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 1938
Frequency:
quarterly
regular

Subjects

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

Notes

Citation/Reference:
Bibliography of agriculture
Citation/Reference:
Predicasts
Citation/Reference:
American statistics index
Citation/Reference:
Index to U.S. government periodicals
Statement of Responsibility:
Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
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:

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_00011
Classification:
lcc - HD9437.U6 A33
ddc - 338.1/7/6500973
System ID:
AA00005304:00024

Related Items

Succeeded by:
Poultry and egg outlook & situation

Full Text

/


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
WASHINGTON


PES- 15 MARCH 2 1938



THE P 0 ULTR Y AND EG G SITUATI 0 N






FEED-EGG RATIO, 1925 TO DATE

DOZENS -
FEED COST HIGH
4 UNFAVORABLE FOR
EGG PRODUCTION








WEEKLY-
10-YEAR AV. -
1926-34

-1


-2 FEED COST LOW
FAVORABLE FOR
EGG PRODUCTION
-3 . .. ...


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


CHICKS AND YOUNG CHICKENS PER FARM FLOCK ON JUNE 1, 1926-38


NUMBER
PER FLOCI




140


NEG. 32471 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS


130 -





120 -




1926 19
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


PERCENT
OF 10-YR.
AV. 1926-35


934 1936 1938
NEG. 31505 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS


THE NUMBER OF CHICKS AND YOUNG CHICKENS PER FARM FLOCK ON JUNE I IS A MEASURE OF
THE TOTAL HATCH. THE DOTTED LINES INDICATE THAT THE 1938 HATCH IS EXPECTED TO BE
FROM 5 TO 10 PERCENT GREATER THAN IN 1937. THE MAIN BASIS FOR THIS INDICATION IS THE
25 PERCENT REDUCTION IN THE OCTOBER-MARCH FEED-EGCC RATIO FROM THAT A YEAR EARLIER, AS
SHOWN IN THE UPPER CHART.










THE POULTRY AND EGG SITUATION AT A GLANCE
(AVERAGE OF CORRESPONDING PERIODS. 1925-34=100 )
I I '| PERCENT I|


-


FARM PRICE OF CHICKENS






1'938





1937

I I I I I I 1


SIZE OF LAYING FLOCK




1937'




1938


a


JAN. APR. JULY OCT. DEC.


160


140


120


100


80


130


120


110


100


90


80

110



100



90



80



70


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


NEG. 34IZ3 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS


FIGURE I


100



90



80




105




100




95




90


I I


I I








March 2, 1938.


THE POULTRY AND EG G SITUATI ON


Summary

The most striking development in the poultry and egg situation in February,

says the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, was the sharp decline in egg prices.

Lower consumer incomes than a year earlier, large holdings of frozen eggs, a high

rate of egg production and the completion of a very unprofitable egg storage year

have much more than offset the effects of the small flock size. It is believed,

however, that egg prices, in the last half of 1938 will be above those of- 1937.

The basis for this expectation is the likelihood of lower spring production, of

lowe~ storage stocks of all eggs on August 1, and of no further decline in con-

sther incomes after the middle of the year.

: Chicken prices ordinarily rise from December to May, but in mid-February

they were the lowest since July 1937. Because of low consumer incomes the average

seasonal advance this year is not expected. In part at least, the seasonal ad-

vance.was anticipated by the non-seasonal advance of the late summer and fall of

1937. Low stocks of poultry, both in storage and on the farm, however, will tend

b6 keep chicken prices above those of 1937 until the middle of the year.

Chicken prices in the last half of 1938 are likely to be under those of a

year earlier chiefly because the larger hatch expected this year will increase

marketing of poultry in this period. The basis for the expectation of an in-

crease in the 1938 hatch of about 5 to 10 percent over the small hatch last yee:r

lies in the more favorable feed-egg prire relationship.

Feed situation

The cost of poultry feed relative to the price of eggs normally rises from
December to June. In January 1938 the rise was somewhat more than average but ift
February was less than average. The actual level of the feed-egg ratio for the.
week, ending February 19, however, was about 20 percent above average but about 30


PES-15


- 3 -









percent below the ratio for the same week a year ago. For the months GOtcher
through February the ratio has averaged about 25 percent below that of the same
period in 1936-37.

