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:
March 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_00003
Classification:
lcc - HD9437.U6 A33
ddc - 338.1/7/6500973
System ID:
AA00005304:00003

Related Items

Succeeded by:
Poultry and egg outlook & situation

Full Text





THE

S I U ITUAT
BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


More farms produce chickens than any other farm
product, according to the Census of 1950. Eggs and
poultry are the third largest source of income to
U. S. farmers, ranking after meat animals, and milk
and dairy products. Although the aggregate income


from eggs and poultry is large, and poultry-keeping
is widespread, only about 3 percent of the U.S. farms
derive more than 50 percent of their gross income
from these sources, and thereby qualify as special-
ized poultry farms under the Census definition.


R RELEASE
kPR.7, A. M.


ION







-2-
AROI-AfIl. 192 The poultry and egg aittatimn at a glance


Itea Unit






Farm production ...................... Mil. doz.

Average number of layers on far- .... MI lion

Sate or lay per ban .................. Ege

Apparent civilian per capital
disappearance .......................: Egg

Frozen egg production ................ Nil. lb.

Dried egg production ................. Nil. lb.

Price received by farrs ............ Ct.par doz

Price received by farmers a
percentage of parity ................ Percent

Petal price (BAB) ................... :C.per doz

Ege-feed price ratio ................. Lb. fooeed

Stocks:

Shell .............................. Ihous.oasee

Frozen ............................. Nil. lb.

Dried .............................. il. lb.

Chicks hatched by comsrcial
hatcheries .......................... li ons

Fa s price of ,oultry ration ......... Dol.per ow




Price received by fararr for
chickens, live ...................... :Ct. per lb

Price reoetwed by farmer r a
percentage of parity ................: Percent

Stall price of chaokens,
dressed (BA) ........................ Ct. per lb

Price received by fharme ror
turkeys, ive ....................... :Ct. per lb

Stock.:

Poultry, exciudin turkeys ......... Mil. lb.

thrkeys ............................. Nil. lb.
Chcken-feed price ratio ............. Lb. teed

rikey-read price ratio ..............* Lb. feed

Average weekly receipt of poultry
at Cntrml Veaten Primary
Markets, per plant .................. boneu. lb

Average weekly placeant of ohiok.
In 11 broiler areas .................. MN m.s


9. or 1giiho 13951 :1952






Jan. 352.8 122.5 o.6 : Feb. 392.0 431.1 :76.2

Jan. 396.5 376.3 387.7 Feb. 389.5 368.1 378.3

Jan. 10.0 13.5 lk.0 :: Feb. 11.5 lk.0 15.1 :

Jan. 31.6 35.k 37.0 :: Fb. 31.0 35.3 35.7:

Jan. 8.9 15.5 17.9 Feb. 28.3 25.6 38.1

Jan. 7.9 1.8 0.9 *b. 11.2 1.8 1.7

Feb. 33.4 41.k 3h.6 : r. 32.7 13.7 33.9


: Feb. 92 90 78 :: mr. 96 96 77T

. Jan. 52.0 61. 58.8 Feb. k6.0 57.8 53.0

Feb. 11.3 10.5 8.1 Nr. 10.8 10.9 8.0


, Feb. 1 336 75 238 mer. 1 737 159 928 .

Feb. 1 81.2 31.2 53.1 Mar. 1 84.2 32.7 59.9 )

: eb. 1 90.5 17.0 :: Hr. 1 -- 81.1 15.6

: Ja. 58.0 95.9 115.7 : eb. 118.7 161.2 190.6 :

I, Feb. 2.99 3.96 1.25 M: ar. 3.06 4.00 k.24





. Feb. 22.8 26.9 25.7 M: ar. 23.6 28.9 25.0


Feb. 108 88 83 Br. 120 93 81


. Jan. "A. 169.1 51.3 Feb. 1.0O 53.0 %5.1


. Feb. 30.1 3k.5 36.1 : r. 30.0 35.3 3A.5



Feb. 1 158.0 107.7 183.6 :: mr. 1 137.8 1Mo.6 163.7

Feb. 1 83.4 116.9 16.k m r. 1 76.6 101.5 105.6

Tab. 7.8 6.8 6.0 :: 7.9 7.2 5.9

Nb. 10.2 8.7 8.5 Mr. 10.0 8.8 8.1


. Jan. 10.2 15.7 22.2 s Feb. 7.5 15.8 22.4

an. 9.3 7 Feb. 13.7
r --- 9.3 11.7 ~:: b ..


Comenta cO
current mItation






To date nl 1952, a sword











Tikel to dloorgcge
chick plaem ts
















Steady after e-year rise


















)-orig out slamy







large percentage IncreMase I
en a smeaolly I base





PES-158


THE POULTRY AND EGG SITUATION

Approved by the Outlook and Situation Board, March 25, 1952

SUMMARY

Prices received by farmers for eggs in mid-March averaged 33.9 cents
per dozen, slightly lower than the month before and still sharply below
a year earlier. Production is near its seasonal peak and the spring price
decline probably has about run its course. Prices, however, are likely to
continue below 1951 levels.

