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:
November 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_00007
Classification:
lcc - HD9437.U6 A33
ddc - 338.1/7/6500973
System ID:
AA00005304:00007

Related Items

Succeeded by:
Poultry and egg outlook & situation

Full Text

4W-


THE
SI UATION

BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUR-==


While medium size eggs seldom bring the same they raise, individual farmers can avoid having large
price per dozen as large eggs, the discount against quantities of mediums for sale in the months when
them is less severe to the producer in the first 6 they are sharply discounted. Such planning also
months of the year than in the last 6 months. would result in a maximum production of large eggs
By planning early starting dates for the pullets during the normal season of peak egg prices.


FOR RELEASE
JAN. 15, P. M.






2 -

0 POLSWIT AHD AM SaIONhl AT A MaSi


: : If :
Si Moath Z
Item : Oit : or
: :date


I _


Fam production ........ Mil. doz. Oct.

Average number of
layers an farm .......: Mllmn : Oct.

Slonthly egg production :
per layer ............ : gg Oct.

Apparent clvlian per
capital disappearance ..: g : Oct.

Frozen e production ..: l. lb. 2 Oct.
: 3
Dried egg prolnotln ...: Nl. lb. Oct.

Price received by
tsarmr ...............* t.per doz.: Hov.

Price received by :
farm. as a pmraent- : 3
age of parity .........: Percent : Nov.

detail price (Mi) .....:C.per dos.: Oct.

IgI-fbeA prico ratio ...z Lb. feed Nov.
: I
atooa :

tell ................ :houm.cee: Nov. 1
a :
Frozen ...............: M. lb. : Now. 1

Chak hatched by cOa-
warcial hataheries ....: Mloa : Oct.

Pullets not yet of
laying ge a ftea : llimec : ov 1

Faer prlce of poultry :
ration ............... Dol.par owts Nov.




Price received by farm- :
ers for chickens, live : Cents per :
Broilers .............: pound Nov.
Farm chickens ........: do. : Nov.
All chickens .........: do. : Nov.

Price received by farm- :
ers for all chickens as:
a percentage of parity : Percent : Nov.

Retail price of chicume :
dressed (BAE) .........:Ct. per lb.: Oct.

Price received by : :
fa- re for turkeys, :
live ..................:Ct. per lb.: Nov.

Stock: :

Poultry, excluig : :
turkeys ............. M1il. lb. I HNov 1

Turkeys ..............: Mil. lb. : Nov. 1

Chicken-feed price : :
ratio .................: Lb. foed : Nov.

Turkey-feed price ratio : Lb. feed : Hov.

Average weekly place- :
meant of chicks In : :
11 broller arxea .......: llalna : Nov.


: : 22 3 : :


B0MS

274.5 353.3 366.8 : Nov.


346.4 352.6 354.5 :: Nov.


9.5 12.0 12.4 :: Nov.


28.8 31.4 32.5 :: Nov.

3.5 3.2 4.8 3 HNov.
:s
8.6 0.4 0.8 s: Nov.
I:

46.1 56.5 51.9 1 Dec.
2:

89 91 88 Sa Dec.
:
62.7 78.8 74.2 :: Nov.
:3
15.1 13.7 12.7 t2 Dec.
:2

:l
2,363 527 1,000 :: Dec. 1

176.6 121.6 95.3 12 Dec. 1

:.
43.9 83.0 84.8 :: Nov.


138.4 102.2 81.0 :: Dec. 1


3.18 4.12 4.09 :3 Dec.
::



::

28.1 25.7 31.3 :: Dec.
22.9 22.6 21.4 :: Dec.
21.2 24.2 26.4 :: Dec.
::


106 77 83 :* Dec.
::

48.6 52.6 53.7 :: Nov.



33.2 37.8 33.7 :: Dec.



157.9 176.8 137.0 :: Dec. 1

::
45.6 83.1 142.2 :: Dec. 1


7.8 5.9 6.5 :2 Dec.

::
10.7 9.2 8.2 Dec.::


--- 9.9 10.6 :: Dec.


28.0 25.7 29.6 : Farm chikena 2wr
23.7 23.3 22.1 : relative to broilers
25.0 24.7 26.4 :


106 74 83


47.9 50.4 54.8



34.7 39.6 34.6



179.7 200.7 136.2
68.3 109.3 156.5 : Record-blh stock Include
: Intended deliveries to
: Gow ert *urplus
8.0 5.9 6.5 : removl program

11.0 9.4 8.5


--- 11.0 11.6 :


NOV.-DEC. 1952


265.7 362.1 375.8 : Record bla for the moth


375.7 377.0 374.3 :

8.5 11.5 12.0 3


27.4 31.5 32.6

2.3 2.6 1.5 ) Enoraged by Ir.
S storage houSag.
7.3 0.k 1.0 )


46.8 51.1 16.6 :



92 83 79 :

62.1 78.0 72.3 2

14.9 12.1 11.4



928 230 388 :

138.9 95.1 73.0 2


43.8 83.6 84.0 :


81.1 55.5 42.0


3.22 4.22 4.08 I 81ghtly below year
i earlier





PES-162


T-HE POULTRY AND EGG S ITUATIO N

Approved by the Outlook and Situation Board, January 5, 1953


SUMMARY

Egg.prices began to decline seasonally in'late November. In mid-
December the U. S-..average price received by. farmers, 46.6 cents per
dozen, was 5-3 cents below the mid-November peak of 51.9 cents. Tn mid-
December 1951 the price was 51.1 cents. At the beginning of December,
production was running 10 percent higher.than a month earlier and 6
percent above a year earlier. Although the number of birds of laying
age was 1 percent smaller than on December 1, 1951, the rate of lay per
bird was up 7 percent. Egg production on farms for the first 11 months
of 1952 was 4,700 million dozen, highest on record for the period.

Next spring, egg production is likely to drop below the level of.
a year earlier since fewer potential layers were on hand on,.December 1
than on the same date of 1951, and the rate of lay in the spring is not
expected to be significantly above a year earlier. Demand from cbn-
sumers for eggs will be as strong as in the spring of 1952 and demand
for eggs for commercial breaking is expected to be at least as strong.
Consequently, prices to farmers for eggs next spring probably will be
above a year earlier, and farmers are likely to raise more chickens for
flock replacement than In 1952.

Turkey prices rose slightly after Thanksgiving, but remained
below last year. About 6 percent of the record-large 1952 turkey crop
has been bought by the Department of Agriculture under Its. surplus
removal program. December 1 storage holdings, even after allowahce for
holdings intended to be delivered to the Department, were a record for
the date.

Broiler prices were at their highest levels in 4 years in
November, but fell in December. Supplies were increasing, and, judging
by the chick placements in producing areas, are likely to increase further.
.Prices of farm chickens continued low, despite the relatively small stocks
of fowl in cold storage.