The feed-egg ratio at Chicago, specified weeks,; average 1925-34,
annual 1937 e-nd 19!8

: Dozens of eggs required to buy 100 pounds of poultry ration
Year : Week ended as of 1938
Jan.: Jan.: Feb.: Feb.: Feb.: Feb.: Apr. : July:Sept.: Oct.: Dec.
: 1 : 29 : 5 : 12 : 19 : 26 : 30 : 2 : 3 : 29 : 3
Doz. Doz.z. Do. D, Doz. Doz. Doz. D:z. Doz. Doz. Doz.
Average :
1925-34 .: 4.16 4.82 5.08 5.29 5.70 6.04 6.43 6.71 5.68 4.24 3.64

1937 ...: 6.98 9.03 9.03 9.16 9.40 9.13 10.80 10.18 8.17 5.32 4.79
1938 ....: 4.89 6.39- 6.68 7.17 6.70


Hatchings *

One of the most important consequences of this ch:nrge in the feed-egg
ratio from that of early 1937 is its effect in increasing the 1939 hatch. The
exact extent of this increase cannot, of course, be foreseen now; many circum-
stances may occur to alter such predictions as may be madE.

One basis for estimating the future extent of the hqtch is the report of
commercial hatcheries. In January: this report showed an in-rease cf 36 percent
in the number of salable chicks hatched compared with Janary 1937. The increase
in number of eggs set during the month, however, was -nly 13 p recent. Ho esti-
mates'are available on changes in farm hatchings,

In any one year, a good measure of the total hatch, L-oth farm -nd cor.-
mercial, is the number of chicks and young chickens pner form flc.-- on June 1.
The chart on the first page of this report shows how these numbr.b. rs have varied
since 1925.. licte the peaks and lows occurring at rather regulAr 3-y!ar inter-
vals. The last peil: was in 1936 and it is believed that 1737 represents a lc:v.
The dotted lines indicate the range within which the 1933 hatch is expected to
come. The upper line corresponds to an increase from 1937 of 10 percent; the
lower line to an increase of 5 percent.

The basis for these estimates lies in the chart on p:-ge 5 shoring the
relationship of the change in the feed-egg ratio to the c-'hnge in the number
of chicks from the year before. The percentage chang" in the uctober-March
feed-egg ratio has been compared with the percentage change in the hatch for
the years 1927-37, and the average relationship has b-*. n indicated by the heavy
line.. Thus, with a 25 percent reduction frcm 1937 in the f-ed-e-g ritio, as
is likely this year for these months, there is indicated a 7-p.,rcont increase
,in the hatch. The effects of many other circumstance- wiA'ch influence the
hatch keep this relationship from b- in,- followed exactly in any one yvLar.


FES-15


- 4 -










RELATIVE NUMBER OF SALABLE CHICKS IN
COMMERCIAL HATCHERIES, 1929-37


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


NEG. 32481 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS


FIGURE 2


CHANGES IN NUMBERS OF CHICKS AND YOUNG CHICKENS
PER FARM FLOCK, JUNE I, AND CHANGES IN AVERAGE
FEED-EGG RATIO IN PREVIOUS OCTOBER-MARCH


FEED-EGG RATIO, OCTOBER-MARCH
(PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR)


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


NEG. 32225 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS


FIGURE 3


PERCENT
OF 1934

150



140



130


120



110



100 -


1938


15 -



W 0


i 5

01 -
r.'
S<


0z
uwo


cUJ-5 -
z z
w
U -
0l.o

f -15 -

II-
CL
m '105-



-40














Chicago Ieed-gg Batio Deviations from ten year weekly average, 1925 1984


W Tk : : Yr.
e1 Av : 1925 : 1926 1927 1928 3 1929 1930 : 1931 : 1932 : 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938
_0 21925-34: : ,