Egg production for the first two months of 1952 was almost 9 percent
above the same period of 1951. Monthly output will continue to exceed 1951
levels until about the end of the year, but by considerably smaller percent-
ages than have been recorded so far.

Movement of shell and frozen eggs into storage in March was heavy.
Late in the month, holdings in the 35 principal cities were larger than
last year's stocks at a date considerably later in the season, and were
11 percent above 5-year average stocks for the corresponding date. At
this season's peak,shell stocks are likely considerably to exceed the 1951
peak, and holdings of frozen egg are likely to at least equal the 1951 stocks.

With the likelihood that the seasonal decline in egg prices is about
ended and with the prospect for little change in feed prices, the egg-feed
price ratio during the next quarter probably will average no lower than in
February and March. The ratio has been below average for 6 months. In
February and again in March it was the lowest on record for the month.

Consumer demand for eggs in the rest of 1952 is not likely to be
much different from 1951. After mid-year, when demand for current con-
sumption will replace storage demand as the major price-making factor,
production will not greatly exceed 1951 levels. Late in the year, prices
are likely to be closer to those of a year earlier than in the first quarter,
when prices averaged 15 percent below a year earlier.



The release of bench mark data from the Census
of 1950 has made possible certain revisions in the
basic poultry statistics of the Bureau of Agricultural:
:Economics. The Census data are discussed in an arti- :
cle beginning on page 13 of this issue of The Poultry :
and Egg Situation.


- 3 -





MARCH-APRIL 1952


Hatchery output for January and February, and indications for
March, suggest that more chicks were hatched for laying flock replacement
than in the corresponding months of 1951. As of about.February 1, however,
farmers reported that they intended to raise 10 percent fewer chickens
for laying flock replacement. These intentions are consistent with adjust-
ments made in previous seasons when the egg-feed price ratio was sharply
lower than in the hatching season immediately prior.

Most poultry prices in mid-March were below their January levels.
Large placements of broiler chicks are continuing, and June marketing
will be a record. February withdrawals of turkeys and fowl from storage
were only 2/3 as large as in the same month last year.

SITUATION AND OUTLOOK

.Egg Prices Below Year Ago, Storage
Exceeds Comparable 1951 Holdings

Farmers received an average-of 33.9 cents per dozen for eggs in
mid-March. This was 0.7 cents below the mid-February price of 34.6 cents,
and sharply lower than the 43.7 cents price of a year earlier.

The course of egg prices for the next 8 or 10 weeks will continue
to depend upon the number of eggs moving into storage both frozen and in
the shell. Until well into June, production of eggs is likely to exceed
requirements for immediate consumption, and storage interest will therefore
hold the key to prices.-.

.Reports from 35 principal cities indicate that egg storage to date
this:year -is far ahead of last year. On March 29, shell egg stocks in
35 cities totaled 1.1 million cases, far above the very low holdings of
0.2 million a year earlier. Stocks equaled those of mid-May last year,
and:they compared with the July 7, 1951, peak of 1.6 million cases.- At
the 1951 peak, the 35 city stocks of shell eggs were about 2/3 of the total
U- S. holdings.

Frozen egg stocks in the 35 cities are also ahead of last year,
although by a smaller margin than shell eggs. The 47.9 million pounds of
frozen egg held on March 29 were almost 61 percent larger than last year's
comparable holdings, and were at a level not reached last year until 3 or
4 weeks.later in the season. Typically, between 1/2 and 2/3 of the total
U. S. stocks of frozen egg are held in the 35 cities.

Although .the 1951 storage stocks, with which current holdings are
compared, Were considerably below the average holdings of the preceding
5 years, there is justification for using them as a basis for comparison.
Though small, the 1951 stocks were sufficient to even out seasonal fluctu-
ations in supplies so that only normal -price increases occurred in the fall.
In view of the seasonal leveling out of production, stored shell stocks are
now less necessary than was the case in the past.


- 4 -






PES-158


Table 1.- Eggs: Monthly commercial supply from farm production,
and average prices, January 1950 to date 1/


:Net commer-


Egg : cial cold : :
pro- :storage move-: Eggs :
duction:ments, shell : for :
on : and frozen :hatching
farms : equivalent :
: Out : In :
1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
cases cases cases. cases


14,550
14,453
17,339
16,972
16,392
13,881
12,500
11,453
10,686
11,242
11,283
12,400


1950
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.

1951
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.