OUTLOOK

Supply Increase Causes
Sharp Break in Egg Prices

Prices of some grades of large eggs fell 12 to 18 cents per dozen
from mid-November to early December. Declines approaching this magnitude
were general, exceDt on the Pacific Coast and in other far-Western States.
In mid-December th:cre wa8 some price recovery from the preceding extreme
low points, but thers were further declines at the end of the month.


p, -


- 3 -




NOV.-DEC. 1952 4 -

The: declines in November and early December occurred under the
impact of the record November egg production, whTch was 4 percent larger
than in. November 1951," Production gained during the month, and by Decem-
ber 1 the rate of output (rate of lay for the first of the.month, times
number of layers on hand) was 10 percent above a month ear-lier., .

Gains in the rate of lay explain the large production increase; by
.'the- end .of .November .the number of birds in laying flocks was 1 percent
below .~ayear earlier," The increase in rate.of lay was beyond expectations
'based on trend, and undoubtedly was stimulated by the ml Y weather which
'continued through November over most -of the county.

As shown 1n table 2y' extension of. past. trends of rate of. lay suggest
S2thun on January 1 ajhd February.ll the rates Are likely also to exceed last
:yar. But-in Iiardch April, and-May, the past rates.of lay-have been re-
latively. .rsbable. er

-. -The- probable increase in the rate of lay in January, and perhaps
into Februarr. as'well, suggest that in those 2 months egg production may
not -fall;: beilpw a year earlier /!.;; ut later--perhaps during February--
-the decline. in:numbers of layers is. likely to more 'than-- offset the in-
creases -in rate of lay, and monthly output probably will fall below 1952.
'-In:March,. April, and May,-egg'production is likely to be below 1952 by
-:about th-p;same percentage as the -numbeV,,of layers falls below a year earlier.
'In those months, the number;:of layers, iually is"closely related to the
December 1 number of potential-layers, 'which in 1952 was 4-percent below
a year earlier, (The January 10 Crop Repo.,t will carry an estimate of the
January 1l-number of layers on farms, and'a comparison with .the year before.)

SIn1992, egg prices received by farmers reached their lowest level
in-March,. Wholesale prices in Eastern markets were at their low point in
February and again in May. After that, the seasonal'demand-for storage
absorbed enough of the increased egg production to hold prices at a some-
what higher level.

S' A'ter the price recovery of mid-December, wholesale egg prices were
almost :up to the comparable.levels of a year earlier; At .that time, sup-
plies .-put-ran last year: later in the season,'when'eupplies. are expected
to be short of a'year earlier, the price situation-is likely.to be reversed.

Another factor pointing to a stronger egg price situation than last
year is that current prices for frozen egg are high enough to encourage
expanded commercial breaking and freezing of eggs if shell prices drop much
further. Present stocks of frozen egg are the second lowest for the season
since 1936, and in any case large-scale commercial breaking operations are
likely to be resumed as early in the spring as ybolk color becomes deep
enough to fully satisfy'the trade.

More Frozen Egg- Fewer Shell:Egge, -
Expected in 1953 Storage Stocks.

One of the factors determining the springtime level.of egg prices--
perhaps the principal factorT-Is the demand for shell and frozen eggs for
storage. During the spring, production considerably exceeds disappearance
17 For February, after allowance for the 29 days in 1952.







into consumption channels and the excess goes into storage. The prices
that stores are.willing to pay for that excess not only affects the
general level of egg prices, but also to some extent determines the size
of the "excess"; if stores are bidding strongly for eggs, relatively more
will be diverted from consumption channels than if their interest is slack.

Interest in the commercial cold storage of eggs normally comes
in the months when egg production is largest and per capital civilian con-
sumption is near its seasonal peak, and egg prices are near their low
points. Under these conditions, egg prices are quite sensitive to'further
increases in supply. Because the diversion to storage removes part of the
seasonally large supply from consumption channels, the storage demand has a
considerable stabilizing effect upon springtime prices.. Table 3 shows that
8 to 16 percent of the springtime production of recent years went to storage.
In the absence of storage, springtime prices paid to farmers would have been
lower than their actual levels, by percentages larger than the percentage
diversion of.eggs to storage The demand for eggs is inelastic when con-
sumption is high and each 3 percent increase in supply depresses prices by
more than 1 percent.

Table-1.- Eggs: Price per dozen, December 15 and 31, 1952 with comparisons
to 1 month earlier and 1 year earlier


: Dec. 31,:
: 1952
: Cents


U. S. average farm price at mid-month ..:

New York,wholesale prices:
Nearby whites, large 1/ ..............:
Midwestern, mixed colors, large ......:
Midwestern, mixed colors, medium / ..:

Chicago, wholesale prices:
Brown and mixed,extras, large (60%A)..:
Brown and mixed, extras, medium (60%A):

Iowa producer prices 5/ 6/
Grade A large .........................:
Grade A medium .......................
Current receipts .....................

San Francisco, wholesale prices:
Grade A large .......................
Grade A medium .......................


49-51
49-50
46-47


47-43
44-45


37-38
33-34
34-36


63--642
61N-622


.Atlanta, Georgia, wholesale prices: :
Grade A large, mixed /...............: 504-56
Grade A medium, mixed 4/..............: 472-50

l/ Min. 10% AA, 8i-50 2/ Extras (Min. 65% A,
gV-50#). 4/ Extras (Min. 60% A). ._/ Mostly; not
'bi:arest to given date. j/ Min, 80%A large.


Dec. 15,
1952
Cents
46.6


Nov. 14, Dec. 14,
1952 1951
Cents Cents


51.9


53-56 67-69
49-51 2/60-61L
44-45 50-51


49-50
44-45


35-36
23-30
31-32


59" -6
56 -57i


51-54
46-47


57-572
49-50


50-51
35-36
40o


654-66-
515-522


60-65
./52-53


51.1


55-57
3/51-521
43-442


481-491
421-44


7/,41-43
- /35-37
35-37


6o-60-
53-?53f


52-57
47-53


8-50#). 3/ Extras (Min. 60D A,
range of prices. 6/ Eriday


'Description


-- I


--


PES-162


- 5 -





NOV.-DEC. 1952 6 -

The demand for eggs for storage In 1.953 is 1kely to result In a
larger net in-movement of frozen egg products into storage than a year
ago, but probably a smaller accumulation of shell eggs. In 2 of the past.
4 years, the holdings of shell eggs on July 1, when combined holdings
reached an annual peak, were only half of .th6se of frozen egg. Ten years
ago the peak holdings were divided about 50:50 between shell and frozen.

The low level of the remaining stocks-of frozen egg products; and
the firm prices since mid-year, are the reasons for expecting a large '
output of frozen egg products in 1953. From July 1 to December 1, the
average disappearance of frozen egg products wae .28 million pounds per
month, about the same as In the previous 5 years. This has reduced
December 1 stocks down to..their second lowest level for the season since
1936, and the supplies of albumen are particularly small.


Table 2.- Rate of lay, numbers of birds in laying flocks
and estimated egg production on farms, first day
of selected months, 194& to date


Year : Oct. :

Number


Nov. : Dec.

