Poultry and egg situation

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Poultry and egg situation
Physical Description:
v. : ; 26 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
United States -- Bureau of Agricultural Economics
United States -- Agricultural Marketing Service
United States -- Dept. of Agriculture. -- Economic Research Service
United States -- Dept. of Agriculture. -- Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service
Publisher:
The Bureau
Place of Publication:
Washington, D.C
Creation Date:
January 1952
Frequency:
quarterly
regular

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Poultry industry -- Statistics -- Periodicals -- United States   ( lcsh )
Egg trade -- Statistics -- Periodicals -- United States   ( lcsh )
Genre:
serial   ( sobekcm )
statistics   ( marcgt )
federal government publication   ( marcgt )

Notes

Citation/Reference:
Bibliography of agriculture
Citation/Reference:
Predicasts
Citation/Reference:
American statistics index
Citation/Reference:
Index to U.S. government periodicals
Dates or Sequential Designation:
Began with PES 1 (Jan. 1937); ceased with PES-308 (Dec. 1980).
Issuing Body:
Issued by: Agricultural Marketing Service, Dec. 1953-Mar. 1961; Economic Research Service, May 1961-Dec. 1977; and: Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, Mar. 1978-Dec. 1980.
General Note:
Cover title.
General Note:
Description based on: PES-301 (Mar. 1979).
General Note:
Previously classed: A 93.20: and A 88.15/2:
Statement of Responsibility:
Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000502977
oclc - 04506769
notis - ACS2711
lccn - 79643440 //r81
issn - 0032-5708
sobekcm - AA00005304_00002
Classification:
lcc - HD9437.U6 A33
ddc - 338.1/7/6500973
System ID:
AA00005304:00002

Related Items

Succeeded by:
Poultry and egg outlook & situation

Full Text
?7


FOR RELE
FEB. 29, P


THE

SIT U AT ION
BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
PES- 157 RJAN. FEB. 1952


FEED CONCENTRATES FED TO
LIVESTOCK, 1950-51
Laying chickens


Poultry, 26%

Chickens raised

Broilers, A4

Turkeys, 2 -

Other c e


Beef cattle


Hogs


/ '4'"
v -..--P" .

,',f '- .<..-
t,, L. '
L,,,,*


Dairy cattle

PERCENTAGE FIGURES INDICATE PROPORTION OF TOTAL 1950-51 FEED
DISAPPEARANCE FED TO EACH CLASS OF LIVESTOCK


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


Poultry consumed about a quarter of the feed
concentrates fed in the United States last year. In
1951 poultry ranked below hogs and about even


NEG. 48431-XX BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS


with all cattle (dairy and beef) in importance as
users of concentrates.


9


ASE
. M.








-2-
The poultry anM egg situation at a glance


JAN.-FEB. 1952


: Month :


Item Unit or
date






Farm pr.dtTl a ....... ............... Ml. doz. Dec.

Average number cf Lajer o-n farm? M. Ul -Ii-ona Dec.

Rate of la, per hen ..... ............: ESPa : Dec.

Apparent civilian per capital : Nov.
dlsappearance .......................: Eggs

Frozea ege prodactlon ................ Mil. ib. Nl.

Dried egg produotloo ................. HI. lb. : No-.

Price recelved .by farmers .......... :Ct.per ac.: Dee.

Price received Dj farmers as a
percentage or paritj ................ Percent Dec.

Retail price tBAil ............ ..... :Ct.per oz.: Nov.

Egg-feed price ratio: .................: Lb. reed Dec.

Stock :

ShelU .. ......... ............. :17 -us.cases: Jar.. I

Frcen ............ ............... .Mil. lb. : Jan. 1

Dried .................. ........... iH 1. Ib. : Jan. 1

Chicks hatched bj co morcial
hatcheries .......................... M Liloas : Dec.

Pullset not yet of Laping age on
farms ............................... Millions : Jan. 1

Farm price fr poultry ration ......... :Dol.per ovt: Dec.





Price received by farmers for
chickens, l.e .................... :CL. per It. rDec.

Price received by 'aramrs as a
percentage or parity ................: Percent : Dec.

Retail price rf chickens,
dressed (BAJ ...................... :Ct. per 1b.: Nov.

Price received ty farmers for
turkeys, les .....................:Ct. per It.: Dec.

Stocks:

Poultry, excluding turrays ......... Mil. lb. : Jan. 1

Turseys ............................ Mil. lb. : Jan. 1

Chickanfeed price ratio .............: Lb. fee : Dec.

trkey-feed price ratio ............... Lb. fed Dec.

Average weekly receipts of poultry
at Central Western Prim ry
markets, par plant .................. z Ioos. lb.: Dec.

Average weekly placeamnt of ohilck
in 7 broiler arasm ..................: Milli m : Dec.
!


:1


LAverage : : c:: Month
941-50 195 : 1952 :: or






285.8 362.6 38t.1 Jan.

391.0 396.7 I.').0 J:: an.

8.7 11.0 11U.. : Jan.

26.6 29.5 30.7 :: Dec.


2.1 2.,. 2.6 :: Dec.

l.I. ,'.. :: Dec.

C-.7 57.7 51.1 :: Jan.


90 95 83' : Jan.

58.9 64.9 78.0 :: Dec.

15.'0 15.1 1L..1 Jan.



387 341. 141 :: Feb. 1

10O.9 &9.) 67.2 :: Feb. 1

96.1 17.7 :: Feb. 1


:.6.3 68.3 82.7 :: Jan.


47.3 3'.4 32.1. :: Feb. 1

3.01 3.71. L.2- : Jan.


Ponultry



23.6 .2.' 23.4 :: Jan.


10 74. 7. :: Jan.


45.8 49.". 50.1. : Dec.


34..7 31.3 39.6 :: Jan.



180.1 171.9 195L. Feb. 1

75.2 110.1 106.8 :: Feb. 1

7.8 6.0 5.5 :: Jan.

11.1 9.2 9.4. :: Jan.



19.6 21.3 22.0 :1 Jan.


7.3 8.7 :: Jan.
I:


SAverage
:1941-50: 1951 :1952 :om tion
S2 : / c current situation


348.8 A/4f23.3

'98.4 & 377.0

10.5 13.5

28.3 31.3


V. 50.6

,'387.6

14.0

33.0


: ecoa for month



Record for month


2.3 1.& 1.6

- 0.6 0.4.

37.5 42.6 41.5


12.7 .1.0 9.5



336 75 21.1

81.2 31.2 53.4

- 90.5 16.5


58.0 95.8 115.7


29.52/ 18.5 _/ 22.7

3.05 3.89 4.26





22.7 2L..3 25.1


107 80 82


U,.7 .7.7 68.5


31.6 33.9 37.1



158.0 167.7 181.5

83.1 1U6.9 116.2

9.7 6.2 5.9

10.5 8.7 8.7



10.2 15.7 22.2


7.8 9.6


TInducing reduction in
chickens raised


Season for active
storage now beginning


CCC stocks reduced
from last year



























Season peak


l/ except where data are for Novaber or December, in which cases the average 1s for the years 194'3-49.
E/ Except were data are for November or Decaber, in which cases the year ti 1950.
/ except where data are for Novmber or Deceaber, in which cases the year is 1951.
Revised in accord with 1950 Cansus data am accordingly not fully comparable to other data in Sam line, which have not yet bean revised.




