author as a component of food expenditures, as described in MP-3.4.3.3 and MP-B.1,5.

The Department of Commerce also has developed information on the general level of the

value of meals fiirnished travelers and institutional inmates. As described in MPappendix B, the two major problems in using these data are lack of information on the

food-alcoholic beverage breakdown and absolute absence of information on commodities.

The data form the basis for the markups used in estimating the market value of all

food and the subseries on eating places, described in the MP~appendix B. MP-table

B.l contains data on the value of food handled by eating places in terms of retailstore prices, and MP-table B.2 carries the same basic data in terms of meal or market

values.

5'5*1.2. Ihe Censuses of Distribution for 1939 arid 19kQ provided statistics on

sales of all major types of eating places. Biis was made possible by the tabulation

of meals and fountain items sold by department stores and other such combined operations, as well as separate data on meals and beverages sold by restaurants of various

types. No commodity line detail was obtained in the 195^ or 1958 Censuses. Œhis

author was able to develop a rather complete statistical pictxare of the distribution

of the U. S. food supply from the I939 and 19k8 data. 92/ ^®s® data provided valuable

check points for the series relating to eating places published in MP-appendix B.

90/ "Distribution of the Food Supply of the United States," Agr. Econ. Res. July

1952 (8).
-78 -

5.5.1.3- "Die third type of information on food served by eating places is that

obtained by special surveys of particular types of eating places. Ihese include: ^i;

A pilot study of public eating places in Minneapolis and Fairmont, Minnesota in 1^^^

and 1950; 91/ (2) case studies of l6 nonfederal institutions; 22/ (3) surveys of

eating places' use of processed farm foods ¿3/ and of fish; 2it/ (^) s^^y of eating

facilities in manufacturing plants, often called in-plant feeding establishments; 22/

and (5) surveys of the school milk and school lunch programs described in section

5.5.6.

5,5,l.ii-. The last type of information comes from household surveys. This type

covers the recall of expenditures for meals and beverages away from home, sometimes

with subdivisions, and an accounting of who ate meals out, and which meals. Kinds of

information obtained from households are illustrated by the description of certain

findings given below.

Because interest in the subject is great, we reiterate the fact that existing

data supply absolutely no key to the commodity breakdown of food consumed away from

home. Apparently, the only way to obtain commodity information is an overall survey

of eating places; the surveys described in our third category (5.5.1.3) represent

beginnings.

5.5.2. Historical Changes Indicated

by Available Time-Series Data

5.5.2.1. Although the time-series estimates of the retail and market value of

food eaten away from home may represent an error in level of 10 to 15 percent, they

probably are correct as to trends and general relationships. 96/ Accordingly, we may

draw certain conclusions about historical changes. The total market value of all

food handled by eating places in 1959 was probably about $17 billion out of the $69

billion total for the market value of all food cons\imed by U. S. civilians (excluding

retail teuces and tips), ^jj ^Is $17 billion total represented 25 percent of the $67

billion of civilian expenditures for all foods, excluding both taxes emd tips (MPtables B.2 £uad 3.5). This relationship is the same as the frequently quoted 25 percent for food "eaten out" but it represents dollar outlays for food and services rather

than quantity. 98/ Retail vauLue data are a better measure of the quantitative importance of eating places in the food picture. This siibject is treated in section

5>5.2.3.

91/ Sartorius and Burk Eating Places as Marketers of Food Products (25).

^ Hoofnagle, Dwoskin, and Bayton The Market for Food in Selected PuElic and

Private Institutions (ih).

93/ Bitting "The Use of Canned Foods by Restaurants and Cafeterias," speech before

NaTional Canners Association convention, Feb. 19, 1955 (¿). Also Badger The Use of

Frozen Foods by Restaurants. Mktg. Res. Rept. ikk (k).

55^U. S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Shellfish Consumption

in Public Eating and Drinking Places, Vol. I (^7).

95/ Lifquist BuyingTractices and Food Use oF"Ergployee Food Services in Manufacturing Plants. Mktg. Res. Rept. 326 (157^

96/ Data checked with estimates Serived independently in article cited in note 90,

wi^ CLlternative estimates of the breakdown of expenditures for food and for alcoholic

beverages, and with projections from household sxarvey data.

97/ Eating places include all establishments serving food other than private

households.

9B/ Die 25 percent figure apparently was based on the OPA survey of sales by eating

places in December 19^2 (a survey made to supply the basis for food rationing) comX)ared with estimates of total food expenditures, ^e month, the period, and the

occasion for the survey all made the accuracy of the figure qxaestionable.
- 79 -

5.5«2.2, Die total market value of all meals and food handled by eating places

of all kinds apparently has risen year by year since the depression years of the

1930*s, when it stood at $2.3 billion. When boarding houses were popular eating

establishments some 30 years ago, they accounted for perhaps a sixth of the meals

sold. In recent years, as incomes have risen and larger numbers of single people live

in apartments, relatively few people are served in boarding houses. Since the late

1930's, eating away from home has shifted away from boarding houses toward public eating places such as restaurants, hotels, lunch coxinters, and tea rooms. The food

business of these establishments amounted to about $13 or $l4 billion in 1959-

Two types of large-scale feeding establishments that have become increasingly

popular in the last 20 years are school lunchrooms and industrial or in-plant feeding

facilities. The share handled by institutions such as hospitals, prisons, and large

homes for the aged has apparently remained fairly constant. In addition, some meals

and snacks sire eaten in clubs, fraternities, on board ship, on airplanes, and so on.

Others are furnished by varioiis kinds of eating places to their employees.

5.5.2.3. Appraisal of the relative importance of eating places in the U. S.

food picture necessitates measuring the flow of food through eating places in the

same terms as those used for purchased and home-produced foods, dis has been accomplished by \ise of the retail-store level as the basis for all series in MP-table B.l.

In these terms, eating places currently are handling about 17 percent of the U. S.

food supply. But they handle a slightly larger percentage of the food moving through

commercial channels. Following the low ebb of the eating place business during the

depression of the 1930*s, there was a boom during the war, when many people were away

from home or working overtime, and when eating out became a popular form of relaxation

and a way to avoid rationing problems. But a postwar decline in the relative share of

eating places in the total food business appears to have developed, as wartime dislocations were resolved. Since that period, renewed prosperity has apparently again

increased the extent of eating out.

5.5.2.ÍÍ-. Ihe difference between the market value of food handled by eating

places and its retail value provides a rou^ measure of the changing cost of meal

preparation and serving over and above the extent of services normally supplied

through retail stores. This difference amounted to approximately $1.3 billion in

1929, $0.9 billion in 1939, $3-3 billion in 19ÍÍ-9, and about $5.2 billion in 1959. Ttie

1959 differential was slightly higher in relation to the I929 differential than was

the increase in retail value. But the measure is so approximate in character that no

conclusions can be drawn concerning the relationship between increases in prices of

meals and increeises in retail food prices.

5.5.3. Notes on Variations Revealed

by Minnesota Case Studies

Information about the eating places in Minneapolis and Fairmont, Minnesota,

which supplied detailed records for a pilot study conducted in 19^9 and 1950, confirms

the general impression that small and large cities differ in average size of eating

places, types of establishments, and per capita sales .99/ People tend to eat lunches

out more regularly in large cities in \^ich schools and places of employment are too

far away from home for the extra trip for a home meal. Then, too, larger cities have

more nonresident visitors, higher money incomes, and a larger nonhousekeeping

popixlation.

99/ Report by Sartorius and Burk cited in note 9I (25 ).
. 8o .

5.5.4. Indications of Food

Use in Institutions

Data from the I6 nonfederal institutions covered by the 1952 pilot study of

institutions indicate variations in the quantities of the major groups of food used

per capita rather than variations in marketing services. 100/ {By definition, all of

the people in such institutions are considered to have benefited from meal preparation

and serving.) But these quantities have not been combined by a common denominator of

price, nor are data available for measuring the total size of this market.

5.5.5. Use of In-Plant

Feeding Facilities

A survey of employee feeding operations in manufacturing plants made by AMS in

1956 provided information on the quantity and value of food used, in total and by

commodity, with subdivisions for four regions, size of plant, and type of operation—

company-run or contract. 101/ The first report issued in June 1959 contains information on the relative popularity of eating facilities sixch as Ivmch rooms, cafeterias,

mobile units, and table service. Ohe group of plants surveyed includes 60 percent of

the factory employment of the country and uses $20 million of food in four weeks of

1956.

5.5*6. School Lunch emd

School Milk Programs

5.5.6.1. Participation of Schools and Pupils. According to an AMS survey of

March 1957> about Ö0 percent of the school children of the country were in schools

that provide some kind of school lunch service. It varies from a la carte (around k

percent), to plate lunch outside the school lunch program (lO percent), to participation in the National School Lunch Program (two-thirds). 102/ All in all, about a

third of the pupils in elementary and secondary public schools participated daily in

school feeding services offering plate lunches.

In 1957 the total value of food used by schools participating in the National

School Lunch Program was $53^ million. Federal and State contributions for food and

service totaled $785 million. In addition, many children paid at least part of the

cost of their lunches, for cash receipts in March 1957 amounted to $65 million.

5.5.6.2. Extent of Food Consumption in Public Schools. A survey of the use of

foods in public schools was made by AMS covering the period July I957 to JUne I958.

103/ Ohis sample survey indicated that $597 million worth of food, wholesale value,

was used by public elementary and secondary schools in this period. Converting this

figure to retail value equivalent and comparing it with retail value of all food

100/ Report by Hoofnagle, Dwoskin, and Bayton cited in note 92 (l4).

101/ Highlights of food data given in report cited in note 95 (ijj summarized in

Lifquist "Some Findings of the Survey of Employee Pbod Services iiTManufacturinff

Plants." Nat. Food Sit. July 1959 (16).

102/ Anderson School Lunch Programs In Elementary and Secondary Schools of the U. S.

Mktg- Res. Rept. 262 Cif. ^Diis report supplies furlSer information aboutTcEoôl'"and

pupil participation, cash receipts from food sales, and how food is acquired for the

school feeding program.

10^ Survey findings were summarized in Anderson and Hoofnagle The Market for Food

in Pixblic Schools. Mktg. Res. Rept. 377 (3).
. 81 -

moving through eating places, the public school lunch program probably accounted for

7 or 8 percent of the total voliame of food consumed outside private homes. Ihe surveyobtained detailed information on quantities and values of individual foods used. This

information was tabulated with subdivisions according to participation and nonparticipation in the National School L\mch Program, type of school, size, upper and lower

family income level, urban and rural, plate limch and other types of meal service, and

use of donated food. Only all-U. S. data are provided.

5.5.6.3. School Milk Program. Administration of the School Milk Prograjtn provided the means for some experimentation on the reaction of pupil consumers to certain

variations in services offered, though it was primarily aimed at influencing milk

consumption through reduction in price of additionaJL quantities. The effect of the

School Milk Program on milk consumption in St. Louis and Los Angeles schools has been

studied by Kenneth E. Anderson. IQh/

5.5.7. Away-From-Home Eating

as Reported by Cons\jmers

5.5.7.1. Expenditures for meals and beverages away from home by housekeeping

households and nonhousekeeping households are described elsevrtiere (see k.l and k.k.^,)*

Diese data reveal the major patterns of variations in purchases of services in meal

preparation according to the income and urbanization category of the family.

5.5.7.2. Additional information of two types are available from household

surveys. One of these is the published reports of the I950 data on expenditures by

urban families. They provide subdivisions of expenditures away from home between

those in respondents' own community and in other commimities 105/ Further subdivisions include board for nonhousekeeping households (see U.l); meals at work and at

school; other meals outside the home; purchases of ice cream, soft drinks euid other

snacks; and expenditures for alcoholic beverages in restaurants and bars.

5573. The other type of data from household surveys is illustrated by table

5.1. The¡e data on meals away from home are from the 1955 Survey of Household Food

Consumption. As might be expected, purchased noon meals away from home pertain to a

larcer proportion of households than those who bought other meals, and more for men

th2 for women and children. More urban than rural families bought and ate meals away

from home. In 57 to 58 percent of urban families interviewed in the three regions

other than the South at least one member bought a meal outside of the household in the

week reported in the survey. The number of meals bought and eaten ^^ÍJ^^.^;,^- ^^^^^

keeping families in a week of spring 1955 averaged k.k meals per family, including

0.5 breakfasts, 3.1 lunches, and 0.8 evening meals.

For each of the thi^e meals in the country as a ^^^^^'^%'''^'^^^^^^^^

men averaged higher than that for women and children. In urban Jamild^s, about half

of the meals eaten out were by men, a little less than a fourth by women, «n^ r^^"^^

over a fourth by children under 21 years of age. Children ate evening meals away from

h^ much less íx^quently than adults. Perhaps the most striking ^formation in

table 5.1 is the relatively high pen^entage and number of purchased meals for children

lOl^/ The Special Milk Program; Its Effect on Consumption in St^ Louis and Los

Angeles Schools. Mktg. Res. Kept. 209 (2). , ,^ ^ n _ VTT ^-p +hP qtndv of

^¿J D'ata are available in table 2, pages 12 and 13 of volume XII of the Stud^ of

Consumer Expenditures, Incomes, and Savings {k&J.
Table 5.1.—Meals bo\aght and eaten away from home in a week of spring 1955*• Proportion of families

reporting such meals and average per family, "by category and meal l/

Meals touft-ht and eaten away from home by:

All members Men Women : Children under 21

Urbanization,

region. Unit

Morn- Eve- Morn- Eve- Morn- Eve- Morn- Eveitem Total ing Noon ning Obtal

•

ing Noon ning Tbtal ing Noon ning Total ing Noon ning

United States

Proportion having : Pet. '. 50 10 Uh 20 3h 8 28 15 23 2 16 12 21 2 18 6

Average meals per

family ! No. ! h.k •5 3.1 .8 2.0 • 3 1.3 .k .9 .1 .6 .2 1.5 .1 1.2 .2

Urban

Proportion having . Pet. 55 12 h9 22 ItO 9 3k 17 27 3 19 H^ 19 2 16 6

Avei-age meals per

family : No. . 1^.8 .6 3-3 .9 2.k .k 1.6 .k 1.1 .1 .7 .3 1.3 .1 1.0 .2

Rural nonfarm

Proportion having Pet. h^ 9 i)0 17 28 6 23 13 17 1 12 8 2k 3 22 5

Average meals per

family No. k.l .k 3.0 .7 1.6 .2 1.1 .3 .5 2/ .k .1 2.0 .1 1.7 .2 1

Farm : ^

Proportion having , Pet. 35 5 32 11 16 3 12 7 12 1 9 5 22 2 21 1+

Average meals per :

family No. ' 2.9 .2 2.3 .4 .7 .1 .k .2- .k .1 .2 .1 1.8 .1 1.6 .1

Urban

Northeast

Proportion having , Pet. 57 12 52 20 kk 10 ko 15 26 3 19 13 l6 1 15 5

Average meals per :

family : No. 5.1 .6 3.7 .8 2.9 •5 2.0 .k 1.2 .1 .8 .3 1.0 .1 .8 .1

North Central :

Proportion having : Pet. ! 58 12 51 27 kk 10 36 21 31 3 20 17 18 2 15 8

Average meals per :

family : No. : k.9 .6 3.2 1.1 2.5 .k 1.6 .5 1.1 .1 .7 .3 1.2 .1 .9 .2

South :

Proportion having : Pet. kQ 9 kh 16 29 7 25 11 21 2 17 9 23 2 21 5

Average meals per :

family : No. ' k.k .If 3.h .6 1.7 .3 1.1 .3 1.0 .1 .7 .2 1.8 .1 1.5 .2

West :

Proportion having : Pet. ! 57 15 kh 30 ko 12 29 23 31^ k 22 20 19 2 13 9

Average meals per :

family : No. ! h.^ .7 2.7 1.1 2.3 .5 1.3 .5 1.1 .1 .6 .k 1.0 .1 .7 .2

1/ Data obtained in 1955 Siirvey of Household Food Consumption.

2/ Less than 0.05 percent.
.83 -

per urban family in the South. There the average was 1.8 meals compared with 1.0 in

the Northeast and West and 1.2 in the North Central Region. Ohis undoubtedly reflects

the greater emphasis on the School Lunch Program in the southern States. 106/

5.6. Variations in Use of Marketing Services

at One Point in Time

5.6.1. We have,as yet, no direct measure of variations in the use of all marketing services by parts of the U. S. population, but we do have indications from

survey data of how housekeeping households grouped in various ways vary in (l) quantities of purchased foods used, necesseirily including some marketing services, (2) in

expenditures for foods in total and by group and form, (3) in purchases of processed

foods (5.4.2), and {k) in meals eaten out. Comparison of the value aggregates for the

farm level indexes of the quantity of food used by groups of households in spring

1955, which was obtained from all sources, with values for purchased farm foods only

can reveal significant variations among households grouped by region, urbanization,

and income in demands on the marketing system.

5.6.2. Approximations of Marketing Costs

Paid by Groups of Households

Another approach to the study of cross-section variations in use of marketing

services is illustrated by data in table 5.2. Sources of data and procedures used

described in the footnotes of the table indicate that estimates must be considered

as rougb approximations. Even so, they provide apparently reasonable quantification

of generally observed vauriations in use of marketing services among households differing in urbanization category and level of income.

There is a very wide range in marketing costs paid by groups of households. For

example, the estimate of average marketing costs paid for food at home by all U. S.

households with disposable money incomes over $10,000 in 195^ is three times as high

per person a^ the estimate for those households with less than $1,000 in family

income. The range for all food at home and away from home is even greater.

To compeure variations in approximate food marketing costs per person with veiriations in income, several regressions have been run. I07/ Biey indicate that the income

10^ Other eispects of this subject axe discussed in "Family Meals Away From Home" by

Ennis C. Blake in Family Economics Review, October I958 (6).

107^ Regressions 5.3 to 5.6; Xi = approximate average marketing costs for all food

at home and way, per person in I955 (from table 5.2)

X2 = average disposable money income per person

Regr. 5.3, all U. S. households: Log X^ = +1.07-»-.42 log Xg ; R^ = .98

(.02)

5.If, U. S. \irban households: Log x{ = +1.39+.33 log Xp ; R^ = .91

5.5, U. S. rural nonfarm households: Log XJL = •f.9^.^6 log X2; R^ = .98

(•03) ^

5.6, U. S. farm households: Log X. = 4l.^0+.26 log X2 ; R^ = -92

(.03)

Regression 5.7: X^ = approximate average marketing costs for food at home

only, per person in 1955 (from table 5.2)

X2 = average disposable money income per person

All U. S. households: Log x' = 4-1.17+.37 log Xp ; R^ = -98

^ (.02)
- dk

Table 5.2.—Approximations for farm value and marketing costs of purchased farm foods used at home

and for marketing costs of food at home and food and heverages away from home, in a

week of spring 1955, per person averages on annual "basis JL/

Obtal marketing costs for

Purchased farm foods consumed at home. food at home and food and

Urbanization, all meals, annual basis 2/ beverages away from home.

household size,

1954 income

: Farm Esqpenditures Farm value as

Marketing costs

after income

taxes

(dollars)

As percent

of U. S.

average

As percent

: value

: ^

for these

foods

percent of

eacpenditures

Value

y

Value of U, S.

average

: Dollars Dpllars Percent Dollars Dollars

All urbanizations

All households ': 130 328 ko 198 100 238 100

1-person 158 liOl 39 243 123 289 122

2 or more 130 327 40 197 100 236 99

Under 2,000 89 200 44 111 56 124 52

Under 1,000 76 166 46 90 h^ 98 4l

1-2,000 98 222 44 124 63 lllO 5?