Number Number,


allowing year


Jan. Feb.
Number Number


Mar. Apr.
Number Number


a. Eggs laid per 100 layers, first day of the month


32.5
35-3
36.9
38.1
39.0


34.3
37.1
36.3
38.7
41.3


38.9
41.4
39.8
41.0


43.9
46.0
47.1
49.1


5.3.3
52.8
53.2
55.1


59.6
58.2
58.7
59.3


b. Birds in laying flocks, first day of mcnth (millions)


347
359
363
369
367

c. Estimated


113
127
134
141
143 .


361
382
376
385
382


368
392
380
391


362
382
372
384


354
370
364
373


337
355
346
354


production, on farina', first day of the month
(millions of eggs) ......


124
142
136
149
158


143
162
151
160


S159
* 176'

189


189

..' 206
2 06


201
207'
203
210


35.9
36.9
38.0
39.5
41.1


May
Number


60.7
60.0
60.6
60.6


1948
1949
1950
1951
1952



1948
1949
1950
1951
1952




1948 :
1949 :
1950
1951
1952


317
324
334
3P6
?4;


114
120
127
133
141


319
334
329
335


194
200
199
203


- --~~--


F


I


*








Table 3.- Egg production on farms and net Into- storage movement (shell
and frozen combined), spring months, 1948 to date


Item :


S1948 :
1,
*


S Mil.
: cases


Egg production on farms
March
April 1
May


16.,
1 17.0
16.2


'1949

Mil.
cases


16.8
"16 .4
-15.7


1950 -

Mil.
cases


i7.3
17.0
16.4


1951 :

Mil.
cases


17.1
16.8
16.3


1952


Mil.
cases


17.9
17.2
16.6


Total, 3 months


Net into-storage movement of
a. Shell eggs -
March
April
May :

Total, 3 months

b. Frozen egg 1/"
March
April
May

Total, 3 months

c. Shell and frozen
combined
March'
April
May

Total, 3 months

Wet into-.storage movement
Shell and frozen com-
bined as a per-
centage of egg
produoticn on farms :


March
April
May

Total, 3 months


40.9



0.8
- i1.-9


4.5..


0.6
1.4
. 1.4L

* 3.4



1.4
3.3
3.2

7.9


'48.9



0.4
..4

1.0



0.5

C.9

2.2



0.9
1.2
1.9

4.0


Percent Percent

8 5
19 7
20 12

S16 8


50.7



0.6
i9..
1.3

2..8


1.2

0.7

2.9



1.8
1.9
2.0


50.2



0.2
.7
1.1

. 2.0


0.8
1.2
1.4

3.4



1.0
1.9
2.5


51.7



0.7
*;6
1.0

2.3


0.6
.7
..9

2.2



1.3
1.3
1.9

4.5


5.7


Percent Percent- Percent

10 6 7
ll :- 11 8
12 15 11

11 -1i 9


I/ I nell egg equivalent through 1950, 1 case equals
ning 1951 and thereafter, 1 case equals 38.5 pounds.


37.5 pounds frozen egg; begin-


-"


---- T---


--- --


q q .


-e '


..... O


PES-162


- 7 -


: : i





NOV.-DEC. 1952


The supplies of frozen egg have sold at prices favorable to sellers,
since quotations through the last 6 months or so have been higher than
springtime prices plus storage costs. The firm prices have been especially
apparent for albumen, which in its frozen-form has been quoted at about
the same price as mixed whole egg. This may be mainly due to the strong
demand for albumen for drying, particularly for use in dry cake mixes. In
past years, frozen albumen frequently has been sold at about half the price
per pound of whole egg. In addition, demand from other users of processed
egg products--commercial bakers, manufacturers of noodles, salad dressing,
and candy, and others--also is strong.

Storage demand for shell eggs is likely to be off from 1952, partly
on account of the disappointing results to stores in that year, The trend
of egg futures prices during the year on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange
illustrates the declining values put on stored eggs after mid-summer:


Highest daily closing : Contract
price (per dozen) during : Sept. : Oct. : Nov. : Dec. : Jan.
the month of: : 1952 : 1952 : 1952 : 1952 : 1953
: Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents

1952
April : 4. 65 43.80 43.35
May : 43.50 43.95 44.10
June : 45.45 46.25 46.85
July : 50.05 50.40 50.65 49.00
Aug. : 49.45 50.30 50.70 9.oo00
Sept. : 45.95 47.00 47.85 46.00
Oct. : 43.90 44.35 44.20 39.75
Nov. 44.65 45.05 42.05 B
Dec. 47.55 43.00



Eggs withdrawn from storage relatively early in the season--June, July, and
August--were profitable, but after that the prices for stored eggs declined.

As in all previous summers, in July and August there is likely to be
a good demand for a limited quantity of stored eggs because in those months
the quality of good packs of stored eggs can closely rival that of currently-
produced eggs which may suffer from exposure to heat. However, prospects
are not promising for stored eggs later in the year. Because of the relative
leveling-out of monthly egg production, the seasonal deficit in fresh egg
supplies is not so great as it used to be. Therefore, the opportunities for
profit from the late-season sale of stored eggs are gradually being narrowed.

The Southeast in recent years has been considered one of the important
outlets for stored eggs. But egg production in that region is smoothing out
seasonally just like egg production in the rest of the United States, and
that market no longer has the extreme autumn deficits that it used to have.


- 8 -




PES-162

Table 4.-


:3-month production as a percentage of 12 month
Year : Southeastern States k: United
July-Sept. : Oct.-Dec. July-Sept. "
: Percent Percent Percent

1925 : --- 12 ---


1930

1935

1940

1945

1950 :

1951 :

1952


total 1/


*


I/ 12 months


beginning


October 1.


Uneven Levels, Mixed Trends,
in Poultry Prices

Poultry meat prices in mid-December followed diverse trends. Broiler
prices declined, after having reached the highest levels in the past 4 years.
Turkey prices rose slightly, after they had dropped so low that large quanti-
ties were purchased under the Government program for surplus removal. Prices
of farm chickens were holding about steady.

These trends occurred at a time when prices for each of these types
of poultry meat were seemingly considerably out-of-line with each other.
(See table 5.) The various types of poultry meat are, to a considerable
extent, substitutes for each other, and are considered to be competitive
with red meats: yet in November, and into December, prices of the various
poultry meats were not only out-of-line with each other, but also failed to
appreciably reflect downward wholesale price trends In red meat prices.

A variety of factors serve to rationalize the positions and trends to
mid-December for prices of the various poultry products. To some extent the
factors bearing upon prices differ for each class of poultry meat. The priee
trends that were apparent to mid-December were bringing the prices of poultry
products Into more usual relationships.