PES-157


-3-


THE POULTRY AND EGG SITUATION

Approved by the Outlook and Situation Board February 15, 1952
SUMMARY

Egg prices in January and the first half of February dropped sharply,
and were below those of a year earlier. Production during January was
6: percent-larger than in January 1951 because of increases in both the
number of layers and the rate of lay,

In mid-February, seasonal storage had not yet begun on a large enough
scale to appreciably strengthen the market. Although volume of shell eggs
in"wtorage by mid-February was larger than in 4 of the past 5 years, there
seemed to be only slight interest in storing at current prices. To
February 9, stocks of frozen egg were still declining, as indicated by
reports from 35 cities,

TaMers intend to raise 10 percent fewer chickens for laying flock
replacement this spring than last. The intended reduction is in line with
the experience of other years', when declines in the egg-feed price ratio
have been followed by declines in the number of chicks brooded. -In mid-
January, the egg-feed price ratio was 9.5 against 11,0 a year earlier.

If the intended decrease in chickens raised materializes, it will not
significantly affect egg production until the last few months ef 1952.
This.tpring, output is expected to total about 4 percent higher than in the
spring 6f 1951, For the year as a whole, production will probably exceed
thi record level of 1951.

The decline in chickens raised will affect marketing of young farm
chickens by midsummer. For the year as a whole, however, the decline in
poultryy meat from farm chickens will be more than offset by increases in
brdiler and turkey production.
:t. Broiler- prices to producers rose sharply early in 1952 after having
been low in the last quarter of 1951. Currently, broiler placements are
about 25 percent above a year earlier.

;Turkey producers plan to increase production 11 percent over the
recort-of 1951, according to their January 1 intentions. The percentage
increase for the Beltsville Small Whites is likely to be greater than for
Other breeds, as was the case last year. In Virginia, which probably
p5rbd{ces more small turkeys than any other State, producers plan a 35 per-
dent'increase over the 1951 crop.

Parity price computations for chickens, turkeys, and eggs were
changed in January, as prescribed by law. The effect was to reducslightly
the- parity prices for all three products. On January 15, 1952, prices re-
*ceived by farmers "Sr eggs were 81 percent of parity, for chickens 82 per-
Scent,- and for .turkes 92 percent.




JAN.-FEB. 1952 -4-

Egg Prices Sharply L6wer"than in 1951; Springtime
Production to Continue Above Last Year

From the beginning ..of .the year, through the 7seoond-we.ek in February,
farm and wholesale egg prices were below those of the corresponding period
of 1951, when that year a prices reached the seasons low. Whether or not
the seasonal lows for 1952 have already been reached is not yet clear.

The .S. average price received- by farmers for -eggs;in'mid-J1ueary
was 40;'5. cents per..dozen,- compared with 42,6 cents' a year earlier. "The net
movement of prices was slightly downward in the 4 weeks following mid-Jan-
uary 1952. In mid-February prices were very near the levels which were
supported. in 1950. .:r -

Last. yearthe U. S. average farm price declined 1.2 cents fr6m mid-
January to mid-February, to a seasonal low of 41,4 cents per'dozen. In
1950 the seasonal low point occurred in February and again in May; and in
1949 in March,

.:J.anuary egg production on farms was a record for the month, and was
increasing toward the seasonal peak which last year occurred in March, The
output each month during the spring and early summer will be higher than in
January but the increase from January to the spring peak will not be as
sharp as it, was a few year's ago, Thi.s follows from the seasonal leveling"
out of monthly egg production which has occurred in the past few years.

Current egg-production is coming from a laying flock which was 3 per-
cent. larger on February 1 than a.year earlier. The number 'of birds in
laying.flocks is likely to.continue ahead of last year for the. next
6 months or so. The decreased number of pullets being raised in 1952 will
not affect egg production until the last quarter of the year.

In the. coming spring months, possible increases in the rate of lay
per bird are likely to be smaller than the large.increas'es in 'the fall and.
early winter months. For example, the rate of lay-on!'the first of January
1951 was 9 percent above the 1946-50 average for that date. It was
11 percent above average on.February 1 but-only the same as average n'
April 1 and May.j, ..

Extension of the springtime trends with regard to rate of lay, and
consideration of numbers of layers currently on-farms, indicate that'monthly
egg production this spring will run about- 4 percent above last .year.

The activities of egg stores and breakers in the- next few weeks will-
help determine whether or not'prices of eggs will decline below the levels"
of mid-February, Holdings of frozen egg from 19:51 production "did not clear
out as readily as those of a year earlier, and on February 1 stocks (in-
cluding some 1952 output), were equivalent to 1,4 million'cases of shell.
Comparable stocks the year before were equivalent- to 0.8 million cases.
Meanwhile, holdings of shell eggs on February 1-Vere 0.2 million cases,
against 0,1 at.-the -same time last year. -Because they are larger than a year
earlier, these stocks indicate that, toward any given level of peak-season
egg holdings, there is less opportunity this year than there was last to
divert peak-season supplies of eggs to storage.









0 0 0 0

0 F-1 C\I rH
- I~- C\ tC-


IH' 0


54












4 0
M 4

ko
0











Id
- 0
0






o l
S4
0


II











'I-
'-


0 0 U_\ IUN 0
OOl- % %
*0C r-o*
r-SO <0 -4'0%


l \C -t \,0%\ o U-\ 0o cL 0 0
4. frin ri m rh m 0 o 4 m o 0
S I II I I i i I'
a) na -l1 OM









C.) rJ O, rn ,n ,n .. _43
I- m ( \ r-- m m C-
0 -i 1'- H c u H 9






CU UlP0C\ CJ \0 CUO \0 \0 0%\ -1 CO r-1 CO




0 ,O.O^ 0*F4
a~O O~ 0 < o a o


PES-157


- 5 -


00 00
00 00
















,-*-t C --O 4






r-1 01



ch I'D f\
u' 4










.4 j11







,N


ol o0or ono u\o o o o
C+1 Cu I 0 CT -\0 0% Cu
cu C r- a\o cc r-I \'D U\
uI -r -zr _:t _t a* r\ _: _.t






I- -- c --n" o *
4) ,Cm -r -, Ur \ I,\ C, Lr%



I I I L I I I L- I
(D OC \0 T- CO --t







I ml ,


4 -1 -i|- \I- .D -
I-I -a- _:t n4 -* r -4 -t -4 WN












4 M re rn m H m _
0 ii II I



) 0 l\A A mCi H
0I (Om rrn- me -0% m 0
C| 4-4 -1 1 1 4 L -4 I i
ul1 CUom C-- ^ m


cu


r.4
0
CD
0











_P
43













U'\


P4
0
0
0
t-'-
















C4
.H
k0 4
b-4


*k
0
H t
0
0)

S

















(D
0



















*I
4:'
U


(
3-4
















an
00
















r ,.4 A
10
'a
a,
4-5,
0 t


0 *

Tj 0
0 'd .
'c*i c.
3'I-
-I T
Ac 00

H Wy
*Q a>



ca: 0'



.0 00


o C0C
Si <







JAN.-FEB. 1952 6 -
C- w
*| I | 0ot- O B r.NO0(,-i 00oONi.
r f 00 O

0' 0 NN 1 N HNN NNNN 0 NNNN NN(Y
-" LI- W -00O-- 0 0 iq DIO rC- N, '.- r, ;-I &0C' b0 1'- <0N t- N0 .- t *'- Rm 0-
I t 4 j M] 10 WN UI- O t O I 1o L-t ON fI t ft %t ft a! 4t ft ,1 V% W t-t f

a,, 0 R. ,fC ti',,o 0 L l t .' O aO'- a' O VO', to 'O, CDC tO CV- -* to t t

NI H- A. r-4.H-- NNoNN NoNN. NNNN NN.N NN.
o t cMto a, Iso c EmI mo . .. ..lo..c- E. O 00 CD

Sr t- W H t-, O 0 0 0 ~0 O' o40 CDe-l4 0 ,.4.4




S I!- -'! o a
00 (N to -4.-4,4 -4 MW- H0 -41 WO CM %NO NNNt NNN M 0>- a f E-- g H -t LI-



IN0! -... cc g .