15,019
15,875


868
1,109
1,608
1,831
1,208
804


381





105
.938
1,214
1,232
1,015
760


210


309
836
1,709
1,852
1,933
512


108
892
1,810
2,371
1,007


591
1,112
1,186
894
436
- 319
316
3004
310
295
285
400


Government
purchases
for price
support
2/


Year
and
month


672
1,127
1,322
1,129
595
437
371
320
346
348
363
48o


792
84o 4/1,251


t: Effective
supply in
commercial
channels
:(including U.S.:
Armed Forces):
1,000
cases


13,499
11,961
13,740
13,144
12,345
11,340
11,727
11,892
11,562
12,688
12,160
12,787


3/ 13,792
13,134
14,886
13,839
13,370
12,612
12,353
12,04Q
11,821
12,662
12,721
13,592


14,437
13,784


U. s.
average
farm
price,
per
dozen


U. S.
average
retail
price,
(BAE)
per
dozen


Cents Cents


1,000
cases


151
544
704
1,082
1,678
1,710
1,325
366
422
90
46
17


46.9
43.4
47.2
47.1
44.8
46.4
50.0
56.1
58.8
65.3
64.9
81.1


61.4
57.8
63.7
62.1
64.5
65.5
67.3
71.9
75.9
78.8
78.0
69.6

58.8
53..o


I/ Corresponding data .,for prior months are given in The Poultry and Egg Situation
July-August, 1949, table 2, page 5 and June 1951, table 5, page 12.
Conversion factor:'2.9615 doz.. for 1 pound dried whole eggs.
3/ Government price-support purchases discontinued after December 1950.
Estimated on basis of eggs in incubators March 1.


31.2
29.6
31.6
30.9
29.6
30.1
34.3
38.0
40.4
43.2
45.8
57.7

42.6
41.4
43.7
43.1
45.2
44.7
46.6
49.7
55.0
55.6
56.5
51.1


40.5
34.6
33.9


14,083
14,369..
17,100
16,778
16,336,
14,056
.12,619
11,422
10,953
11,778
12,069
13,314


- -


- 5 -






MARCH-APRIL 1952


In the last few years, the volume of frozen egg in commercial
storage has been larger than that of shell. Before World War II, the quantity
stored in the shell exceeded holdings of frozen egg. During the war, the
large-scale storage of eggs for later drying against Government contracts
made it difficult to determine commercial trends. Since then, however, shell
egg storage has been declining and storage of frozen egg has been increasing.
The year 1946 was the last in which shell storage was greater than storage
of frozen. In 1951.9 the peak holdings of frozen egg were double those
of shell.

So long as part of the surplus of eggs over current requirements
is being converted into frozen egg, midwestern egg prices will be sensitive
to changes in prices of frozen egg. Since wholesale egg prices in the
terminal markets are to a degree related to mid-western country-point
prices, the wholesale prices for shell eggs in the spring are thereby re-
lated also to the prices for frozen egg, which for the next month or two
is therefore likely to be a sensitive indicator.of short-time trends in
egg prices.

Monthly Egg Production
near Season Peak

Egg production in both January and February set new monthly highs,
and the output on March 1 (rate of lay multiplied by number of layers on
hand) was likewise a record. Production'during January and February was
8.6 percent ahead of last year. In the coming months, however, the in-
crease over a year earlier will be smaller, and it is not likely that the
record springtime production of 1944 will be exceeded.

Rate of lay per bird, and monthly production, are both near their
seasonal peaks. In the past, April and May have been the high months for
rate of lay, and March and April for total production. However, the even-
ing-out of-the seasonal egg production pattern has reduced the difference
between the peak months and the months immediately preceding.

For the U. S. as a whole, the adverse egg-feed price ratios of
recent months do not seem to have significantly hastened the culling of
chickens from laying flocks. On March 1, the number of layers was 88 per-
cent of the January 1 number of potential layers, only 1 percent smaller
than the figure a year earlier; when egg-feed price ratios were favorable
to producers.

Table 2 shows a regional breakdown of the January and February re-
duction in number of layers for both 1951 and 1952. This reduction re-
flects rates of culling. It shows that all regions.except the West North
Central have reduced their numbers of layers slightly faster than they did
a year ago.


- 6 -








Table 2.- Layers on farms March 1 as a percentage of potential layers
on farms January 1, by regions, 1951 and 1952

: arch 1 layers as a percentage of
Region : January 1 potential layers .
1951 : 1952
Percent Percent

N. Atlantic 88 87
E. N. Central 91 89
W. N. Central 91 92
S. Atlantic 84 .83-
S..Central 87 86
Western 87 86
United States : 89 88

In contrast with the estimates of layers remaining in laying flocks,
more than 200 midwestern poultry receiving plants reported that in January
and February their weekly receipts of hens were almost 60 percent larger
than a year earlier. In March, the increase was about one-third. In re-
conciling receipts of these plants v'ith culling rates, it should be noted
that in these months receipts of hens were at their seasonal low point. The
increases in numbers of hens marketed, though relatively small, resulted in
large percentage increases in receipts. Also, the increase in the number of
hens marketed through the reporting plants may not reflect the change in a
cross-section of the marketing outlets, since other buyers, such as truckers,
may not be very active when fowl prices are easy, as during the last few
icknthc.
January and February Hatchery Outputs
Suggest Increase in Early-Season Brooding

The early-season demand for chicks laying flock replacement was
"spotty", presumably a reaction to the decline in the egg-feed price ratio
which in February was a record low for the month, This reaction is in.
line also with farmers* February intentions to raise 10 percent fewer chickens
than last year. However, the monthly reports on hatchery production do not
yet indicate a reduced number of'chicks compared with last year. Even after
allowing for the steady expansion in broiler numbers, the data for January
and February indicate an increase of possibly 5 to 10 percent in numbers
of chicks purchased for laying flock replacement. Extensions of data avail-
able in mid-March, indicate a 5 percent increase for that month in the number
of chicks hatched for laying flock replacement.