9 -

Eggs: Production in July-September and October-December quarters
as a percentage of annual production, Southeastern States
and United States, selected years, 1925 to date


total i/
States
Oct.-Dec.
Percent

11

13

14

16

18

21

22




NOV.-DEC. 1952


Table 5.- U. S. aveea!ge prices and related i datai poultry. beef cattle,
Sand hoFs, :November and December 1952 with comparisons


.-..... : : o Ovember: December: November: December; -year averages
.... : ..1952 : 1952 1951 : 1951 : November: December
: : _. ___ 1946-50 1946-50
... .. Cents. Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents


: a. U. S, average prices received by


farmers, per pound


Broilers
Farm chickens
All chickens, combined :
Turkeys :
Beef cattle
Hogs



Price of broilers as
a percentage of:
Farm chickens
Turkeys
Beef cattle
Hogs..

Price of turkeys as a
percentage of:
Broilers
Farm chickens
All chickens
Beef cattle :
'Hogs

Price of other chickens:
as a percentage of: :
Broilers '
Turkeys :
Hogs -


31.3
* 21.4
26.4
33.7
21.3
16.7


29.6
22.1
26.4
34.6
19.7
16.0


25.7
22.6
24.2
37.8
27,5
18.1


25.7
23.3
24.7
39.6
27.3
17.6


30.8
24.9
26.7
37.1
19.7
20.5


30.6
25.9
27.6
39.0
20.1
20.3


b. Comparisons, U. S. average farm prices


Percent Percent Percent


146
93
147
187



108
157
128
158
, 202


68
64
128


134
86
150
185



117
157
131
176
216


75,
64
138


114
68
93
142



147
167
* 156
. 137
209



88
60
125


Percent Percent Percent


110
65
94
146



154
170
160
145
225.



91
59
132


. 124
83
156
150


120
149
139
188
181



81
67
121


118
78
152
151



127
151
141
194
192



85
66
128


c., U. S.-average retail prices, per lb. 1/


Cents .-. Cents


Cents Cents


Chickens : 54.8 50.4 48.5 .. 54.2 52.9
Pork 2/ : 46.4 49.4 47.7 49.1 47.6
Beef 3/ : 84.4 -89.0 .. 88.9 68.4 .68.0

I/ Bureau of Agricultural Economics retail price.
2/ Composite retail price of pork excluding lard.
/ Composite beef price.


: Cents


Cents


10 -


_ A





PES-162 11 -

Turkeys: Christmas Prices Higher
than Thanksgiving

The record crop of 59 million turkeys raised in 1952 sold at an
average price somewhat over 33 cents per pound as compared with 37.4 cents
for the 1951 crop of 52.3 million.: In 1952, farmers probably carried out
their August intentions to market early, storage stocks were built up to
a high level early in the season, and the Department of Agriculture con-
ducted a large-scale surplus removal program, under which about 6 4 .lion?'
pounds of eviscerated turkeys were bought by the end of December. Prices
rose somewhat from mid-November to mid-December.

On November 1, storage stocks of turkey were 142 million pounds, a
record high for the season. By December 1, they had risen further (although
the rise was smaller than usual for the month) to 157 million pounds, an all-
time record. However, 19.1 million pounds of the.turkey stocks reported for
December 1 were held for later delivery to the Government, and. 3.2 million
pounds more were held under USDA ownership. If these holdings are sub-
tracted, the remaining December 1 holdings would be 134 million pounds,
compared with 109 million pounds a year earlier.

USDA's contracts call for delivery of almost 20 .million pounds of
turkey in January through March. Practically all of this is probably al-
ready in storage, since the USDA's contract terms require that turkeys be
slaughtered no later than 30 days after the contract covering them is let.
In the 30 days prior to January 1, contract awards totaled slightly more
than 3 million pounds of turkey.

Current estimates of the weight of the 1952 turkey slaughter place the
figure at about 925 million pounds, New York dressed basis. On an eviscerated
basis, the corresponding figure would be reduced to about 770 million pounds.
The Government purchases are approximately 6 percent of this total.

The moderate increase in turkey prices which occurred after Thanks-
giving have been attributed to several factors, including early marketing
which left relatively small supplies of hen turkeys on farms for late sea-
son slaughter, and the effects of the Government's surplus removal program.
After about February 1, when the peak of storage holdings usually is reached,
the storage holdings will be a major influence upon the price of large
turkeys. Prices of small turkeys, for which storage is less important, will
probably strongly reflect current production. Production in the first few
months of 1953 is-likely to be sharply down. Hatchery reports from Virginia
indicate that in the last 3 months only half as many turkey eggs were set in
incubators as in the corresponding period a year earlier. A Minnesota report

Table 6.- Scheduled deliveries of turkey to.USDA under
surplus removal program, as of January 1, 1953

Month of delivery -: Quantity
: Mil. lbs.
December 1952 and prior 29.1
January. 1953 2.4
February 14.0
March : 3.2




NOV.iDEC. 1952


- 12 -


showed, that hatchery operators in that State planned to have 9 percent fewer
turkey breeders in their hatchery supply flocks in 1953 than in 1952 J/.

Broilers: Price Peak in November

The U.; S. average farm price for broilers in mid-November was the high-
est since 1948. At 31.3 cents per pound, .it was 9 percent higher than the
average; of the preceding 10 months, and .10 percent above the calendar 1951
average. For December 1952, the mid-month price was 29.6 cents per pound.

The peak in :November was unusual in view of past trends toward
lower-than-average prices in. .that month and in December. In 3 of the pre-
ceding 5 years, November and December prices were among the lowest in the
respective calendar years. This occurred despite the usual seasonal down-
turns inr placements in the third .quarter of each year, and the resultant
decreases in fourth quarter marketing. The accepted explanations for low
S broiler prices in November--heavy marketing of turkeys and of hens--were
overbalanced. th-is year, by other factors.

Among the factors that caused the price rise in November was the
extent of the seasonal .decline in broiler chick placements in July and
August. In August, the decline was so sharp that numbers dropped below
a year earlier. This fact is partly revealed in the placement record for
the 11 reporting areas, but.is even more forcefully shown in the record
of U. S. hatchery output in the months since July or August. Relatively
few chicks are.purchased for laying flock replacement in the last 4 or 5
months of the year, and most of the hatching output is for broilers. Table
7 indicates that in August the decline in 11-area chick placements must
have been exceeded by the decline in non-reporting areas, and that there-
fore the 11-area weekly reports have understated the extent of the decline
in broiler supply..

Beginning about December, broiler marketing in the U. S. probably
have been fully up to year-ago levels. This is indicated by hatchery out-
put about 3 months prior. For the 11 areas, except Del-Mar-Va, output
beginning about mid-December was very sharply above a year earlier. Del-
Mar-Va placements, however, have not been up to the corresponding numbers
for last year.

Fowl Prices Continue Low:
Storage Holdings Light

In mid-November,, the U. S. average price received by farmers for
farm chickens was 21.4 cents,' the lowest in 3 years except for last October.
There was little change in this price 'in the following month, when the mid-
month price averaged 22.1 cents. In November and December, most of the
farm chickens marketed.are hens.'-.
There are several reasons for the recent large difference between
farm prices of specialized broilers and other chickens. Farm chickens are
of less commercial importance than is indicated by the fact that they still
contribute'about half of the national supply of chicken meat. About a
quarter of the farm chickens are consumed on farms where produced, against
a negligible percentage for broilers. Another large proportion is thought
to be processed near where produced, and stored for private use in locker
plants and home freezers.
I/ "Minnesota Turkey Breeder Hen Report", State-Federal Crop and Livestock
Reporting Service, 531 State Office Bldg., St. Paul.