0,0* 0- N UI c N r 0 U 00U'l0 t- (LN -t't;OH t g 1 1




I H H H H H N H H NC N L. p .4.4I4.4 -g414
I7 T 'T oi o 'N! .o7 n- M- M..,...M




IV C* | I O a, CO 01, t OC ,. 01 ,0 0 OM O 0 0 W\\- -* 'r, N400 (0, C-1,0 0100--0 -
04 0I B1 l,,oo HH-, No o- Ho4 --H rH 4 N.M-t ,H, --u ,%0', r ,.W .-




S I I' H I an E8
04 0N0 H- H- c -4 .-4 '. ,0 H 4 H 0 0 -00
4 l l -'- -0--HHH- HH. IH














SI .1 N .!N
I !4o 1 N- .N t WaN % -'. 0 L-- H ,
.4 04 H 2 H H r4 aH CH
0 v 1.O 1 1 -4I ,a a l 0 0 0a'



H S sI
0 / C"oC M 00 0 N'o0 0I E- 1 n PM M 0 'o 0'o 0 gm- -A< MM
0S (NI NI
0 -1 j | -, H w 2 R-1 O Id H-l Hl r1w. -4 rN 0
1a 0a, 0 ok









a- MT :$ c?- ol s\ B


0 0 0' HH aHDH HHH HH



fa I 40 QU) U M U, g 0.0WU0 La-l E-.4-1 tO-t-C4 @O- HH (M. 0 0J
to 0 I.4 M6 \M rO't-. MNc". N'l fa-'O 0\ HoC ) Hflf !D -0
Bal 0 B) 001 HH^ HCM N Nft NV N O rN 10-Dt~ 0 c'9CM 0 CM-*E M' V C- 6 0 00 0 O'La' N


0 0~-C-10 C'|C*OC tO0'-H NO NN UN 10 MO 0 CY M -4'0 1Ort. O inrH -4O CY'C- 0I A
o0 La- N NM N -i qwl P pH H HH N(01cr\ -4 L-a'l N CMw MI t- M 00 0 0 &a to
M 4 .j ... a a .
Aa 00 NOI H HH N N N Cft C14 N i ci\ CIN *l 04 C' 04 fm
N1C Bt 0 m C, gN'0 -ftO'OtoIA 0 E-'OU.-i 0-H I'o 4), t ~>0 rW 0 W% a'.N 5C"i m-l '- CD- 0-
la 0 14 CV H'r O- N %M CM 4 to 0. R 9' 0 0H4 !%,too 0S 0 C -O 0D 0- P. 2-4 % 00

I 0 S0 0 a c SN w i- O<. W0 a B 0ft VI tM CM Cl 1Q :!tC O M I CO Of L-504 0 000 0, a'




PES-157


The seasonal production increase from January to April may not quite
-equal the 33 percent average increase for 1947-51. However, dispositions
of the seasonal increase in that period indicate channels into which spring-
time increases in supplies might be diverted. For 1947-51, 9 percent of
the January to April increase was absorbed by greater hatching egg require-
ments, 21 percent by larger consumption, and 60 percent by storage. (Also,
in the years when the price support program was in effect, Government buying
was equivalent to almost 50 percent of the accumulations for commercial
storage.)

Farmers Intend 10 Percent
Reduction in Chickens Raised

Farmers plan to raise 10 percent fewer chickens this year than they
did in 1951, according to a survey of farmers' intentions on about
February 1, If these intentions should be carried out, a total of about 630
or 635 million chickens would be raised for farm flock replacement, compared
with 703 million in 1951 and the 1941-50 average of 788 million.,

The intended changes from last yeer are greatest in the Pacific and
West South Central Regions where the intentions suggest 15 percent decreases,
and in the West North Central and Mountain States, w-here 14 percent decreases
are indicated. The South Atlantic Region is the only one expecting an
increase.

Whether or not these intentions are carried out will depend on con-
ditions during the springtime hatching season, which is already under way.
The intentions report itself may have some effect on the actions of poultry-
men. Individual farmers may interpret it as indicating a more favorable
outlook than they had originally contemplated, and they may adjust their
plans accordingly.

The reduction in the number of chickens farmers intend to raise is in
line with that indicated by the reduction from last year in returns to egg
producers. Because of lower egg prices and higher feed prices, the January
1952 egg-feed price ratio was 9.5 pounds compared with 11.0 a year earlier.
The ratio measures the number of pounds of the average poultry ration which
can be bought with the value of 1 dozen eggs, and is an approximate indi-
cator of the profitability of ecr production.

In the past, reductions in the springtime egg-feed price ratio have
usually resulted in a reduction in the numbers of chickens raised. Average
past relationships suggest that the percentage reduction in the number-of
chickens raised is about half the percentage reduction in the weighted
springtime egg-feed ratio. On the basis of average past relationships,
there is usually a somewhat smaller percentage change in the number of
layers than in the percentage change in the number of chickens raised.
(Table 5.)

A moderate reduction in the number of chickens raised in 1952 would
not unduly restrict future supplies of eggs or chicken meat. Egg supplies
would not be noticeably affected until October or November 1952, and then
the reduction would be moderate. The effects on chicken meat supplies would
be spread out over a longer period. Narketings of young farm chickens would
be reduced in 1952, and those of mature chickens in 1953. However, if
chicken prices meanwhile justified an increase in output, the number of
broilers produced probably would be increased.




JAN.-FEB. 1952


Table 3.- Intended purchases of baby chicks, 1952


Geographic
divisions.


: Intended:


:purchases:
:as a per-:
: cent of :
: 1951 :
:purchases:
: Percent


Percent of total


Baby chicks bought in 1951 Baby chicks intended in 1952



Straight: Pullet
run : chicks :


Percent


Cockerel: Straight: Pullet : Cockerel
chicks : run : chicks : chicks


Percent Pereent Percent Percent Percent


New England
Middle Atlantic
E. N. Central
W. N. Central
South Atlantic
E. S. Central
W. S. Central


mountainn
Pacific


United States 90 62 33 5 62 34


Table 4.-


U. S. average egg price, value of poultry ration, and
egg-feed price ratio, October 1950 to date


*: 1950-51 : 1951-52
Egg : Value of : Egg- : Egg : Value of : Egg-
Month price, : poultry : feed : price, : poultry : feed
:per : ration, : price : per : ration, : price
: dozen : per cwt. : ratio : dozen : per cwt. : ratio
Cents Dollars Pounds Cents Dollars Pounds


October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
.1


43.2
45.8
57.7
42.6
41.4
43.7
43.1
45.2
44.7
46.6
4* 9.7
-55.0


3.60
3.63
3.74
3.89
3.96
4.00
3.99
4.02
3.95
3.95
3.96
3.99


12.0
12.6
15.4
11.0
10.5
10.9
10.8
11.2
11.3
11.8
12.6
13.8


55.6
56.5
51.1
40.5


4.04
4.12
4.22
4.26


13.8
13.7
12.1
9.5


96
95
87
86
103
99
'95
86
-8?


35
46
55
58
80
72
81
67
48


61
49
40
35
18
24
15
27
47


4
5
5
7
2
4
4
6
-- I


36
46
51
57
80
70
82
66
36


61
50
44
.38
18
28
15
30
J54


3
4
5
5
2
2
3
4
10


__ __


- 8 -




PES-157


Table 5.- Egg-feed price ratio, chickens raised, and pullets on
farms, January 1, United States, 1925 to date

* I nn von,.