1 4.06 .16 .58 -.09 .03 1.07 -.14 .29 -.54 -2.34 .99 1.88 1.16 3.70 1.24
2 4.23 -.29 .73 -.32 -*05 .75 -.48 .93 .21 -2.18 .71 2.37 1.31 4.56 1.17
3 4.52 -.35 .38 -.33 -.29 .78 -.35 1.19 .33 -1.59 .27 1.62 .64 4.98 1,36
4 4.82 -.14 .21 .04 -.44 .35 -.66 1.40 -.02 .77 .04 .88 .04 4.31 1.57
5 5.08 .48 .47 -.34 -.01 -.16 -.50 1.38 -.57 .72 -.01 .58 -.38 4.08 1.60
6 5.29 .07 .70 -.43 .59 -.42 -1.08 1.90 -.57 -1.36 .64 -.17 -1.26 4.11 1.88
7 5.70 .64 *24 *06 *87 -.89 -1.39 2,03 -.76 -1.44 .60 -:23 -1.86 3.56 1.00
8 6.04 1.44 .16 .57 1.24 -1.66 .74 1.08 -.76 -1.88 .52 .01 -1.24 3.09
9 6.20 2.30 -.07 .36 1.08 -1.42 .08 .24 -.45 -?.15 .14 1.10 -1.09 2.97
10 6.16 1.49 -.03 .07 .77 .58 .21 -.41 -.06 -1.69 .27 1.11 .13 2.77
11 6.14 .76 -.10 .24 .88 .60 -.24 -.54 -.20 -1.45 .00 1.11 .25 2.61
12 6.13 .91 -.57 .07 1.29 .49 -.01 -.15 -.80 -1.16 -.07 1.06 .34 2,94
13 6.23 .51 -.67 .23 1.17 .21 .14 -.08 -.80 .73 .03 .87 .25 3.49
14 6.31 .59 -.80 .34 .99 .31 .29 -.43 -.71 .71 .17 .67 .07 4.00
15 6.49 .83 -.80 .17 .96 .36 -.03 -.39 -.53 .57 .04 .36 -.24 3.76
16 6.46 .83 -.79 .16 1.45 .26 -.12 .01 -.83 .39 -.62 .69 -.25 4.07
17 6.43 .63 -.92 .25 1.40 -.05 .13 .31 -.97 -..42 -.40 .34 -.42 4.37
18 6.43 .68 -.87 .67 1.38 -.25 .24 .25 -1.44 .23 -.41 .15 -.59 4.88
19 6.48 .58 -.97 .96 1.21 -.73 .28 .38 -1.44 .18 -.14 -.07 -.79 4.19
20 6.56 .30 -1.18 1,35 1.14 -.97 .50 -.02 -1.35 .40 -.20 -.13 -.70 4.36
21 6.82 .31 -1.51 1,89 1.06 -1.26 .30 -.66 -1.24 .61 .54 -.39 -1.04 4.28
22 6.98 .10 -1.78 2.49 .65 -1.39 .41 -1.00 -1.33 .96 .89 -.64 -1.38 4.25
23 6.87 .43 -1.49 2.27 .74 -1.26 .14 .54 -1.97 .71 .95 -..44 -1.50 3.88
24 6.76 .41 -1.34 1.76 .46 .91 .11 .07 -1.93 1.00 .48 -.44 -1.29 3.19
25 6.66 .02 -1.34 1.65 .46 .79 -.37 .25 -1.87 .76 1.25 -.21 .65 3.25
26 6.71 -.47 -1.88 1.44 .55 .73 -.24 .05 -1.72 .98 1.40 -.49 .39 3.47
27 6.81 -.62 -1.24 1.55 .54 .85 .20 -.33 -2.19 1.36 1.56 -.66 .34 3.13
28 6.76 -.27 .91 1.40 .46 .97 .00 -.75 -2.24 2.26 1.06 -.60 .91 3.88
29 6.61 -.31 .55 1.43 .63 .66 .45 -1.44 -2.03 1.60 .92 -.45 1.04 3.19
30 6.56 -.31 .39 1.56 .23 .51 .16 -1.30 -2.23 1.38 1.41 -.21 .79 2.21
31 6.38 .00 .50 1.38 .17 .30 -.10 -1.21 -3.46 1.77 1.28 -.26 1.33 2.52
32 6.43 .06 .63 1.13 -.30 .58 .55 -1.12 -2.50 2.27 1.09 -.51 1.85 2.51
33 6.18 .50 .67 1.14 -.15 .74 .78 -1.60 -2.47 2.06 1.11 -.45 2.57 2.40
34 5.91 .45 .80 1.37 .07 .49 .64 -1.44 -2.35 1.21 1.37 -.46 2.89 2.01
35 5.68 .39 -1.01 1.11 .21 .49 .76 -1.40 -1.97 .89 1.55 -.54 2.31 2.49
36 5.52 .60 -..90 .52 .28 .20 .64 -1.33 -1.87 .61 1.61 -.43 2.22 2.71
37 5.31 .40 .82 .07 .48 .18 .87 -1.31 -2.09 .39 1.80 -.08 2.42 2.35
38 5.20 -.18 .96 .09 .68 .01 1.05 -1.06 -2.30 .74 1.97 .33 2.38 2.10
39 5.02 -.94 .72 .41 .76 .24 1.46 -1.12 -2.40 .63 2.17 .47 2.35 2.06
40 4.67 -.67 .46 .46 1.13 .14 .97 -1.41 -2.22 .01 2.05 .67 2.37 1.53
41 4.56 -.35 .55 -.04 1.43 .25 1.21 -1.63 -2.22 .18 2.04 1.04 2.23 1.25
42 4.32 -.36 .48 -.04 .93 .16 1.05 -1.35 -2.05 .01 2.16 1.30 2.24 1.36
43 4.24 -.46 .54 ,21 .82 -.24 1.20 -1.13 -1.95 .47 1.58 .88 2.12 1.08
44 3.97 -.45 .43 .26 .57 -.03 .79 .80 -1.94 .37 1.62 .46 1,88 .72
45 3.79 -.34 .46 .36 .50 -.07 .40 .61 -1.94 .36 1.81 .29 1.52 .86
46 3.60 -.46 .57 .45 .55 -.10 .25 .52 -1.87 .21 2.08 .80 2.19 .64
47 3.60 -.54 .68 .46 .54 .13 -.06 .73 -1.96 .65 2.23 .72 2.07 .89
48 3.64 -.47 .66 .43 .34 -.13 .28 .91 -1.98 .55 2.50 .38 2.28 1.15
49 3.92 -.21 -.26 .18 .10 -,33 .70 -1.00 -2.27 .43 2.62 .09 2.52 ,93
50 4.13 -.16 .53 .14 .13 -*65 1.15 .98 -2.50 1.06 2.29 .05 2.95 .42
51 4.18 -.25 .35 .01 .17 -.65 .85 .91 -2.40 1.38 2.14 .23 2.75 .69
52 4.16 .09 .50 .06 .87 -.42 .43 -1.20 -,2.33 1.26 1.84 .60 2.82 .73