For the most part, farm chickens are available to country buyers and
to processors only in small lots, so procurement costs are higher than for
broilers, which are bought in multi-truck-load lots. Then the supply of farm
chickens is seasonal, entailing the year-round maintenance of a plant in
order to handle a peak volume of chickens which is of short duration. Finally,
as the product proceeds through market channels, its sale is seldom promoted,
because its commercial volume is overshadowed by the fast-moving high-volume
broilers.

Table 7.- Chicks hatched in the United States; broiler placements in 11 areas
and Det-Mar-Va, monthly, July 1952 to date, with comparisons
C: : : Chicks available for
Chicks hatched Chicks placed in placement outside
Month in U.S. 11 areas 1/ : 11 areas


: :Differ-: : :Differ-
: 1951 1952 ence 1951 1952 : ence
: Mil. Mil. Mil. Mil. Mil. Mil.

July : 104.8 83.6 -21.2 48,4 43.7 -4.7
August : 89.1 75.5 -13.6 43.3 40.0 -3.3
September : 76.9 77.8 0.9 38.3 39.4 0.6
October : 83.0 34.8 1.8 38.9 44.2 5.3
November : 83.6 84.0 .4 42.0 47.3 5.3
December 2/: 87.0 47.3 51.9 4,6


: : :Differ-
: 1951 : 1952 : ence
Mil. Mil. Mil.

56.4 39.9 -16.5
45.3 35.5 -10.3
38.1 38.4 0.3
44,1 40.6 3.5
41.6 36.7 4.9
39.7


Chicks placed in : Chicks placed in
Del-Mar-Va : 10 other areas
: : : Differ- : : : Differ-
S1951 1952 : ence 1951 1952 :. ence
: Mil. Mil. Mil. Mil. Mil. Mil.

July : 14.5 9.6 -4.9 33.9 34.1 0.2
August : 13.9 8.5 -5.4 29.4 31.5 2.1
September : 13.2 9.6 -3.6 25.6 29,8 4.2
October : 12.2 10.8 -1.4 26.7 33.4 6.7
November : 11.8 11.5 -0.3 30.2 35.8 5.6
December 2/: 13.3 14,5 1i2 34.0 37.4 3.4

i/ Eastern Connecticut, Del-Mar-Va, Shenandoah Valley, North Carolina (Central-
Western), North Georgia, N. W. Arkansas, Texas, Indiana, Florida, Alabama, and
Mississippi.
2/ For December 1952, data are partly estimated.

Under these circumstances, the broilers often are given a smaller per-
pound mark-up, to cover processing and marketing costs, than the mark-up
applied to farm chickens. The result is that, despite a higher price per
pound paid to the producer, broilers customarily retail in the East--and
probably in much of the rest of the country as well--at prices no higher
than hens. Therefore, the recent low levels of farm chicken prices may, to
some degree, continue as a near-normal situation, particularly in the seam
sons when farm chickens are plentiful.


PES-162


-13 -





NOV.-DEC. 1952 -
Current cold storage holdings of chickens (all poultry minus turkeys
and &ucks) on December 1 were the lowest for the month since 1948, and the
second lowest for the month since 1940. Fowl-are the largest component of
this total, and the component that ordinarily shows the. greatest seasonal
variation. Normally, holdings of-fowl increase i(i November, with the 5-year
average gain being 12 million-pounds.- This November, however, there was. no
appreciable change.from the beginning to the end of the month, with stocks
remaining at about 57 million pounds. On December 1, 1951, stocks of. fowl
totaled 101 million pounds.

Table. 8.- Breed. distribution of turkeys in hatchery supply flocks under
National Turkey Improvement Plan

.: Number of: Percentage distribution, by breed or variety
Year : States : birds : Broad :Sn -; h :Beltsville: .
:reporting: enrolled : Breasted: ro ; Small : .Others
Bronze .eHolland
: : : Bronze : .. __-_ : White _
Number Millions Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent


1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952


S8
24
.29
36
36
39
44
44,
44.:


. 0.1
.7'
2.2
1.7
1.1
1.7
2.1
* 2.3
:3.1


72
83
92
88
13

76
77
75


15
12 .
5.
* 5 .
15
16.
13
1/


7. J-
2-
. 2
S:4
5
4
4
4


5
S2
1


: 1

1


1f Les than 0.5
Source: Records of the National "Turky Improvement Plan.

Broad Breasted .Bronze Lead
in Turkey Breeding Flocks. .

A summary of the breed distribution of turkeys in hatchery supply.-
flocks (table '8) shows that there are more Broad Breasted Bronze breeder'
hens than any other breed. The data are from records of the National
Turkey Improvement Plan.


The 1952 data cover 3.1 million birds in: 4,4 States. For January 1,
1952, the BAE estimated that there were a total of 3.8 million hen .turkeys
being kept as breeders in the U. S.-

The relative stability of the proportion of breeders which.are
Broad Breasted Bronze is probably achieved at the expense of Standard
Bronze, since the proportion of Beltsville Small Whites has increased.
Breeders of bronze turkeys are improving their flocks to meet the speci-
fications of broad-breasted. The seeming revival of interest In Standard


.1


f


':





PES-162


- 15 -


Bronze birds in 1948, as Is suggested in the table, is probably a reflec-
tion of more rigid interpretation of specifications than in the two previous
years, rather than a shift back to Standard Bronze.

The proportion of Beltsville Small Whites in the annual turkey crop
is larger than the proportion of Beltsville hens in the breeding flock.
The Beltsville birds lay more eggs than some other breeds, and they are
produced more nearly year-round than are the heavy breeds. For 1952, a
quarter of the turkey crop is estimated to have been Beltsville Small Whites
and other small breeds,-against a fifth-in 1951.

Seasonal Variation in Egg Price and Supply,
and Out-of-Season Hatching

The usual seasonal variation in egg prices--from a low in the spring
to a high-in the fall--is well known, To a considerable'degree commercial
egg producers have taken advantage of it by producing the largest practical
proportion of their annual egg production in the fall months. By taking
advantage of early hatching, artificial illumination in the months of.dimin-
ishing daylight, and better breeding that keeps yearling lpyers produbipg
longer into their second fall, farmers are producing more eggs in the months
when eggs previously had been scarce. While this was--and still is--to
the advantage of the individual egg producer, it has markedly reduced the .
premium that producers now get for fall and winter production. Thirty years
ago the season peak of farm egg prices normally came in December and it was
more than twice.as high as the springtime low point. Now the United States
average egg price usually reaches a peak about October or November, and the
peak level is only one-third higher than the normal springtime low.