Egg-feed :
price ratio. Chickens


., .. .
Pullets : : Pullets
on farma Egg-feed *
on farm: Chickens : on farms
January 1 price : raised : January 1
following ratio : follow
Millions Percent Percent Perceng
Millions Percent Percent Percent


102
105
.99
91
107


1925
1926
1927 :
1928
1929

1930
1931 :
1932
1933
1934
1935
,934 :
1937
1938
1939

1940
.1941 :
1942"
1943
1944 :
1945
.1946 :
'1947
.1948
19149

1950
1951
1952 :


12.9
13.5
13.4
12.2
13.1

13.8
10.6
11.6
14.3
10.9
'11.4
13.1
9.4
11.4
12.6

10.4
"11.5
13.2
14.7
11.2
12.8
11.9
'11.3
9.8
12.7

9.6
11.4(12.7)
2/(11.1)


103
106
104
93
107


679
718
750
700
751

777
709
736
750
644
658
715
601
651
697

634
745
844
1,001
832
915
746
745
637
744

670
2/703


94
103
100
89
107
110
e6
113
105

94
116
115
110
86
107
87
99
93
111

92
106


(weighted raised
. average*):.
* Pounds Millions


244
230
237
238
212
226
249
215
242
254

240
278
319
350
.301
32'
281
278
258
.,287

264
279


105
77
109
123
76
105
115
72
121
111

83
111
115
111
76
114
93
95
87
130

76
119
3/87


Preliminary.
2 For 1952, November thru-January; comparable 1991 in parentheses.
1952 to date as a percentage of comparable 1951.

Weights are as follows: Preceding November, 1; preceding December, 2;
iJanuary, 3; February, 4; March, 5; April, 3; May, 1.


104
91
104
102
86
102
109
84
108
107

91
118
113
119
83
110
82
100
86
117

90
/105


- 9 -




JAN.-FEB. 1952


Broiler Prices Rose
in January

Broiler prices rose sharply in the first few days of January, and at
the end of the month were much higher than the low prices of October, No-
vember, and December 1951. Typical broiler prices of the last few months
are shown in table 6.

Broiler chick placements in the months preceding January partly
explain the recent price increase. October placements, from which January
marketing were made, were the lowest of any month in 1951. In addition,
prices also were stimulated by the end to the holiday movement of turkey,
and the seasonal decline in the marketing of farm chickens.

On account of the increase in broiler chick placements since October,
and particularly the high level of January placements, further increases in
broiler prices in the next few months are not likely. If the current rate
of placements is maintained, a decline in broiler prices is likely at or
before mid-year, when young chickens from farm flocks are marketed in sea-
sonally heavy volume.

In the 4 months ending with January 1952, placements averaged 17 per-
cent above the comparable figures of a year earlier. In mid-February they
were 25 percent larger than a year earlier,

Increase of 11 Percent Intended
for 1952 Turkey Crop

In January, farmers intended to raise 11 percent more turkeys in 1952
than the record output of 52.8 million birds in 1951. Early-season reports
of strong demand for turkey hatching eggs and for poults are consistent with
an intended increase in turkey numbers. However, changes in farmers' plans
as the season progresses have in the past resulted in occasional sharp
differences, either up or down, between intended and actual numbers of
turkeys raised (table 9). The 1952 percentage increase in the number of
pounds of turkey produced will probably be smaller than the increase in
numbers, since the numbers of small turkeys are likely to increase more,
percentagewise, than the other breeds.

In 1951, numbers of Beltsville Small Whites increased 55 percent over
the year before, while other turkeys increased 10 percent, resulting in a
16 percent weighted average increase. For 1952, Virginia, probably the
leading State in the production of Beltsville Small Whites, shows an in-
tended increase of 35 percent in its turkey crop, Virginia ranked fourth
among the States in size of the 1951 turkey crop, and its intended percentage
increase for 1952 turkey numbers is not matched by any other State whose
turkey production is of comparable size. (The 3 States which led Virginia
in 1951 turkey numbers were California, Texas, and Minnesota. Their
respective intended increases for 1952 are 20, 4, and 13 percent.)

Recent wholesale prices in terminal markets have been well sustained
for frozen tom turkeys in the larger sizes, but prices for bronze hens are
lower, and for Beltsville Small Whites, sharply lower, than just before
Christmas. Producer prices in Virginia for Beltsville Small Whites were about


-10-





PES-157


Cd


0
o
o
rd
WS

o
m








Id
m


r4



0
0















H
0
0
Id



P,
0
14
at








ri-
0









ID

m
*0
' -4


0 r








*dIt

.0




54







.1I
: s


11 -



M en c mj cu C M Cu Cu ren M







Icu i a C CU (f Cn C
40 m
I I C I I I I I I I
o o C \ o kO Co 0 oC 4
M m CU CU Cu cu o oo C
















M C cIU U I ( I C, Cj u




Ii I I



















Sn n -t 4 C C
Cu c u M cu cu CU U Cu
CM CU CuM





p Cu 9 \ CU I CU Cu C.







ao 1, "g? a *




i % .4 .4 co Co \% H 0






54r-i Hn i r -i r-H
H 0 k 54 k t54 0-b



r-4 C a 0 0 0) (D CM 0)

H H


0
0a













0

4- 0
P.
















0





















4-
0
4-
0








0




4D 0

0 9i


- 1- 0
a P4

S 4-1





0 m









b g1-I






JAN.-FEB. 1952


-12-
Table 7.- Weekly broiler placements in specialized areas 1/; broiler prices and
broiler-feed price ratios, Salisbury, Maryland, 1950 and 1951


-- 193U :. Ml
:Placements, 7 areas: Broiler : Broiler-:Placemants, 7 areas: :
Week Pfaeed prcefeed price% : Place-- Place-
ending W :l c:m- :Vr pound$ ratio : Weekly : ants, cents,
Wee_ : lstlative : areas :3lareas
:Sa11sbury:Salisbury: ares areas
1.000 1.000 Cents Lb. feed 1.000 0 1000 1.000
Jan. 6 : 6,254 6,254 18.9 4.1 7,508 7,508 1,297 8,805
13 : 6,363 12,617 18.3 4.0 7,678 15,186 1,355 9,033
20 : 5,986 18,603 18.4 4.0 7,554 22,740 1,351 8,905
27 : 6,0o4 24,647 22.8 5.0 8,272 31,012 1,484 9,756

Feb. 3 : 5,436 30,083 20.3 4.5 8,310 39,322 1,567 9,877
10 : 5,824 35,907 2 4.0 5.2 8,803 48,125 1,839 10,642
17 : 7,504 43,411 25.3 5.6 9,461 57,586 1,838 11,299
24 : 7,719 51,130 26.2 5.7 9,615 67,201 1,990 11,605
Mar. 3 : 8,437 59,567 28.6 6.2 9,525 76,726 1,796 11,321
10 : 8,490 68,057 28.0 6.0 9,125 85,851 1,845 10,970
17 : 8,188 76,245 28.7 6.1 9,395 95,246 1,840 11,235
24 : 7,693 83,938 29.0 6.2 9,676 104,922 1,920 11,596
31 : 7,745 91,683 29.0, 6.2 9,914 114,836 2,297 12,211
Apr. 7 : 7,511 99,194 27.9 6.0 10,161 124,997 2,091 12,252
14 : 7,475 106,669 27.2 5.8 10,254 135,251 2,033 12,267
21 : 7,507 114,176- 28.3 6.0 10,181 145,432 1,983 12,164
28 : 7,458 121,6314; 27.2 6.0 10,046 155,478 2,130 12,176

)by 5 : 7,144 128,788 : 24.6 .. 5.1 10,082 165,560 2,077 12,159
12 : 7,014 135,792 24.1 4.9 10,087 175,647 2,160 12,247
19 : 6,903 142,695 25.3 5.1 10,012 185,659 1,981 11,993
26 : 7,064 149,759 25.8 5.2 9,892 195,551 2,260 12,152