PES-15


- 7 -


Poultry marketing

Receipts of dressed poultry at New York in the first 3 weeks of February
were 9 percent under 1937 and 24 percent under the 1925-34 average for this
period. With l)w stocks of poultry on farns, receipts nf poultry during the
first half )f this year will probably remain below both a year earlier and the
10-year average.

Receipts of dressed poultry at, New York, average 1925-34, annual 1937-33

Year Week ended as of 195-
:Jan. 29 : eb. 5 : Feb. 12: Feb. 19 :Feb. 26 :Apr. 30 :May 23 : July 2
:1,000 Ib.1,000 Ib.1,000 b.1,000 .1,000 lb.1,OCO lb 1.1,000 lb.1,000 lb.
Average :
1925-34: 3,324 3,464 2,939 2,341 2,432 2,245, 2,651 ,305

1937 ..: 3,720 3,220 2,236 2,259 1,770 3,419 3,342 3,739
1930 .. 2,639 2,621 2,055 2,333 2,340


Poultry storage

St rage holdings )f poultry decline fro-s p maxLmum in January to p. l3w
paint during the sumner. During this period t1:- are used to. supplement the
usually low receipts )f frcsh poultry and hLnce are an imrprtant source of
supply f3r consumption. With storage stocks much less than in 1937 tLhur is no
likelihood of such a large carry-)ver stack in mid-summer as was the case last
year.

Storage stocks and ;ut-of-storaee movement of frozen poultry at 26 markets


stocks: 4Ou
29 :Feb.


Week ending as of 193,
Lt of storaFge movement
5 :Feb. 12 : Feb. 19


: Storage stacks
: Feb. 19


: 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
: pounds pounds pounds pxundpms p)-nds p) funds
Average
1925-34 :121,464 94,917 1,313 1,717 2,334 09,54k

1937 .... :137,37 136,050 2,339 3,159 .3,339 127,213
193 .... :123,500 ss,4go 2,032 2,936 2,639 30,373


Chicken prices

')n February 15 the farm price )f chickens was 16 cents, the lowest since
Jul;- 1,.7. In mist years prices advance fr)m December tj May. It is believed
th.t part )f the seasonal advance this year has been anticipated in the non-
seas)n -l rise in prices in the late sunmner and fall Df 1937. Hence, while l!w
supplies Jf poultry in storage and Dn the farm will tend to keep prices this
sT.rin- .b:r)ze th: se if last spring, despite l)v:er consumer incomes, a less than
'.:er>Le increase in prices frrm December is likely.