The crop report (Agricultural Production) to be released on April 10
will provide a check against these preliminary indications. The report will
include an estimate of the number of young chickens (excluding broilers)
on farms April 1.

Over the years, there has been a gradual trend toward earlier brood-
ing of chicks. In years in which declines in the numbers of chicks raised
for laying flock replacement have occurred, the number of chicks on farms
early in the season have not been accurate indicators of full-season trends.


PES-158


- 7 -





MARCH-APRIL- 1952 '..-- -. 8 -

There are also. additional complications in using early-season data to predict
the number of chicks ,to -b. raised for laying flock replacement :(a). broiler
chicks not segregated in -the -atchery report,which make it difficult to
determine.the number to be purchased for laying flocks; and (b) egg producers
have the opportunity to make fairly large-scale adjustments in the late-
season hatch. Also, 1952 comparisons with last year may be of limited value
since last years hatch was unusually late. For the season as a whole, 5 per-
cent more chickens were raised in 1951 than :in 1950, but as late as April 1,
1951 there were still 7 percent fewer young chickens on farms than a year
earlier.

Table 3 indicates the relative reliability of early season indicators
as measures of the number of chickens raised. Table 4 shows how variations
in the late-season hatch can determine the -changes in the year's output.

Table 3.- Chicks and young chickens on farms April 1, and January-April
hatchery output, compared with chickens raised, 1931 to date

:Chicks and young Chickens raised : Chicks produced in :Chicks and young
:chickens on farms, : Chckens raised :commercial hatch- :chickens on farm
Year: April 1 : on fams series, Jan.-Apr. : June 1
:Percentage -: :Percentage : Percentage: :Percentag
:Number : of pre- .-Number : of pre- :Number : of pre- :Number:of preced-
:ceding year: :ceding year: :ceding year: ; ing year
:Millions Percent Millions Percent Millions Percent Millions Percent

1931 140 709 319 502
1932 : 149 106 736 104 324 102 520 104
1933 : 122 82 750 102 338 104 542 104
1934 : 99 81 644 86 309 91 491 91
1935 : 114 115 658 102 361 117 481 98
1936 110 96 715 109 448 124 541 112
1937 : 126 115 601 84 446 100 465 86
1938 : 158 125 651 108 445 100 509 109
1939 : 167 106 697 107 518 116 531 104

1940 : 126 75 634 91 471 91 477 90
1941 : 155 123 745 118 552 117 513 108
1942 : 185 119 844 113 677 123 589 115
1943 : 227 123 1,001 119 807 119 679 115
1944 : 231 102 832 83 791 98 616 91
1945 : 207 90 915 110 775 98 626 102
1946 : 219 106 746 82 777 100 580 93
1947 : 209 95 745 100 740 95 572 99
1948 : 158 76 637 86 651 88 489 85
1949 : 210 133 744 117 786 121 558 114

1950 : 227 108 670 90-. 780 99 509 91
1951 : 211 93 703 105 845 108 549 108





PES-158


Table 4.- Changes in volume of late season hatch and relation of
late season hatch to annual changes in numbers of chickens
raised, 1931 to date.


:Difference from preceding year:Changes in late season hatches as a
Yar : Chickens Ma : May and :percentage of change in chickens raised 1/
Year : hatch :June hatches: May hatch May and June
: : :. combined : hatches combined
: Million Million Million Percent Percent


1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939

1940
1941
1942
1943
19,44
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949


-68
27
16
-106
14
57
-114
50
46

-63
111
99
157
-169
83
-169
- 1
-108
107


-39
8
30
-12
23
34
-58
20
27

-17
47
30
71
-85
71
-99
19
-19
46


1950 : -74 -43
1951 : 33 56
1952 :


-4o
17
44
-37
49
56
-106
42
40

-12
92
27
147
-207
1830
-216
43
-17
70


52
27
169
10
148
54
46
36
53


53
57
248
31
315
88
84
76
78

17
75
25
84
110
195
115
2/
14
59

67
259


52
153


1/ Reduced by 10 percent to allow for brooder mortality.
2/ Change in chickens raised nil, or change in monthly hatch
from change in chickens raised.


in opposite direction


The reported change from a year earlier in the number of chicks
sexed may be an additional clue regarding the demand for replacement chicks.
Generally only chicks Intended to be raised for laying flocks are sexed, and
in recent years the practice has become increasingly widespread. But in
February 1952, for the first time in a year. there was a decline from a year
earlier in the number of chicks sexed.

Poultry Prices Lower,
Plentiful Broiler Supplies Expected

Most poultry prices in mid-March were slightly lover than in January
or February. The U. S. average price received by farmers for chickens was
25.0 cents per pound (live), compared with 25.1 and 25.7 in the 2 previous
months, and a 23.6 cent average for October, November, and December 1951.


