Poultry and egg situation

TH J


SITUATION

BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

PES-41 3 MAY I, 1940



:IN THIS ISSUE: A COMPARISON OF FOUR:
:FEED-EGG RATIOS, BY H. C. KRIESEL


STORAGE HOLDINGS AND MOVEMENT OF FROZEN POULTRY AT
26 MARKETS. AVERAGE 1929-38. AND 1939 TO DATE
POUNDS -- -
i MILLIONS I
-20 STORAGE HOLDINGS

120 ----

1940

100

1939 -

80 --



60



40 -Avrage 1929-38 -----

12_ _l

NET STORAGE MOVEMENT





4 1940 -

Average 1929-638
*JTO STORAGE
0 t- -


NG 03228 GUREAUOF -GRICULrUROL ECOhOMN.C


I S DEPARTMENT Of PGA-CUL TURE








THE POULTRY AND EGG SITUATION AT A GLANCE
POUNDS I I PERCENT I I I
(MILLIONS) RECEIPTS OF POULTRY NONAGRICULTURAL INCO
30 AT FOUR MARKETS 1924-29-100)
105

25 -

20 -1939 1940

15 95 -
193 9

10 1940 90
A. P veragE
s 1/929-3E
Average 1929-38 85 --

CASES I I CENTS I
THOUSANDD$) RECEIPTS OF EGGS AT PER FARM PRICE OF CHICKEN
FOUR MARKETS POUND ---
500 IJW- I


400


300


200


100


0
CASES
( MILLIONS )

12


9


6


3


O I I I I I I
JAN. APR. JULY OCT
A.M.S. DATA, EXCEPT NONAGRICULTURAL INCOME

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


11
CENTS
PER
DOZEN

30



25



20


15 LJJ 1`2J
JAN. APR. JULY OCT
*INDEX NUMBERS ADJUSTED FOR SEASONAL VARIATION

NEG 36217 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECOrOMICS


FIGURE I






PES-41


THE POULTRY A D EG S I T UAT I 0I
-----------*------*-----*--- ------ ---_-_------ I _-_------ _-- -



Total eg- prroducti or. during the first half cf this year may equal

or slightly exceed production in the correso:,r.dinr: months of 1939, even though

produztior for the first 5 mnr.thzs Cf 1',44 wa- slightly less than a year ear-

lier. E.r production in the .,.t hrIf of the year, however, i-7 erpcected to

be less than a year earlier because of th, prospective smaller hatch in 1940.

Storage stoc.cks of shell and frozen e_-3s during the first third of the into-

stora.e s3--.son hEave not accunTildated -.o the extent that tiey did last year.

Hence, unless consz-ner ltu'ing *power declines more ,han- now seems probable,

egg prices ma:- tend to incr-a-.a durir.y: the remainder of -.his c--r as compared

with price,2 n year earle". r nm.r..et ir.- hav- about reached the seasonal

peak for the year, and F-deral Surplin Co-cdit io' Corporation purchancs

continue relatively Inrge.

The price of chickens iTs r:7.-cted to continue to rise relative to

last year'.s prices despite the largr.r su'.., is. of poultr- no-w on farms.

Reasons: the lq40 hatch is sn-all' t'--r. that cf 1939, stocks of storage

poultry excludingr turkeys) are smaller th.'n a .'e.rr earlier, nrd corsurer's

income is somewhat higher than a yea-r earli.r.

The or.t-of-storage rnovenmnt of turlcc-'c durinr- 'Trch W-s the largest

on record for th-o month., but stocks on April 1 continued much larger than

a year earlier or than the ..v-r.JP April 1 stock. Mirkotinr of poultry

(fresh and fro-en) are ne-.rin- the,. sonsoneal low.

Prices of feed probably will remain relatively high an.A the feed-egg

ratio will continue unfavorable for producers during the next few months.

Poultry fe.ed costs in the last h-alf of the ye.or will be affected to a con-

siderable extent by the size of the 1940 feed crops.