2-3,000 117 275 43 158 80 181 76

>U,000 126 ^h 40 188 95 216 91

lf-5,000 137 3i*6 1*0 210 106 245 103

5-6,000 lUU 368 39 224 113 261 110

6-8,000 150 391 38 240 121 294 124

8-10,000 151 1*06 37 255 129 316 133

10,000 and over 166 hn 35 312 157 424 178

Not classified 133 3k3 39 211 107 267 112

Urban

All households 1U6 31h 39 228 115 278 117

1-person l6h U27 38 264 133 317 133

2 or more Ih^ 373 39 227 115 277 116

Under 2,000 118 268 44 150 76 172 72

Under 1,000 116 264 44 148 75 166 70

1-2,000 119 269 44 150 76 174 73

2-3,000 130 306 42 177 89 203 85

3-U,000 137 342 40 205 104 238 100

li-5,000 l4i* 367 39 224 113 265 112

5-6,000 153 397 39 244 123 282 119

6-8,000 158 Uli 38 253 128 313 131

8-10,000 157 426 37 269 136 331 139

10,000 and over 171 U97 31^ 327 165 447 188

Not classified 15h 4o8 38 253 128 330 139

Rural nonfarm

All households 12l^ 297 42 173 87 200 84

1-person 150 356 42 206 104 230 97

2 or more 123 295 42 172 87 200 84

Under 2,000 89 193 46 104 53 113 48

Under 1,000 77 165 46 88 h^ 92 39

1-2,000 96 210 46 114 58 126 53

2-3,000 118 268 44 150 75 172 72

3-1^,000 121 290 42 169 193 81

li-5,000 135 328 41 193 98 219 92

5-6,000 138 336 41 198 100 232 98

6-8,000 11^5 369 39 224 113 267 112

8-10,000 159 U15 38 256 129 324 136

10,000 and over 150 397 38 246 124 327 137

Not classified 131 318 41 187 94 213 90

Fam

All households 77 184 42 107 5U 123 52

1-person 111 263 42 152 77 194 82

2 or more 77 183 42 106 5** 122 51

38 Under 2,000 65 147 44 82 41 90

Under 1,000 59 128 46 68 35 76 32

1-2,000 72 168 43 97 ¿9 106 44

2-3,000 79 188 42 108 55 125 53 3-U,000 82 209 39 127 64 1*^5 61 l»-5iOOO 86 211 41 125 63 1U5 61 5-6,000 95 228 42 134 67 16Ö 67 6-8,000

8-10,000 :

88

85

219

215

IK)

liO

130

130

66

66

151

157

63

66 10,000 and over :

Not classified :

118

75 SI 11 197

no i

249

126

105

53

¿7 Basic data on quantities and expenditures from I955 Survey of Household Pbod Consuniption. One week's data times"!?!

g/ Assuming all meals eaten at home, i.e. 21-meal equivalent persons.

3/ Approximate farm values derived as follows: (l) quantities of individual foods used at home converted to fam conanodity

equivalents and valued at 1947-49 average faim prices as part of process of computing cross-section or structural index of per

person use of purchased farm foods; (2) fam values in 1947-49 dollars for groups of foods converted to spring I955 fam prices

using price changes indicated by fam value data for AMS, now ERS, market basket.

y Difference between approximate farm values and expenditures.

¿/ Derived as follows: (l) Estimated marketing costs based on assunçtion of all meals eaten at home adjusted downward for

proportion of meals bought and eaten away from home by family members; plus (2) 72 percent of expenditures per family member for

food and beverages away from home in survey week. The 72 percent is an approximation of proportion of marketing costs In total

expenditures away from home, derived from time-series data for 1955.
-85 -

elasticity of these costs is two to three times as high as the income elasticity of

food alone (regressions CS-IA in table k.k). The higher income elasticities for all

U. S. and riiral nonfarm households reflect in part the nonhomogenei ty of the popiilation groups covered. The cross-section income elasticities of marketing costs for all

U. S. households are close to those based on postweu: time-series data (regressions

5.1 and 5.2).

5.6.3» Farm Value Related

to Expenditures

The relationships of the approximate farm values of purchased foods to expenditures for food at home eilso are measured by data in table 5.2. These percentages axe

not directly comparable with the farmer*s share data of the market basket because of

slightly different quantity weights, inclusion of imported foods, and much less

precision in the comparison of farm and retail prices. Households in major groupings

used different amounts of marketing services and varying qualities of food, and they

paid different prices. All of these balance out in the U. S. urbeui average data of

the market basket. Despite these differences, the U. S. urban percentage for

"farmer's share" in table 5.2 of 39 percent comes out quite close to the kl percent

share from the market basket data. [Table kj of Misc. Pub. T^l (33).]
- 86 -

Chapter 6. CHANGES IN T^ VALUE OF PXX)D CONSUMED

The great changes in the U. S. economic and social structure of the last

30 years have materially affected the values of food consumed by U. S. civilians.

Their net effects on the food situation can "be studied with the variety of value,

quantity, and price data now available. Each value or quantity measure for civilian

consunçtion of food, described in MP-chapter 3, is designed to gauge changes in a

particular combination of foods and of food marketing services. 108/ This chapter

outlines the major changes in such combinations in the 31-year period, 1929-59•

6.1. Value Measures at the Supplier Level

6.1.1. The total supplier value of food used by U. S. civilians went up from

$10.If billion in 1929 to ^5.^ billion in 1959 (TFV-5 in MP-table 3.3). During this

period the civilian population increased ^3 percent. Over this span of years, both

the general price level and farm prices of food commodities rose about two-thirds. 109/

Prices of foods such as coffee and fishery products probably went up more than those

for domestic fann foods. After taking the population and changes in general price

level into account, it appears that the supplier value of food consvimed per capita in

constant dollars was practically the same in 1959 as it had been in 1929- In contrast,

the more direct measure of change in per capita quantity, FFQrGa in MP-table 3.2, shows

a 9 percent increase.

Next the changes over the 31-year period in the major sectors of the supplier

picture are considered.

6.1.2. Food Sold by

U. S. Farmers

Food commodities sold by farmers for civilian food (TFV-1 in MP-table 3.3) have

made up an increasing proportion of total supplier val\ie as home production has

declined. Olie low point was in 1933 when farm prices were down, and there was probably more emphetsis on home prodxiction. The proportion was relatively high in the years

immediately after World War II, \dien farm food prices were at their hi^est ratio to

prices of all goods and services in the 3l-year period surveyed. The proportion

declined slightly in the early 1950's, then rose again.

108/ Exhibit B in appendix A contains a guide to components of total value series

given in MP-chapter 3. It is helpful in distinguishing among the several value series.

The series are described in MP-sections 3*2-3.5*

109/ The price series used in this chapter and the soiirces of historical and

current data are: (l) Bureau of Labor Statistics series for Consumer Price Index,

urban retail prices for food at hcsne, and prices for nonfood goods cuod services are

published in the Monthly Labor Review (k'j) and also in table 52 of Agr. Handb. 62

(32) (2) The AMS,now ERS, market basket series are published in index form in table

^ ff"of Misc. Pub. 71^1 (33) and currently in the Marketing Mid Transportation Situation

(3^). Part II of Misc. Pub. 7^1 describes these series, de nomenclature has been

changed somewhat for this bulletin. "Fiarm food prices" here refers to the prices of

food at the farm level, measiired by the index of the faxm value of market basket.

The price of food marketing services is measured by the index of the "farm to retail

spread" or marketing margin for the market basket with its fixed content of farm food

commodities.
-87 -

Except for 1938 and 1939> the total value of femn commodities sold for food

increased steadily from the 1932 low to a peak of $19.3 billion in 19l*8. In this 16-

year period, farm food prices quadrupled, i>er capita use of purchased U. S. fcinií foods

(PFft-4b) rose more than a fifth, and the civilian population had increased 16 percent,

ihe total val\ie figure declined in 19^9 ^^^ early 1950 as postwar export demand slackened. Thereafter, it was affected by the Korean outbreak, \^ich pushed up farm prices,

and this value series reached a new peak in 1951« Frcan 1952 to 1955 the farm prices

and the annual veuLue of food sold for civilian \ise declined. After 1955^ increases in

the population and higher prices raised the total, and a new high was reached in 195Ô«

In brief, behind the increase of $12.5 billion in the farm value of domestic

farm foods sold to civilian consximers from 1929 to 1959 have been these net changes:

(l) Population up ^3 percent; (2) farm food prices up 56 percent (as measured by the

market basket data); (3) per capita vLse of purchased domestic farm foods up 27 percent

as home production decreased and people ate more sind better foods.

In per capita terms the farm value of farm foods sold almost doubled from I929

to 1959. But the averages were lower in 195^-59 T&han in 191^7 and 1948 and in I95I to

1953 when prices were hi^er.

A number of regression analyses have been developed for study of interrelationships among the food value, income, price and quantity series. Bie results are tallied in table 6.1. Regressions 6.1 and 6.2 indicate that changes in per capita values

of farm foods have been related more to chcmges in farm food prices than to changes in

average consumer income. As expected, the farm vaJ-ue of domestic farm foods sold has

been tied more closely to consimier income than the value series including home-produced supplies. An attempt to separate the relationships of changes in the farm sales of

food to (1) changes in home production, (2) qioantity of food purchased, (3) income,

and (4) prices yielded unsatisfactory results (regression 6.3 ia table 6.1 ). It seems

the year-to-year changes in home production are not measured adequately with available

data.

The ccnmiodity data on farm value of domestically produced farm foods sold which

are developed in connection with research on farm-to-retail marketing costs provide a

generally satisfactory measure of changes in the commodity makeup of the farm value

series. 110/ Because of the detail involved, they are not described in this report.

In 1929, when the farm value of domestic farm foods sold to civilians amounted

to $7.2 billion, the total marketing bill for those foods was $9-7 billion including

taxes and tips. At the 1932 low of the farm food sales, $3.^ billion, the marketing

bill was $7.5 billion. From 1933 to 1959 the total marketing bill increased practically every year, reaching $39.0 billion in 1959 (TFV-15b in MP-table 3.8). In that

year the farm value of these foods accounted for only 3^ percent of total expenditures

by U. S. civilians for domestic farm foods, including taxes and tips. Die changing

relationships among this series on farm value and those for retail value and consumer

expendit\ares for farm foods are summarized by figure 6.1.

6.1.3. Home Production

The importance of home-produced farm foods in the total supplier value of all

food in the late 1950's was only half as important as in 1929-39* T3ie decline in

relative importance of home production began during World War II. It accelerated

110/ Data given in table 33 of Misc. Pub. 7^1 (33) and republished for handy reference as table kQ of Agr. Handb. 62 (3^).
Table 6.1.—Summary of least-squares regressions with time-series of selected value measures for civilian food and major factors or conçonents 1/

Regres- Value measure

! for food

; \

X2 ='3 : ^1. ; ==5 : Period :Constant

: term

Regression coefficient for 2/

sion

number ; X2 : X

3

xi, ; xj ;

R2

6.1 : Farm value of all Disposable Farm food 1929-Ul -.22 +.26 (.08)

(.17)

+ .78 (.08) .98

.98 : domestic farm foods. income 19tô-57 -.05 +.10 +.91* (.08)

: per capita

: (fFy-1 t F^-g)

per capita CPI Combined -.24 +.19 (.03) +.90 (.01*) — — .99

CPI

6.2 : Farm value of Disposable Farm food 1929-lfl -.71* +.1*0

[ ^] +.77 (.08)

(.06

.98

.99 : domestic farm income prices 19^*8-57 -.38 +.23 +.88

: foods sold,per

: sapAiift (PFY-1)

: CPI

CPI

CPI Combined -1.02 +.1*1* (.03) +.87 (.01*) — — .99

6.3 : Farm value of Use of home- Use of purchased Disposable Farm food 1929-1*1 -1.68 +.03 (.26) +.76 (.31*) +.06 (.19) +.98 (.12) .99

: domestic farm produced farm farm foods income 191*8-57 -1.32 +.13 (.08) +.16 (.29)

(.15)

+.1*0 (.21)

+.03 (.08)

+.81* (.08) • 99 : foods sold, per

: capita (PFV-l)

: CPI

foods, per

capita

(domestic), per

capita (PPQ-l^b) CPI

CPI Combined -1.73 +.01 (.01*) +.83 +1.01 (.01*) .99

6.k : Retail value of Food consunçtion Retail food 1929-lH -1.02 +.67 (.15) +1.10 (.08)

(.10)

.96 : all food, per per capita prices 191*8-57 +1*.35 -1.03 (.36) +.12 .69

.73 capita ÍPFV-9).

: CPI

(retail, PF(ï-2) CPI Combined -.1*3 +.66 (.21*) +.81 (.12) — —

6.5 : Retail value of Disposable 1929-lH +.51* +.61 (.10) ___ .76

: all food, per income 191^-57 +1.57 +.31 (.08) _ II

.98

.99

capita (PFV-9) per capita Combined +.10 +.77 (.03 _

6.6 Market value of Use of all Farm food Use of marketing Farm-retail 1929-^*1 -1.52 +.60 (.26! +.1*2 (.03) +.1*1* (.13) +.52 (.06)

: domestic farm domestic farm prices services with domestic price spread 19l»8-57 -1.1*6 +.1*9 Í-33;

(.19)

+.1*3 (.06)

(.02)

+.1*7 (.31*) +.58 (.07 .99 food, per capita

(PFV-12a)

foods, per

capita (PPQ-Ua)

farm food, per capita

(PFQ-7)

(index) Combined -1.1*5 +.33 +.1*1 +.6k (.08) +.58 (.03 1.00

6.7 Market value of domestic Disposable Market value of Retail food 1929-1*1 -.02 +.i»o (.06) -.06 (.16) +.65 (.25)

+.98 (.25)

+1.23 (.201

.91* farm foods, per capita income all other food. ..prices 191^-57 +.1*9 +.20 i:o1i -.37 (.ii;i .89 iPFV-12a) per capita CPI Combined -1.08 +.1*5 -.20 (.15) .98 CPI CPI CPI

6.8 Market value of Per capita use Use of all food Farm food Farm-retail 1929-lH -1.28 +.1*2 (.28) +.52 (.11) +.39 (.03) +.56 (.05) • 99 all food, per of all food. marketing prices price spread 19l»ô-57 -1.39 +.22 l:i?l +.71 (.1^1

(.06)

+.39 (.02) +.a (.03) • 99 : capita (PFV-lOb) measured at services, per (index) Combined -1.32 +.26 +.66 +.38 (.01) +.63 (.02) 1,00

supplier level capita (PFQ-3)

(PFQ-6a)

6.9 ! First differences First First First First 1929-lH -.00 +.51* (.21*) +.58 (.11) +.1*6 Í.05)

+.1*6 (.02'i

+.31* (.12) .99 of above variable differences differences differences differences 191^-57 +.00 +.1*3 .09 +.23 1.10) +.33 (.06 • 99 (PFV-lOb) of above of above of above of above Combined +.00 +.1*5 (.17) +.58 (.09) + .1*2 (.031 +.1*7 (.07 • 99 6.10 ': Market value of Disposable 1929-1+1 +.25 +.70 .08) .86

all food, per income I9I18-57 +1.31* +.38 (.07) .77 capita (PFV-lOa) per capita

(includes

Combined -.25 +.88 (.02) ^_ . .

.98

nonmoney)

6.11 ! Market value of Disposable 1929-1*1 +.32 +.68 ( .09 i .81*

all food, per money income 1 191^-57 +1.36 +.38 ( .08 1 ___ .76 capita (PFV-lOa) per capita Combined -.18 +.87 (.02:1

(.Oil

__ __ ,. _ .98 6.12 : Total eacpenditures ïtotal farm value Total value of Total value 1929-1*1 +.36 +.32 +.06' (.01) +.63 (.02) ___ 1.00

for all foods (ex- of domestic farm food imports of marketing 191*8-57 +.32 +.37 (.Oil +.0I* (.00) +.61 (.001

+.62 (.OIJ

1.00

eluding taxes and

tips ^ (TFV-lla)

foods sold and fishery services for Combined +.35 +.31* (.oil +.05 (.011 1.00

(TFV-1) products all food

(TFV-3 + TFV-U) (TFV-lUa)

6.13 :* Eaqwnditures for all Disposable 1929-1*1 +.22 +.69 (.07) — .89 foods (excluding taxes income per capita 191*8-57 +1.00 +,1(0 (.061

(.021

.., ,, .89

and tips), per capita (includes Combined -.1*0 +.92 .99 (PFV-lla) nonmoney)

6.1k i Ejqpendltures for all Disposable 1929-1*1 +.29 +.67 (.08) .86

foods (excluding taxes money 191*8-57 +1.02 +.1*8 (.06)

(.02)

.88

and tips), per capita

ÎPFV-lla)

income Combined -.33 +.91 .98

: per capita

i/ See MP-text chapter 3 for description of measures of food consujnption used. Linear regressions in logarithms. The letter "a" in the code indicates excluding retail sales taxes and tips;

"b" indicates Including. ¿/'Standard errors given in parentheses. ^ Consvuaer Price Index, Bureau of Labor Statistics, k/ Includes nonmoney income except where noted otherwise. 5/ As measured

by farm value of AMS farm food market basket. 6/ Series not published but is TFV-lla, i.e. same as food expenditures TFV-llb except for exclusion of taxes and tips.
-89 -

U. s. PRODUCED FARM FOODS SOLD TO CIVILIANS

Farm Value, Retail Value, Expenditures

$ BIL.

Retail value ^

^^^^'

-\-

J I I I I I I I L

Farm value

I I I I I I I 1 ] J I I L.

1930 1940 1950 1960

* INCLUDES MARKUP OVER RETAIL VALUE FOR FOOD SOLD IN EATING PLACES; EXCLUDES TAXES AND TIPS.

^RETAIL-STORE COST.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. EPS 105-61(4) FCONOKMC RFSFARCh SERVICE

Figure 6.1

VALUES FOR ALL FOOD PER CAPITA

Supplier, Retail, Market, and Marketing Services

DOLLARS

400

200'^

100

60

40

/ Total for marlceting services^-

—\ y ^i;r^¡rv \

Total supplier value ^

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 '

1930 1940 1950

INCLUDING FARM VALUE FOR FOOD SOLD AND HOME PRODUCED. IMPORT VALUE. AND VHARF VALUE

FOR DOMESTIC FISHERY PRODUCTS.

A TOTAL MARKETING BILL FOR ALL MARKETING SERVICES FROM SUPPLIER TO FINAL MARKET LEVEL.

O EXCLUDING TAXES AND TIPS.

1960

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ^ FG. FRS 106-61 (4) ECONOMIC R-^SEAPCh SERVICE

Figure 6*2
. 90 -

after 19^5 as (l) real incomes rose; (2) commercial supplies of farm foods increased,

and farm food prices declined relative to other prices; and (3) the proportion of the

population living on farms decreased sharply.

Althoiigh home production in recent years has been valued in current dollsurs

slightly above that of 1929, in terms of constant dollars the value was down kO to

50 percent. On a per capita basis, the decline in the constant dollair value has been

even more.

The commodity makeup of the total value of home-produced foods, including those

produced by both farm and nonfarm households, has shifted toward less livestock

products (table 6.2). Production of dairy products and poultry and eggs for family

use has gone down much more than production of meat animals. Farm-home production of

beef and veal in recent years has been more than twice as great as in 1929^ paxtly

because of the availability of freezing facilities. Although the total quantity of

home-produced vegetables has been significantly lower in recent years than it probably

was 30 years earlier, higher prices have raised the total farm value. Reduction in

the home production of foods other than beef and veal has increased the relative importance of these meats. Ill/

6.1.4. Imported Foods

Including Fishery Products

The total value series for imported foods including imported fishery products

(TFV-3 in MP-table 3.3) shows that imports tripled between 1929 and 1959. ^e low

points in imports for the 30-year period came in the depression years of the eaxly

1930» s and in the war years, 19^2 and 19^3. Since 1951, the total has been maintained

at $3.2 to $3.U billion each year. On a per capita basis, the current dollar value

do\ibled from 1929 to 1959.