- 9 -





MAf=CH-APRIL 1952


- 10 -


March turkey'.prices., 3.45 cents (live)-on a U. S. average farm basis, were
10 percent below December. In most past years, there have been seasonal
price declines from the season of heavy turkey marketing to the spring,
..in.accord with- the changes in the typos of birds being marketed.

'.; L In-early March broiler~prices weakened some, particularly in the
DeliMar-Va area, but by mid-month a large part of the drop had been re-
. covered. Marketings in March were mostly from Dfoember placements which
averaged-10.5 million chicks per week in the 11 reporting areas. February
marketing were from November placements, which averaged less than 10 mil-
lion per week. On the basis of placements made so far plus eggs already
in incubators, March placements are likely to average about 13- million
per week,

Recent wholesale quotations of hens (fowl) have been lower than
at the beginning of the year in contrast to the usual seasonal rise. ri
New York 'City, hens in the weight class 48 to 54 pounds per dozen were
quoted at 33 cents per pound wholesale on March 17, a decline of 3 cents
from 2 months earlier. Factors in the decline probably include the large
competing supplies of broilers, and the relatively small reduction since
January in storage stocks of hens. The"U. S. laying flock, which on
March 1 was 2 percent larger than a year earlier, Indicates the future
supply of this class of chicken maat.


Table 5.- Poultry: Price per pound at selected levels of trade,
mid-March 1952, with comparisons


Item


: Mid-: Mid- : Mid- : Mid- : Mid-
:March:February:January :December :March
:1952 : 1952 : 1952 : 1951 : 1951
:Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents


Chickens. .
U. S. average farm price,,live i/ : 25.0
Del-Mar-Va broilers, live : 26,0
Iowa heavy type hens, live, "mostly" : 16-20
New York wholesale quotations:
Dry-packed frozen hens, 48-54 lbs.
per dozen : 33
Ice--packed chickens, 2- lbs. average :32--35


Turkeys
U. S. average farm price, live l/
Shenandoah Valley "fryers," live
New York wholesale quotations:
Frozen Western Bronze toms, 24-26 lbs.:
Iced Beltsville Small Whites, 5-10 lbs.:
Chicago futures, toms, March delivery


34.5
38

47-48
50
46.00


25.7
29.8
18-19


35t-36
34$-35


36.1
37-38

.498-50

48.00B


25.1
28.9
19-20


23.4
23.6
18-20


35-36 34
331-341 '29-29-1


37.1 39.6
37-38 42-43


49
49-50
49.00


47--48
51-52
47.00


I U. S. average prices received by farmers at mid-month. Other prices as available
on nearest date to mid-month.


28:9
27.3'
25-28


41
34-35


35,3
45

46-47
56-579







Farm prices for small young turkeys fell to a low of about 35 cents
per pound in the Shenandoah Valley in late February, but recovered to
40 cents by the end of March. They had been 45 cents in January, At this
season of the year, large turkeys sold by farmers are usually breeders
not comparable to the turkeys sold in October through January. Therefore,
the recent downward trend in the U. S. average price received for turkeys
is less significant than the trends for specific grades. In New York, the
frozen young toms (24-26 ibs) that were quoted at 492 cents per pound in
early January were 46 cents in mid-March.

Storage holdings of poultry on March 1 were 269 million pounds,
about 11 percent above last March 1. For turkeys and hens (fowl)(the largest
items in the totals and usually the most important in terms of seasonal
change), relative 1951 and 1952 movements have been as follows:


:_ 1951 : 1952
: Stocks: Stocks ; Net : Stocks: Stocks: Net
Poultry
: on : on : February : on : on : February
:Feb. 1 :Mar. 1 :out-movementrFeb. 1 :Mar. 1 :out-movement
: 1,000 ,OO00 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb.

Hons (fowl) 70,119 56,096 14,023 90,261 80,986 9,275

Turkeys :116,896 101,466 15,430 116,352 105,627 10,725


The February reduction in'the stored stocks of each was only about 2/3 the
amount withdrawn from storage last February.

Feed Prices Steady
in February and March

The combination of falling egg prices and rising feed prices has
in recent months resulted'in egg-feed price ratios relatively unfavorable
to poultrymen. However, with the seasonal decline in egg prices having
largely run its course, there is now the possibility that this year's bottom
has been reached in the relation between egg producers' incomes, and their
out-of-pocket expenses for feed. However, egg-feed price ratios in the next
few months are not likely'to approach the long-time averages for the res-
pective months.

The possibility of egg-feed price ratios having reached this years low
is suggested by the fact that poultry feed prices seem to have leveled off in
February and March, after they had risen almost steadily for nearly 2 years.
Feed prices may now hold nearly steady until there is opportunity to judge
the size of the 1952 feed grain crops. If large harvests are indicated, feed
prices may soften during the summer.

Farmers* intentions call for an 8 percent reduction from last year
in the number of sows to farrow this spring. The resulting decline in the
number of pigs to be fed, together with the possible decline in the number
of chickens to be raised, will reduce the demand for feed for those classes
of livestock, particularly after late spring.