FEMD-EG-G PAT TO

The feed-egg ratio, based on Chicago prices, is more unfavorable to
to poultrymen th,-. at any other time since the middle of 1937. For the week
ended April 20, 8.28 dozen eggs were required to b-uy 100 pounds of poultry
feed compared with 6.69 dozen a year earlier and 6.71 dozen for the 192]3-,
average. Feed. pries have rizen shIarn> in 'ecnt weeks, and- there ap:, rs
to be little Tossibilty -,f a ro.e fevoy^u e fee?-egg ratio duri.rng the ..rst
half of tlis .-e-. During the last half. of 1940 feed prices will .ie-ead upon
the size of the ..rvest ani .:o, factors affecting the do-:-estic d e- d for
feed grais.

Fe,:-eP ratio at C'icago

(E'oz."s of cggs requir-d to b',i 100 pounds c.f poultry ration)

SWePk o,,ding as of IL ___
Year :Jan. : I _r. : _pr. a_____ y :J L_ :Oct.
: 27 : -,: : 6 : 20 2 : h : 11 : 13 :27 : 26


:Do:c. D'-.


Average
1929-3 :5.7 .43

1938 :6.;. 6.=?
1939 :6. 65.- r
1940 :5.3 7.51


Doe-. DrC Dc z Do. o:'. '. Doz. D'.z. Doz.

!7.. .. 71 '.C' 71 .64 6. 15 E.b4 6. P 4.62

t.7: r.7', '.10 5.- 5 5..73 5.7- .Cl .l 3.79
J .3- .o .-. o.9 5. 5.4 6b.99 7.1h ..76 5.13
7.5 7.43i 7.-4 T ..22


KAT CI 'GS

Relatively high feed prices continue to cause a weak demand fo'-"
baby chicks. Commercial hatchings during the first 3 months of 19O0
were 23 percent below a year earlier. A major part of the decrease during
these months was in the commercial broiler area; a decline in total
hatchings for the season of from 2 to 7 percent is expected for the co ,--try
as a whole compared with 1939.

Hatchery reports for March indicate that 6 percent fewer eggs' were
set and 11 percent fewer chicks h.t'ched during the month than a year earlier .
A sur-. ,y made in mid-April indicated that about 7 percent fewer eggs -ere
set in the first half of the month than in the same period of 1939.

POULTRY SITUATION

Poultry marketing

Receipts of dressed poultry (fresh and frozen) at the four pri:L-ipal
markets during the four weeks ended April 20 were 17 percent larger th'jn
in the corresponding period of 1939 and 22 percent above the 1929-38 average.
Receipts probably will continue heavier than a ye.-r earlier during the
next several weeks, but thereafter receipts probably will average smal2e.-
than at the same time last year as a result of the smaller hatch in l (c;.


FLS-41l


-4-






PES-41 -

Receipts of drcss--d znou l try at f:L:-r make s
(1F0ew York, Chica-o, Phllad lphia, Bos.ron)

*: : Week: e-ain as of i'_____
Year I: I..rch : Anrr i_ : 74____ : June
:. 23 : 30 : -: 7 0 :{>_lL_ : 1 : 11 : 29
S ,:'1,0 1,000 1,'"-' 1,000 1,00 i, 1,0 1.00 i. O 1,000
.n punds ,,. no.n. ic d. o'o -ii i .md: r oin i countss n pounds
Average :
1929-33 3,339 3,596 3,552 3,532 3,;2 7,793 '4,160 4,092 5,310

1933 : 2,541 3,552 274 3,407 2,56 3,117 3,c 4,129 5,349
1939 : 4,30c 3,SS 3,730 ,4% 3,75 3, h e 4,6., 5 ,672 6,139
lqh4 4: ,73 4, 3,44 1 4, 1


Pour. t r st:rae

Stocks of frozen povulr.r.- in the Unit,?& Sit,.*e _,n Apri.1 1. -ore 26
mercer. larger than a yesr ai.rlir r nd2 4_percert larger th-n the 1929-33
average for that date. The larg ;r sticks this ye-,r are attributed to the
lio percent ie-rgpr stocks of tu.'.tes: Th; 22 percent l ger stocks of for-
were 'Tore that. offset .,y s.mall'e: st.-ocs:- of other class-s.

The ou't-of-:tcra e r ovrm!,ent for al' :.ultr: hao prob-.:bl Fpassed the
seasonal pea: 'tut Try continue heaicr th..n a year e.wrlir for several weeks.
The c.ctual volume of t'rk:ys nfo"l,.i out of stor-tCr dn-rirr March was about twice
that of other years, biut the percen.ta.-e of the total stocks of turkeys moved
out was only clijghtly larger th-a ursu-l.