The increases in the value data reflect increases in quantities, in prices, and

in changes in the relative importance of major foods imported. The total quantity of

farm foods imported rose 65 percent from I929 to 1959, but imports of fishery products

went up somewhat more. Oliere is no satisfactory price index for imported foods only,

00 the effects of the price rise on total value cannot be separated clearly from the

effects of changes in makeup. After subtracting the quantity changes, one finds

that 75 to 80 percent of the increase in import value was tied to price and commodity

shifts together.

The princip€Ll changes in the commodity components of imports in terms of value

from 1929 to 1959 were the increases in coffee, tea, and cocoa; the decrease in sxigar;

and -the reduction in imports of oils. Sugar prices have risen less than prices for

many other major imported foods. The quantity of coffee consumed per capita increased

30 percent from I929 to I959, but the average price per pound rose far more.

6.1.5. Domestic Fishery Products

The value data for domestic fish and shellfish catch covers only commercially

cau^t fishery products for edible use {WV-k in MP-table 3.3). When the domestic

commercial catch on a wharf value basis is combined with the import value data for

imported fish, the total is equal to only 2 to 3 percent of the total supplier value

of all foods.

111/ Home production of foods was considered extensively by this author and

Gertrude Gronbech in two articles published in the National Food Situation in April

and July, 1958.(36 n, o).
- 91 -

Table 6.2.—Value of home-produced food: Total, by farm and nonfarm households,and

percentage of total for major commodity groups, I929-58 l/

: Approximate value of

: all home-produced

. Percentage of each srour. in total hnrne produí

rop itemí

:tion

Livestock products C: 3

Year Farm Nonfarm Meat Poultry All ;Fruits

: Total house- house- animals Dairy and Total vege- and Total

: TJ)'V-2 holds holds 2/ eggs i/ tables

k/

; nuts

2/

¿/

: Bil. Bil. Bil.

: dol. dol. dol. Pc.t.,, Pet. Pet. .pet. Pet. Ppt. ppi;.

1929 : 2.0 1.7 0.3 18 28 25 71 22 It 29

1930 ': 1.8 1.6 .2 18 27 23 69 23 5 31

1931 : 1.5 1.3 .2 17 28 23 68 2k 6 32

1932 : 1.1 1.0 .2 15 30 23 68 25 5 32

1933 : 1.2 1.0 .2 ll^ 29 20 63 27 5 37

193»^ : 1.3 1.1 .2 15 31 20 66 25 5 ^

1935 : 1.5 1.3 .2 20 28 23 70 21 5 30

1936 : 1.6 l.k .2 21 27 22 70 22 k 30

1937 : 1.7 l.k .2 20 27 21 69 23 5 31

1938 : l.k 1.2 .2 20 27 2k 71 22 5 29

1939 : l.k 1.2 .2 18 27 22 67 25 5 33

i9to ': l.k 1.2 .2 16 28 21 66 27 It 3k

19IH : 1.7 l.k .3 19 26 22 67 27 k 33

1942 : 2.2 1.8 .k 21 23 22 67 27 k 33

191^3 : 2.9 2.3 .5 19 20 23 62 32 k 38

l9l^U : 2.8 2.2 .6 18 21 21 60 32 5 l»0

1945 : 3.1 2.k .6 18 19 22 60 3k 5 ko

I9h6 : 3.2 2.6 .6 22 22 21 66 26 6 3k

19^1 ! 3.1* 2.8 .7 26 23 21 70 2k It 30

I9i<8 ! 3.k 2.7 .7 25 2k 21 70 2k It 30

1949 : 2.8 2.2 .6 22 23 2k 69 25 5 31

1950 ,! 2.6 2.1 .5 23 2k 21 68 26 5 32

1951 : 3.0 2.3 .6 23 2k 23 70 25 It 30

1952 : 2.9 2.2 .7 20 25 20 65 29 5 35

1953 ! 2.7 2.0 .7 21 22 23 67 27 5 33

195í^ : 2.k 1.8 .6 23 22 20 65 29 5 35

1955 : 2.3 1.7 .6 19 22 21 63 31 5 37

1956 : 2.3 1.7 .6 18 22 21 61 3lf It 39

1957 : 2.2 1.7 .6 21 21 18 60 3k 5 IfO

1958 : 2.2 1.7 .5 26 20 18 6k 31 It 36

1959 è/'- 2.0 1.5 .5 2k 20 15 59 35 5 Itl

il

il

Sources of data described in MP-text sec. 3»2.1.^.

No estimates of nonfarm production made.

Total includes minor items not listed separately.

Including potatoes and sweetpotatoes, dry beans and peas.

Total includes grain products, sugar crops, and minor items.

Preliminary.
- 92 -

In 1929, the imports of fishery prodiicts for civilian use were valiaed at about

15 percent less than the domestic catch. In the late 1950»s the value of imported

fishery products exceeded the value of the domestic catch, but their tonnage of edible

weight varied from half to two-tliirds. This change was affected by the price increases, shifts in the kinds of fish imported, and increases in marketing services

supplied with imported fishery products, such as filleting and freezing. Täe share of

Alaska in total imports decreased in the last decade because of reduced salmon

supplies. 112/

6.1.6. Total Supplier Value

Oiie per capita supplier values of all food are compared in figure 6.2 with per

capita retail value, market value, and the value of marketing services. Ohis chart

illustrates three well-known facts: (l) Supplier values fluctuate more than the total

marketing bill from year to year; II3/ (2) the supplier value of all food per capita

has been significantly lower slncelSkQ except for 1951 and 1952 when the Korean conflict resulted in higher commodity prices; (3) payments for marketing services have

continued to increase.

6.2. Value Measures at Retail

The total retail value of all food consumed by U. S. civilians (TFV-9 in MPtable 3.Í+) covers all foods, including home-produced supplies and fishery products.

While the U. S. total increased from $21^.5 billion in I929 to $66.6 billion in 1959>

the per capita series a little less than doubled. Bie low points in both the total

and per capita series for the period 1929-59 came in 1932 and 1933. A new high in

the per capita rate was reached in 1958«

6.2.1. Quantity and Price

Factors in the caianges

Changes in retail value of food x>er capita result from changes in the quantities

of food consxmed and their prices at retail. Their prices at retail incliade the cost

of food per se and of farm-retail marketing services.

The quantity of food consumed per capita, as measiired by the index of civilian

food per capita at retail (PPQ-2 in MP-table 3.1), rose from 9I percent of the 191^7-^9

base in 1929 to the range of 101-104 in 1955-59 • The Bureau of Labor Statistics index

of retail prices for food at home shows that urban food prices almost doubled from the

beginning to the end of this period. Rural food prices in the 1930*s were lower relative to urban prices than in the 1950's. Allowing for this fact and also that urbcui

prices are paid by an increasing proportion of food buyers, it is safe to conclude

that food prices doubled from I929 to 1959. Year-to-year price changes have been much

greater than changes in quantity, reflecting the short-run price competition for the

available quantities. The price of food is often influenced by changes in purchasing

power before the flow of food supplies can be changed to meet increased demand resulting from the rise in disposable income.

Die relationships of changes in retail value of all food i)er capita to the quantity and price measures have been studied by means of regression 6.k (table 6.1). In

the 1929-^1 period, retail food prices were more closely related to changes in retail

112/ The general term "imports" as used here includes inshipments from Alaska and

U. S. possessions.

113/ Die term "marketing bill" is synonomous with value of marketing services.
- 93 -

value than was the quantity of food consumed. Data for the 191*8-57 period yield

peculiar results because of the postwar adjustments in price relationships. From

19k8 to 1957, the deflated retail value of food per capita declined about 8 percent;

deflated retail food prices went down 7 percent; and the quantity of food consumed

rose 3 percent or so.

6.2.2. Relationship to

Changes in Income

Another regression, 6.5 in table 6.1, shows how the retail value of all food

varied with disposable income in the prewar period, the postwar period, and the com:-

bination of the two. The income elasticity, indicated by the regression coefficients,

decreased significantly from .6 in the prewar period to .3 in the postwar years. The

combination of the somewhat different levels for the two periods raised the elasticity

for the combined period. The difference between the combined elasticity and the prewar elasticity is not significant below the I5 percent level of probability. Il4/

6.2.3- Changes in the Components

Comparison of the several retail value subseries in MP-table 3.if with the total

yields these conclusions: Ihe retail value of farm foods sold went up from 70 percent

of total retail value in 1929 to 80 percent in 1959. Home production fell from I8

percent at the begiiming of the period to 7 percent at the end, with most of the

decline occurring after the war. In 1959 the share of imported foods and fishery

products in total retail value was equal to that of 1929. During the war, this combined group dropped in importance from 12 percent to 8 percent because of the effects

of the war on shipping and supplies.

The only commodity breakdowns available for any of the sets of value data for

time series are those pertaining to farm foods sold. Commodity components of their

retail store values can be studied with the data referred to in footnote 110.

Still another aspect of changes in the retail value of food is the change in the

relative importance of the severaJ. channels throu^ which food reaches consumers.

This subject is considered in section 5.U.

6.3- Changes in Market Value of FOod

Consideration here of historical changes in the market value of food is divided

into two sections—domestic farm foods and all foods. Qîie market value series are

compared with price and quantity series which pertain to the same sectors and with

other major economic changes. No commodity breakdowns of the market value data can

be made because of the lack of information on commodities used outside private homes.

6.3-1. Domestic Farm Foods

The market value of domestic farm foods is measured by series TFV-12a, which

excludes taxes eind tips, and by TFV-12b, which includes them. (MP-table 3.7.) The

aggregate market value of commercial and home-produced farm foods consumed by U. S.

civilians tripled between 1929 and 1959^ ^^t the per capita value a little more than

doubled. The lows of both series were in I932 and 1933- During the years I951 to

1959i "tbe per capita series was fairly level in the range of $320 to $3^5«

llV Olie Fisher "t" test was used to test significance of differences,
-9^.

6.3.1.1. Components of Changes.- The 9 percent increase in the per capita

quantity of domestic farm f5^dn]Sid-(PFa-^a in MP-table 3-2) from 1929 ^^^959 contributed relatively little to the 125 percent increase in per capita market value oí

these foods. The prices of farm food commodities at retail, as measured by the îarm

value in tue market basket series, went up 68 percent. The other major element in the

increase in market value was the shift from home-produced food valued at farm prices

to purchased food valued at retail prices. Superficially, Ulis shift is a price

change, but it actually reflects a change in the purchases of marketing services.

From the mid-1930»s to 19^ all components of the market value series rose—

Quantities of farm foods, farm food prices, quantities of marketing services, and

prices of marketing services (fig. 6.3). The fall in farm prices in 19^9 and early

1950 reduced the market value per capita slightly, but price increases after the

Korean outbreak raised the value series again. In 1952-55, the fall in farm prices

practically offset the increase in marketing services, hereafter, average market

value rose as farm prices and prices of marketing services went up and consumption

fell off slightly due to short-run changes in supplies.

A multiple regression measuring the relationship of changes in average market

value of farm foods to these quantity and price components is reported as regression

6.6 in table 6.1. The coefficients for the k components turn out to be remarkably

close, indicating that their rates of change were related about equally to the changes

in market value. However, the standard errors of the coefficient for the food quantity measure in both prewar and postwar periods were quite high, likewise the standard error for the \ise of marketing services in the later period.

Otie food and marketing service parts of the total market value of domestic farm

foods (including home-produced) changed significantly in relative im.portance over the

31-year period:;^ 1929-59. In 1929 farm value of food sold and home produced accounted

for i|-9 percent of the%)tal excluding taxes and tips. The proportion declined during

the depression of the early 1930's, recovered some, and then fell: again in 1938-to•

Farm value rose in importance during the war to ^k percent of total market value in

19ÍI-3 to 19^5. With the exceptions of 195I and 1958 the farm value or food production

share of the total has continued to decline since World War II. II5/

6.3.1.2. Relationship to Other Changes.- Comparison of changes in per capita

market value of domestic farm foods with disposable income, market value of other food,

and the retail food prices (all deflated, regression 6.7 in table 6.1) yielded these

findings: (l) Market value appeared to vary more with food price changes than with

disposable income. (2) Variations in the value of foods other than domestic farm

foods had little relationship to the value of the latter in 1929-ifl, but seemed to

have a converse effect in 19i*8-57.

6.3.2. Market Value

of All Foods

The total market value of all food (TFV-lOa in MP-table 3.6) has gone up practically to the same extent as the series for domestic farm foods alone. !Dae principal

differences in the movements of the two series were greater declines in the all-food

series in the 1930* s and greater increases for that series in 19^*6 and 19^9 when the

relative shortage of world food supplies raised import prices.

115/ Comparisons of the farmer's share usually are based only on food sold. For

discussion of alternative measures, see '"Die Farmer's Share: Three Measiorements" by

Kenneth E. Ogren in Agr. Econ. Res. April I956 (20).
- 95 -

VALUE OF ALL U. S. FARM FOOD COMPARED

WITH QUANTITIES AND PRICES

For Food and Food Marketing Services (Per CapHa)

INDEXES OF QUANTITIES (1947-49=100)

150

100-

Market value of food'l'

VALUE IN DOLLARS

300

Marketing services t

' ' L lililí ' ' J_l L J L.^ J-L. J I L

100

INDEXES OF PRICES (1947-49=100)"

150

Market value of food '*

I I I I I I

Farm food prices °

■■' ' I '

100

. 0

400

300

200

100

1930 1940 1950 1960

AMS SERIES OH HARKET VALUE OF DOláESTtCALLY-PRODUCED PARIá FOODS COMSUIAED BY OVILIAMS, INCLUDING HOHE^FROOUCED.

A INDEX OF PER CAPITA FOOD USE OF U. S. FARIá COMMODITIES, ALL SOURCES (FARIá LEVEL),

t INDEX OF QUANTITY OF MARKETING SERVICES BOUGHT WITH U. S. FARM FOODS.

O AMS MARKET-BASKET SERIES: FARM FOOD PRICES 8ASED ON FARN VALUE OF FOOD AND FARM-RETAIL-STORE «MARKETMC

MARGIN USED AS PRICE INDEX FOR MARKETING SERVlCÈL

U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS99.61(4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 6.3
-96-

6.3.2.1. Changes in Price and Quantity Components.- Prewar and postwar average

relationships of changes in market value per capita to changes in prices and quantities of food per se and of food marketing services are measured in regressions 6.8 and

6.9 of table 6.1. Although at first glance the changes in quantity of all food consumed appear to have had less relation to changes in market value of all food than was

the case for domestic farm foods only, the high standard errors prevent substantiation

of that inference.

Changes in the market value of all U. S. civilian food from 19^1 to 1955 are

summarized in table 6.3. 116/ The $2.8 billion increase in supplier value and $5.9

billion increase in payments for marketing services are measured in terms of 19^1

dollars, ühese increases in value tie in with changes in quantities of farm food per

se and of food marketing services described earlier in this article. Changes in value

ascribed to price rises work out to 9^4- percent for all foods at the supplier level and

106 percent in marketing services. Ihe value of the price rise for farm foods, imported foods, and fish was computed as a residual. A checking of this 9k percent increase against the Qk percent increase in the USDA index measuring farm food prices 117/

shows greater inci^eases in prices of non-U. S. farm foods and probably also

some change in the relative importance of individual foods. The price increase for

marketing services was based on the increase in the farnt-to-retail price spread of the

farm food market basket, the only price measure available for marketing services.

Table 6.3-- Changes in market value of U.

from I9UI to 1955

S. civilian food

Item

Supplier value

For greater quantity (in I9UI dollars)

Price increase (on I9Í.I q\aantity and for

increase in quantity since I9U1)

Payments for marketing services

For handling larger volume and for additional services (in 19^4-1 dollars)

Price increase (on 1914.1 quantity and for

more services since 1914-1 )

Total market value (excluding taxes,

tips)

VeûLue

Bil. dol.

9.7

11.5

21.2

Bil. dol.

2U.2

35.8

Bil. dol.

60.0 38.8

11^ ais period is used because spring 19^2 and 1955 household survey data are used

in some of the analyses. The procedure used for this analysis is described, oxá the

analysis is carried further, in MP-section k.^.

UjJ Derived from the farm value of the farm food market basket, reported regularly

in the Marketing and Transportation Situation (3^).
- 97 -

For comparison with these price changes, use of the BLS Consumer Price Index is

appropriate. This index of retail prices paid by urban consumers for all goods and

services rose 82 percent from 19^1 to 1955«

6.3.2.2. Relationship to Income.- The market value of all food accounted for a

much smaller proportion of disposable income per capita in 195^-59 "than in 1929-33^

22 to 23 percent compared with 27 to 30 percent. The food share was high in the

depression years and in 19^7 and 19^. In the latter years, food prices were relatively high. But the food share was low during the war years when prices were

controlled and in recent years when an increasing sheure of income has been allocated

to nonfood goods and services. These relationships are illustrated in figure 6.k.

Compared with prices in the l^kj^k^ base period, retail food prices in Consumer

Price Index were lower relative to the prices of nonfood goods and services in the

1930*s. In 1952 to 1956 retail food prices dipped, but they rose sharply in 1958.

The price of nonfood goods and seiwices in the CPI have continued to rise without

interruption since 19Í0. After allowing for price changes indicated by these two

subseries of the CPI, one finds that the market value of all food per capita in

constant dollars has changed little since 19^7^ ^ut purchases of other goods and services in constant doLlcirs have increased a fourth.

!Dtie per capita market v€ú.ue series in current dollars was compared with disposable total income in regression 6.10 and with disposable money income in regression

6.11 (table 6.1). Ihe exclusion of income in kind had practically no effect on the

relationship between income and market value. Hie relationship of market value to

income declined significantly from prewar to postwar, as was the case for retail

value. Bie higher income elasticity for the combined periods reflects the higher

level of use of marketing services after the war.

INCOME, NONFOOD EXPENDITURES. AND

MARKET VALUE OF FOOD

( Per Capita)

Nonfood goods

"and services *"

V

g^^" Market value of food**

1930 1940 »950 I960

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

* Der/yet/ from Department of Commerce series.

•• AMS series for oil civilian food.

NEC. ERS 96-61(4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure ^^
-98-

S,k. Expenditures for Food and Food Marketing Services

Expenditures for food and food marketing services differ from total market

value by the value of home-produced food. For lack of data on the game catch of fish

(the home-produced, so to speak) the only home-produced foods used In these series

are the farm food commodities. With the decline In home production, expenditures for

farm foods have Increased more than expenditures for all foods. For the following

discussion of expenditures for foods the ERS series Including taxes and tips are used.

(TFV-llb for all foods In MP-table 3.6 and TFV-13b for domestic farm foods In MP-table

3.7-)

6.^.1. Expenditures

for U. S. Farm Foods

The expenditures or dollar outlays by U. S. civilians for foods produced by

U. S. farmers totaled $58.7 billion In 1959 compared with $l6.9 billion In I929.

Expenditures declined In the 1930's as far as $10.9 billion In 1932 and I933 because

of the depression. Wartime and postwar economic prosperity raised prices and Increased the quantities of farm foods and marketing services used by U. S. civilians.