This smoothing out of the annual egg production and price cycles
has resulted in a large influx of medium size eggs to the market i -
the last half of the year. As a consequence, prices of medium eggs, rel.
ative to the price of large eggs,. have been lowest in these months lj..-In
Othb..irst and second quarters of the year, however, the price difference
between the sizes is quite small.

This has stimulated a considerable interest in poultry circles in
out-of-season hatching,--in some States November or thereabouts--as con-
trasted with early-season hatching--February or March. This practice has
not yet become sufficiently widespread to be apparent in the reports.of
hatchery production.

V} This is not to say that the actual'prices of medium eggs are'lowest in
the third and fourth quarters; it is only that the discount against them is
greatest then. See cover chart.
------------------------------
"The next time you eat a chicken, you might pause to reflect that its
diet and the record of its family tree were probably more complete than your
own."
H.P. Bird, in The Scientific Monthly,
October, 1952.




NOV, -DEC 1952 16 -

N UN L E- t-- c0 H '3 cu cu c0 0u cu
\ m -t*' (n cv 01 t _t CU
S0 .


4' ) o n OD fn F-4 --.t ON 0- 4 _4 it 0
0 0 I .
u .,,, A H


H ....
Vo4 0

0I ,,4 '0 o. '3 0 40 o 0 o -0 d 0 .
5 p rn C4 Ci C04 04 N r-H H r-H d CU
. I p .... ,* .


























o-. (
Sr -

'J HO
H' -c\ 0% o 0 i- IE\ i* H C 'M no IMra

.. .. *. :. .. w .t V Id 0 *
0 .QO'd CO C CO 4D* Od C) -* 06 o \z r.

IIIW% 4.


*Z-4 -: i 4.. 3 ... cy H 0 0 *' t. ** (' \ .
4. _0 S-vOF-9 IH Hu H HN H '4 4 H cu a 0 H 0. t- .



ga H I i 5 O
. I U c. 10 \o U\ Ad.-- .0 0; c.
-41 0 a .r 4 _4
HP-

0 H. 0 .P .0 X 4) 04
\0 H o H '3 tr\ t 0rN fn a n ir H H3 CO co 4 j f CD
O cu10c C. cm (M 0 .H


WI- *^ J C. oV w i a





4 0. .. q!. CO V G 0 CO 0 0. .P CD
7 en a CV p sp




Ea Ga 1 43





PES-162


- 17 -


Table 10.- Prices per dozen of large and medium eggs;
averages 1/, selected cities, by months


5-year


(including data for cover chart)
: Farm price : Wholesale prices
Month : Iowa2/ New York Chicago San
: Ct Ct : Francisco
: Cents Cents Cents Cents


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



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




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


35.00
34.71
35.78
36.60
36.46
37.71
41.08
45.50
48.12
50.39
49.58
41.39


30.55
31.07
32.20
32.79
32.49
32.48
32.95
35.71
36.88
36.36
37.31
34.70


(a) Grade A large
44.68 41.67
43.05 40.89
45.21 42,45
46.20 3/42.10
45.20 3/40.24
47.56 -44.35
51.41 48.99 *
55.98 52.97
59.52 57.58
62.43 61.38
61.42 60.26
55.35 51.91

(b) Grade A medium


41.61
41.29
43.65
44.30
43.07
44.95
48.65
50.96
50.61
48.57
50.56
49.96


38.04
38.32
39.80
3/38.64
1/36.67
40.24
44.29
47.38
48.08
46.52
48.23
45.93


fd) Price of mediums as a percentage of price of :.irge


Percent


Percent


Percent

91
94
94
92
91
91
90
89
84
76
80
88


I/ Available monthly data, November, 1947 to October, 1952.
2 Excluding November and December 1947 for which data were not available.
Excluding 1951, when mediums were not quoted.


53.28
46.73
46.95
48.45
49-32
50,35
57.19
61.49
-64.78
65.58
65.69
61.97


50.65
44.27
44.50
45.41
46.22-
46.26
54.17
56.12
56.88
56.08
56.54
57.46


Percent

95
95
95
94
94
92
*95
913.
88
86
86
93





NOV.-DEC. 1952


A Cornell study has computed the different values that might occur
for a flock's annual output if it were housed (and hatched) at various sea-
sons 2/. In a simplified illustration, the study has assumed that if a
layer were housed in April, her pattern of laying during her first production
year would be identical to that of a comparable September-housed bird, ex-
cept that it would be advanced by 6 months. The market prices by which the
eggs were valued were those which actually prevailed.

Under this set of assumptions, the value of the eggs produced by an
April-housed flock was 7 percent higher than from a September-housed flock.
The "profits" from the off-season flock, after allowing for somewhat higher
costs, were 22 percent higher.

The assumption that the pattern of laying of an out-of-season pullet
would be the same as a spring-hatched pullet is to some extent unrealistic.
Actually, out-of-season pullets probably are likely to molt sooner after they
begin laying. There may be other risks and drawbacks as well. *The practice
of out-of-season hatching nevertheless has been found profitable by many
producers.

Table 11.- Eggs: Average monthly distribution, by sizes, of graded
output of an Ohio co-op, October 1946-Aprill 1952

Percentage of monthly total : : Percentage of monthly total
Month : of all graded eggs : Month : of all graded eggs
Large dium : Small : : Large : Small
: 1/ : Medi : 2/ : I Medium
; Percent Percent Percent : : Percent Percent Percent

Jan. : 73 26 1 : July : 84 15 1

Feb. : 77 22 1 ; Aug. : 78 15. 7

March : 86 13 1 : Sept. : 63 26 l.-

Apr. : 83 16 1 :Oct. : 50 39 11

May : 84 15 1 :Nov. : 51 43 6

June : 84 15 1 :Dec. 65 33 2

l/ Including extra-large and jumbo.
2/ Including peewees.


2/ Kearl, C. D.; "Seasonal Costs and Peturns in Producing Eggs, New Yotk,
1946-47; AE 713, in cooperation with BAE. See p. 16 and ff.


- 18 -






PES-162 19 -

Table 12.- Eggs: Percentage breakdown by grade and size of receipts
in registered Egg Grading Stations in Canada, monthly, 1951

: Grade A : : Grade A :
Month : : Medium: : Grades : Month : Medium : : Grades
: Large : and : Total : B and C: : Large : and : Total : B and C
: :: small: : : : small : :
:Percent Percent Percent Percent :Percent Percent Percent Percent

Jan. : 65 27 92 8 :July : 59 18 77 23

Feb. : 72 20 92 8 :Aug. 51 30 81 19

March : 74 16 90 10 : Sept. : 41 46 87 13

Apr. : 72 14 86 14 :Oct. : 33 54 92 8

May : 66 13 79 21 : Nov. : 47 47 94 6

June : 62 13 75 25 : Dec. : 55 38 93 7

:12 mos.: 60 26 86 14



Factors in Feed Price Outlook

In mid-December, the price of corn and the wholesale prices of many
feed ingredients were lower than 3 or 4 months earlier, and lower than a year
earlier. While these declines were not yet fully reflected in the U. S.
average prices paid by farmers for poultry feeds and ingredients, the price
changes do indicate a likelihood that. for the next 3 months or so, poultry-
men's feed costs may be below a year earlier.