Storage stocks of fr,:,.-n po.il try -.t ?6 mark.et.

_____,.-______W.k erndir:. ,, of 1q440'
r Storag : : Storcge
lear : .tc : Out-of-stOra.. movement, April : stocks
1a____r. 30 : 6. : ] : 20 : 27 : Apr. 27
: 1,00.CO 1, ': ,0'"0 1,00' 1, 000c 1,000
: ncirr.e pI u, -n Lo'uds pounlo ou'nfds pounds
Average :
i 7'29-33 : 63,8-59 4,432 ,325 64,046 :,525 47,531

1939 : 70,224 4,692 Li,9" 3,9". 3,8a7 53,604
190 : 90, 70 5,15; I ,91 5, 5


Chick sn rTrices

The increase during the p.ost north in th- price receiveod b:, farmers
for chickens w'.s Comewh-t loess thn sesc.nal, ar.d the April 15 price of
12.9 cents c-ntimnid 1. cents bclow a ye.r rli;-: and 3.0 cents below the
10-year aiorage. However, because of the snr.aller hatch this year ron- the
expected, hign.-r level of consumer incomes, chicken prices probably will be
higher during the latter part of 19l: than in tho corresponding period of 1939.







PES-41 -

Price rer c'unr, receive, '- fr-'-er for c ic're.--

Tn.Feb. '*i._3r. :Apr. "i':.v JntSe .Jil *A' _. ent. :Oct. 'c'.. :Dec.
Year : i : I : _, : 1 1 15 : 5 15 : 15

:Cei.t Cents Cents Cert s Cents Ce ts C --ts Ceents Cents To-.ts Ce.ts Cents
Average:
112?-~3. 14.8 1 1.0 1.3 1 .9 17.7 1-.5 17.1 l'--.9 13.2 11h.6 14.1 13.6

193 :16.7 1.o i 1.9 1.2- 16.1 15 .7 15.0 14.2 14.3 13.6 13.6 13.6
1939 : Lh. '-4.2 14.3 14.4 13.9 13.4 13.7 13.0 13.6 12.7 12.4 11.7
19.: : 12.0, 12.2 12.3 12.9


ZGG SITLTIDI

3.'unber of layer-s on frmsrs

The nrin'cr o,' -.ens Fnd. *ullets cn ":.rns rjur r-r !.,--.ch t'iz :re-" was about
3 percent lar:-r-- tan :r. the samc mon,,. l-st ye-r. The net dec.rease in the nuln-
oer of laers on fari3s since Januar 1 h-S be-n sei..t le6 th-,.' uai)al. But
with trio ,-nfa'-or-ble f-ed-eG-y ritio t.:is ye'r, clozsr tha:.: v..ree c..lli.g may
'bo e:-.ectei *.-'.. r the ne.-t sev:.-r l Tm*:.nI s.

Ir-mber of layers onr farm,,, J.-it'3d States


Year Jcn..F,-.. 3:.i r. Apr. [,-- .JT. e J..-.:.- ...: Se:-t.. o.t.. 7_ v.. Dec.
: il-_- :i!- Mil- lil- :il- ..Il- ..lI- !il- n^ il- :.:il- ..;- Mil-
:.ions lions 1 ions li. o r.. li, n'-. li. 1r 1-n.s li .:a s 11 imn lions lions
Average:
1929-3 33 32 31 314 7 F-?7, 50 25 303 325

193 : 307 3'01 292 27. -,2 .'. 2. 23.4 2- 26q 293 3114
193 : 3'2 316 3C-, 292 27, .o- ,, 6 -'2 253 279 305 32b
140 : 332 327 31


rg pr Iuctior.

Estimated total egg production for March was slightly larger thar. a 7ear
earlier. The smaller rate of lay per bird during March was slightly r:ore than
offset by the larger number of hens on farms. Prod-action per layer on April 1
continued less than a year earlier.