Also, the civilian population increased 32 percent from 19ÍI-1 to 1959-

On a per capita basis, expenditures for U. S. farm foods were lU2 percent

higher in 1959 than in I929. The change in the retail price of the market basket of

farm foods from 1929 to 1959 vas approximately the same as the change in the CPI.

Adjustment for price change brings the Increase in expenditures for farm foods per

capita down to 33 percent, in constant dolletrs. Hhe per capita quantity of domestic

farm foods p\irchased by civilieuis (PFft-^b) increased a little over a fourth from the

beginning to the end of this ^1-year period and use of marketing services per capita

bought with farm foods (PPQ-7) went up abont a half.

Changes in the farm food expenditure series were compared with those of the

series on retail-store value of farm foods (described in MP-3.3.2) for the 1938-57

period in a 1958 article in the Marketing and Transportation Situation. 118/

The relative Importance of the farm value of farm foods sold and of their marketing bill in market value of these foods has already been discussed in connection

with the farm value series (6.1.2).

In the lo-year period 1929-38, when expenditures for farm foods per capita in

191^7-1^9 dollars varied only from $190 to $210, the fam population made up 24 to

26 percent of the total civilian population. Since then, eacpenditures in constant

dollars have Increased by a half \Aiile the farm pop\ü.ation has dropped from 24 to

12 percent. This decline in the farm popxilatlon combined with (l) the decrease in

average home production by farm households and nonfarm households and (2) the general

Increase in the demand for food and food marketing services to bring about the increase of 30 percent in purchases of domestic farm foods from I938 to I959 and the

increase of 55 percent in the purchases of marketing services with those foods.

6.4.2. Expenditures

for All Food

6.4.2.1. The ERS series used here, "civilian expenditures for all food," differs

conceptually from the Commerce series, "coïisuir5È>tion expenditures for food," by the

exclusion of home-produced foods and military food and by the inclusion of the value

¿¿8/ Burk and Scott "Consumer E3q)enditurês for Food" (ü).
- 99 -

of meals served institutional inmates and travelers • 119/ These elements have been

practically offsetting in recent years. During the depression years 1930-36, the

Agriculture series ran somewhat higher than the Commerce series of estimates.

Series TFV-llb in MP-table 3*6 shows an increase in the aggregate from $20.1

billion in I929 to $67.9 billion in 1959 while the per capita series went from $165

to $389. The low point of the series was in 1933» In 1951 to 1957 the per capita

series stayed in the general range of $360 to $380. The quantity index for farm

foods and fishery products purchased by consumers, measured at the supplier level

(PFQ-6b in MP-table 3.2), varied from 80 in I935 to 109 in 1956 (19^7-^9 average

equals lOO) . The quantity of marketing services (measured by PFÔ-3) ^'©nt up from an

index of 6k in I935 to I08 in I956, significantly more than the increase in the

quantity of food. The variations in the two quantity series for food and for services

in the period ISkQ to 1959 vei^ quite close, but the price of marketing services rose

about a third and the food price series declined a fifth.

6.U.2.2. Changes in Components.- The major components of expenditures for all

foods are the fana value of farm foods sold by American farmers, the supplier value

of inçorted foods and domestic fishery products, and the value of marketing services

for all food. The changes in these series are summarized by figure 6.5 and by regression 6.12 (in table 6.I) . 120/ Depressed farm prices resulted in low shares for

CIVILIAN FOOD EXPENDITURES

(Excluding taxes and fips)

$ BiLr

1930 1940 1950

*AAtS ser/es excluding home-produced food and military food.

I960

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS 94-61(4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 6« 5

119/ The Agriculture series (TFV-llb) is described in MP-sec. 3.^.3«3 and the

Commerce series in MP-3.6.2.

lao/ These analyses were for an unpublished food eaqpenditure series, excluding

taxes and tips. The use of this series reflects the author's question about including retail sales taxes as a part of paynents for, or costs of, marketing services.

\
- 100 -

farmers in the 1930*s, while the upsurge in farm prices raised the farm values to ^3

percent of the total in 19^3. Since then, the domestic farm share has represented a

decreasing percentage each year—except for a small increase in I951 and 1958. ^e

proportion reached 29 percent in 1959« ^e lowest proportion of expenditures going

to marketing services was in 19^3-^5, with a steady rise since then.

Regression 6.12 indicates that for the period 19^8-57 as a whole, total expenditures for food varied a little more with farm value of farm food sold than in 1929-U1.

In both periods, the marketing bill was more important in total expenditures than the

farm value.

dere are no time series data on expenditures for individual commodities or

commodity groups.

6A.2.3. Relationship to caaanges in Income.- Expenditures or dollar outlays for

all foods may be compared with disposable money income to see the changing significance of food. !Die proportion has varied considerably over the years. It ranged from

26 to 30 percent in 1929-35, with a high of 30 percent in 1933. From 1935 to 19k^,

income went up faster than food expenditures which were affected by price controls on

food and by limitations on marketing services during the war years. After decontrol

in 19^6 retail food prices rose kj percent within 2 years, and consumption, as measured by disappearance into distribution channels, increased too. Fran 19^7 to 1955 the

percentage of disposable money income allocated to food decreased each year except in

1951. In 1955-58 the proportion was fairly stable at 22 to 23 percent. It moved down

to 21 percent in 1959.

Regressions 6.13 and 6.1^ show that the income elasticity of food expenditures

also declined from prewar (.67 to .69) to postwar (.tó). Gradual increases in average

use of marketing services, not directly related to income, appeurently resulted in the

redviction in income elasticity. Here, too, the income elasticity for the combined

periods was significantly higher than for the prewar period, reflecting the higher

level of marketing services bou^iit with food since World War II.
- 101

APPENDIX A, Guides to U5DA Food Quantity and Value Series

Eachibit A,—Guide to USDA per capita food quantity and value series \l

Per capita

quantity

(Indexes :

Per capita value data 2/

Item ;

.Supplier Retail : Market level : Expenditures

1947-U9=100^ level value : ^/ : 5/

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

Dol. D9I. Dsii

Food — supplier level :

Domestic farm food commodities :

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

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

All sources PPQ-Ua 101 PFV-12b 325

Imported

Farm (TFV-3)'1

Fishery products [

Total PKi-5 101 ) (TFV-6)

Fishery products [

U, S. (TFV-4) j

Total ^

Domestic and isqported

Farm foods

Sold \ PF5i-lb 106

All sources : PP^la 101

Fam foods- and fishery

products

Sold : PF^6b 106 PFV-llb 363

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

All food at retail level U/ : PPQ-2 102 PFV-9 362

Marketing services 5/

With domestic farm foods : PÎQ-7 106 (TFV-15a)

With all food : PFQ-3 lOlf 1 TFV-lUa)

CosmosIte quantity index of all

foods used plus all marketing

services : PF^ 103 PFQ-lOb 377

In this table the following initials are used: £ for food; J for total; £ for per capita; â for

quantity; and Ï for value,

1/ References to MP-tables for data in other years and to MP-text sections for description of serl s:

Code

PF^la

PFCi-lb

PF^2

Pî^-3

PFQ-ifa

PFQ-Ub

PKè-5

PF^6a

PPQ-6b

PFQ-7

PF5r8

IFV-l

TFV-2

TFV-3 TFV-Í

TFV-5

TFV-6

PFV-6

TFV-7

Table Section

3.1.2.2

3.1.2.2

3.1.2.3

3.5.2

3.1.2.2

3.5.2

3.1.2.1*

3.2.1.3

3.2.1.U

3.2.2

3.2.3

3.2.4

3.3.2

3.3.2

3.3.3

Code

TFV-8

TFV-9

PFV-9

TFV-lOa

TFV-lOb

PFV-lOb

TFV-llb

PFV-llb

TFV-12a

TFV-12b

PFV-12b

TFV-13b

PFV-13b

TFV-lUa

TFV-ll*d

PFV-llkl

TFV-15a

TFV-15d

PPV-15d

Table

X-

.6

3.6)

3.6

3.7',

3.7

3.7

3.7V

3.7 3.Ö3.Ö\

3.81

3.Ö3.Ô1

3.0J

3.6

Section

3.3.3

3.3.3

3.3.3

3.**.3.1

3.1^.3.1

3.U.3.I

3.1^.3.3

3.4.3.2

3.4.3.4

3.5.1.1

3.5.2

3.5.1.2

3.5.2

2/ Code for total value data given for those series for which per capita data are not published.

2/ Subserles a excludes r«t«ll sales taxes and tip», b Includes them, it/ Includes all food and those

marketing services between farm and retail level. 5/ Including services of eating places along with

others to final market level.
Exhibit B.—Guide to conrponents of USDA total food value series l/

Item

Food per se

Domestic farm food

coimnodltles

Sold to U. S. civilians : TFV-1 18.3

Home produced (fam and

nonfemn) : TFV-2 2.3

Total 20.6

Inqported foods ! TFV-3 3.3

U. S. fishery products : TFV-if •3

Tbtal

Marketing services

With domestic fara food

commodities

With all foods

Supplier

level

Marketing

services

from

supplier

to retail

level

Code 1 Value . Code : Value

Bll. Bll.

dol.

Retail

level

Code

Mazicetlng

services

from

supplier

to final

market

Value: Code : Value

Value at

final

market

level

2/

Code : Value

RetaU

sales

taxes

and

tips

Eacpendltures

for

purchased

foods

2/

Value

BU.

dol.

Bll.

dol.

BU. BU.

dol. dol.

BU.

dol.

TFV-5 24.2

TFV-6 Ii6.3

TPV-7

51.1

\TIFV-8 7.6

TFV-9 58.7

26.0

TFV-lUa 35-7

fTFV-12a

lTFV-12b

51.8

52.8

1.0

TFY.13b 50.5 1

fTFV-lOa

\TFV-10b

60.0

61.2

1.2

TFV-llb 58.9

ro

TFV-15a

TFV-lka

31-2

35.8

1.0

1.2

TFV-15b

TFV-lto

32.2

37.0

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

Code Tiable

TFV-l 3.3

TFV-2 3.3

TFV-3 3.3

TFV-U 3.3

TFV-5 3.3

TFV-6 3A

TFV-7 3.«^

Section

3.2.1.3

3.2.1.^

3.2.2

3.2.3

3.2.4

3.3.2

3.3.3

Sfidfi

TFV-8

XFV-9

TFV-lOa

TPV-lOb

TFV-llb

TPV-12a

TFV-12b

Bable aaettoa Tiable Section

3.4

3.1»

3.6

3.6

3.7

3.7

3.3.3

3.3.3

S.i^.S.l

3.U.3.I

3.U.3.3

3.4.3.2

3.4.3.2

TrV-13b 3.7 3.4.3.4

TFV-l»ia 3.8 3.5.1.1

TFV-l4b 3.8 3.5.1.1

TFV-15a 3.8 3.5.1.2

TFV-15b 3.8 3.5.1.2

0/ c5ii"hQi»T-ii»<5 a excludes taxes and tips, subseries b includes them.

% SrSble-33 of Sscr^b. 741 F^r^Retall Sß^gds í^ fijsâ Produce (33) . Mentioned in MP-section 3.5.I.2.
APPENDIX B.

- 103 -

Regional Quantity Indexes and Value Data

Table B. 1 .—NORTHEAST: Cross-section indexes of per person food consunçtion (retail level) for

major commodity groups, by urbanization and family income, 1955 i/

(Index U. S. all household aversÄe = 100)

Livestock CroDS

Pota-:

Urbanization : AU Dairy All

livestock

Grain: Fats Sugar

and

sirups

toes :

All

crope

8/

and income groups :

(dollars) :

food

2/

Meat

: ^

Poultry

Eggs products

y

prod-:

ucts :

¿/ ;

and

oils

6/

Fruits

2/

Vegetables

and :

sweet-:

pota-:

toes :

ALL URBANIZATIONS :

All households : 101 102 117 93 102 103 91 97 91 106 104 103 99

Households of 2

or more persons 101 102 116 93 102 103 91 97 92 106 103 103 99

Under 2,000 88 Ih 102 93 95 87 96 98 85 93 82 124 90

2 - 3,000 97 101 85 93 101 98 101 91 93 93 94 117 95

3 - i^,ooo 96 96 99 86 98 96 90 96 94 96 101 112 96

k - 5,000 100 102 118 88 104 102 89 89 87 102 103 97 96

5 - 6,000 lOl^ 105 123 99 105 106 98 99 96 109 106 96 103

6 - 8,000 108 112 l4o 97 103 110 92 99 98 117 103 98 102

Ô - 10,000 106 95 147 106 101 106 85 110 101 127 112 89 106

10,000 and over 108 105 134 112 104 110 80 111 93 116 121 92 106

URBAN

All bousehold£ 102 104 131 93 99 104 87 95 86 106 106 94 98

Households of 2

or more persons : 101 104 130 92 98 104 87 95 86 104 105 P 97

Under 2,000 : 78 67 114 81 73 76 78 76 62 87 77 87 78

2 - 3,000 : 93 97 106 87 92 95 90 84 88 85 96 96 90

3 - U,000 : 98 98 111 88 96 98 89 97 89 95 103 108 95

k - 5,000 : 100 104 128 85 104 104 88 89 83 101 106 ^. 95

5 - 6,000 : 106 109 133 99 106 no 94 98 88 107 108 86 101

6 - 8,000 : 109 114 l6l 100 99 113 92 101 97 114 102 92 102

8 - 10,000 : 101 89 144 107 94 100 82 103 95 124 108 80 102

10,000 and over : 107 102 142 112 100 109 78 114 92 111 118 90 103

RURAL NONFAPM

All households ': 98 96 85 89 106 96 97 100 101 107 96 120 102

Households of 2

or more persons ': 98 96 85 89 105 96 97 99 100 106 96 120 101

Under 2,000 : 90 68 96 81 108 86 110 116 95 87 90 147 97

2 - 3,000 : 100 107 53 98 108 98 118 97 95 99 94 135 103

3 - if,000 : 88 85 71 78 93 84 89 89 100 94 96 111 96

k - 5,000 : 96 94 92 93 106 96 90 90 98 102 90 119 97

5 - 6,000 : 100 97 101 94 104 98 106 100 110 113 97 113 106

6,000 and over : 108 115 91 92 115 109 90 102 103 125 108 115 106

FA»1

All households i 113 109 83 125 133 116 108 111 128 116 103 165 no

Households of 2

or more persons : 113 109 82 122 135 116 108 109 127 117 104 165 no

Under 2,000 : 117 110 83 154 132 119 119 129 134 119 109 189 118

2 - 3,000 : 115 120 70 128 137 122 111 1?2 124 119 94 197 no

3 - U,000 : 105 105 63 99 149 113 98 97 117 103 87 154 96

k - 5,000 : 111 127 72 112 101 111 102 98 140 117 no 161 n3

5 - 6,000 : 120 111 171 148 117 124 109 97 133 114 96 137 108

6,000 and over : 116 95 132 117 152 118 103 106 113 139 114 131 n4

1/ Derived frcm 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey data on household use of individual foods

average retail prices in 1947-49. Family money income in 1954 measured after income taxes.

Includes fish.

Excludes lard

uBing

1/ Inciîîdes sane commodity groups (dry beans and peas, coffee, tea, and cocoa, etc.) not shown separately.

^J Includes an ingredients in ice cream and condensed milk, excludes butter,

5/ Excludes corn sugar and sirup.

5/ Excludes peanuts and peanut butter.

7/ Includes melons.
- 104-

Table B. 2.—NORTH CENTRAL REGION: Cross-section indexes of per person food consumption (retail level) for

major commodity groups, by urbanization and family income, 1955 l/

(Index: U. s. an household averapice = 100)

Livestock Crops

. Potar-:

Urbanization ': All Dairy All Grain: Fats Sugar

and

sirups

• toes : An

and income groups

(dollars)

: food

: ^

Meat Poultry

Eggs products

4/

livestock

prod-:

ucts :

and

oils

6/

Fruits

1/

Vegetables

and :

sveet-:

. pota-:

cx^

toes :

ALL URBANIZJVTIONS

All households ': 107 111 95 104 in no 99 105 110 114 103 n8 105

Households of 2

or more persons ; 107 ni 95 103 n5 109 99 105 no n3 102 119 105

Under 2,000 : 100 96 104 119 109 104 99 98 n7 103 85 n8 98

2 - 3,000 : 102 108 69 103 117 106 99 102 104 98 92 124 97

3 - i^,000 : 101 104 80 98 108 102 105 102 m 100 92 133 102

k - 5,000 I 104 109 89 98 113 106 99 104 108 104 98 119 102

5 - 6,000 : no n7 112 101 n4 113 101 103 106 n6 103 113 106

6 - 8,000 : 112 n5 104 104 116 113 98 106 112 n7 no 120 no

8 - 10,000 : 112 n3 85 99 n8 111 91 n8 124 141 n4 n7 n6

10,000 and over: 120 n4 126 in 129 122 93 123 n3 149 138 92 120

URBAN

All households : 109 n3 106 99 m no 96 io4 105 n7 112 108 108

Households of 2

or more persons i 108 n3 104 98 ni 109 96 104 106 n6 112 109 107

Under 2,000 : 100 108 107 118 87 101 92 96 106 109 102 101 103

2 - 3,000 : 96 no 69 83 102 100 86 93 85 88 100 107 91

3 - 4,000 . 103 106 98 90 106 103 102 102 107 102 105 125 105

4 - 5,000 . 103 lOT 106 94 109 105 99 97 104 105 102 114 103

5-6,000 UO n8 130 102 109 114 94 103 105 n4 105 103 105

6 - 8,000 112 n6 99 102 n7 n2 98 105 112 n8 n6 n2 in

8 - 10,000 113 n4 91 102 n5 m 88 n8 122 147 120 104 119 10,000 and over 122 120 119 115 125 123 92 125 n4 155 146 84 123

RURAL WONFARM

All households 102 105 81 101 109 103 103 103 108 107 91 123 102

Households of 2 .

or more persons : 101 105 80 100 no 103 103 102 107 104 90 123 101 Under 2,000 : 87 81 95 103 91 88 107 89 99 84 72 114 89 2 - 3,000 : 103 104 59 no n4 102 111 106 no 99 96 131 105 3 - 4,000 : 93 97 58 97 98 92 109 94 no 92 77 iS 97 4 - 5,000 : 101 106 59 96 in 102 98 112 in 97 93 n7

1^ 5 - 6,000 : 109 n6 91 94 n5 109 n4 98 101 123 102 n7

6,000 and over : 108 103 119 98 120 no 97 no n4 127 97 124 108

FARM !

All households :

Households of 2 :

m n3 82 125 137 120 105 112 128 no 87 147 101

or more persons : in 112 83 125 137 120 105 112 128 no 88 147 101 Under 2,000 : 112 100 104 133 139 n8 108 107 138 112 96 133

1^3

106 2 - 3,000 :

3 - 4,000 :

4 - 5,000 :

5 - 6,000 :

6,000 and over :

112 no 76 129 148 122 109 n3 131 111 79 100 ni 109 68 137 142 120 107 n7 136 no 84 11(2 102 113 :i23 71 121 136 123 102 119 123 in 90 Itó 101 no n3 70 113 l4o n8 107 112 120 104 89 158

161»

100 112 123 112 n2 129 125 101 n3 124 108 79 96

1/ Derived from 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey data on household use of individual foods, usine

average retail prices in 1947-49. Family money income in 1954 measured after income taxes.

2/' Includes fish,

3/ Excludes lard.

V Includes an ingredients in ice cream and condensed milk, excludes butter.

3/ Excludes corn sugar and sirup.

b/ Excludes peanuts and peanut butter.

7/ Includes melons.