June 2 : 7,098 156,857. 26.8 5.3 10,035 205,586 2,106 '12,141
9 : 7,249 164,106 S66.5 5.4 9,891 215,477 1,935 11,826
16 : 7,224 171,330 26.0 5.3 9,674 225,151 1,945 11,619
23 : 7,321 178,651 25.4 5.2 9,587 234,738 1,945 11,532
30 : 7,307 185.958 25.9 5.3 9,489 244,227 1,961 11,450
July 7 :7,447 193,405. 26.9 5.5 9,236 253,463 1,903 11,139
14 7,250 200,655 28.8 5.7 9,232 262,695 1,999 11,231
21 : 7,041 207,699 33.3 6.6 9,141 271,836 1,815 10,956
28 : 7,185 214,884 34.0 6.7 8,790 280,626 1,738 10,528
Aug. 4 7,085 221,969 32.9 6.4 8,754 289,380 1,772 10,526
11 7,179 229,148 30.5 6.0 8,528 297,908 1,760 10,288
18 : 7,287 236,435 31.2 6.2 8,076 305,984 1,568 9,644
25 : 7,162 243,597 30.2 6.1 7,911 313,895.' 1,498 9,409
Sept. 1 :6,956 50,553 28.7 5.9 7,868 321,763 1,444 9,312
8 : 7,086 257,639 28.3 5.7 7,673 329,436 1,401 9,074
15 : 7,186 264,825 28.9 5.9 7,621 337,057 1,399 9,020
22: 7,462 272,287, 27.2 5.6 7,804 314,861 1,367 9,171
29 : 7,o00 279,687 27.3 5.6 7,619 352,480 1,357 8,976
Oct. 6 : 7,021 286,708 25.3 5.2 7,447 359,927 1,239 8,686
13 : 6,731 293,439 25.0 5.2 7,328 367,255 1,268 8,596
20 : 6,768 300,207 23.8 5.0 7,341 374,596 1,286 8,627
27 : 6,546 306,753 22.3 4.5 7,486 382,082 1,431 8,917
Nov. 3 : 6,492 313,245. 24.2 5.0 7,721 389,803 1,549 9,270
10 : 6,588 319,833 24.6 5.1 7,691 397,49W. 1,639 9,330
17 : 6,577 326,410. 25.3 5.2 7,965 405,459: 1,615 9,580
24 : 6,834 333,244 24.1 4.9 8,307 413,766 1,781 10,088
Dec. 1 : 7,380 340,624 23.0 4.7 8,694 422,460 1,871 10,565
8 : 7,811 348,435 .23.2 ..7 8,698. 431,158. 1,930 10,628
15 : 7,416 355,851 22.9- 4.5 8,724 439,882 1,997 10,121
22 : 7,188 363,039 22.4 "4. 4 9,142 49,0246 1,884 11,026
29 : 6.707 369,746 22.T J.4 8,277 457,301. 1,761 10,038
Total and:
avera, :369,746 26.1 5.4 457,301 91,278 548,579


: Broiler :Broiler-
:price, pan: feed
: pound, pr le ratio,
:SalisburY :Salisbury
Cents Lb. feed


24.2
26.8
25.5
27.8

27.5
28.8
27.9
28.4

28.1
27.3
27.3
28.1
28.0
28.8
29.8
30.1
29.9
30.2
29.4
27.7
27.4
26.3
26.6
28.4
28.6
27.6

27.2.
28.8
27.7
28.4

28.4
28.3
28.6.
28.1;

28.4
28.2
28.5
27.4
26.5 .
26.0"
25.0
24.6
24.0


4.7 .
5.2
4.9
5.4

5.3
5.5
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.5.
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.5
5.2
5.2

5.1
5.1
5.5
5.5
5.3
5.3
5.5
5.3
5.4

5.5
5.4
5.5.
5.4

5.5
5.4
5.4 -
5.2
5.0

&.6
4.6
4.6. :


24.0 4.5
24.6 4.6
24.7 4.6
24.7 4.5


23.8
24.4
23.6,
23.2
24.1


4.3
4.4
4.2 !
4.2
4.4


27.1 5.1


1/ Seven areas: E. Conn., Del-Mar-Va, Shenandoah Valley (Va., W. Va.), N. C. (Chatham-W1lkes area throughout
the year and Buncombe area beginning July), North Georgia, H. I. Arkansas, and Texas area. 4 additional
areas: Indiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.






PES-157


- 13 -


Table 8.- Chicks placed weekly in 11 Specialized broiler areas in 1951

Chick placements
Week Shen. : North :N :ia_
e East. Del-Mar- North N. W. Texas Missiser
ending : v ^:Valley : Carolina: IW :Alsbama: ordaIndlana
n Conn. Va. / : Georgia :Arkansas. area ippi
; = "V a .W V a : ; .
1.0 00 1.000 1. 000 1.000 1.000 100 1.00 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Jan. 6 309 3,145 636 333 1,278 916 891 245 354 150 548
13 249 3,231 585 302 1,487 907 917 268 392" 150 545
20 300 2,864 587 378 1,547 925 953 293 434 148 476
27: 279 3,064. 650. 367 1,788 1,097 1,027 : 300 437 152 595
Feb. 3 : 359 2,969 762 389 1,745 1,028 1,058 ,: 320 488 160 599
10 : 364 3,191 730 662 1,748 1,117 1,191 376 529 14- 789
17 : 375 3,429 910 480 1,858 1,167 1,242 363. 536. 173" 766
24 : 312 3,568 871 486 1,985 1,170 Y1223 376 490 206 918
Mar. 3 : .- 367 3,554 967 491 1,814. 1,097 1,235 316 563 146 i 771
10 : 286 3,602 923 520 1,860 882 1,052 363 545 -187 750
17 : 356 3,451 939 506 1,909 1,073 1,161 357 -518... 186 779
24 : 354 3,401 995 514 1,995 1,160 1,257 386 559 201 774
31 : 332 3,475 1,037 511 2,022 1,218 1,319 411 645 211 1,030
Apr. 7 : 348 3,604 1,037 556 1,987 1,252 1,377 406 626 !186 873
14 : 419 3,571 1,001 524 2,078 1,306 1,355 405 591 184 833
21 : 365 3,659 978 536 2,055 1,234 1,354 411 *" "574' 195 803.
28 : 391 3,610 939 539 2,046 1,195 1,326 W48 610 185 887
.Ma .5 : 08 3,574 949 510 2,122 1,207 1,312 420 618 18e 857
12 : 349 3,683 878 536 2,076 1,280 1,285 468 612 184 896
19 : 320 3,613 940 539 2,047 1,189 1,364 423 619 185 754
26 : 392 3,542 828 569 2,135 1,084 1,342 456 627, 189 988
June 2: 294 3,588 857 548 2,275 1,114 1,359 .418 586 185 91?
9 414" 3,697 306 557 2,148 1,071 1,198 406 600 176 753
16 299 ". 3,429 815 566 2,257 1,138 1,170 410 556 168 a 811
23 : 302 3,493 803 572 2,289 1,000 1,128 390 569 179 807
30 : 362 3,321 763 614 2,211 1,080 1,138 368 560- 158 75
July"' 7 284 3,292 699 -582 2,215 1,071 1,093 364 527 154 6 858
16 :, 301 3,357 698 612 2,078 1,085 1,101 376 5,15 152 956
21 : 286 3,298 729 596 1,978 1,213 1,041 375 517 156 767
28 : 280 3,172 703 556 1,936 1,103 1,040 345 .450. 13 800
Aug. 4 : 295 3,172 670 539 1,974 1,055 1,049 383 441 -149 799
11 : 234 3,264 715 509 1,863 1,027 916 334 366 170 890.
18 : 313 3,066 638 567 1,748 935 809 301 381 160 i 726.
25 : 252 3,168 646 429 1,774 796 846 274 374 171 679
Sept., 1 .267' 3,071 661. .476 z,777 822 814 313 369 157 625
8 : 191 3,116 616 472 1,730 770 778 297 339 156. : 609
15 : 202 3057 602 475 1,749 740 796 327 366. 180 526
22 275 3,095 571 468 1,764 816 815 371 350 '162 4 84
29 : 203 3,062 497 555 1,781 738 783 333 361. .. 160. 503
Oct. 6 : 159 2,958 .474 542 1,942 623 719 358 301 '174: 406
13 : 212 2,810 '407 445 1,95 651 852 374 320 '166 408
20 : 277 2,749 449 406 1,940 684 836 363 311 -165 447
27 : 247 2,539 454 454 2,057 810 925 324 359 .1'174 574.
NoW. 3 : 254 2,690 577 439 2,122 722 917 ; 382 368 173 626
-10 : 273 2,563 600 440 2,017 760 1,038 4.9 354 il98:'..: 668
.17 : 294 2,565 738 467 2,061 7'8 1,082 416 448 :195 556
24 : 219 2,813 720 425 2,043 983 1,104 58 425 198 700
Dec. 1 : 258 3,189 788 493 1,937 931 1,098 408 441 167 855'
8 : 274 3,174 814 477 1,897 944 1,118 441. 474' 203 i 792"
15 : 233 3,101 831 507 1,843 1,006 1,203 455. 436 194 912'
22 291 3,126 779 522 1,932 1,155 1,337 426 518 191 749
29 : 234. 2,556 674 469 1,918 1,139 1,287 379 475. 212 695.
Total :15,493 167,351 38,936 25,827 100,789 52,244 56,661 .19,419 24,804 9,051 -38,00oo
( Includes Chatham-Wilkes area throughout the year and Buncoabe area beginning iz July.