Some evidence on this point is shown by the current level of futures
contract prices, which indicate the expectations of traders. Table 13
summarizes current quotations for futures contracts for corn, soybean meal,
wheat millfeeds, and sorghume,and compares them with the prices upon the
expiration of the corresponding contracts a year previous. These compari-
sons show that in late December the futures markets valued corn and wheat
millfeeds lower for the next 3 months than in the corresponding months of
1952, and soybean meal lower than the ceilings in effect in the spring of
1952.

Last year and the year before there were no seasonal declines in
corn prices in the fall. The prices of most feed ingredients also held
firm. The resent price declines for corn and for ingredients at wholesale
are therefore the first substantial decline in those prices for about
2 years.






NOV.-DEC. 1952


- 20 -


In each of the last 2 years, more feed was fed to livestock than
was produced. Despite large annual supplies resulting from generally
favorable crops, the year-end carry-overs of the 4 feed grains--corn,
oats, barley, and grain sorghums--were reduced each year, because the
feeding of concentrate feeds per animal unit was maintained at a high
level. This was to some extent explained by the feeding of some low--
quality corn in the Corn Belt, but a contributing factor also was the
relatively favorable livestock product prices which prevailed through:
most of that period.

Considered in relation to the numbers of grain-consuming livestock.
to be fed during 1952-53 (which is expected to be smaller than in either
of the last 2 years), the 1952-53 supply of feed concentrates Is a little
larger than a year earlier (though 4 percent smaller than 2 years earlier),
and it would result in some increase in carry-over next October 1 If rates
of livestock feeding are about the same as in each of the last 2 years.
From the point of view of supply per animal unit, then, there Is little
reason to expect much change from the year before in the level of feed
prices.


IJ.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGI~ICULTURE NEG. 4895S-~X 8UREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS


FEED CONCENTRATES FED TO

LIVESTOCK, 1951-52

Laying chickens

Poultry, 26%

Chickens raised .4.... H
.*:..H... H ogs
Broilers, 4 6 :
39
Turkeys 2 ----

Other 12
17

Beef cattle
Dairy cattle

PERCENTAGE FIGURES INDICATE PROPORTION OF TOTAL 1951.52 FEED
DISAPPEARANCE FED TO EACH CLASS OF LIVESTOCK


U. S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


NEG. 48953-XX BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS








Table 13.- Futures contract Pricesat daily close: Corn, grain
sorghums, and feed ingredients, selected 1953
contracts with comparisons
: Month : 1953 : 1952 contracts
Commodity, of : contracts : Dec. 31 : On expiration
market, futures : Dec. 31, : Dec 3 : ate of
and unit : contract : 1952 : : given contract

Corn,
Chicago, Mar. : 1.64 7/8 1.91 1.84 1/4
per bu. May : 1.68 1.91 1/4 1.80 1/2
J: uly : 1.71 1.90 3/4 1.76 1/2
Sept. 1.69 5/8 1.86 3/4 1.69 3/4

Soybean meal,
Memphis, : Mar. 68.25 72.80 74.00
per ton : May 70.25B 71.80 81.OOB
July : 72.00 71.75B 81.00B
Aug. : 72.50 71.00B 81.00c

Wheat bran,
Kansas, : Feb. 53.90B 61.25s 59.50s
per ton : Mar. 55.00B 61.20. 63.50s
Apr. : 55.55B 60.05s 62.9Qs
May : 50.00B 58.0Qs 55.60s

Wheat shorts,
Kansas City, : Feb. : 56.00B 63.15s 63.5Qs
per ton : Mar. : 57.30B 62.758 69.259
Apr. : 58.30B 64.00s 67.70s
May : 57.50B 65.008 67.95s

Sorghums,
Chicago, Mar. : 3.35A 3.13 1/2A 3.14A
per cwt. : May : 3.41A 3.16 1/2A 3.23B

B Bid. A Asked.
s Settlement price.

From the demand side, there may be differences from the last year
or two. In this demand comparison, the reduced number of grain-consuming
animal units in the 1952-53 livestock population Is already compensated
by the conversion of the supply and disappearance estimates to a "per
animal unit" basis. But the demand per animal unit might logically be
expected to vary somewhat according to the profitability of converting
feed into meat, milk, or eggs.

To some degree, livestock already on farms will be fed out regard-
less of adverse changes in the feeding ratios affecting them. But they
may be fed less liberally, and their replacements may be fewer in number,
as was anticipated for some species In Table 14 when 1952-53 livestock
numbers were projected.


PES-162


. 21 -






NOV.-DEC. 1952


Table 14.-Feed concentrate balance, numbers'of animal units, and feed per unit,
United States, year beginning October, average, 1937-41,
1946-50, and.-annual, 1947-52

eAverage:Average0 1952
Item 1937-4119e46-50 1947: 1948: 1949: 1950 : 1951 192

: Mil. Mil. Mil. :Mil. Mil. Mil. Mil. Mil.
:tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons

Supply
Stocks beginning of year 2/ : 16.9 18.7 13.8 7.8 30.4 30.6 28.7 20.2
Production of feed grains: :
Corn............ ...... : 72.1 86.6 65.9 100.9 90.7 85.6 81.2 92.6
Oats.......................: 18.1 21.7 18.8 23.2 20.1 22.6 21.1 20.3
Barley.....................: 6.9 6.7 6.8 7.6 5.7 7.3 6.1 5.5
Sorghum grains.............: 2.2 4.0 2.6 3.7 4.1 6.5 4.5 2.3
Total .....................: 99.3 119.0 94.1 1i5.4 120.6 122.0 112.9 120.7
Other grains fed .3/ ........: 4.5 4.4 5.7 3.4 4.5 4.0 4.3 4.5
Byproduct feeds fed........: 15.4 20.2 19.0 20.1 20.7 21.9 22.5 22.2
Total supply.............. :136.1 162.3 132.6 166.7 176.2 178.5 16t8.4 167.6
Utilization, October -
September
Concentrates fed 4/
Corn... ...................: 62.2 73.3 63.4 71.5 79.4 77.6 78.9 78.6
Oats .....................: 16.1 19.0 17.4 19.9 18.4 20.0 20.4 19.2
Barley and sorghum grains..: 6.9 5.6 5.0 5.8 5.0 7.3 6.9 4.3
Wheat and rye...............: 4.3 3.8 5.6 2.8 3.8 3.0 3.0 3.2
Oilseed cake and meal ......: 3.9 7.2 6.2 7.3 7.9 8.6 9.1 9.1
Animal protein feeds.......: 2.9 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5
Other byproduct feeds......: 8.6 10.6 10.4 10.3 10.3 10.8 10.8 10.6
Total concentrates fed....: 104.9 121.9 110.4 120.1 127.3 129.8 131.7 5/127.5
Feed grains for seed, human :
food, industry, and export..; 12.1 17.6 13.6 17.6 17.2 20.4 17.1 16.5
Total utilization.......... : 117.0 139.5 124.0 137.7 144.5 150.2 148.8 144.0
Utilization adjusted to crop :
year basis...................: 116.2 140.0 124.8 136.3 145.6 149.8 148.2 144.6
Stocks at end of crop year 2/: 19.9 22.3 7.8 30.4 30.6 28.7 20.2 23
Supply and utilization per :
animal unit
Total supply (Mil. tons)....: 136.1 162.3 132.6 166.7 176.2 178.5 168.4 167.6
Concentrates fed (Mil. tons): 104.9 121.9.110.4 120.1 127.3 129.8 131.7 ./127.5
Number of graln-consuming :
animal units fed annually
(Millions) 6/................ 153.1 162.5154,.0 160.1 166.1 172.2 174.0 168
Supply per nimeal unit (Ton): .89. 1.00 .86 1.04 1.06 1.04 .97 1.00
Concentrates fed per animal :
unit (Ton)..................: .69 .75 .72 .75 .77 .75 .76 5/.76