5/ Includes sane comnodity groups (dry beans and peas, coffee, tea, and cocoa, etc.) not shown separately.
-105-

Table B. 3 . —SOUTH Cross-section indexes of per person food consumption [retail level) for

major commodity groups. by urbanization and family ;Income, 1955 1/

(Index: U. S. aU household averace = 100^

Livestock CroDs

Pota-:

Urbanization : All Dairy Grain: Fats toes :

and income groups : food Meat Poul- prod- All

livestock

prod-: and Sugar

Fruits Vege- and : ALI

(dollars)

: ^

i/ try Eggs ucts

y

ucts : oils

6/

and

sirups 2/ tables sweet-:

pota-:

crops

87

; toes :

ALL UBBANIZATIONS

All households ! 89 83 93 97 81 86 109 97 98 77 89 83 93 Households of 2

or more persons i 88 83 91 96 81 85 109 95 97 76 88^ 83 92

Under 2,000 : 7k 66 82 82 65 72 114 95 81 51 66 76 75 2 - 3,000 : 86 83 103 88 72 83 108 86 92 72 82 85 88

3 - ^,000 : 90 83 94 103 84 86 108 93 103 78 91 86 9h k - 5,000 : 98 97 78 113 9^ 9^ 107 99 108 9^ 103 93 104

5 - 6,000 : 99 96 97 108 92 95 104 102 113 90 no 89 106

6 - 8,000 : 106 100 100 113 108 102 102 102 113 113 118 77 n2

8 - 10,000 : IGT 108 99 119 111 107 98 106 n2 n4 n4 76 m

10,000 and over : 120 114 114 137 106 112 io6 125 121 158 138 88 133

URBAN

All households ! 93 96 110 95 81 91 99 91 93 86 9^ 77 94

Households of 2

or more persons ! 92 95 107 95 81 91^ 98 90 93 84 93 77 93

Under 2,000 : 78 92 104 71 50 78 100 78 72 59 69 70 75

2 - 3,000 : 86 92 116 86 66 85 102 83 82 67 82 77 85

3 - ^,000 : 88 86 106 95 83 87 96 86 92 77 85 75 88

h - 5,000 : 97 102 87 102 90 9h 98 92 99 91 107 85 102

5 - 6,000 . 100 96 102 106 96 96 95 101 no 96 109 80 105

6 - 8,000 . 110 105 115 111 112 106 95 103 no n9 n7 78 113

8 - 10,000 : 106 109 104 112 in 107 102 106 n4 117 107 81 in

10,000 and over . 126 116 142 152 104 118 105 131 124 184 138 81 139

RURAL NONFARM

All households 85 Ih 80 98 7h 78 117 96 101 74 87 91 94

Households of 2

or more persons 8U Ih 78 97 74 78 116 95 100 74 85 92 93

Under 2,000 69 53 67 82 58 63 117 95 79 51 61 83 76

2 - 3,000 83 73 102 84 67 76 111 84 95 75 80 91 90

3 - ^,000 90 80 76 110 83 83 124 96 114 80 9^ 104 102

h - 5,000 99 93 69 120 98 95 118 105 120 96 96 100 107

5 - 6,000 97 95 87 116 81 92 117 104 n7 79 110 104 108

6,000 and over 106 98 78 118 105 98 no 102 117 n3 127 76 n7

FAIW

All households 86 70 77 102 93 85 119 109 102 61 83 84 86

Households of 2 :

or more persons : 86 70 76 101 92 85 119 109 102 61 83 84 86

Under 2,000 : 77 59 73 91 83 77 122 107 90 4if 72 74 76

2 - 3,000 : 92 81 65 105 101 90 117 102 113 77 88 97 93

3 - ^,000 : 95 80 96 122 98 95 114 115 115 73 91 103 94

h - 5,000 : 101 81 74 143 102 95 113 no 114 95 104 105 105

5 - 6,000 : 104 97 104 93 109 102- 116 107 123 89 106 94 105

6,000 and over : 97 88 74 123 102 96 105 107 n4 83 104 77 98

1/ Derived frcm 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey data on household use of individual foods, using

average retail prices in 1947-49, Family money income in 1954 measured after income taxes.

2/ Includes fish.

J/ Excludes lard.

Includes an ingredients in ice cream and condensed milk, excludes butter.

Excludes com sugar and sirup«

Excludes peanuts and peanut butter«

Includes melons« iE/ Includes seme camnodity groups (dry beans and peas, coffee, tea, and cocoa, etc«) not shown separately«
- 106-

Table B, 4«—WEST: Czoss-sectlon Indexes of per person food consiuqptlon (retail level) for

major coonodlty groups^ by urbanization and family incosie, 19^^ jL/

(index: U. S. all household average « 100)

Livestock Crops

! : Pota-:

Urbanization ! AU : . Dairy: AU . Grain: Fats 1 Sugar

* Anil

: toes : AU

"IT and Income groups : food Meat Poul-

• Eggs prod-: ' prod-: and Fruits Vege- : and :

(dollars)

: ^

-a/ try ucts :

4/ :

J.XW—

stock ucts :

5/ :

oUs

6/

[sirups 1/ tables :8veet-:

: pota-:

: : toes :

ALL URBANIZATIONS

All householda i 109 U3 92 U3 Ul 109 98 104 101 U4 U4 90 UO

Households of 2

or nore persons ! 109 U3 92 U3 112 109 99 105 101 U3 U3 91 109

Under 2,000 : 97 95 70 105 104 96 101 102 94 100 98 102 100

2 - 3,000 : 98 95 78 U3 102 96 103 100 89 89 UO 94 104

3 - 4,000 : 102 UO 63 U5 104 101 103 94 99 92 103 92 103

k - 5,000 : 107 107 9k 107 112 104 100 104 105 U3 U3 88 112

5 - 6,000 : 106 U5 92 106 U5 109 96 93 101 U7 102 76 105

6 - 8,000 : Uh U2 90 U9 Ul 109 101 109 102 137 125 94 120

8 - 10,000 : 123 13Í* 12U 128 U4 126 93 128 103 142 133 67 U9

10,000 and over : 136 152 15** 127 029 143 90 125 122 153 135 159 127

URBAN

AU households 1 107 UO 90 106 108 106 95 102 98 U7 U4 80 109

HouseholdB of 2

or more persons i 107 Ul ^

107 109 106 95 102 99 U6 U3 82 108

Under 2,000 91 88 56 105 98 89 88 102 88 101 103 84 97 2 - 3,000 ^ 87 85 ^9 105 87 82 97 84 76 85 104 83 97

3 - i^,ooo 99 Ul 59 101 103 99 102 91 95 89 103 85 101

k - 5,000 lOh 102 78 99 U3 99 97 99 100 110 U3 164 U3

5 - 6,000 107 U7 109 101 Ul UO 94 93 98 120 103 76 105 6 - 8,000 lU 100 77 Uh U4 103 102 109 102 142 122 85 120

8 - 10,000 122 129 143 124 109 125 82 130 101 143 129 152 U9

10,000 and over 132 Ikl 155 127 125 139 90 122 125 154 131 94 123

RURAL NONFARM

AU households U3 122 95 122 Ul U4 106 107 104 102 120 107 U4 Households of 2

or more persons : U3 121 97 123 U2 U3 108 109 105 102 U9 106 U4 Under 2,000 : 87 83 82 76 80 83 113 99 81 75 92 101 94 2 - U,000 :

1 ^ -. ^

UO U3 82 128 U4 109 106 106 100 95 U7 107 Ul h - 6,000 : 112 U9 109 123 U4 U4 105 108 U2 103 109 99 6,000 and over : i4o 170 131 139 U5 143 Ul 122 104 138 164 U7 s

FARM i

AU households :

Households of 2 :

U3 Ul 100 139 134 U9 107 U2 U5 108 95 123 105

or more persons : U3 Ul 101 137 134 U9 107 112 U5 107 94 1?? 104 Under 2,000 U6 U9 81 ^39 l4o 122 108 105 U7 121 98 132

106

lU 2 - U,000 :

k - 6,000 :

6,000 and over :

108 102 109 146 108 UO U4 U4 U7 100 86 101 108 107 72 131 135 U2 107 102 lU 103 96 107

133

104 U6 123 100 l4o 127 124 101 124 126 108 108 108

y Derived from 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey data on household use of individual foods, usins

average retail prices in 1947-49. Family money income in 1954 measured after income taxes.

2/ Includes fish.

Excludes lard.

Includes aU ingredients in ice cream and condensed milk, excludes butter.

Excludes corn sugar and sirup.

b/ Excludes peanuts and peanut butter.

7/ Includes melons.

EJ Includes sane commodity groups (dry beans and peas, coffee, tea, and cocoa, etc.) not shovn separately.

I
- 107-

Table B. 5. .-^ÏORTHEAST: Croes-tsectica inôaxes of per person food UB« (farm level, all sources) for

major commodity groups, by urbanization and family iocooia, 19^^ 1/

(Index: Ü. S, an household average « IOC»

Livestock Crops

Pota-:

Urbanization : All Meat Dairy: ATI Oil

crops

2/

VegetablesZ/

toes : An

crops

8/

and income groups :

(dollars) :

food

2/

animals

Poultry

E&58 prod-:

ucte • ' .V ;

liveStock

Grains Sugar

crops

Fruits and :

sweet-:

pota-:

toes :

ALL URBANIZATIONS :

All households 100 100 119 93 104 102 80 95 87 100 102 105 96

Households of 2 :

or more persons : 100 100 n8 93 104 102 Ô0 96 88 99 101 106 96

Undier 2,000 87 74 102 92 100 85 93 90 89 90 Ö6 125 91

2 - 3,000 97 100 Ô6 93 103 98 89 100 89 96 91 120 95

3 - lf,000 9^ 9h 100 66 99 95 81 99 89 96 95 ni 93

k - 5,000 98 99 n9 87 105 101 76 97 83 92 100 101 92

5 - 6,000 104 102 J126 99 106 106 84 104 90 105 101 99 100

6 - 8,000 107 110 i44 97 ia¿ no 80 102 93 109 106 103 101

8 - 10,000 104 94 151 106 104 104 74 94 96 n6 108 88 102

10,000 and over 106 100 139 112 107 108 69 98 86 93 123 96 100

URBAN

All households 1 101 100 136 93 103 104 76 89 80 93 108 98 9^

Hoiiseholds of 2

or more persons : 101 100 136 92 103 104 75 91 80 92 107 96 93

Uhder 2,000 : 76 65 116 80 82 77 68 70 65 76 76 89 76

2 - 3,000 : 93 94 no 87 99 96 76 90 80 79 94 103 86

3 - if,000 : 96 96 n6 88 99 98 79 96 84 90 102 108 92

k - 5,000 : 99 100 133 85 106 103 74 91 78 85 106 93 90

5 - 6,000 : 106 105 139 99 108 109 80 95 80 96 no 91 97

6 - 8,000 : 110 111 170 100 101 n4 81 99 90 101 114 99 100

8 - 10,000 : 100 87 152 107 100 IOC 72 94 87 113 105 81 98

10,000 and over : 105 97 152 in 107 108 68 91 84 92 124 95 99

RURAL NONPARM

All households i 96 96 82 89 102 95 88 n4 100 114 Ö5 120 101

Households of 2

or more persons i 96 96 82 89 102 95 89 115 100 n4 85 120 100

Ukider 2,000 : 87 68 93 81 m 82 113 103 102 94 Ö5 149 98

2 - 3,000 : 100 106 50 98 105 98 107 120 98 117 82 133 105

3 - i*,000 : 87 85 68 78 92 84 81 113 96 108 78 no 94

k - 5,000 : 94 92 87 93 102 94 81 n6 93 107 81 120 96

5 - 6,000 : 100 97 100 94 103 98 95 122 109 122 82 115 104

6,000 and over : 106 113 87 92 103 105 79 no 105 125 101 112 106

FARM

All households i 112 no 78 125 127 112 106 98 133 134 93 164 113

Households of 2

or more persons i 112 no TÎ 12? 127 112 107 98 ^3| 134 94 164 113

Under 2,000 : 117 112 TJ 154 132 n8 124 124 138 127 94 187 117

2 - 3,000 : 116 121 64 127 130 117 108 99 131 139 90 194 115

3 - ^^,000 : 105 106 59 99 134 106 97 86 120 127 80 152 102

k - 5,000 : 117 128 67 112 106 n4 100 94 146 145 113 159 124

5 - 6,000 : 118 no 173 148 105 121 103 91 134 133 84 134 in

6,000 and over : 113 94 125 117 145 112 96 98 134 158 94 128 117

1/ Derived from 1955 Household Food Consmption Survey data on household use of individual foods, measured in

tAxms of farm camodlties valued at average 1947-49 farm prices. Family money income in 1954 measured after

income taxes. Food from an sources differs from purchased food by the amount of food received without direct

expense, mainly hone-produced food.

2/ Farm foods only, excludes fish.

Includes lard.

Includes butter.

Includes com used for sugar and sirup.

Includes an peanuts.

Indvkdes melons. \ ^ w 4. i

^ Includes seme commodity groups (dry beans and peas, coffee, tea, and cocoa, etc.) not shown separately.

zpen I

i
-108-

Table B ô.—NOBOH CEHTOAL REGION: Cross-section indexes of per person food use (ftam level, all sources)

for major conBiodlty groups, l>y urbanizaUon and family incone, 1955 1/

(Index; U. S. an household average « 100)

Pwnsfl U.VeBT»(:&

:

^Zvpo

: : Pota-:

: All Meat ! Dairy: An ' Oil

\ •vage- ;

toes : An

and income groups : food ani- PoulBggB

prod^: live- Grains : Sugar 'Fruits tsbles- and • crops

(dollars)

; ^

mals

• 3/

try \ ucts :

a/ ;

stock ; ^

.crops

: ^

¡crops ; x/ ;

sveet-:

pota-:

toes ;

^

ALL UBB/VNIZ/ITIONS

All households \ 107 ni 92 104 112 108 93 101 106 120 94 117 105

Households of 2

or more persons : 107 111 92 103 113 108 93 101 105 119 93 117 104

Under 2,000 : 104 98 100 119 109 104 103 84 122 123 88 nd 106

2 - 3,000 : 104 109 66 103 n6 105 95 95 106 112 88 122 100

3 - U,000 : 101 104 77 98 104 100 100 106 108 108 ÎI 130 102

h - 5,000 : 103 109 86 98 no 105 91 105 104 106 84 115 98

5 - 6,000 : no 116 109 101 n2 112 92 102 101 120 92 no 104

6 - 8,000 : no 115 100 104 n4 112 86 no 105 122 95 119 107

Ö - 10,000 : 109 112 81 99 118 108 81^ IIP n2 ^3 106 n2 112

10,000 and over: n6 in 124 in 131 117 81 96 95 l4l 125 96 113

URBAN

All households i 107 n2 101 98 109 108 85 107 99 112 104 107 104

Households of 2

or more persons : 107 n2 100 98 109 108 85 106 99 no 103 108 103

Uhder 2,000 : 104 108 101 117 93 105 88 106 in n4 101 104 103

2 - 3,000 : 97 no 67 83 104 100 80 90 89 92 94 105 90

3 - U,ooo : 102 106 93 90 104 102 93 n4 104 103 123 102

k -5,000 : 102 107 102 94 104 104 89 108 98 100 89 109 97

5 - 6,000 : ni 117 125 102 109 n4 87 105 98 109 97 101 102

6 - 8,000 : 109 n5 95 101 n5 in 86 114 102 in Id 112 105

8 - 10,000 : no n2 87 102 113 108 79 109 108 135 n8 101 n6

10,000 and over : n7 U.6 n4 n5 129 118 78 99 92 136 140 90 n5

RURAL NONFARM

All households 1 103 106 78 101 107 102 97 106 106 125 82 121 105

Households of 2

or more persons ': 102 105 78 100 107 102 96 108 104 122 80 121 103

Under 2,000 : 90 84 90 103 91 89 98 84 109 ^

71 n2 92

2 - 3,000 : 103 105 55 no 111 102 101 127 109 116 90 132 108

3 - 4,000 : 94 98 57 97 95 93 107 105 104 10? 68 137 99

k - 5,000 : 100 106 57 96 n4 101 90 109 107 no 7T n5 98

5 - 6,000 . 107 n3 88 94 no 107 98 107 93 136 W in 107

6,000 and over 109 104 n6 98 119 108 89 n4 108 154 86 122 n2

FARM

All households \ n4 n6 79 125 131 116 110 71 131 141 n 145 109

Households of 2

or more persons n4 115 79 125 131 116 110 72 131 141 77 145 109

Under 2,000 n5 104 101 133 134 114 12S 69 140 150 88 131 116

2 - 3,000 n4 113 73 129 142 117 116 70 133 143 69 141 108

3 - 4,000 Î n3 11? 65 137 131 Hk 115 73 140 136 73 142 109

4 - 5,000 115 125 68 121 132 119 105 79 124 131 77 145 105

5 - 6,000 Î 112 MS 67 113 133 Uk 106 77 130 l4l 76 156 108

6,000 and over :

:

n6 126 108 n2 124 121 105 73 124 125 70 160 103

1/ Derived from I955 Household Food Ck>nsunption Survey data on household use of individual foods, measuzed in

teims of farm commodities valued at aversge 1947-49 fam prices. Family money income in 1954 me«LSured after

income taxes. Food from an sources differs from purchased food by the amount of food received without dlxeèt

expense, mainly home-produced food.

2/ Farm foods only, excludes fish.

Z/ includes lard.

5/ Includes butter.

5/ Includes com used for sugar and sirup.

à/ Includes an peanuts.

7/ Includes melons.

0/ Includes some commodity groups (dry beans and peas, coffee, tea, and cocoa, etc.) not shown separately.
-109-

Table B. 7 .—SOUTH: Cxoss-sectlon indexes of per person food use (farm level, lOJ. sources) for

major connnodity groups, by urbanization and family income, 19^^ ¿/

(Indcîx: U. S. an household average = :LOO)

UTMtoek Crops

Pota-:

Urbanization : All : Meat : Dairy An

livestock

Oil

crops

; ^

Vegetables

1/

toes : An

S/

and income groups :

(dollars) :

food :

2/ :

ani- :

mais :

2/ ;

Poultry

. Eggs

products

4/

. 5/

: Sugar

: crops

Fruits and :

sveet-:

pota-:

: toes :

ALL URBANIZATIONS :

All households : 91 87 96 97 83 88 126 98 108 80 102 84 97

Households of 2 :

or more persons : 90 86 9k 96 83 88 125 97 107 79 100 84 96

Under 2,000 77 72 84 82 74 75 1U9 63 99 52 76 77 82

2 - 3,000 88 87 106 88 73 86 126 90 105 76 92 86 93

3 - 4,000 91 86 96 103 83 89 115 109 109 81 101 88 95

1^ - 5,000 101 100 80 113 93 98 113 124 115 99 112 94 107

5 - 6,000 100 97 100 ü08 89 97 109 132 n4 95 120 90 107

6. - 8,000 106 102 102 113 102 103 99 130 n4 115 130 77 113

8 - 10,000 107 106 102 119 102 106 87 138 106 113 ^3 76 107

10,000 and over 116 113 117 137 97 113 lOU 159 121 118 149 84 123

URBAN

AU households 9^^ 97 110 95 77 94 10^ in 103 80 no 77 96

Households of 2

or more persons 9k 97 108 94 77 93 103 in 102 79 107 77 94

Under 2,000 . 81 9k lOif 71 52 83 U8 74 87 52 86 70 77

2 . 3,000 ! 88 9k 117 86 64 89 112 97 9Í 63 93 ^? 86

3 - 1^,000 i 88 88 107 95 77 89 101 107 103 7U 95 74 88

k - 5,000 99 103 86 102 84 97 97 127 109 9^ n8 88 104

5 - 6,000 99 96 103 106 89 97 95 144 108 98 126 81 106

6 - 8,000 : 108 105 116 in 102 107 68 139 111 109 134 77 112

8 - 10,000 : 106 108 104 112 99 106 85 142 105 Uk 113 78 107

10,000 and over : 123 115 141 152 98 n9 103 164 125 13h 170 79 132

RURAL NONFARM

All households ! 87 79 84 98 80 82 135 99 104 85 94 92 99

Households of 2

or more persons i 87 79 82 97 80 82 13^ ?I 103 85 92 92 98

Under 2,000 : 71 59 71 82 69 66 ^5| 66 90 56 73 84 83

2 - 3,000 : 86 79 109 84 70 81 138 87 101 85 87 92 97

3 - U,000 : 92 83 79 no 86 87 127 122 ni 93 108 103 105

k - 5,000 : 102 100 72 119 102 99 129 124 n9 iiok 101 101 no

5 - 6,000 : 99 96 91 US 83 95 127 123 n6 87 112 106 109

6,000 and over : 106 100 82 n8 104 101 109 134 no 130 126 78 118

FARM

All households î 89 78 81 102 101 86 157 66 127 69 96 84 94

Households of 2 :

or more persons : 88 77 81 101 101 86 157 66 127 68 96 84 ñ

lAider 2,000 : 80 68 77 91 95 78 168 50 119 50 85 74 85

2 - 3,000 : 95 87 68 105 106 92 H.8 73 134 89 100 98 102

3 - i*,000 : 97 87 100 122 103 97 1U2 82 134 7»» 108 104 99

k - 5,000 : 103 87 78 143 ]0B 98 132 105 130 105 123 104 113

5 - 6,000 : 106 103 109 93 in 104 139 P

128 108 121 ?l 112

6,000 and over : 9Ö 93 79 123 100 97 120 89 129 87 n4 78 101

1/ Derived from I955 Household Jbod Consumption Survey data on household use of individual foods, measured in

terms of farm comnodities valued at average 1947-49 fann prices. Family money income in 1954 measured alter

income taxes, ibod from an sources differs from purchased food by the amount of food received without direct

es^nse, mainly home-produced food.