JAN.-YIB. 195

4
)


01-4
.0 0
CO~ I

43 (D CC
'UA
t3 43 I *
v vE 4
00 a
d ~ I


a,
a,
90
CO

43
0
4)


0}
4)
a,
HO


Ok


-P




rJ (
o4
4)
v <
a%
to
0
4i)







V)
to



0 0
4 C




E4
CD
90
&
0
C3
a,
CD
*H
0

m
CD
Q)
0




a,
E-.


I
to

0 t*
10

MM

0
0,4





;4



ag


C 4


0
** ** **






4-)

P4






0
0






O
I
3 C









41 a
00
A *Q
















'r3 m CD
a) & o







S0





C)
** ** **




e rt
Pi 43
OC
*Hn ot

0) o?'<


2

43D 4.

0 r-l (fl
FL4 (1) C.
a e 1+
r-11114 0 0




M~ M
* ** **t





(0 cc
a &

cO I
41 43
0 0 $4
.O 4) O
tD00 t 0.

** ** ** **
H H

0 I
*q ** 0 94












4,4

000
O 64 C


to 0
me
t. 4* ** 9.
I CD 4)

00 H 00



0 p a









Q r co Su
p 4)
PL4 P,
** ** ** *9

3 At



Io
oa a
ko 0)
p 4)
&, O















40 .,) .. 4. t
44









(<
** ** **


I 01 41








aq I H
4' 9I.C


'0*rl 0

( -' 0 &
031) *rI 13I





s &'o* a P
99 9. *
1 2D 4




g^& a
4) A
0 H

04

P4 a
9. .9 Ob **



a H

0)

0 (1R


'4 0'
tH H


- 14 -


N
0
H







me
*
HH










So
O aNO HW'.,O 0',o
'.0 H .. N0 0p Cr CYT, ICO
^-C'-4C'-m 0 -:t




S 0 90 t0




.4




-t n
em



clo
V
NN


Oto to 0 U", 1C'-U r-l





U0\ U'\ N LP'-(W '.0 W\ H
r~-jO r-I r-O4sr-


OHHHH- NO --
HHrHii-HH HH,4




m*nC'%O N 0 -,2 Cr


C0 r0CO0 Ir\0 %D

"'H n 4c\0 G,0 01 a, 0I, C
90 a,- 0 9I 90 &90



O0 90 90 9t 9 9O ON9909
to c'l, -4 110 t44. C- t N cq\
HO-.H4o u 0' .-4cto~
01.0 OOdvCm
sO ^ >-^ ^




04 0'.- 00 H 0. 0A0 t
H HHHH
.4 C-O 0 0 r- lCe-a

0- 00 C- <000D C-VaO-4-


c t N 01 0 94 00C -



LA t-1000 H LA \4-1
C NNNNNN0 0 CV CNHH


CMON 000M N L' N 'CM0
HH HHr- r-H


C to 'o0 c'-
'0 A A _-4
0 C- (7%o'
-*tC"C -1


\O'Cyt-cm%\N EC-C--4
OrH0 u0 Hi M 0 It' Ir\
OHN H C7% % N N t
0' I' CW Ur\ UN Cr- CM %a L\ L-


00N M f 0o 0 .o 0 NC
HHH H HH H H HHH


0C a M I -N r-4 ;g LNrk-C-

C-S0M eOi- 0 LI \0 UN


C-N UN c%0 .- -H 40 0 O
0 WOO o'o N L-- t-
0 0 'C oN0 OC,-7 CtN

0, C 0r C 0


N 0CW N \_t MU-\


o0 s 0


a,-H al a H 7H .
r-ifoi i- o i- l H r-I i r-0


o

CO
0





*
r4
H



00 co




_rv r- I
cu oC\ rn
,- 00cO



t-- 0 m
cu cnco
A. A CA


'0



,








cO
r\0











0H
CO















,-4-






H H




FBS-135 15 -

34 cents rer pound (live) in mid-February, against 43 cents in December.
The U. S. average farm price for turkeys was 37.1 cents in January, down
seasonally from Leaember's 39s6 cents. The December and January tur.-ey-
feed price ratios were 9.4 and 8,7 respectively, against 9,2 and 8.7 a year
eaLlier, and 11.1 and 10,5 as the averages for the corresponding months in
the receding 10 years.:

Dried Egg Stocks Reduced

Commcdity Credit Cornoration holdings of dried egg have been greatly
reduced during the past year. On January 1, 1952, the Government's un-
committed stocks were 10,7 million pounds, compared with 91o million
pounds a year earlier. The. dispositions are detailed in table 10.

Since there was no egg price support program in 1951, there were no
additions last year to CCC stocks. This explains the reduction in the
holdings; in previous ears when purchases were made, disposition
activities barely kept abreast of purchases.

Sales and donations from the remaining stocks of dried egg are con-
tinuing and lispositions of about I million sounds were reported for
January 1952. Current legislation requires a price of about $1.03 per
pound for unrestricted domestic uses, while recent expert sales have been
made at about 30 cents per pound.

Table 10.- Inventory and disposition of CCC dried
egg, 1951


Item / : Quantity
Million
nound s

Inventory, January 1, 1951 91.1
Dispositions during 1951
For use in U. S.
Sales for food and manu-
frct-o.ring 3
Donations 9.1
For use abroad
To United Kingdom 41.9
To Israel 1.0
To American Friends Service
Organization .3
Miscellaneous donations 20.3
Commercial sales for export 4,9
Miscellaneous .2 80,5
Inventory, January 1, 1952 10.6

1_/ The references here are to commitments made, and to remaining un-
committed stocks, rather than to quantities actually delivered or
remaining in the custody of CCC,




JAN.-FEB. 1952


Changes for 1952 in Parity Price Computations

In accordance with legislation now in effect, the parity price for
eggs 1/ was about 5 percent less on January 15, 1952 than it was on
December 15, 1951. Parity for chickens was 3 percent lower, and for
turkeys 1 percent lower.

These changes mean that ceilings, should they be applied to these
commodities under presently existing legislation, may be applied at somewhat
lower price levels than would otherwise have been the case.