PES-158


- 11 -





MARCH-APRIL '1952


Year :an


195Q0.
. January
February
March .
April
May
June
July
August
September:
October
November
December

1951
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September:
October
November-
December

1952
January
February
March


4 _


/ Mash and purchased scratch feed, plus
prices received by farmers.
2/ Index of feed prices paid 'b farmers.


home-grown


grains evaluated at current


STable 6.--Farm value of poultry ration and related prices and
price indices, by months, January 1950 to date.

S: Prices paid by farmers
: Farm value :
d month. : if : laying mash, .Scratch grain, Feed (1910-1 ,
: per u cwt.. 'per cwt. = 100) 2/
per cw., : :
Dollars Dollars- ..Dollars Percent


: 3.38 4,39 3,72 201
3.35 4.31 3.71 199
: 3,4o 4.34 3.77 201
3.48 4.41 3.87 204
3.62 4.58 3.99 214
: 3.61 4.56 4,00 212
3.70 4.67 4.04 216
: 3.73 4.74 4.06 217
r 3.68 4.60 4.03 213
3.60 .4.54 3.99- 211
: 3.63 4.58 4.05 214
3.74 4.67 4.13 221

3.89 4.82 4.29 230
3.96 4.84 4.36 233
4.00 4.92 4.50 235
3.99 4.90 4.49 236
4.02 4.97 4.52 238
3.95 4.88 4.48 233
: 3.95 4,91 4. 46 232
: 3.96 4.92 V4.44 232
r 3.99 4.94 4.45 234
: 4.04 5.03 4.45 238
4.12 5,12 4.54 245
S- .22 5.23 4.61 252


4.26 5.30 k.67 254
: 4.25 5.31 4.68 255
S4.24 5.29 4.68 254


iiiiiii i


- 12 -





PES-158


- 13 -


Increased Canadian Egg Outpi Expected

At the beginning of 1952, egg production in Canada was 50 percent
higher than a year earlier, and production for the year as a whole is likely
to be about 15 percent above 1951 j/, So far, increased consumption and
storage have absorbed the increased production, with no significant increase
in exports.

In Canada, the storage of shell eggs is related to the price support
system in operation there. Since 1950, the Dominion Government has supported
springtime egg prices by encouraging the commercial storage of shell eggs,
assuring handlers that by the end of the season they would be provided the
opportunity to get 38 cents (Canadian) per dozen, plus storage charges, for
eggs stored as Grade A. In the past, the unsupported market has risen beyond
this level before the end of the storage season, and the Government has not
had to take any specific actions to make good its pledge the private owners
simply sold the stored eggs in the open market.

In view of the larger supplies this year, some observers feel that the
Canadian egg price, support system may be put to a more severe test this year
than in either of the 2 previous years during which it has been in effect. For
prospective production tc clear the market in calendar 1952, without increased
exports, per capital consumption of eggs in Canada would have to increase about
in proportion to the expected production increase of 15 percent. Expectation
of such a consumption increase, to about335 eggs per capital, would be quite
optimistic, since Canadian per zapita consumption has historically been con-
siderably.lower, averaging 275 eggz per capital for the years 1946-50, and about
280 in 1951.

POULTRY DATA FROM 1950 CENSUS; REVISIONS OF BAE ESTIMATES

Data from the 1950 Census of Agriculture indicate that the poultry
enterprise retained its position as the mobt widespread farm enterprise in
the United States. In 1950, 78 percent of the farms enumerated in the Census
were reported to have had chickens over 4 months of age on hand on April 1.
Other widespread enterprises were cattle (either beef or dairy) reported
75 percent of all farms and home gardens on 71 percent of the farms.

Although the poultry enterprise is common on farms, the number of farms
qualifying as i"poultry farms" under the Census definition was only 172,562, out
of a total of 5.4 million farms enumerated. Since the previous Census, in
1945, the total number of all farms declined 8 percent. 2/ In the interim
the Census definition of a farm was made somewhat more restrictive, but not
to an extent that would account for all of the decline in the number of farms.

Table 7 gives State data for most of the poultry series now available
through the Census and not available in comparable, more-detailed, series
published by the BAE, Later, the Census Bureau will make additional data
available, concerning the breakdown by flock sizes, and much of the presently
available data will be tabulated by State Economic Areas, according to flock
size,

7/ Expected revisions of the 1951 production data are not likely to alter
the 1952 outlook as compared with 1951.
2/ On account of changes in definition, the 1950 number of specialized
poultry farms, 172,562, is not comparable with the 1945 number, 274,504.