2/ Farm foods only, excludes fish.

3/ Includes lard.

4/ Includes butter.

5/ Includes com used for sugar and sirup.

0/ Includes an peanuts.

7/ Includes melons.

8/ Includes son» conmodity groups (dry beans and peas, coffee, tea, and cocoa, etc.) not shown separately.
-lio -

Table B.8 --WEST: Cross-iîection indexe«3 of per person food use (fairm leve]L, an 1ïources, for

major commodity groups, by urbanization and family Income, 1955 1/

[Index: U. S. all household aversÄe = 100')

Livestock CroDS

Pota-:

Urbanization : All Meat Dairy: An

livestock

Oil Vege- ;

tables'

7/ ;

toes : An

cipps

8/

and income groups

(dollars)

: food

: ^

ani- Poultiy Eggs prod-:

ucts : y :

Grains

5/

Sugar

crops

'Fruits and :

sveet-:

pota-:

toes :

ALL URBANIZATIONS

All households ; 107 no 88 113 108 108 93 122 98 108 108 91 107

Households of 2

or more persons : 107 ao 88 112 109 108 93 121* 98 107 106 92 106

Under 2,000 : 97 93 67 105 107 95 102 98 92 101 97 100 102

2 - 3,000 : 97 93 Ih 112 96 9^ 102 116 91 88 106 94 103

3 - ^,000 : 101 107 60 115 101 102 97 127 99 92 92 90 100

k - 5,000 : lOU loi* 92 107 lOl* 103 92 11*7 102 106 100 89 107

5 - 6,000 : 105 112 88 106 no 108 91 125 100 106 94 77 99

6 - 8,000 : m 108 87 118 m 108 90 121* 99 121* 125 96 118

8 - 10,000 : 122 130 116 128 n8 126 81* 117 91 131 126 75 113

10,000 and over : 136 11*8 11*8 127 125 11*0 82 109 111 Ikk 137 99 124

URBAN

All households ! 105 107 87 106 lOl* lOl* 87 121 95 no m 81 105

Households of 2

or more persons ! 105 108 88 106 101* 105 87 123 96 109 109 82 105

Under 2,000 : 90 86 5^ 105 9^ 87 81 m 81* 101 no 84 97

2 - 3,000 : 85 82 1*8 105 80 81 96 103 80 82 104 83 95

3 - U,000 : 9Ô 107 58 101 97 99 96 125 97 86 89 84 97 h - 5,000 : 100 100 76 99 lOl* 98 89 1^5 97 109 102 77 104

5 - 6,000 : 107 115 107 101 105 no 81* 121* 99 111 99 78 101

6 - 8,000 : 108 103 77 112 113 103 90 127 100 129 128 86 120

8 - 10,000 : 120 126 137 121* 113 121* 73 113 86 129 129 59 109

10,000 and over : 133 li*3 152 127 122 137 81 no in 11*4 136 94 121

RURAL NONFARM

All households llU 120 88 123 no 115 103 135 101 101 108 no 112

Households of 2

or more persons nil 119 91 123 m 111* loi* 138 101 102 106 108 n?

Under 2,000 88 82 75 76 97 81* 127 79 81* 79 85 98 96 2 - 4,000 : no 112 73 128 112 no 100 11*1 98 101 no 104 in k - 6,000 : 112 116 106 122 no Ilk lOl* 154 no 96 90 99 107 6,000 and over : 1U3 166 117 139 115 ii*5 98 121 92 130 139 145 136

FAFM :'

All households : 112 108 93 139 132 n6 107 106 ni* 108 &Î 1?1 104 Households of 2 :

or more persons : 112 108 9h 137 132 116 107 101* 115 108 86

128

103

101

Under 2,000 : 111* 116 7U 139 113 ni* 109 101 n6 127 90

2 - if,000 :

k - 6,000 :

6,000 and over :

106 100 104 11*6 in no 112 98 n8 98 76 106

105 99 66 131 130 107 107 122 in 104 87 104 116 120 92 11*0 128 121 95 108 119 112 102 130 104

1/ Derived from 1955 Household Food Consuiçtlon Survey data on household use of individual foods, oeasured In

tenas of fam comnodlties valued at average 19l»7-'*9 farm prices. î^mlly noney Income In 195U oeasúred after

2/ Farm foods only, excludes fish.

3/ Includes lard.

y Includes butter.

5/ Includes com used for sugar and sirup.

0/ Includes an peanuts.

7/ Includes melons.

W Includes some commodity groups (diy beans and peas, coffee, tea, and cocoa, etc.) not shovn separately.
-111-

Table B, 9 .—NOREHEAST: Cross-section indexes of per person food use (faim level, purcnaaed) for

major coonodity groups, by urbanization and fanny incoan, 19^5 ¿/

all hft^ftffhrrli^ ftvera^e = 100^

: :

Livestock Crons

Fota^: Urbanization

and income groups

(doUars)

: An :

: food :

: ^ :

Meat :

ani- :

mala :

2/ :

Poultiy Sggs *

Dairy!

prod-:

ucts : y :

An

livestock

.Grains

5/

on

crops

6/

: Sugar

: crops

Pruits

Vege- '

tables'

2/ ;

toes :

and :

sveet-:

pota-:

An

crops

8/

¡ : ¡ 2 I : , toes :

ALL URBANXZATIORS

AU households i 108 107 133 106 n4 111 81 95 87 106 ni no 100 Households of 2 :

or more persons : 108 107 132 106 n4 ni 81 96 87 106 no no 100 Uhder 2,000 : 79 71 96 80 85 78 94 85 89 78 63 111 82

2- 3,000 : 99 103 88 96 107 101 90 100 89 98 90 n8 95

3- i*,ooo : 102 100 115 102 no 104 82 99 88 102 103 115 96

U- 5,000 : 108 107 lliO 104 nß 113 77 98 83 100 113 107 97 5 - 6,000 : Ilk 111 139 116 123 n7 85 104 90 n4 n4 107 105 6 - 8,000 : 118 120 1^ nk n6 123 82 103 93 117 n8 109 105 8 - 10,000 : Ilk 103 157 129 118 115 76 95 96 130 124 98 no

10,000 and over : n? 109 l6k 134 124 121 69 98 86 lOT lll2 106 109

URBAN

All households ! Hk in 158 115 120 118 77 90 80 109 126 106 102

Households of 2

or more persons ^ 41 in 158 114 119 118 76 91 80 108 125 105 102

Ubder 2,000 86 72 137 101 94 88 70 71 65 89 88 93 82

2 - 3,000 • ^1 104 12lf 103 112 108 77 91 80 92 no 112 93 3 - i*,000 : 108 106 137 no n5 112 80 96 84 104 n9 118 99 k - 5,000 : 112 no 157 105 122 llB 75 92 78 102 125 103 98

5 - 6,000 I n9 n7 160 123 127 124 81 95 80 n5 129 101 107

6 - 8,000 : 12U 123 202 121 118 130 82 101 89 120 131 107 109 8 - 10,000 : 111 97 ^5^ 134 n7 112 73 95 87 135 125 89 108

10,000 and over : 118 107 l6o 138 125 123 68 90 83 105 145 106 107

RURAL NONFAFM

All households 100 102 Qk 97 no 101 90 112 100 101 78 n9 96

Households of 2

or more persons 100 103 85 98 no 102 90 113 99 101 78 1?0 96

Utader 2,000 75 73 72 74 82 75 n4 85 102 58 34 122 75

2 - 3,000 101 m k2 94 in 101 108 120 97 in 65 131 100

3 - i*,000 91 91 79 Ô9 102 92 82 n4 95 99 68 103 89

h - 5,000 99 loo 101 104 109 102 83 n6 92 92 80 123 92

5 - 6,000 105 101 108 107 120 106 96 122 108 n4 87 123 104

6,000 and over 112 123 83 106 121 n6 81 in 105 n3 101 n9 104

FARM

All households 68 65 30 41 62 58 107 99 132 88 53 n9 91

Households of 2

or more persons : 68 65 31 41 62 58 107 99 132 90 53 n9 91

Under 2,000 68 66 30 31 62 57 120 125 135 88 52 143 95

2 - 3,000 6k 60 20 43 57 53 109 97 131. 95 42 102 89

3 - i^,000 : 59 52 17 43 64 50 99 87 118 74 47 124 80

h - 5,000 : 78 Ik kk 64 66 68 102 94 iS n4 67 101 102

5 - 6,000 : 70 83 k 35 51 61 104 92 91 46 88 90

6,000 and over : 79 69 99 49 77 72 97 99 133 97 70 n9 95

¿/ Derived from 1955 Household Food Consuiqption Surrey data on household use of individual foods, measured in

terms of fcmn connodities valued at average 1947-49 faxa prices. Faoily money income in 1954 measured after

income taxes. Food from an sources differs from purchased food by the aaount of food received without direct

esqpense, mainly horae-produced food.

2/ Farm foods only, excludes fish.

3/ Includes lard.

i/5/ Includes butter.

5/ Includes com used for sugar and sixiq).

6/ Includes an peanuts.

Includes melons• I Includes some commodity groins (diy beans azid peas, coffee, tea, and cocoa, etc.) not shovn separately.
-112 -

Table B. 10.--NORTH CENTRAL REÎOION: Cross-section indexes of per person food use (fann level, purchased) for

major comnodlty groups, by uibanlzation and family income, 19^3 ¿/

(Index; U. S. all household average g 100)

Uirbanizatlon

and Income groups

(doUars)

Livestock

All

food

2/

Meat :

ani- : Poulmals : try

2/ :

Dairy: ^

P^~- live-

^P« • stock

Çppp?

Grains

5/

Oil

crops

Sugar:

crops

: Pota-

: toes

Fruits* tables- "^

:sveet-

: pota-

' toes

'Vege.

u

All

crops

â/

ALL URBANIZATIONS

All households

âouseholds of 2

or more pexvons

Uhder 2,000

2 - 3,000

3 - h,ooo

k - 5,000

5 - 6,000

6 - 8,000

6 - 10,000

10,000 and over

URBAN

All households

Households of 2

or more persons

Uider 2,000

2 - 3,000

3 - i^,000

k - 5,000

5 - 6,000

6 - 8,000

8 - 10,000

10,000 and over

RURAL N0NFAR4

All households

Households of 2

or more persons

Uhder 2,000

2 - 3,000

3 - i^,000

k - 5,000

5 - 6,000

6,000 and over

FARM

All households

Households of 2

or wore persons

Under 2,000

2 - 3,000

3 - i*,000

h - 5,000

5 - 6,000

6,000 and over

106 108

119

1X6

109

113

113

124

122

124

131

103

82

108

89

104

116

no

61

61

58

60

63

63

73

64

91 103 115 107

105 107

81 79

95 99

99 100

105 107

116 119

115 118

112 no

12lt 115

91

63

58

77

89

122

104

90

127

102

77

92

104

in

U8

109

126

115

79

107

108

119

121

126

125

150

106

77

95

98

107

119

118

111

126

9k

9h

105

97

102

93

9h

90

86

81

102

102

85

95

108

107

103

Ul

n4

96

106 n5 95 117 104

105

121

106

108

103

101

105

n2

95

113

89

96

99

105

127

n9

141

156

9k

57

84

83

88

98

106

117

147

n8

107

122

129

n4

n4

124

n2

102

119 123 118 120 127 123 87 106 98 128 118 115

123

117

121

n6

117

128

126

124

126

103 106 77 106

105

78

no

93

108

122

103

55

5h

56

51

51

5*^

67

58

78

73

60

k9

58

100

118

21

21

18

22

22

20

44

19

105

91

123

85

106

108

120

35

26

k3

Uo

37

26

120

120

9k

126

99

132

129

136

66

66

kl

63

73

78

75

78

106

105

83

109

88

107

119

n4

51

52

5k

107 105 103 7k 120

98

99

104

108

91

101

90

n2

n2

124

n7

n7

108

108

107

^i? 104 101 73

^

109 78 k'>

126 109 99 90

106 103 83 58

no 107 100 73

109 93 139 90

115 107 112 86

72 130

73

69

70

Ik

80

78

75

131

139

133

i^io

122

130

125

84

84

76

88

107

45 118

k5

37

53

57

51

118

in

120

121

103

137

108

103

90

96

100

99

108

109

n7

120

in

n6 120 127 123 87 108 99 1S6 n7 116 no

^i 143 109 n9 84 108 m 125 106 112 loa •/tí 103 120 n4 82 91 89 105 107 in 96 108 107 121 n5 95 115 104 n4 108 135 108 116 n5 la n7 91 109 98 n? 102 115 103 ik( 125 127 130 88 105 98 126 109 n2 no 112 124 133 126 88 n5 102 129 118 121 n4

!^î^ 127 133 124 80 m 108 159 137 no ^?6 13k lilO 149 13k 78 99 91 161 165 98 125

98

121 97

96 81

Ul 105

124 91

120 95

109 108

132 102

87

87

86

84

89

87

95

68

jL/ Derived from I955 Household Food Consumption Survey data on hr»»gi>>v^ii< t,«^ ^^ 4^A* .«^—"■■ ^ '— .

tenns of fann commodities valued at averagel947-4r^ r^JÍ ^!n ?^ Individual foods, measured in

income taxes. îbod f2x>m an soui^L dl^« frL ¿uí^ J^^ "^"^î ^°^ ^ ^^^^ measured after

e39,ense, mainly home-pioduced f^ purchased food by the amount of food received without dii^ct

2/ Faim foods only, excludes fish.

3/ Includes leuxL.

k/ Includes butter.

5/ Includes com used for sugar and sirup.

6/ Includes an peanuts.

7/ Includes melons.

5/ includes so« con»odlty groups (dxy bes.« «>d peas, coffee, tea, snd coco«, etc.) »ot shown .ep^ately.
-113

Table B. 11 .--SOUTH: Cross-Bection indexes of per person food use (fom level, purchased) for

major conmodity groups^ by urbanization and family incon», I955 l/

(Index; U. S. all houaehold average « IQQ^

Urbanization

and income groups

(dollars)

ALL URBANIZATIONS

A3JL households

Households of 2

or more persons

Under 2,000

2 - 3,000

3 - U,000

k - 5,000

5 - 6,000

6 - 8,000

8 - 10,000

10,000 and over

URBAN

All households

Households of 2

or more persons

Under 2,000

2 - 3,000

3 - i^,000

k - 5,000

5 - 6,000

6 - 8,000

8 - 10,000

10,000 and over:

RURAL NONFAIM

All households

Households of 2

or more persons

Under 2,000

2 - 3,000

3 - ^,000

k - 5,000

5 - 6,000

6,000 and over

FABM

All households

Households of 2

or more persons

Under 2,000

2 - 3,000

3 - i^,000

h - 5,000

5 - 6,000

6,000 and over

All

food

2/

Llveatock^

Meat

ani2/

Poultry

Dairy

products

y

All

livestock

J2S2fifi.

Grains

5/

Oil ;

crops' ^"^*^

6/ • crops

Fruits

: Pot«^:

: toes : Vege. , ^

tables* «^

Y / Î s\ieet-

"* : potarÎ tOfifl

All

crops

8/

85

84

61

82

90

101

101

no

115

124

102

101

86

96

96

109

107

llß

120

131

82

82

61

16

92

101

97

112

U9

U2

56

57

59

68

63

Ok

8k

64

63

87

99

99

105

lib

118

104

103

100

101

93

112

lOU

114

120

121

79

79

59

73

88

95

100

107

kS

51

66

65

86

84

55

96

96

86

90

105

no

124

120

118

106

131

117

97

102

127

123

150

75

74

5*^

85

83

85

76

90

25

25

39

36

60

23

84

83

UQ

73

103

118

in

in

129

11*8

109

109

76

97

in

123

127

124

l4o

161

85

84

59

61

107

128

99

115

26

26

16

31

41

44

41

41

68

68

37

60

79

93

88

in

ni

in

87

87

57

73

89

96

104

119

n4

115

08

67

h3

57

77

100

70

n9

27

27

18

32

37

h9

42

81 123 98 107

80

55

78

88

99

97

107

lib

120

102

102

89

98

97

108

106

118

121

128

77

55

69

88

99

90

108

38

46

47

57

53

122

140

127

n5

n4

no

101

88

106

105

104

n7

n4

103

99

97

90

87

105

77 135

13i^

149

138

127

132

126

in

38 142

141

147

1I4O

134

125

139

115

96

60

90

no

126

133

132

lltO

161

112

112

73

98

109

129

146

141

lh5

166

97

63

86

123

125

120

136

63

kQ

73

82

105

80

90

107

98

105

109

n4

n4

n4

106

121

102

102

66

98

103

108

106

in

105

125

99 104

103

89

101

in

119

n6

in

64 124

123

115

132

130

126

126

129

77

76

^3

72

81

99

103

127

129

136

90

56

71

81

107

in

126

139

156

78

77

46

79

85

92

140

»^7

60

84

82

7k

88

87

51

81

96

109

n9

132

123

162

90 n7

115

90

101

103

130

128

145

125

179

79

78

46

70

96

n3

132

ko

ko

29

kl

55

52

77

61

78 9k

78 92

65 73

77 91

86 95

90 107

91 no

81 n^

81 n4

93 131

82 101

82 100

76 80

84 92

78 93

95 no

83 no

85 119

85 n7

87 i4o

85

85

76

7k

101

88

n4

87

53

53

46

65

63

69

5k

3k

95

9^^

75

92

101

106

113

122

74

7k

61

82

89

93

85

1/ Derived from I955 Household îbod Consunçtlon Survey data on household use of individual foods, measured In

terms of fam commodltiee valued at average 1947-49 farm prices. Famny money income in I954 measured after

Income taxes. Food from an sources differs from purchased food by the amount of food received without direct

expense, mainly home-produced food.