Year :


U. S.
Ti tal
Jan. 1


:Storage
: Jan.






PIS-15


Because of a prcbable increase in the hatch over that of 1937, chicken
prices in the last half of 1938 are expected to be below those of a year earlier.

Farm rrice of chickens -er poun3

Year Jan. Feb. Mar. : Miy : July : Auo. : Seipt.: Oct. : Dec.
:...Cents Qen ents Cens Cts s Gents Cents Cents Cent5
Average
1125-34......: 16.8 17.2 17.5 18.3 17.8 17.3 17.3 16.8 15.8

1936 .........: 16.5 16.9 16.6 16.6 16.1 15.1 14.9 14.o 12.6
1937 .........: 13.4 13.6 14.4 14.8 15.3 16.8 17.4 1,.6 16.4
1938 .........: 16.7 16.0


Nonagricultural income, average 1925-34, annual 1936-37
(Seasonally corrected indexes, 1924-29 = 100)

Year Jan. : Feb. : Mar. :May :June July g. Sept. Oct. Dec.

Average
1925-34 ......: 91.0 90.8 90.4 89.7 89.8 89.6 89.6 89.4 89.4 88.8

1936 .........: 81.5 81.9 82.5 84.1 85.1 86.8 87.4 87.9 89.8 100.9
1937 .........: 92.9 93.9 95.3 96.9 96.9 97.7 98.2 96.8 96.3 98.3
1938 .......... 89.3


Laying flock size "z

The laying flock size is usually near its maximum= for the year on January 1.
This year, however, the February 1 numbers exceeded those a month before. The
laying flock is still at a low level relative to past years (see cover chart of
January 1938 Poultry and ,-g Situation); it is 5 percent below 1937 and 10 percent
below the 1925-34 average.

Changes in the number of la-'ri-- birds in the farm flock have a distinctly
cyclical character. TWhen adjusted for average seasonal variation, low points
have occurred at rather regular 3-year intervals in the first quarters of 1926,
1929, 1932 and 1935. It is likely that the first quarter of 15,8 will mark
another such low in numbers of laying birds.

As pointe- out, the feed-egg ratio is an important factor in determining
the size of hatch. Similarly the ratio influences -he size of the laying flock.
In 1938 the usual decline in numbers of laying birds from January or February to
the low point in Se' tenber is likely to be less than the average of 25 percent
because the feed-egg price situation is so much more favorable to the poultryman
than it was last year. With more favorable feeling conditions, farmers tend to
'cull less severely than otherwise.


- 9 -






PES-15 9 -

Average number of laying hens in farm flocks on tnh lt day of month

Year Jan. Feb. : Mar. May 'June /A. Sept. : hv. Dec.
:'Tur,'e.r Number Nunber F',b=r umiorer Niumber tuber '-- Nuoer Number
Average :
1925-4 .. 87.5 37.2 84.7 77.4 73.4 66 66.1 75.7 81.9

1937 .... : .2 82.5 S0.0 73.1 6.5 62.1 59.9 69.3 74.4
193 .... : 77.6 70.2

Er:- pro duct io n

The rate of eg production ner 100 hens an.d pullets of laying age in farm
flocks reached a new high level for February 1 25 percent above last year's
figure and 33 percent above the 1925-34 Februarry 1 average. E'g production

Eegs laid per 100 hens and pullets of laying a.,e in farm flocks

Year Jan.l Feb.l Mar.l May 1 'July 1 :Sept.1 "Nov. 1 Dec. 1
:1'Tuner Number Nuiber Iumber "-,ber Number i.r Jer Number
Average
1925-34....: 16.5 24.2 33.4 55.1 42.2 32.4 17.0 13.9

1937 ......: 22.0 25.7 39.2 57.U 44.4 36.1 '21.1 ig.6
1938 ......: 22.7 32.2

per bird. has been unusually high since Janruary 1937. "As to its course in the
spring of 1938 the record of the past year would su~est that no prediction can
be made with much certainty. The following table shows, however, that the sum
of layings per 100 birds in April, May ant June has departed on the average by
less than 2 percent from the 10-year (1925-34) average and even in record years
by less than 4 percent from the 10-year average.