Egg production during the next few months will .-?r..end largely upon the
number of layers culled, but it p'rot:,cay will be larger than a year e:-rlier, and
during the first half of this ye-ir total egg production probably will equl-, or
slightly exceed production a year earlier. Diri n-: the last half of the .yeMr,
however, total production may -be slightly less than in the same Tm-rlh. of 1939.






pFES-41


Average nv.mbcr of cggc produced per layer, Unitei States


Year Jan.. Fb.. Mar.r. May .
1 lc. 1c. o. Jo. 1 .


Average:
1929-38:

1938':
1939


June. July.
j~ jjnj


A. 'Sept.. Oct. .Tcv.
-o. i. No. No.


16.6 16.7 14.2 12.7 11.1 S.9


6.3 C.6 14.2

7.9 9.9 1' .4
7.2 9.7 14.3
7.2 9.o 14.4


17.5 17.3 14.9 13.6
17.) 17.0 14.6 13.2


*
.Dec,
N!o.


6.7 44.S 5.0


11.I


Total far prod-iction of eprs, United States


Year Jpn. F--b. i-'!"r. Apor.M-ty Jine *Jily *Aug. *Sept..Oct. TTGv. .Dec.
: 1. Mil. l l. .i]-. Mil. M.Il. Iil. Mil. M.1. ]il. Mil. 11M l.
:cP.se- cse v e' cn. ca-se. cae'; c.:ses r.zes ceqs e csas s cs eS caes c.ses
Average:
1929-3K: 5.0 7.3 12.5 1-4.1 13.3 10.6 q.0 7.7 6,. 5.2 4.0 4 4.

1938g 6.7 ?.3 12.- 13.; 12.6 1n.3 '.9 7.6 r.4 5.6 4.8 5.5
1939 7.?2 12. 13.S 13.0 .1 7 .5 .7 5.1 6.1
1940 6.7 C.2 1.2.7


REg market in

RaceiPts cf onc^ at the four Trincital -mar.kets have about reached the-
seasonal 1peB:. -Lur'n- the 4 Toek-s enJiPd Aopril 20, rcceirits at these markets
were alout the *:&- n- a .,eer earlier but abcut 4 percent smaller than the
10-year average for th.-o.. w-ks.

Receipts of C coP at f our markB-tsn
(1:ew York-, Chlcago, Philna.e.lphil, Bo0Ctorn)


Year


________ Wec: cdvI: n.-; v 0f 19', ______,_____
:larch :______ Aril __: a _: Juno
23 : n, : 6 : 1T : 20 : 27 : 1 : 1i : _


I,000 ,T, 00 1, 1, yO 1,0,, 10, ) 1,000 1,0c0 1,000
: .asE's? cones casco c sIs rs' c a!: 1?3 rc.ses c a C cascs
Average:
1929-33: Lo3.6 444.4 475.7 502.8 --5.1 500.5 hs.9 4 6.0 316.9

193g : h12.1 44,.5 46S.9 46,4.4 5?1.7 422.9 44.5 414.9 260.3
1939 : hla.s 437.0 460..4 46E.9 73.5 501.6 h99.7 521.1 291.3
19i4o : 37.S h9.7 432.3 46'9.3 513.6


- 7 -


9.4 7.5 5.9 6.4
9.3 7.4 6.0 6.g






PES3-4


Err gtora;^

The into-stora.ge r-,7ve-n.'t fir ::..a.1 eggs has about reached the seasonal
maximum >it th..e ra.e fc fr La-s ceen b.-aller than a year earlier. Hence,
storage s'ccks re sJ "r trha- at this time last year.

The into-storage -.'morent fcr frozen egc- is now Troceeding at about
the a:veCre ratu "u4-, because of the lao start, storage stocks are smaller
th'n-- year earlier.

Storage stocks of eg-s at 26 markets

_: __ Week enr.31 n as of 19 0___
: Storage : : Stcrage
soar : tocs : Into-sto-age movement, April : stocks
_: r__. 30 : : 13 : 20 : R7 : Apr. 27
: 1,C9 ,O 1,0 1,'' 1,000 1, 000 1,000
caZes cares c.e s cases cases caces

Sh. ell i

1929-03 : 79 35 147 1.2 502 2,525

1994 -6 2C' 36-0 h1 '12 2,103
-190 : 512 2.3 533 3?4

Frozen
1,356
1939 11 102 109 155
194c r714 '1 sy 97


Eg ri rces


T.1e d-cl'-
in r.-id-.arc.: to
cn April 1; .s
the l920-3 x.ve,


.ne i


n the price receive by


farrers for eg:s fro:.a 15.4 cents


15.0 cents nid-Arril wa-' about seaszna-l. However, the price
C.- cr.n below, t'ir-t rf a :,er earlier ar:n 1.3 cents below
*-C.