2/ Farm foods only, excludes fish.

3/ Includes lard.

4/ Includes butter.

5/ Includes com used for sugar and sirup.

6/ Includes an peanuts.

7/ Includes melons.

5/ Includes some commodity groups (diy beans and peas, coffee, tea, and cocoa, etc.) not showi separately.
Table B.12#—WEST: Cross-section Indexes of per person food use (farm level, purchased) for

major comodlty groins, by urbanization and faally Income, 19^^ \l

(Index: u. s. ^•^ l >*o^i''^N>ld average - 100^

Livestock CXODS

• : \ : : Pota-:

Urbanization : AU Meat : Dairy: AU

live-,

stock]

Oil •

taa>lefl

7/

: toes : AU

and income groups

(dollars)

: food <

: ^

animals

! Poul-

: try Eggs

: prod-:

: ucts :

: ^ :

.Grains

5/

\ :

'

•Fruits^ : and:

:sveet-:

: pota-: 8/

• ' 2 Î 2 toes :

ALL URBANIZATIONS

All households : U2 113 88 123 116 112 93 124 97 XA 122 97 Ul

Households of 2

or more persons : 112 U4 88 123 116 112 93 125 98 113 121 97 Ul

lÄider 2,000 : 88 84 §9 9§ 92 51 96 96 89 96 98 96 99

2- 3,000 : 99 96 (£ U6 98 103 U7 90 92 119 99 107

3 - i*,000 : 105 Ul ^k U9 106 105 97 129 99 96 105 99 104

4- 5.000 : no UO 87 121 nu 110 9i» 148 102 107 U2 95 110

5 - 6,000 : UO U4 91 121 123 llU 92 127 100 109 104 79 102

6 - 8,000 : U9 112 98 129 127 U6 124 99 ll»0 146 105 127

8 - 10,000 : 130 133 133 150 laB 13«» 82 U7 91 150 H»5 78 ijn

10,000 and over : 150 162 165 151 1U4 157 84 Ul Ul 163 164 107 13if

URBAN !

All household« : U6 U7 99 129 122 117 88 122 95 121 128 88 U2

Households of 2 :

or more persons : U6 U7 99 129 122 116 88 123 95 120 127 90 U2

Itoder 2,000 : 99 95 57 120 110 97 79 lU 82 113 132 93 104

2- 3,000 : 95 91 V 132 93 92 98 105 80 9¿ ul 92 103

3- U,000 : 109 U7 65 125 U4 112 98 127 97 93 105 92 104

k - 5,000 : UO UO 85 121 lao 110 90 H^5 97 112 115 83 108

5 - 6,000 : 116 12? 113 U9 122 121 86 126 98 120 Ul 84 106

6 - 8,000 : 120 Ul ?^ 133 132 116 92 127 100 lii6 149 94 129 8 - 10,000

• ^}l 139 163 vik 132 ll»2 70 113 86 156 150 65 l3

10,000 and over 148 157 170 15^ l'»3 155 83 Ul Ul 161» 162 102 131

RURAL NONFAFM

AU households lia 124 80 132 122 120 102 136 100 102 120 U7 115 Households of 2 .

or more persons : U8 ^!3 82 132 123 119 103 liiO 100 101 117 115 U4

Uhder 2,000 86 82 V 93 107 86 108 7U 76 77 65 93 87 2 - 4,000 Î 112 115 63 125 U7 Ul 100 H*5 98 106 121 U5 U3 4 - 6,000 118 121 89 142 126 121 106 155 109 9i» 104 109 112 6,000 and over : 149 166 135 136 lae 150 98 119 89 1^3 164 153 H*5

FAIW \

All households :

Households of 2 :

70 62 3»* 60 63 59 109 106 U4 87 85 109 9r

or more persons : 70 62 33 59 62 59 108 104 U4 67 84 lOA 97

lOU

9U

93

99

Uhder 2,000

2 - 4,000 :

4 - 6,000 : 66

70

66

53

32

23

22 64

1)6

II

60 112

112

109

101

97

123

U6

U7

Ul

89

66

82

82

76

82

lOi»

6,000 and over : 84 74 61 82 95 78 97 109 117 93 104 126

1/ Derived from 1955 Household Food Consunçtlon Survey data on household use of individual foods, measured in

tenns of faun connodltles valued at average 1947-49 fam prices. Family loney incone in 1954 nsasured after

Income taxes. Food from aU sources differs from purchased food by the aiB>unt of food received without direct

esqpense, mainly home-produced food.

2/ Fam foods only, excludes fish.

^ Includes lard.

4/ Includes butter.

5/ Includes com used for sugar and sixup.

^ Includes aU peanuts.

7/ Includes melons.

5/ Includes some comoodity groups (dry beans and peas, coffee, tea, and cocoa, etc.) not-shovn separately.
- 115 -

Table B.I3.—Northeast: Market value and expenditure data for food per person in a week,

average income per person, and percentage distribution of family members, housekeeping families, by urbanization and income group, spring 1955 i/

Distri- Market value of all food Ibtal

bution

of

members

of

at home and awav expenditures for

food at

home and

Disposable :

Disposable

All food at home Expenditures

for food money income : money

of family : income families Total Expendi- nnd food and

in 195^^ : per of 2 or 3/ Total

3/

Home tures beverages beverages

person more

•persons 2/

produced for

food away from

home

away from

home

Dollars. percent Dollars Dpllars

a. All urbanizations

Under $1,000 : 137 2.1 6.54 6.28 1.03 U.75 0.25 5.01

$1,000-2,000 525 5.0 6.78 6.19 .6k 5.11 .60 5.70

$2,000-3,000 788 9.8 8.01 6.98 M 6.31 1.03 7.34

$3,000-if,000 964 20.4 8.36 7.13 .28 6.72 1.24 7.96

$1^,000-5,000 1,222 23.5 9.04 7.3^ .15 7.03 1.70 8.73

$5,000-6,000 1,470 15.3 9M 7.91 .17 7.62 1.52 9.14

$6,000-8,000 1,823 14.8 10.36 8.0U .20 7.77 2.32 10.09

$8,000-10,000 2,106 4.8 10.16 7.92 .13 7.70 2.24 9-95

$10,000 and over : 3,772 4.3 13.15 8.61 .15 8.35 4.54 12.89

Average h/ . 1,371 9.33 7.5"* .26 7.12 1.80 8.92

Average excluding

singles ! 1,368 100.0 9.26

b

.26

. Urban

7.06 1.79 8.85

Under $2,000 ! ^s 5-0 6.37 5-75 5/ 5.50 .62 6.11

$2,000-3,000 : 840 8.3 7^96 6.73 i/ 6.52 1.23 7.75

$3,000-4,000 : 990 20.5 8.87 7.39 5/ 7.2U 1.47 8.71

¿i,000-5,000

Î »5,000-6,000

: 1,230 25.3 9.Í4O 7.'*3 5/ 7.29 1.97 9.26

: 1,518 14.7 9.97 8.1U 5/ 8.04 1.83 9.87

$6,000-8,000 : 1,876 15.2 10.83 8.22 H 8.12 2.60 10.72

$8,000-10,000 : 2,101 5.8 9.97 7.78 5/ 7.69 2.19 9.88

$10,000 and over : 3,882 5.2 13.27 8.65 5/ 8.47 4.62 13.09

Average hj : 1,464 9.78 7.66 i/ 7.51 2.13 9.63

Average excluding

singles ! 1,461 100.0 9.70 7.58 5/ 7.1*4 2.12 9.56

! 357 10.0 6.56

c. Rural nonfan

Under 4.50 .42 $2,000 6.15 .78 4.92

$2,000-3,000 : 708 12.6 7.91 7.ll» .'^7 6.27 .78 7.05

$3,000-4,000 : 923 19.7 7.00 6.30 .32 ^'"^^ .70 6.45

$4,000-5,000 : 1,208 20.9 7.89 6.97 .Zk 6.36 .91 7.28

$5,000-6,000 : 1,389 18.0 8.28 7.38 .32 6.91 • 90 7.81

$6,000 and over : 1,893 18.8 9.79 7.69 .33 7.23 2.10 9.33

Average 4/ : 1,191 8.12 7.06 .37 6.39 1.06 7.44

Average excluding

singles i 1,185 100.0 8.10 7.03 .36

i- Farn

6.37 1.06 7.43

Under $1,000 : 57 11.7 8.49 8.15 3.09 4.82 .34 5.16

$1,000-2,000 : 449 14.0 7.99 7.77 3.IU 4.37 .21 4.58

$2,000-3,000 : 700 16.7 8.70 8.19 3.tó 4.48 .51 4.99

$3,000-4,000 : 805 22.3 7.97 TM 3.29 4.07 .49 4.55

$4,000-5,000 : 1,080 12.2" 8.42 7.87 2.89 4.87 .55 5.42

» 9 ^9

$5,000-6,000 : 1,186 8.3 8.98 8.33 2.58 4.57 .65 5.22

$6,000 and over : 2,038 14.8 9.98 8.82 2.77 5.96 1.16 7.12

Average 4/ : 905 8.75 8.20 3.1U 4.81 .55 5.36

Average excluding

.56 singles ! 900 100.0 8.65 8.09 3.10 4.75 5-31

1/ Value data for food, excluding alcoholic beverages for home consunçtion,

1955 Household Food Consunçtion Survey Report No. 2.

2/ Distribution of members of those families reporting incomes.

2J Includes value of food received as gift or pay as well as purchased and

4/ Average for all families, including singles and those not classified by

¿/ Negligible.

derived from table 2 of

home produced,

income.
- 116

Table B,l4.—North Central Region: Market value and expenditure data for food per person

in a week, average income per person, and percentage distribution of family members,

housekeeping families, by urbanization and income group, spring I955 l/

Distri- Market value of iall food Total

bution

of

at home and <iway expenditures for : Dispos- All food at home ; ExpendiDisposable : able tures

for food

food a"h

money income : money

members

of

X\J\J\X CL u

home and

of family : income families Total Expendi- and food and

in l^^k : per of 2 or 2/ Total Home tures beverages beverages

: person more

produced for away from away from

persons 2/ food home home

percent Dollars Dollars

a. All urbanizations

Under $1,000 : 162 3.2 7.15 6.57 2.0I» 4,29 0.58 4.87

$1,000-2,000 5^ 5.9 7.16 6.65 1.39 5-07 .51 5.57

$2,000-3/000 : 753 9.7 7.81» 6.9h .91 5.80 .90 6.70

$3,000-if,000 : 964 16.3 7.89 6.91 .61 6.11 .97 7.08

$ii-,000-5,000 : 1,197 22.6 8.19 7.09 .'^7 6.46 1.10 7.56

$5,000-6,000 : 1,460 13.0 8.92 7.55 .1»2 7.00 1.36 8.36

$6,000-8,000 : 1,746 16.3 9.56 7.72 .1»2 7-15 1.84 8.99

$8,000-10,000 : 2,306 5.6 10.33 7.89 .52 7.32 2.44 9.76

$10,000 and over : 3,9^7 7.1* 12.84 9.20 .22 8.75 3.64 12.39

Average k/ : 1,441 8.90 7.W» .61» 6.62 1.46 8.08

Average excluding

singles :' 1,439 100.0 8.83 7.38 .61»

. Urban

6.57 1.45 8.02

Under $2,000 ! 500 k.2 8.09 6.89" 5/ 6.60 1.20 7.80

$2,000-3,000 : 799 7.U 8.01» 7.08 ¿/ 6.81 .97 7.77

$3,000-4,000 : 1,056 Ik.k 8.53 7A5 5/ 7.22 1.08 8.30

$lf,000-5,000 : 1,234 23.9 8.U9 7.25 5/ 7.05 1.24 8.29

$5,000-6,000 : 1,570 13.8 9.37 7.9»* 5/ 7.70 1.43 9.13 $6,000-8,000 : 1,785 19-7 9.97 7.85 5/ 7.57 2.13 9.69 $8,000-10,000 : 2,509 6.1» 11.12 7.97 5/ 7.86 3.15 11.00

$10,000 and over ; 4,150 10.2 13.59 9.73 5/ 9.^7 3.86 13.32

Average k/ 1,689 — 9.70 7.83 1/ 7.58 1.88 9.46

Average excluding

singles 1,691 100.0 9.61» 7.78 5/ 7.5^ 1.86 9.^

463 11.3 6.11

c. Ru

4.72 .27 Uhder $2,000 5.81» .81 4.99

$2,000-3,000 757 n.o 7.53 6.1*8 .32 5.86 1.06 6.92 $3,000-l|.,000 Î 850 21.7 6.99 6.02 .61 5.14 .97 6.11 $4,000-5,000 : 1,154 22.7 7.66 6.73 .42 6.06 .93 6.99 $5,000-6,000 : 1,361 12.U 8.31 6.82 .28 6.37 1.49 7.86 $6,000 and over : 2,073 20.9 9.15 7.5»* .^9 6.90 1.61 8.50

7.03 Average k/ : 1,187 — 7.78 6.73 .50 5.98 1.04 Average excluding: 1 .^^ j

singles : 1,188 100.0 7.75 6.68

(

.49 5=96 1.06 7.02

Under $1,000 : 123 10.8 7.07 6.85 3.53 3.10 .22 3.33 $1,000-2,000 : 449 U.l 7.65 7.30 3.08 4.09 .36

1».52

l».7i*

1».86

'»2,000-3,000 : 661 16.6 7.82 7.22 3.08 3.91 .60

í;3,OOO-4,OOO : 892 13.9 7.66 7.13 2.82 •

4.21 .53 Í ^,000-5,000 1,084 17.if 7.79 7.09 2.81 4.16 .70

í;5,000-6,000 : 1,088 10.lt 7.77 7.01» 2.39 4.57 .73 5.30

5.09

^'57

í)6,000 and over :

Average kj :

1,727

900

16.8 8.00

7.61»

7.11»

7.07

2.83

2.93

4.23

4.01

.86

.57 Average excluding: • • 1

singles : 897 100.0 7.61 7.01» 2.93 3.98 .^e l».5l»

1/ Value data for food, excluding alcoholic beverages for home consumption, derived from

1955 Household Food Consunçtion Survey Report No. 3.

2/ Distribution of members of those families reporting incozoes.

2/ Includes value of food received as gift or pay as well as purchased and home produced,

4/ Average for all families. Including singles and those not classified by income.

5/ Negligible.

table 2 of
- 117 -

Table B.I5.—South: MarKet value and expenditure data for food per person in a week,

average income per person, and percentage distribution of family members,

housekeeping families, by urbanization and income group, spring 1955 i/

Disposable

money income

of family

in 195^

Disposable

money

income

per

person

Distribution

of

members

of

families

of 2 or

more

persons 2/

Market value of all food

at home and avay

Total

All food at home

Total Home

produced

Expenditures

for

food

Expenditures

for food

and

beverages

away from

home

Total

expenditures for

food at

home and

food and

beverages

away from

home

Dollars Percent

Under $1,0CX)

$1,000-2,000

$2,000-3,000

$3,000-^^,000

$i,000-5,000

$5,000-6,000

$6,000-8,000

$8,000-10,000

$10,000 and over

Average 4/

Average excluding

singles

Under $1,000

¿1,000-2,000

$2,000-3,000

$3,000-4,000

$i,000-5,000

$5,000-6,000

$6,000-8,000

$8,000-10,000

$10,000 and over

Average i/

Average excluding

singles

Under $1,000

$1,000-2,000

$2,000-3,000

$3,000-l4-,000

$i,000-5,000

$5,000-6,000

$6,000 and over

Average \¡

Average excluding

singles

Under $1,000

$1,000-2,000

$2,000-3,000

$3,0Ö0-if,000

$í,000-5,000

$5,000-6,000

$6,000 and over

Average hj

Average excluding

singles

117

395

617

867

l,li^7

1,309

1,812

2,238

l^,2tó

869

865

223

lf56

691

898

1,2148

1,352

1,921

2,256

i^,li^7

1,098

1,095

160

366

8I40

1,071

1,235

2,268

775

776

351

557

801

898

1,299

1,763

476

lf72

12A

16.9

18.8

20,i^

13.3

7.5

6.9

2.3

1.5

100.0

1^.3

18.9

23.0

15.0

9.6

10.1

3.6

2.1

100.0

12.1

17.*^

20.1

22.1

11^.3

6.9

7.1

100.0

33.6

2J+.8

15.9

10.6

6.9

3.1

5.1

100.0

Dollars Dollars Dollars

a. All urbanizations

Dollars Dollars Dollars

4.70

5.67

6.17

6.85

7.72

8.12

9.05

9.66

11.02

6.85

lf.63

5.91

6.19

6.65

7.82

8.03

9.31

9.09

11.85

7.3*^

7-30

5.li^

5.91

7.10

7.7^^

8.30

9.Ö5

6.59

U.90

6.oif

6.70

6.80

7.07

8.10

7.32

6.17

U.i»8

5.15

5.1^

5.92

6.57

6.64

7.34

7.47

8.93

5.94

6.79 5-Ö8

4.27

5.li^

5.tó

5.76

6.47

6.81

7.42

7.31

9.62

6.a

6.16

c. Rural

1.45

1.01

.67

M

.51

.46

.39

.20

.15

.73

.74

Urban

4.33

4.69

5.18

6.05

6.81

6.35

7-71

5.72

I

5/

nonfarm

6.53 5-65

4.67

5.77

6.17

6.17

6.18

6.66

6.54

5.71

.95

M

.65

.53

.57

.63

.23

.61

.61

Farm

6.15 5>69

2.22

2.59

2.46

2.42

2.52

2.34

2.21

2.43

2.44

2.75

3.89

4.55

5.23

5.85

5.96

6.77

7.12

8.43

4.95

4.89

3.84

4.77

5.23

5.1^9

6.22

6.47

7.12

7.25

9.11

5.89

5.85

2.98

3.70

4.14

5.27

5.95

5.50

7.20

4.78

4.72

2.24

2.96

3.46

3.52

3.38

4.07

4.13

3.04

3.02

.21

.51

.69

.93

.14

.47

.71

.19

.09

.91

.91

.36

.77

.71

.89

1.35

1.21

1.89

1.79

2.24

1.13

1.13

.11

.44

.73

1.05

.93

1.95

2.15

.87

.88

.23

.27

.53

.63

.89

1.45

.78

.46

.45

2.96

4.41

5.24

6.15

6.99

7.43

8.48

9.31

10.52

5.86

5.81

4.19

5.54

5.93

6.38

7.57

7.68

9.01

9.04

11.35

7.01

6.98

3.09

4.14

4.88

6.32

6.88

7.45

9.34

5.65

5.60

2.48

3.22

3.99

4.15

4.28

5.52

4.91

3.50

3.tô

l/^ue data for'food, excluding ¡Icohollc'beverages for home consumption, derived from table '^ or