For eggs, the basic change in the parity price follows from another
downward step in transitional parity. The Agricultural Act of 1948, with
its provisions for modernizing parity, recognized that for some com-
modities--such as eggs-the immediate substitution of the "new" parity
price for the "old" -parity would result in a drastic reduction in the
parity price. Therefore, a steadily-declining transitional parity is sub-
stituted for the "new" parity, until the transitional parity has declined
to a lower level than the "new" parity, At that time, which probably will
be in 1953, the "new" parity is to become the effective one for eggs.

Transitional parity in 1952 is 85 percent of the old parity as com-
-puted on the 1910-14 base; in -1951 it was 90 percent; in 1950, 95 percent.

For chickens and turkeys, the reductions in parity are for a different
reason. The modernized parity concept, which already covers these com-
modities. depends upon the price relationships of the preceding 10 years,
as shown in table 11. In January 1952, when 1941 was dropped and 1951 added
to the roster of the most recent 10 years, the result was a 4 percent
decrease in the base price for chickens, and a 1 percent decrease for
turkeys. The actual parity prices changed somewhat less, however, because
the parity index meanwhile rose.

For a more detailed discussion of the parity concept as it applied to
eggs, chickens,'and turkeys, see the December 1949 Poultry and Egg Situation,
and for details regarding the seasonal adjustment of monthly egg prices for
parity purposes, see the July 1950 issue.


Following a test of the relative keeping-qualities of washed and un-
washed eggs, the California Agricultural Experiment Station reported that
unwashed clean eggs were in excellent condition after 6 months of storage,
with loss limited to 0.2 percent, an average of less than 1 egg per case,
Unwashed slightly dirty eggs had very little more spoilage, 0.4 percent.
But an average spoilage of 3.6 percent was found among washed eggs.

"The Californiia Station concluded that washing eggs before storage
is a risky business. The only safe eggs to store are eggs produced clean
and left unwashed. Unwashed, slightly dirty eggs are apparently almost
as safe, but the keeping quality of any washed egg is utterly unpredictable
at present. Practically all of the eggs that spoil in storage are eggs
that have been washed." Report on the Agricultural Experiment Stations,
Office of Agricultural Experiment Stations, U.S.D.A, January 1951.

T/ For comparison with parity prices, monthly prices received by farmers
for eg,-s must be adjusted for seasonal variation.


-16-





PES-157 17 -

Table 11.- Pricos received by farmers for eggs, chickens, and turkeys, relative
to the general level of prices received by farmers, 1940 to date, and
example of derivation of adjusted base prices for parity computation


Prices
:received
:by farmers
: for all
Year :commodi-
.ties /(Aug.
1909-July
: 1914=100)
Percent.


SAverage prices received by
:Average prices recolved by : farmers for poultry products,
: farmers for : divided by index of prices
. poultry products : received for all commodities 2/


Eggs, Chickens, Turkeys,:
per per per
dozen : pound 'pound
Cents Cents Cents


Eggs,
per
dozen
Cents


Chickens, : Turkeys,
Super per
: pound pound
Cents Cents


a. Annual averages


13.1
15.6
18.8
24.4
23.9
25.8
26.8
26.7
29.4
26.5
22.9
26.2


14,0
16.8
21.6
29.6
31.6
33..3
33.2
31.9
41,o
38.0
31.6
35.9


19 .1
20.3
19.9
20.2
17i.2
18.9
.16.8
16.9
16.8
18.2
14.4
15,9


b. 10-year averages


23.1
24,1
25.1


29.1i
30.9
32.8


18.1
17.7
17.3


I/ Including allowance for wartime subsidy pa
2/ The'10-year averages appearing in these 3
for the computation of"new"parity for the yea
respective averages, "New" parity is the bas
For eggs, "new" parity is not yet applicable;
transitional one.


yments.
columns correspond


r after the last year
3 price multiplied by
the effective parity


the base prices
included in the
the parity index.
price is the


1940'
1941, .
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
a1949
11950.
1951


100
123
158
192
196
206
* 234
275
285
2,49
256
302


19.1
25.0
3114
38.7
33,8
39,0
39.2
46.4
48.0
. 45.4
36.9
47.9


13.1
12.7
11.9
12.7
12.2
12.5
* 11.5
9-7
19.2
10.6 .
8,9
8.7


14.0
13.7
13.7
15.4
16.1
16.2
14.2
11.6
14.4
15.3
12.3
11.8


1940-49
1941-50
1942-51,.


202
: 218
235


36,6
38.4
4o.7


11ii4
11.17
10.7


14.4
14.2
14.0


1 _


1




JAN.-FEB. 1952


-'18 -


Sm mary of Price Ccntrol Regulations'
r: Poultry and Prdduets

Eggs, chickens, and turkeys have been below parity levels since price
control went into effect -in early 1951. Therefore.. absolute ceilings have not.
been imposed on prices for those commodities.. -However, other aspects, -such
as margins and markups of handlers of poultry arid eggs,have been indirectly
affected. Ths article briefly describes. the, general status of poultry
commodities under present (mid-February 1952).OPS regulations. .

Agricultural commodities such as live chickens-and turkeys, and eggs
when-sold by farmers, are exempt from price -control in the continental'United
States.-This exemption -is-provided by the General Ceiling Price Regulation.
In addition, the Defense Production Act of 1950 provides that ceilings may not
be placed on agricultural products except as to reflect at least parity for
the agricultural commodities involved.

The OPS has also -exempted sales of products processed by producers of
those commodities whenever an individual's monthly sales total less than $200.
Furthermore, sales of baby chicks and poults are exempt from control.

A Although farmersI .prices of these commodities are presently uncontrolled
(except for sales of most dressed- poultry,in excess of $200 per month), sales
of --eggs and most dressed .poultry by processors and distributors are affected
by -the current'regulations. The general intent of the current regulations is
to limit processors? and distributors' markups to those prevailing in the
base period, with adjustments for certain cost changes that had meanwhile
occurred. The current OPS regulation- which covers markups which may be ap-
plied by most handlers and processors for eggs, chickens, and turkeys lsthe
General Ceiling Price Regulation (January 26, 1951), and its subsequent amend-
ments. In addition, retailers of canned poultry are governed by Ceiling Price
Regulations 15 and 16 (March 28, 1951), and distributors of canned poultry are
subject to Regulation 14, while Regulation 22 is applicable to canners of
poultry.

.. .... In. the.eet. that egg, chicken, or turkey .prices become subject to ceil-
ings, these margin-controls would probably be superseded by a dollars-and-
cents ceiling regulation.. According to OPS, the ultimate objective would be
a regulation, probably operating by zones, in which all like handlers would be
.governed by identical ceilings,, but if time would not permit development of such
an order, it might be-preceded by a temporary freeze order.

The latest (January) prices as a percentage of parity show eggs at 81,
chickens 82, and turkeys 92 percent. Even with the recent changes in the parity
bases (p. 16) prices of eggs and chickens would generally have to rise over
the corresponding monthly prices of last year in order to reach parity levels.
Turkeys, on the other hand, are closer to the level at which ceilings might be
applied, although not so close as they were in December.

The control of duck prices by OPS takes a different form from the prices
discussed above, because no parity prices are calculated for ducks. As live
animals they are exempt from control, but the levels at which prices of dressed
duck are set need not necessarily reflect any specific level of producer prices.
Instead, in the words of the Act, one of the major criteria is to achieve a
price which shall be general~yfair and equitable to sellers and
buyers ."




PES-157


- 19 -


Prices -of dressed and other processed ducks, by location, type of
handler, and manner of preparation, are governed by CPR 79, The initial
effective date was October 2, but the date was twice extended and a revised
order became fully effective on January 15, 1952. For dressed ducks, this
applies through the channels of trade up to retail, at which stage CPR 15
or CPR 16 applies.