T-'o higher lev-l of ccnrr-ers' income, e-nd the em.pectel sm-ller supplies
Cf e-gga i-.'ri.g the last half o+7 10O than in the s.me opri'd in 1939, will
te-nd tc in'g ab'ut higher g, .ric --, relati-.e to last .ear, during coming
T. rO.t h 2.

Price peFr sitzer. received b-" farmers for cus


:Jon. :Feb. : lIar.: Anr.: !:*.a :J:Lr.3 :July :Aur. :S rt.: Oct.:Nov. : Dec.
S : 15 : l : 15 15 : 1i : 15 : 1i : 5 : -. : 5 : '5 : 15
:CenT CGens Cents Ccnt.3- Cr-n.t? C-nte Spr.ts CT-r.tr, ei-t. C^rts Cr.ts Cents
Average:
1929-3S: 214.2 20.3 17.3 i6.s 16.g 16i. 18.1 19.9 23.2 26.2 30.1 28.8


1?.2 10.9 21.0
14.9 16.5 17.5


21l.9 27.1
20.6 22.9


29.0 27.9
25.8 20.5


1935
1939
1 940


: 21.6
: 13.3
: 18.3
*


16.4
16.7
20.2


16.2
16.0
15.4


15.9
15.5
15.0


17.6
15.2


-- 't --




FES-1i


- 9 -


cr-TST:C D7''C.D

Cr:nditicns -?hich affect the d'.-oiestic eIn:-.a. for f;-rm products continued
their dowiwra.-d t"ernd du.'in"g 'Mar ch but the ra.e of decline was less marked. than
in January and, Februar:-. The' r:te of diecli ye of industrial production d-riLng
March was ccn-iideril:.' less tl'an i.: -:the. J. or Februar.:, and weekly data
indicate tIat an r;,:ime:n. s.biit: wt '.-c',-d b.,- Aoril. Incone- of con-
sunaers d0ecliLed c.ring April, ?a-Lr T:. dc &:- f.t.er in Ma'gy because of the
usual la,- in r'a,-.'se to chan l-- du.I:. -1 production. However, con-
sumers' incomes r-robably will conti.nun hi.~ r then a ,er earlir-r during most
if no.t '.11 of 1}.)'0,

Inde: n't:. c- of nonr,-.-ricaltural inr.conm

(1l324-2? = 1!.00C, ad.j:ut.:-d for sraso"'nal vw:riatic.rn)


Year .Jan. .eb. .'Tar. .A r. .May ,Ji.Le .July ..Ai. .Sr t.. Oct. iTov. .Dec.

Average:
1929-3v: I 5.2 ..4 -:4 .3 */-I4 2'.7 7.7 4.U ii. Sh.2 S .l1

1938 : ?s.? c S.1 ?7..9 7. ,. ?..' _, ? I P.0 8 .3 30.0 C 9.S 90.3
1939 : r0.U 90.7 r 1.1 0.1 -'. 7 1..o .., 9 .h 95.4 96.1 96.6
191o0 : 6.':- .1.4 L.3


1/ Preliminary.


* A* # 4 *


.. .







PES-41


- 10 -


A COJPARISf,: OFF FCT T D _'-L~ -ATLT DS

The Poultry and -,q_ Situation is designed primarily to analyze from a
national standpoint current developments affecting the outlook for the poul-
try industry. An important factor in this outlook is the trend in the num-
ber of chickens on farms; and in order to forecast this trend, it is neces-
sary to have a rough measure of the changes in the profitableness of egg
production. One useful measure is a ratio of feed prices to egg prices a
feed-egng ratio.