--- laid per 100 hens and pullets of laying age in farm flocks
(Sum of laying on April 1, May 1 and June 1) 1925-37

Number Year Number Year

153.3 1934 : 157.7 1926
155.1 1925 159.4 1935
155.6 1928 : 159.5 1991
155.7 1932 159.7 1927
157.1 1933 : -161.8 1929
157.3 1930 : 162.4 1936
157.4 Av. 1925-34 : 163.1 1937

Hence, if it is assumed that the rate of laying in these 3 months
(April, May and June) of 1938 may be as -much as 5 percent above average -
an exceptional] occurrence and if the number of layers remains about 10
percent below aver--. as at present, then total pro.duction.of eggs in
the spring of 1933 will be about 5 percent less than it was a year earlier.




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
II I IIIIIII IUIIIIIllll llll III I
PES-15 10 3 1262 08903 9761

Egg marketing:

Lereipts of eg-s it New Ycrk in t.ie first 3 weeks of February were 9 pe -
cent below 1957 and 3 pe-cenc below avcrat-. .'Pile receipts n,.rmally increased
from week tc week .it thi: season of the ,year, this was nct the case a year agoinor
in February 1938. Th-; course of eg mar'-etings in the spring, of course, tend to
frllcw that of egg rrc'.ucticn.

Receipts of eegs at ?e-w York, specified weeks, average 1925-34,
annual 1937-38
: __ '.'eek ending as of 1938
Yacr Jan.29:?eb. 5' Feb.12 'Feb.19 :Feb. 26:Apr.30 : May 28 : July 2 ,

: 1,000 1 iO 1(, l 1 ,0 1,0OC 1,000 1,000 1,000
C: es C cases cases cascs cases ecses cases cases
Average :
192"-.54 : 112.2 116.0 116.5 125.4 134.1 235.1 217.9 160.0

1937 ...: 152.0 140.7 1/123.4 116.6 1/115.2 213.0 193.4 151.5
1938 ...: 129.2 1 ...9 116.6 106.2 131.8
7/ f-day wv .a

Egg storage
Stocks cf s.', 11, eggs jn ccld stcrage at 26 major storing centers are below
those of earl;' 19J7 and also b~ecw th: 1 25-34 average. Stocks of frozen eggs on
February 26, h-.'/cve.r, were more th-in twice as great as these. -f a year earlier.
These large hcldirgs -f froz-n eggs my lead to a reduction in egg breaking this
spring and hence to an increase in the q..:-ntity of eg7os to be consumed at once
or to be stored in thb shell.
Egg prices
T KT- farm price of eg.s on February 15 was 24 p rentt below that of a month
earlier and 41 percent bclc.v the seasonal peak in 1Novemb,.r. On the average(19251
'4), the decline is 23 pcrcert Prcm mid-January to mid-February and 33 percent floc
the peak. Egg prices Isu-.11y decline until March or April, and in these months
they average about 35 to .C1 percent under the previous December. In 1937 prices
deoliqed throughout the spring.
In 1938 it seem: like-ly that th'e low point in egg prices will be reached
early in the spring. The unfavorable storage mrrgin, the heavy carry-over of
frozen eggs ?and lcvwr ccnunmer incomTe. all irill tend to keep prices in the early
spring belnw those of a year e:.rlier. It is believed, however, that the small
flick si7e will so reduce production that by late spring prices will rise above
those of 1937. With. sr'allcr storage stocks by August 1 than a year before, the
spread in price betwre-n 1939 and 1.77 is expFcted to widen assuming that con-
rumer ricomec do not fall by orae thn is n.o: n.ticipatei.

Farm price' r.f' :g,; per dozen

Year Jrn. Feb. ar. Apr. y July Aug. Oct. Nov. Dee.
:,,.nts Cents Ccnts Cents Cents CLntZ Cents Cents Cents Cents
Average -:
1925-34 ...: 31.0 24.0 19.3 18.7 1.7 20.0 22.0 30.0 35.4 35.7
1936 ...... 2'.'.9 23.8 17.5 16.8 18.1 20.0 22.4 27.6 32.5 30.5
1937 ......: 2.3.1 '0.1 19.9 20.1 17.9 19.4 20.4 25.2 28.0 26.0
1938 ......: 21.6 16.4