195^ L^^LSr^o'd SoL^tlon Survey Beport No. J- ^^^^f^^^^^^^ ^ "^Z ^L'h^ed^^h^L

5/ Negligible.
118 -

Table B,l6.—West: Market valxie and expenditure data for food per person in a week, average

income per person, and percentage distribution of family members, housekeeping

families, by urbanization and income group, spring I955 l/

• Distri- Maiket value of all food • Total

at home Emo. iUÍBuV eaqpenditures fot

food at

home and

Disposable

: Dispos-

: able

' bution

of AU food at home ; Eacpenditures

for food money income : money

members

of of family : income families Obtal Expendi- and food and

in I95Í+ : per of 2 or 2J Total

11

' Home tures beverages beverages

: person more

.produced for

food away from \ away from

persons 2j\ home ; home

Dollars

: -308 1.5 8.1t6

a. All urbanlzatlor

Under $1,0CX) 8.10 1.38 6.45 0.36 6.80

$1,000-2,000 : 536 5.i^ 7.32 é.53 .70 ^M .80 6.26

$2,000-3,000 : 856 9.8 8.26 7.50

7.11

.39 6.86 .76 7.62

$3,ooo-U,ooo : 992 19.1 7.96 .36 6.57 .05 7.41

$U,000-5>000 : 1,229 22.1 8.H t.36 .34 6.84 1.07 7.91

$5,<XX)-6><XX) : 1,379 16.6 8.l»3 IM .33 6.89 .96 7.85

$6,000-8,000 : 2,015 11.8 10.7U 8.1A .33 7.94 2.30 10.24

$8,000-10,000 : 2,550 5.3 10.55 8.26 .26 7.81 2.29 10.10

$10,000 and over : 4,692 8.J^ 16.17 10.71 .21 10.iK) 5.46 15.86

Average ¿/ 1,584 — 9.IA 7.8U .36 7.26 1.61 8.86

Average excluding

singles 1,579 100.0 9-39 7.81 .38 7.22 1.59 8.81

Under $2,000 j 427 if.l* 7.61 6.51»

Urban

6.30 1.07 7.36 $2,000-3,000 830 8.7 7.50 (>.(£> F 6.53 .84 7.37 $3,000-4,000 993 i6.J* 7.83 6.86 il 6.65 .97 7.62

$4,000-5,000

$5,000-6,000 :

1,226 23.3 8.05 7.00 % 6.70 1.05 7.75

1,535 16.5 8.92 7.93 il 7.49 1.00 8.49 $6,000-8,000 : 2,0ll0 13.8 10.72 8.U 5/ 8.01 2.29 10.30 $8,000-10,000 : 2,668 5.8 10.10 8.IH 5/ 8.24 1.70 9.93 $10,000 and over : 4,788 n.i 16.31 10.61» 1/ 10.37 5.67 16.04

Average i/ : 1,781 9.61 7.80 5/ 7.50 1.82 9.32

Average excluding:

singles : 1,774 100.0 9.58 7.76 5/ 7.1*8 1.81 9.29

c. Rural nonfarm

Under $2,000 :

$2,000-4,000 :

460

1,018

9.8

1(0.1

6.21

8.79

5.96

8.17

.iif

.1»2

5.07

7.37

.25

.61

5.32

7.98

8.23 $4,000-6,000 : 1,158 38.2 8.78 7.66 .36 7.11 1.12 $6,000 and over : 2,494 11.9 13.95 9.72 .28 9.31 4.23

>0 .K.^

13.53 Average i/ : 1,205 9.35 8.12 .36 7.46 1.22 8.68 Average excluding:

singles : 1,197 100.0 9.15 7.99 .36 7.32 1.17 8.49

Under $2,000 : 69 20.2 9.26 8.65 3.07 5.39 .61 6.00 $2,000-4,000 : 754 30.9 7.85 7.08 2.23 4.63 .77 5.1«

1».98

6.35

5.61

(14,000-6,000 : 1,060 30.5 7.51 6.86 2.36 4.33

• 1 1

.65

1.02 i 6,000 and over : 1,910 18.1» 8.34 7.33 1.82 5.33 Average i/ :

Average excluding:

9^ — 8.31» 7.56 2.52 4.83 .79

singles : 937 100.0 8.25 7.1*8 2.52 1^-77 .77 5.5Í*

i/ Value data for food, excluding alcoholic beverages for home consunmtlon.

1955 Household Food Consunçtion Survey Report No. 5.

derived from table 2 of

2/ Distribution of members of those families reporting incomes.

¿/ Includes value of food received as gift or pay as well as purchased and home produced.

y Average for all families, including ôinéP^ and those not claasified toy Incone.

5/ negligible.
- 119 -

LITERATUEE CITED AND OTHER REFERENCES

Under the reorganization of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, effective April 1961,

statistical reports on agricultural production and prices, formerly published by the

Agricultural Marketing Service, will be issued by the Statistical Reporting Service. Other

periodic publications of the Agricultural Marketing Service listed here will be issued by

the Economic Research Service.

(1) Anderson, Kenneth E. School Lunch Programs In Elementary and Secondary Schools of the

United States. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Res. Rept. 262, kS pp., Aug. I958.

(2) Anderson, Kenneth E. The Special Milk Program; Its Effect on Consumption In St. Louis and

Los Angeles Schools. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Res. Rept. 209, ^5 PPw Jan. I958.

(3) Anderson, Kenneth E. and Hoofnagle, William S. The Market for Food in Puhlic Schools.

U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Res. Rept. 311, 5B pp., Jan. I96O.

{k) Badger, Henry T. The Use of Frozen Foods by Restaurants. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Res.

Rept. l44, 32 pp., illus., Nov. 1956.

(5) Bitting, H. Wayne. "The Use of Canned Foods by Restaurants and Cafeterias." Speech "before

convention of National Canners Association, Feb. 19, 1955. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv., 5 pp.

(mimeo.) .

(6) Blake, Ennis C. "Family Meals Away From Home." U. S. Dept. Agr., ARS, Institute of Home

Economics, Family Economics Review. Oct. I958, pp. Í4-9. ARS 62-5.

(7) Burk, Marguerite C. Consiomption of Processed Farm Foods. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Res.

Rept. 1^09, kl pp., illus., June I960.

(8) Burk, Marguerite C. "Distribution of the Food Supply of the United States." Agr. Econ.

Res. IV:3:83-87, July I952.

(9) Burk, Marguerite C. Measures and Procedures for Analysis of U. S. Food Consumption. Ü. S.

Dept. Agr. Agr. Handb. 206, II8 pp., illus., June I961.

(10) Burk, Marguerite C. "Some Analyses of Income-Food Relationships." Jour. Am. Stat. Assn.

53:905-927, illus., Dec. 1958.

(11) Burk, Marguerite C. and Scott, Forrest E. "Consumer Expenditures for Food." Mktg. Transn.

Sit. 131:19-28, Nov. 1958.

(12) Durost, Donald. Changing Sources of Farm Output. U. S. Agr. Res. Serv. Prod. Res. Rept. 36,

57 pp., illus., Feb. 1960.

(13) Engelman, Gerald and Pence, Betty Sue. Livestock Auction Markets in the United States.

U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Res. Rept. 223, 37 PP-, illus.. Mar. I958.

{ik) Hoofnagle, William S., Dwoskin, Philip B., Bayton, James A. The Market for Food in Selected

Public and Private Institutions. U. S. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Res. Rept. 8^, 38 pp.. Mar. 1955-

(15) Lifquist, Rosalind C. Buying Practices and Food Use of Employee Food Services in

Manufacturing Plants. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg. Res. Rept. 326, 135 PP-,- iHus.,

June 1959-

(16) Lifquist,Rosalind C. "Some Findings of the Survey of Employee Food Services in Manufacturing

Plants. " Nat. Food Sit. 89:to-tó. July 1959•

(17) Loomis, Ralph A. and Barton, Glen T. Productivitv of Agriculture. United States. 1870-1958.

U. S. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bui. I238, 63 pp., Illus., Apr. I96I.
- 120 -

( 18) Manchester, Alden C. The Changing Role of Fruit Auctions, U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mktg.

Res. Rept. 331, l6 pp., illus., June 1959«

(19) Mehren, George L. "Marketing Coordination and Buyers' Requirements." Pages 282-316 and

769-798 [appendix] of Policy for Commercial Agriculture — Its Relationship to Economic

Growth and Stability. Papers submitted by panelists appearing before the Subcommittee on

Agricultural Policy. Joint Economic Committee. Nov. 22, 1957« Joint Committee Print.

85th Congress, 1st. session, 1957«

(20) Ogren, Kenneth E. "The Farmer's Share: Three Measurements." Agr. Econ. Res. VIII:2:l<-3-50,

illus., Apr. 1956.

(21) Pedersen, John R., Mitchell, William L., and Pritchard, Norris T. Movement of Shell Eggs

into Retail Channels in the Chicago Metropolitan Area. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv. AMS-338,

12 pp., Sept. 1959-

^22) Progressive Grocer. Facts in Grocery Distribution. New York City: Annual Report of

Progressive Grocer.

(23) Rafler, Doris Detre. "Government Financing of Farm Exports in the Postwar Period." Agr.

Econ. Res. VII:i^:91-100. Oct. I955.

(24) Reese, Robert B. Production of Frozen Prepared Foods. 195^-55. U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv.

Mktg. Res. Rept. I70, 20 pp., illus.. May 1957.

(25) Sartorius, Lester C. and Burk, Marguerite C. Eating Places as Marketers of Food Products.

U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics in cooperation with Division of Agricultural

Economics, University of Minnesota. U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ. Mktg. Res. Rept. 3> HO PP.^

illus., 1952.

1^26) Scott, Forrest E. "The Food Marketing Industries — Recent Changes and Prospects." Mktg.

Transp. Sit. 127:17-to. Nov. 1957-

(27) Sherr, Harry. "The Supply and Distribution of Fishery Products in the Continental United

States, 1930-47." Nat. Food Sit. i|-5:19-to. July-Sept. 191*8.

(28) Sherr, Harry. "U. S. Military Procurement of Food." Nat. Food Sit. 79:19-26. Feb. 1957.

(29) Sherr, Harry and Taylor, Leva C. "Measuring Stock Changes." Nat. Food Sit. 75:2l+-29.

Feb. 1956.

(30) Super Market Institute, Inc. The Super Market Industry Speaks, Chicago: Annual Report of

Super Market Institute (19U9) to date).

(31) Trelogan, Harry C. and Ogren, Kenneth E. "What Is the Marketing Margin for Agricultural

Products? A Rejoinder." Jour. Mktg.. pp. I+03-I+06, Apr. I956.

(32) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Consumption of Food in the United States. 1909-52.

(Issued by U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ., predecessor of U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv.) U. S. Dept. Agr.

Agr. Handb. 62, 2^9 pp., illus., Sept. 1953.

Data superseded by Supplement for 1956. issued by U. S. Agr. Mktg. Serv., 120 pp.,

Sept. 1957^ and by annual supplements thereafter. Some data published currently in the

National Food Situation (^ . Agr. Handb. 62 superseded Misc. Pub. 69I Consumption of

Food in the United States. 1909-tö.

(33) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Farm-Retail Spreads for Food Products. U. S. Dept.

Agr. Misc. Pub. 7^*1, I65 pp., illus., Nov. I957.

Some of the data are published currently in The Marketing and Transportation

Situation (^.

(3^) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. The Marketing and Transportation Situation. U. S.

Bur. Agr. Econ. and Agr. Mktg. Serv. (currently published quarterly).
- 121 -

(35) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. Measuring the Supply and Utilization of Fann

Conimndities. U. S. Dept, Agr. Agr. Handb. 9I, lli^ pp., illus., Nov. I955.

Data superseded by Supplement for 1956. 52 pp., Oct. 1957, and "by annual supplements

thereafter. Some of the data for food commodities published currently in the National

Food Situation (36)^

(36) U. S.. Agricultural Marketing Service. The National Food Situation. U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ.

and Agr. Mktg. Serv. (published quarterly from 19^7). Special series of articles

using data from the I955 Survey of Household Food Consumption:

October 1956 (NFS-78) .—(a) "Review of U. S. Food Expenditure Patterns, Spring 1955,"

Marguerite C. Burk and Thomas J. Lanahan, Jr.

February 1957 (NFS-79) .—(b) '*Food Consvunption in the South, " Bobert J. Lavell;

(c) "Consumption Patterns for Dairy Products, Spring 1955> with Indications of Analytical

Uses," Thomas J. Lanahan, Jr.

April 1957 (NFS-80) .—(d) "Some Highlig)itB of the Urban Household Market for Food,"

Marguerite C. Burk and Harry Sherr; (e) "Food Consumption in the North Central Region,"

Robert J. Lavell; (f) "A Review of 1955 Survey Data on Household Meat Consumption,"

Thomas J. Lanahan, Jr.

July 1957 (NFS-81^.—(g) "Food Consumption of Households in the Northeast," Thomas J.

Lanahan, Jr.; (h) "Household Consunçtion of Nonalcoholic Beverages," Harry Sherr.

October 1957 (NFS-82).—(i) "Food Consuirç)tion in the West," Robert J. Lavell; (j) "Household Use of Fats and Oils in the United States," Robert J. Lavell.

P^bruarv 1958 (NFS-83) .—(k) "Household Consumption Patterns for Vegetables, Potatoes and

Sweetpotatoes, Dry Beans and Peas," Thomas J. Lanahan, Ji*.; (l) "The Household Market for

Sugar and Other Sweets," Robert J. Lavell.

April 1958 (NFS-81Í-) .—(m) "The Household Market for Poultry Products in the United States,"

Harry Sherr; (n) "Home Food Production: How and Where Important," Marguerite C. Burk and

Gertrude Gronbech.

July 1958 (NFS-85) •—(o) "Home îbod Production: Livestock Products, Historical Changes,

and Future Prospects," Marguerite C. Burk and Gertrude Gronbech; (p) "The Household

Market for Grain Products," Robert J. Lavell.

October 1958 (NFS-86).—(q) "Use of Fishery Products by Households in Spring 1955/'

Harry Sherr; (r) "Household Consumption of Fruit in Spring 1955/' Thomas J. Lanahan, Jr.

(37) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service. "The Outlook for Frozen Foods." Mktg. Transp. Sit.

123:17-^3. Nov. 1957.

(38) U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service, Consumption Section. Meat Consumption Trends and

patterns. U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Handb. 187, 67 pp., illus., July I960.

(39) U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Business. (Complete Censuses of Business were

taken in I929, 1933, 1935, 1939, 19^/ 195*^- Sometimes called Census of Distribution.)

Censuses for 1939, 19^, and 195^ issued with separate volumes for retail trade,

^rtiolesale trade, and selected service trades.

(1|.0) U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Manufactures. (Part of Decennial Census from

1810 on. Taken quinquennially 1905-20, biennially 1920-lK), then \9hl, and 195^.)

Censuses for I925, I929, 1935, 1939, 19^7, and 195^ are particularly valuable sources

of information on food processing.
- 122 -

I kl) U. S. Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics. Family Food Consumption in the United

States. Spring 19if2. U. S. Dept. Agr. Misc. Pub. 550, 157 PP-, 19^^-

This report contains food data obtained in the Study of Family Spending and Saving in

Wartime.

(If2) U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Family Spending and Saving in Wartime. U.S. Bur. Labor

Statis. Bui. 822, 2l8 pp., illus., 19A^5. Printed as House Document No. l^^T A. T9th

Congress, 1st Session, 19^5-

This volume contains data on incomes, expenditures, and savings obtained in the 19^1-^2

natSn^Ie Study of Family Spending and Saving in Wartime ^-^fil-V'^^^^S^fs^

families are included, but much of the detail for fam and rural ^f^^ ^^^\^,

published by the Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics in Misc. Pub. 520, iíliE2¿

F»m;ily Spending and Saving in Wartime. June 19^3-

(k3) U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mnnthlv Labor Review. U. S. Bur. Labor Stat. Monthly.

(hk) U. S. Department of Agriculture. Ma.lor Statistical Series of the U. S. Department of

Agriculture. How They Are Constructed and Used. U. S, Dept. Agr. Agr. Handb. 11Ö. lEach

volume issued as a separate publication.)

Vol. 1. Agricultural Prices and Parity. 8? pp., Aug. 1957-

Vol. 2. Agricultural Production and Efficiency. 7^ VV*f Sept. 1957-

Vol. 3. Gross and Net Farm Income. 106 pp., Dec. 1957-

Vol. k. Agricultural Marketing Costs and Charges. 35 PP-^ 1957»

Vol. 5. ConsuDçtion and Utilization of Agricultural Products. 91 pp., Dec. 1957-

Vol. 6. Land Values and Farm Finance. 56 pp., Oct. 1957-

Vol. 7. Farm Population, Employment, and Levels of Living. 25 pp., illus., Sept. 1957-

Vol. 8. Crop and Livestock Estimates. 2k pp., Oct. 1957«

Vol. 9. Farmer Cooperatives. 7 PP»^ Sept. 1957-

(U5) U. S. Department of Agriculture. Marketing. The Yearbook of Agriculture, 506 pp., illus.,

195^.

{k6) U. S. Department of Agriculture, Household Food Consunçtion Survey, 1955:

Report 1. Food Consi\TTpt.if^n <;^f Households in the United States. I96 pp., illus.,

Dec. 1956.

Report 2. Food Consimrotion of Households in the Northeast. 195 VV*j illus., Dec. 1956.

Report 3. Food Consumption of Households in the North Central Region. I96 pp., illus.,

Dec. 1956.

Report k. Food Consumption of Households in the South. I96 pp., illus., Dec. 1956.

Report 5. Food Congmnptinn of Households in the West. 19^ pp«, illus. 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. 68 pp., illus..

May 1957.

Report 9. Dietary Levels of Households In the South. 68 pp., illus.. May 1957*

Report 10. Dietary Levels of Households in the West. 68 pp., illus., J\ily 1957«

Report 11. Home Freezing and Canning by Households in the United States — by Region.

72 pp., illus., Oct. 1957.
- 123 -

Report 12. Food Production for Home Use by Households In the bnlted States — by Region.

88 pp., illuE., Jan. 1958.

Report 13. Home BaJcing by Households in the United States — by Region. I30 pp., illus.,

June 1958.

Report l4. Food Consioinption and Dietary Levels of Households as Related to the Age of

HomemaJcer, United States — by Region. l^U DP.. illus.. Oct. IQSQ,

Report 15. Food Consumption and Dietary Levels of Households as Related to Employment of

Homemaker. United States — by Region. 130 pp., illus., May I960.

(kj) U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Fish and Shellfish Consumption in

Public Eating and Drinking Places. Vol. I. U. S. Dept. Int. FWS, Special Scientific

Report: Fisheries No. 2l8, 93 pp., illus., June I957.

{UQ) University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce. Study of Consumer

Expenditures. Incomes, and Savings. Philadelphia: U. Pa., I8 vols., 195?.

Vol. I - "Summary of Family Accounts." 50^1 pp.

Vol. II - "Summary of Family Expenditures for Current Consumption." 50^ pp.

Vol. Ill - "Summary of Family Expenditures for Food, Beverages and Tobacco." ^Ok pp.

Vol. XII - "Detailed Family Expenditures for Food, Beverages and Obbacco." 212 pp.

Vol. XVIH - "Summary of Family Incomes, Expenditures and Savings, A3JL Urban Areas

Combined." 2k9 pp.

Statistical data from BLS Survey of Consumer Expenditures in 1950. Vols. I, II, III,

XVm pertain to calendar I95O data, vhile Vol. XII contains detailed data for a week of

spring 1951, as well as some 1950 statistics. The methodology of the survey is described

in Lámale, Helen Humes "Methodology of the Survey of Consumer Expenditures in 1950."

(1^9) Waldorf, William H. Output of Factories Procesfilng Fam Food Products. U. S. Dept. Agr.

Tech. Bui. 1223, 1^3 pp., illus., Sept. I960.

(50) Waldorf, William H. "Indexes of Factory Production of Domestic Faim Food Products." U. S.

Agr. Mktg. Serv. Mif+.p;. TVftn«p. Sit. 13k:22-2Q, illus., July I959.

(51) Waugh, Frederick V. (Editor). Readings on Agricultural Marketing. Sponsored by American

Farm Economic Association. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State College Press, ^1-56 pp., illus.,

195^-

T^U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1961 O - 598816
Growth Through Agricultural Progress