With the exception of the first ferw issues of the Poultry and Egg
Situation, first published in January 1937, a ratio based on Chicagc prices
is the only feed-c-, ratio which has a.eared in tabular or chart form.
This particular feed-egg ratio is believed to be nore nearly representative
of conditions for the country as a whole than any other fed--gg ratio for a
single market because it is based.on prices in a market located near the
heart of the greatest single feed-producing area and the most import ant sur-
plus egg-producing area in the United States.

The farm feed-egg ratio (based on prices received and paid by farmers)
probably more nearly represents average farm conditions for the United States
than the Chicago ratio, but its Monthly data as of the 15th of the -.onth are
not published until the 15th of the following month. The Chicago ratio, on
the other hand, is based on weekly data and becomes available short after
the end of each week. A w-eeklly ratio has the added advantage of reflecting
short-time fluctuations -vhich may be obscured in a ratio based on .Ionthly
averages or on a single observation for one day in the month. The farm
ratio also is necessarily heavily weighted for the important poultry-
producing areas in the midweste r States, so a close similarity between the
Chicago ratio and the fa-im- ratio would be expected.

The question frequently arises, however, as to whether the Chicago
ratio is a reliable measure of changes in relative feed costs in different
regions of the country. The prices of eggs in different sections of the
United States generally fluctuate together quite uniformly. Any differences
between prices other than those due to transportation costs can be eliminat-
ed by a comparatively econoi-cal intermarket movement of eggs, since the
transportation cost is low, compared to the total value. Hence, egg prices
would be expected to cause no major discrepancies between ratios for sena-
rate regions. However, feed prices present a different situation. PFright
rates on feed are high in relation to the value, thus making the cost of any
major interregional movement high. Price differences between regions are
unusur'illv large at times because of the occurrence of droughts in certain
areas, which cause them to shift from surplus to deficit areas so far as
feed supplies are concerned. High feed costs are a usual result. Thus. egg
prices fluctuate quite uniformly for the country as a whole, whereas feed
prices tend to fluctuate somewhat independently in the different areas.

The varying costs of the individual ingredients used in poultry ra-
tions and the different feeding practices followed in different areas of the
U, iited States make it advisable to use different formulas for poultry rations









II 1 l I I I
0
I
^.'f ^y ^ :f :Sn





00
So -
7- -sI --- 4 I





LIu


O -








--4c
I I- .
"* -cA -L1
0 's : :; ^ ^ ^ ^.( I-



I'.-- --- \. -, -,' -










*> yI








Ne a t oo 8: m a v
Z7 n
k,' y_^M ff-^f





L 9I
_>-. -L i









0 0u0







Qn Q
tn n ~ H
Lo 00 t.-7C-
N U -I. W 0






- 12 -


in the various regional feed-eg. ratios. Likewise, it is probable tmh-t the
formula poultry rations are c'-,. ed, from time to time as the t:rices of
the various fees fed fluct-uate relative to each ot:-er. Poultry feedoi's are
able to cheanen their r'aticns considerably by utilizing the most 3ce:ncmical
feeds at any particul ar period and at the same timnc can approximately main-
tain the desired nu+,ritive content. These considerations have received
little recognition in the United States to date in constructing feed-egg
ratios, but perhaps added attention will be given them in the future.

It is of interest, however, to compare several feed-egg ratios which
are now being: published and which apply to different re-tons in order to see
whether r they do fljctuote up and do- n together and whether the discr-orancies
follow any regular pattern. The following series have been compared in fig-
ure 2.

(1) The Chicaco feed-eg: ratio is based on the price of fresh firsts
at Chicago and prices of ccrn, wheat, cats, barley, bran and tank-.g- at that
market. This ratio is published in the Dairy and Poultry Market Hews Report
for Chicago and Philadelphia and in the Poultry and Eqr Situation. monthlyly
average-s were obtained from the weekly data for each month.

(2) The farm feed-eg. ratio is based on the far- price of egg's and
the farm prices of feeds as of the 15th of the month. tH- sane feds are
used as in the Chicago ratio. It is published in the monthly Poultr-; and
Egg Production report.

(3) The Califoinia. feed-egg ratio is based on the prices of laying
rations (50 percent iaash and 50 percent scratch) delivered at Pet.aluria,
California, and then a.'::-_ price received by farmers for eggs in that State
as of the 15th of the month. This ratio is computed by the "Poult:,r Produc-
ers of Central California" and is published currently in their publication,
"Nulaid :k-c;".