MARCB-APRIL 1952 14-
Table 7 Nber of farms reporting poultry, by States, 1950, with comparisons

:Total naber of farm in UZ.S.: 'anber s r e
State and division : 40 195 1950 0 Chickens15 Eggs Tu9 n rai9 ed
: 1901 1945 x 1950 so" : sold t 1944 1949
o .^ 1940 1945 1950..^ ^ 19 in 190 1 1
--'i-- tN~b~r Nabs S it Iiit ES tse


ane 38,980 422,184 30,358
New amshire : 16,554 18,786 13,391
Venont s 23,582 26,490 19,043
Massachusetts : 31,897 37,007 22,220
Rhode Island 3 3,014 3,603 2,59"
Connecticut : 21,163 22,2641. 1,615
New York : 153,238 149,&90 124,977
New Jersey 25,835 26,226 24,838
Pennsylvania 169.027 171.761 146,887
North Atlantic : 483M290 497,788 399,927
Ohio 233.783 220,575 199,359
Indiana a 184,549 175,970 166.627
Ilinois : 213,439 204,239 195,268
Michigan 187,589 175,268 155,589
Wisoonsin 186,735 177,745 168.561
East North Centralal.006.095 953.797 885.404
Minnesota a 197,351 188,952 179,101
Iom t 23.s318 208,934 203,159
Missouri : 256,100 242,934 230,045
North -Dakota : 73,962 69,520 65,401
South Dakota : 72,454 68,705 66,452
NebraskLa 121,062 111,756 107,183
Kansas 156,327 141,192 131,394
West North Centrals:1090.54 1.031.99 982.735
Delaware a 8,994 9,296 7,448
IMarylad a 42.175 41,315 36,135
Virginia a 174,885 173,051 150,997
West Virginia a 99,282 97,600 81,434
North Carolina a 278,276 287,412 288,508
South Carolina a 137,558 147,745 139,364
Georgia a 216,033 225,897 198,198,1
Florida a 62,248 61,159 56,921
South Atlantic :1,019,451 1,043,475 95,998
Kentucky : 252,d94 238,501 218,476
Tennessee a 247,617 234,431 231,631
Alabama 231,746 223,369 211,512
Mississippi : 291,092 263,528 251,383
Arkansas a 216,674 198,769 182,429
Louisiana t 150,007 129,295 124,181
Oklahoma sa 179,687 164,790 142,246
Teras : 418.002 384.977 331.567
South Central :1,987,719 1,837,b60 1,693,425 1
Montana 41,823 37,747 35,085
Idaho a 43,663 41,498 40,284
Wyoming a 15,018 13,076 12,614
Colorado a 51,436 47,618 45,578
Nut Mexico a 34,3.0 29,695 23,599
Arizona a 18,468 3,142 10,412
Utah a 25,411 26,322 24,176
Nevada 3,573 3,429 3,110
Wshington a 81,686 79,887 69,820
Oregon a 61,829 63,125 59,827
California a 132,658 238,917 137,168


Western
United. States


I 509,670 494.456 461,673


.20,127
8,261
12,903
16,547
1,793
12,846
106,840
18,692
139.701
337,710
196,658
158,980
193,554
146,234
153.173

848.522
162,551
197,849
231,350
61,953
63,818
108,786
135.468




153,471
84,181
245,122
123,914
195,788
42p502
887,005
222,1.26
219,278
211,126
251,393
193,908
133.293
164,838
369.876
1,765,838
32,426
33,961
12,282
42,222
23,362
8,105
15,462
2,593
58,462
46.442
73,811


-21,473 13,692 6,669


2,468 1,331 736
14,782 8,7829 4.555
1400602 12,517 304 02
20,0874 16.742 9,722
a36.851 m.19 60.278
340882 251,306 126,162
S181,811 152,747 81,614
150,632 128,660 83,373
182,493 161,470 109,254
133,516 104,704 47,159
146568 119,030 57.695

795.020 666.611 379.095
157,741 136,326 94,848
190,164 173,726 137,832
212,720 192,607 105,853
58,234 45,909 21,672
60,548 54,024 38,056
101,353 88,999 61,093
124.698 106.772 60.736
W905.8 798.363 520.090
6,277 5,151 3,707
34,059 28,241 13,438
150,510 126,379 43,240
79,070 66,647 21,919
244,628 237,192 61,721
128,610 115,879 15,865
195,282 163,740 34,560
43,445 38,385 8,893
881.881 781,614 203,343
203,928 185,798 73,940
208,319 200,067 76,195
200,931 183,633 37,863
225,370 209,582 35,996
173,340 152,261 41,978
116,940 107,010 13,969
149,885 120,225 43,193
338.975 265.273 73.260
1,617,688 1,423,A49 396,39%
29,734 25,108 7,876
32,164 27,414 8,374
10,743 9,464 2,840
40.074 34,795 11,887
22,177 16,358 3,386
9,367 6,281 1,648
18,231 14,168 4,258
2,719 2,159 531
61,914 44,659 13,584
48,803 40,110 11,645
84,093 73,516 22,322


943 .128 360 019 294 032 8 1


*


:6,096,799 5,859,69 5,382,162 5150,055 490,9009484215,77521713435 2,420,215 193,540 160,244


I/ Chickens over 4 months old, April 1.

SChickens 4 antha old ai over, J snary 1.
/ Chickms 4 months o2d ad ove Apr4l 1.

CoNi.Lled from reliminary Cesau reports for the respective States.