1/ Preliminary estimates based on Indications in December 1952.
2/ Stocks of corn in all positions on October 1, oats and barley July 1, and from
197 to date sorghum grains on October 1.
3/ Domestic wheat and rye and imported grains..
V/ Total quantities fed in the U. S., Including domestically produced and imported
grains and byproduct feeds.
5/ Assumes that livestock will be fed at about the same rate per animal unit as in
19r1-52.
6/ Grain-consuming animal units fed during the Oct.-Sept. feeding season.


- 22 -








Table 15.- Feed and livestock-product price relationships, feed years 1950 and
1951, and monthly to date

Item, :Oct 1950-:ct 1951: Oct. 1952 : Nov. 1952 : Dec. 1952
U. S. aver- : Sept.191Set.19: Raw :Season- : :Season- : :Season-
age farm average average data: ally : : ally : : ally
price basis : : : adjusted: :adjusted: :adjusted
Index of prices paid:
by farmers for feed;
1935-39=100 218 238 249 246 246
Index of prices re-
ceived by farmers
for livestock pro-
ducts, 1925-39=100 284 276 301 295 280
Price of hogs, dol.
per cwt. 20.08 18.58 IS.60 --.* 16.70 16.00
Hog-corn ratio, bu.
corn to cwt. hog 12.9 11.0 12.2 11.5 10.7
Price of all milk,
d.ol. per cwt. : 4.85 4.85 5.28 4.95 5-33 4.84 5.19 4.74
Milk-feed price
ratio, lbs. ration
to 1 lb. milk 1.28 1.27 1.39 1.31 1.44 1.33 1.40 1.34
Price of eggs, cents
per doz. 46.6 43.1 50.4 43.1 51.9 44.4 46.6 39.8
Egg-feed price ratio,:
lbs. ration per doz. 11.9 10.3 12.1 10.3 12.7 10.9 11.4 9.7


Until mid-December, hops were the principal class of livestock for
which the product-feed price relationship Indicated a reduced demand for
feed per animal. Dairy product prices to mid-December have held up relative
to feed prices. Beef-cattle feeding operations would seem to be more
directly guided by cattle price expectations than by beef-corn price relation-
ships. For feeding most types of poultry, farmers adjust to changing product-
feed price ratios by adjusting the number of birds through culling and other-
wise, rather than to change the amount of mash allowed the flock.

Hog production in 1953 will be sharply reduced from 1952. On Decem-
ber 1, 1952 there were 15 percent fewer hogs over 6 months of age on farms
than a year earlier. The 1952 fall pig crop was down 11 percent from the
year before, and farmers' intentions Indicate a out of 13 percent from last
year in the number of sows to farrow in the spring. The effects of these
changes are reflected In the projections shown in Table 14.

In late December hog prices rose sharply and further seasonal increases
are expected. These increases may not only increase the demand for feed for
the hogs approaching marketing age, but if they exceed farmers' earlier
expectations they may also cause farmers to review their intended 13 percent
cut In the number of sows farrowing for the spring pig crop. The trend of
hog prices from now through the spring farrowing season may therefore provide
the Indication of feed price trends until the new-crop prospects become the
dominant Influence.


PES-162


- 23 -







NOV.-IEC. 1952


S-21 -


!3' R .W
101 ^1T- .




U .' Uf A *0 (M


0oo.- cUN
'a| ~oi-sc.{ A *


0
0 m u '.0 if\
f 1- ^^-p (u' f-. nm


%wo u\' o \,
Lr% t UN


a..

0
48





'-4







I11

P3

43





01|

s9U
43.' o
-U'T3




(3-
4I




*. ^ .4
Sa :

43.* *


c,~0% .4*




003 cu-~
*,I .. '







o;gt **
0303




0 cu 77tk
Sry 01N


Is


a 0s'0s


~1970


8828S88




8SSSS88



. .4

C'0 CC) CO 0 C 0 CO







S88S88&
q mg C-0 S.
.4^0\ ^0


^r
dim


S .. .. G
8- .",- 0a. b -^^ -T^ *5





**3 .'i 'S d "a *** s U
a *' .: : :::: g ; ::
...... .s a..T ~ a i t p
.. i S'J i ...: .

,atixA U U, qUC f d *n


44 Mi
S0 c


-,,


0 t7
ff3i%0


0 C4'
-*-* Ur>Mi
U N '
ca0


.t-C-- 4
* I- ; ,






' -t, '
0* -ss'-
030, CUkO
NOO


OC-i'0
01 01 03 05


I g088s'&




8'. 0 U2Q UNI









V, 1 c, .-a. ''\







I I .
al o Sr o
43 dd




03 C .- U *' U






- 25 -


UIN
.-


S ii
a0





a

-Iu
mu^


.* 011U 'n




0.4l Cn'7 014Itri
IIIIIIm


N a





C0.





Jf cu ic



-*0


8 "w8-A -


A
i

Es



IN





Ii

.|
TJU







i1'








A


RaS8s QS888S s


s3838S8



S(ir t- 0%00
olgclAy




C41-91 ;Ag


41Pg os Lr


RE*
mu cn N E0 co mo
9Ci1t-r -. CT- vi


;:: as
--d

S. .



S~~A P ~i


PES-162


Cl ir~o C Cl
II IEEE


889; m s
0%gdd CniaiCD


'-





U%


019 8P3
Ar s g i


a.



a ID
a a





A
V 5
0
u







P.

0 4
^13t
C









k 0



ul43 gh
1 0
0 a
.11*



















0 0

iC"


.0
?1 d









c|









1 d :.
* 4'0

S.a




C |


.... ft
5


8.. .33


% 38
a M






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

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

BAE-PES- 162-:/3-4400UJTVERITY OF FLORIDA
Permit No. 1001 S Lr
L ,,1M $ 7S LEPT.
5-1--49
F' 5 GAIESVILLE


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

3 1262 08904 0082
nalty for priviue ube wu a ouu. i
payment of postage $300


4I


,FLA.