The other poultry item which is covered by uniform price ceilings is
processed feathers other than those used for ornamentation. The order CPR-87,
covers both waterfowl feathers and landfowl feathers, of domestic as well as
foreign origin. At present there is an urgent demand for feathers for mili-
tary requirements, and the price order was preceded by an NPA order restricting
the processing of waterfowl feathers except in accord with military or other
Government specifications, and prohibiting the sale of processed waterfcwa
feathers except toward satisfying current military orders or for the Government
stockpile.


C


1. Chickens
a. Live
b. Dressed and
c. Canned prod
chicken and


Table 12.- OPS regulations .affecting domestic sales prices
of poultry and poultry products

Raw Product : Processed Products
commodity : By : By Pro- : Whole- Retailer
: farmers ; others : cessor : saler
: A. Agricultural Commodities or products thereof

: Exempt Exempt
ready-to-cook : GCPR GCPR GCPR
ucts, including :
noodles : CPR-22 CPR-14 CPR-15-16


2. Eggs
a. In the shell
b, Frozen, dried, and liquid

3. Turkeys
a. Live
b. Dressed and ready-to-cook
c. Canned


1. Ducks
a. Live
b. Dressed and ready-to-cook

2. Geese, guineas, pigeons,
partridges, .pheasants, quail,:
rabbits, squabs,
a. Live
b. Dressed and ready-to-cook

3. Feathers, land fowl and
waterfowl
a. Baw and unprocessed
b. Processed


Exempt



Exempt


GCPR



Exempt


GCPR
GCPR


GCPR
GCPR


GCPR
GCPR


GCPR GCPR GCPR
CPR-22 CPR-14 CPR-15-16


B. Other Commodities


Exempt Exempt


Exempt


Exempt


Exempt Exempt


CPR-79 CPR-79 CPR-15-16





Exempt Exempt Exempt


Exempt
CPR-87


Exempt Exempt


Data from Office of Price, PNA.




JAN.-FEB. 1952


- 20 -


Index of Special"Articlos, Features, and Other
Selected Items, pulltr an Eg Situation,
1950 and 1951


Item
Broiler Chick Placements;
Annual Summary, 7 areas
Summary by States, U. S., 1934-1950

: Composition of Egg

..Consumption, per capital: Eggs, by
countries.
U. S, by years or months -
Poultry, U' S,

Demand for Eggs

Egg. Production
per Capita by Regions, U. S.
......orld .

Futures Trading, Eggs

Hatch, as Percentage of Eggs Set

Imports of Eggs

Indicators of Poultry and
Egg Production

Outlook
for 1951
for 1951, revised
for' 1952

Parity Computations

Price Controls, Ceilings

Price Comparisons, Eggs ;
Farm Retail
Farm Wholesale

Price Support, U. S.
Eggs

Turkeys
Canada, Eggs

Rail Transportation of Eggs,
Decline in

Bate of Lay (Monthly Eggs per Layer)


Issue

Jan. 1950; Jan,-Feb. 1951
Apr.-May 1951

: July 1950


Apr0 1950
Mar. 1951: Sept.-Oct.. 1951
Sept.-Oct. 1951

: June 1951


: Jan. 1950
Mar. 1950; Aug.-Sept. 1950

: Nov,-Dec. 1950; Nov.-Dec. 1951

July 1950

Jan.-Feb. 1951; July-Aug. 1951


July 1950


: Oct. 1950
Jan.-Feb. 1951
Sept.-Oct. 1951

July 1950; Jan.-Feb. 1951

Jan.-Feb. 1951


: Apr, 1950
: Jan.-Feb. 1951

: Jan., Feb., Mar., Apr., May-June
: and Nov.-Dec. 1950; Mar. 1951

Jan,, Apr., May-June and July, 1950
Feb., Nov.-Dec. 1950


Mar. 1951

Mar. 1950


_ _.__.


__




PES-157 .
a) .
HO 0

O -
r03o .-11a.o
"4 r-l 4D r4
4 3 .,





i1 V .1 .,-i V


c. ca 94
a) to 1 o )


F.| l.r 4 V)

W -.0
0 o






g qI








Cr 0 H k )
4 04 a







4 0 "

*0 m 0
0. 0 0
o .9 a)

w 0



4 O









t.. A ti
0 etoo o




0 0 0 BP
to .0 .4 .14
H Ed 1)4

A 0 0r 0



) ( 04 .0 .H

a) 0)
Bq 1
(d O 0 Q



n 0 cd 0 0


C 0 0 *



0 Q WS




0 0: B
M C


o. F1 .







r0 i0 I
* e a *


000
* am



0 C0 C













N i- ri
0000




000
HOO 0





000
CM H H I
l Hi-il


C o00




0 uAC0 U\O
* a


O* 6a a
Cr rI v C-



H- H-CM I




H't r- l r-l r-I

0 0 u'0
* O a




r-q r-l H .
0 u-\ U& 0
r 00o o I


r-4 -I I


0 H C 0' 0
0 C,000


I-, ,-i ,-I


%0 O to 00

r-I CMq



S ON Nr-1 N H

HNN NC o -l 00 0%
A 4 4 | U 0 i I


'0 C C\-
A 4 I c-


c% %0 to co
* Sal
cHOH
Hc A 8


% 00 Co C%0

CM~~d-dNH \oo\ d


oca '0 ,


000
*a a


00 'nO
** c a





C r. .C.






01) 0D

.Mr403 3.-
g001)^


Ur' N.l Do
r-1 a

0000
0 c"0c' 0u.
SC-A CA c^

0 0 C 0 I


0000

HN)
as so .. ..


0 0
* *
a a




CA T
N N


* *
0 -

0 0
* *
cz-' 0





cv H
0 '
* *
N H

0 0A
* a
N 4 3

SO-
0 0
* O


O 0
N N

0 a


0 0
H H
* .
H H











r-4
H HC

* a




C 0
-% 0










V!- 0;
* *
(0 C



*
'.0 0
H
e*
cv- -*
* a
XL N
H

a


IU' 0
* *
C-. (0
H-


0
a
'.0

iU'
a
'I'


0
oC



0
C
a


003 0 0
4P +3 4la 3 --
pi v


J'A.
ao
SX40 0 4fO
0B +31 0 0
e4 '- ~
4' wH


a *1- m a





.0 U)
R a a d




031C0) 0)
0 0
ni o *a







*.-i 03 1P )
0 0 r-4
aQIn ed





0.14-)
*r4 La

) :3


0d
F4 ) a)
Q. g





^s.& cp
l3i 0 0d
0 f

1)03 03 +3
f-4 .
CO ,|O 4,.0



4,.i4 Q) rI
v U)O
o 4

cc a) +3(

43 0 t O


C *ri U r4
48 0) t
CO V0
I rA > *
I d 0-
m +3 f-4 0) a

+34C Or-II
43
1-1 0 -H 43 0)









;qx m Io 03C3
grt o03M) 1) 4j
me eH
a C k





+k Ili 1 4 )


034 .4
g.ao 0 Z
OQ **Ca>0









403 V






1.4 0 ~O T|*
CD V C0 4c
14 a0 c s






g4'!S
0 0 0 %4

>r-l -H 0 0P

od A
0a) h o H 00 C
;4 V 004-
"r> *r O H



1 9) : 4-1 43 01


Sx t PS..
.1.43 M '
to= k a <0 I
0 na n 4 a.
0 ja 0)ca r-
.4 aP g ^




IHl 41 9d r m
n a) 4- f


4 D ) 40 >. X
00 0


0
0 > rIlrd 0

-H W tko 19 1 0
qq 01 N I r

r er 0
P t D *P 0 CO 4




U. S. Department of Agriculture
Washington 25, D. C.-

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
BAE-4ES-2/52-hl4
Permit No. 1001


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
payment of p 11111 111
3 1262 08903 5710


UNTIVERSITT OF FLORIDA
LIBRARY
DOCUMENTS DEPT.
5-16-49
FNS-b GAINESVILLE. FLA.