(4) The :'&-<- York feed-cgg ratio is based on feed prices (50 percent
mash and 50 percent scratch) in the Pochester-Syracuse zone and pric,:s of
eggs at Nc.w York City. It is computed by the State of New York DcpairtmLnt
of Agriculture and 7l'-.i':ets and is published in various trade papers. This
series is also published weekly, but monthly averages were obtain I from the
weekly data.

S- Chicago ratio and the farm ratio flucbua:te auite uniforl,:y. The
California ratio, prior to 1932, was much higher than either of t',. other
ratios for those years. Since about 1933, however, the California ratio has
decreased relative to the others, but it is still generally above buth the
Chicago and the farm ratios. Th-.- New York ratio has been consistently above
.all the other ratios, reflecting the hi.:her feed costs relative tc eg
prices in the Northeast area.

Another important co-.D:i ieration in these comparisons is the unif orm-
ity or lack of uniformity in the seasonal movement. It is evident -_hat each
series has a well-defined seasonal movement which is fairly uniform. for all






PE.-L1 1 -

seris withn a- one ;,-ear, at. c.- +h V a !, -nt seaso,.s d ffXr cnsider-
abl., froi:n ,-ar t. -eir.

.- 1 e i erent s ri- t. te f air i ) ,T- f-y rc:
',;ear to ',x ,c tv t t-.,tat o.t. e _- Fi.-.= c :],9 in t .;i t .e
seasons ,a -e r. ih- io'f. .-- 'a or.: r' 'u rre .:i :c rela-
tiv l--, 1 r m'r : .. .w,. 1:1 L -c, -
tent. t ,- i .l ] r4ti... i= t : -'.i s ,n ,t it S p--
pe nar3 t 't J .' -1. 1c t n '. r ,. 5 ." :. n -.t t
I .'hica.:. 3t,., :'ia- be us.1,i t in, icate, -it; t r i d.LPr .:f e _-c-r-;.0 tnot
char,:? i. -. i:- -. c. f3 ,1 .l -i .n, ou too Jr.iU Stat3 .
For t is, rrea .: h. ica : r. .'i.Li .:,n in e : o 1 -: c r ri i ti- Pr.ul-
tr-y a.- :' fgg t'-tuarir, t : ficti, .-f the r r;- t ios ,ill be iiac'E i.hrn-
evelr unjr.i l 3 i cr.- -i -" = c'c .







- -


TE: O SE7 FL SUB C TS 7.13C7 SED' il 7HE
F '1L Y AND lY'-I T. II; -


Subject

A comparison of four fee--er ratios ........

Special outlook report for turkeys ..........

Cra.- -es in method of reporting egg r roc..ctior
and number of layers .....................

Forecast of 1940 hatcJ.,in.:s and chi-'"s an-
young chicks on far-iis, June 1, .140 ......

Estimated storage margin on shell e,--.s e-:-
dozen, average 1916-35 and 1P 5-34L, a.:ai
1935-3 ..................................

1916-37 ..................................

Change in official index of seasonal va::-.-
tion of farm egg prices ..................

Feed-egg ratio 6r--ined ......................

IT-,Fo.--1icultu-ral income index revise,', by
nLonths, 1929-39 ..........................

Effects of the -i'-ld ,- r and possi;Ie effects
of the present war .......................

Ic :--time factors in the chicken a:,' ,:
outloo': ..................................

Long-time factors in the iur':e-, ou -l1: .....

Production of poultry feed grains ':d !-c:-..-
ber fe, ed- f ratio .......................


10-13

12-!


l-l?




9

L0-11
-0- 1 ,


Ti:is issue

A.-il 2, 10,40


Ar.ril 2., 1940


_.'arch 2, 194,0


.'iarcu' 2,

Feb uary


Feobnua:y

-ec..Or.ber


1940

1, 1938


1940

1939


Dec,-':-:ber !., 1939


4-'i :.'ver.:tar 10, 1939


20-22


1939

1939


'- Scpt_.rb-r 1, 1939


PES-41


UNIVK ITY OF FLORIDA
11 II III III II 1 II
3 1262 08903 9456


Tcve;:ber

P'av':, r ,'.3'