4,279
7,243
839
41,752
11,207
71.765
157,326

108,251
97,063-
130,540
63,994
91.760


123,395
157,927
138,015
34.226
67.373
77,901
89.057
667.894
2,582
16,630
68,043
32,288
83,940
28,521
52,186
12,884
W.074
107,432
112,726
69,179
65,607
59,464
34,078
72,363
48,500.
669,349
1J4,062
13,266
5,134
20,210
5,820
2,417
6,977
886
21,347
18,674
28.393
137.166


266
290
262
839
684
2,3M4
1,141

10,706

3,521
2,243
3,106
3.586
1,859
14.315
4,868
1,503
6,447
11,623
7,201
2,885
5.336
39.663
663
3,997
7,456
2,375
5,068
3,341
3,757
2,215
28,872
4,033
3,523
5,543
4,998
1,937
2,325
7,456
39,175
68,990
3,475
1,110
1,300.
4,311
1,479
1,645
1,092
522
2,465
3,725
9,870
30.99k


-- 99.. 0----


349sM 360 019 294 032 Ba 451


391
306
333
913
129
567
2,738
1,110
12,267

3,828
2,363
3,094
3,148
1,795


3,176
1,973
4,669
3.219
2,488
1,085
2,311
18.923

419
2,718
5,995
2,142
4,787
3,696
5,434
2,781
27,972
2,714
3,769
6,771
6,426
3,150
5,428
4,843
32,225
63,326
2,296
1,052
1,274
3,009
1,273
1,026
1,170
407
1,698
2,533
7,792
23.530


*


*


5






PES-158


- 15 -


The table was compiled by posting the appropriate items from the
individual State Census reports. The totals there may differ from the
data in the current Consus release for the U. S., because that release
was prepared on a sample basis, and did not include data for the indi-
vidual State"

The Census reports, together with other data, provide a bench mark
for the periodic adjustment and revision of many Bureau of Agricultural
Economics series of comparable data. The BAE estimates, which generally
cover topics in more dotnil than do the Census onumerations, and which are
made periodically through the inter-censal periods, are now in process
of such revision. The general nature of the revisions is that the figures
concerning numbers of chickens on hand are being reduced an average of
about 5 percent :.n the most recent year, and this reduction is tapered
gradually toward 1946.
At the isme cime that the adjustment was mace In chicken numbers,
a separate adjustment was made In the rate of egg production per layer.
This was based on other check data not related to the Census. Because the
revisions in rate of lay are upward, theypartly offset the downward re-
vision in chicken numbers and the percentage decrease in egg production,
following revision, is quite small--for 195, about 2 percent.

WORLD EGG PRODUCTION IN 1951; CURRENT CHICKEN NUMBERS 1/

In 1951 world egg production failed to show a significant increase
for the first time since 1946, according to the Office of Foreign Agricul-
tural Relations. Egg production and chicken numbers were lower or
previous uptrends were halted in most important producing countries in
1951 as compared with a year earlier. In general, the cut-back in poultry
production for great has not been as great as the decline in egg output.

The reversal in trend of egg production experienced since 1946 is
especially marked in Western Europe. By 1951 production of eggs and
poultry had generally reached or exceeded prewar levels and the increased
supply of eggs and poultry together with higher feed costs resulted in
less favorable returns to producers. Notable exceptions to the slackening
in egg and poultry output occurred in Western Germany, Austria, Italy,
and the Philippines where the postwar build-up came slower than in other
countries. While the uptrend in chicken numbers halted in the Netherlands,
egg production continued upward becuase of a higher rate of lay per bird.

1/ From an article by Floyd E. Davis and L.M. Smith in Foreign Crops and.
Markets, March 17, 1952. A more extensive statement, with tables, is available
from the Office of Foreign Agricultural Eelations, U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Washingtcn 25, D. C.




urnVERSITY OF FLORIDA
lI I I U I Ill II l IIl lll IIIII llllll
3 1262 08903 5868
U. S. Department of Agriculture Penalty for priv 3... .....__
Washington 25, D. C. payment of postage $300

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

BAE-PES-158-4/52-4100
Permit No. 1001
uNIV-ERSIT FLORIDA
LIBRARY
DOCUKESTS DsPT.
5-16-49







MARCH-APRIL 1952 16 -

The most significant downward changes in egg production occurred in
those countries exporting eggs. Unsatisfactory export prices of eggs in
relation to feed prices and other costs were undoubtedly a major factor
in reduced output. Chiefly affected were Belgium, the Scandinavian
countries, and Ireland. Canadian output, which had been cut back sharply
in 1949 and 1950, increased by 9 percent in 1951. The very favorable
market price for poultry meat in relation to eggs encouraged liquidatior
of flocks in Ireland, the United Kingdom, Norway. and possibly other
countries.

The outlook for 1952 is for somewhat higher poultry meat production
in nearly all reporting countries than in 1951, somewhat higher spring
egg production in the United States and Canada and an increase in fall
egg production in the United Kingdom. The feed situation does not
appear favorable for increased egg production in the Scandinavian countries,
Argentina, and Australia and the price situation is not favorable in
Ireland, the Scandinavian countries, and Australia. While poultry meat
production is expected to increase in the United States and Canada, the
number of chicks raised this spring for laying flock replacements is
expected to decline.