A SOCIO - DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF THE ENERGY. : INTENSIVENESS OF FOOD .CONSUMED WITH , IMPLICATIONS EORIIAIIONAI ENERGY CONSERVATION ' Thesis for the Degree of M A MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY CHERYL LYNN HOLMES ' 1976 “‘0... .0. >9- “'"..’.IN '3'" ABSTRACT A SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF THE ENERGY INTENSIVENESS OF FOOD CONSUMED WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR NATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION BY Cheryl Lynn Holmes The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between food consumption choices and their associated energy costs to isolate implications for national energy conservation. In order to identify the energy intensiveness of individual diets it was necessary to develop a methodology for determining the energy cost per pound and per serving of individual food items. Data on the fossil fuel expended from agricultural processes to the point of consumer purchase at the supermarket was obtained from a variety of sources for the agricultural, transport, processing and retailing sectors and combined to form estimates of the energy cost of different foods. The food consumption data used came from a larger interdisciplinary field study entitled, "Functioning of the Family Ecosystem in a World of Changing Energy Cheryl Lynn Holmes Availability," funded by the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station. A subsample of 85 individuals was selected from this field study. Each individual's food consumption choices and the amount consumed for a twenty- four hour span of time was recorded by the individual on a food recall sheet. The estimates of energy cost per serving were then used to calculate the total energy cost of food consumed by each individual over the twenty-four hour time span. It was hypothesized that the energy intensiveness of individual diets would vary with family income, occupa- tion of the head, education and working status of the wife and urban or rural residence. Individuals were grouped according to apprOpriate levels of these variables. A one way analysis of variance was used to test for differ- ences in group means. Without exception, the data did not support any hypothesized differenceslxflmeen groups. The finding of no difference between groups in all hypothesized situations suggests that there is no one group toward which to direct national energy conservation efforts via shifts in food consumption. Rather, all consumers must be informed of the impact of their food choices on energy consumption and given information with which to make rational decisions in the marketplace. Cheryl Lynn Holmes The impact of the energy costs of different foods varies greatly with the standard of comparison employed. To analyze energy cost of food consumption choices of individuals in the study the energy cost of food per pound and per serving were employed. Also determined and included is an analysis of the energy cost of food per gram of protein and kilocalories fossil energy expended to food energy received. With each type of analysis food energy implications for national energy conservation change. For the average consumer the energy cost per pound or per serving is the most useful information. For the food professional the other methodologies may be more applicable. This study did not calculate food shopping, home storage and food preparation energy costs. Therefore, there is room for much further study of the energy cost of food. A SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF THE ENERGY INTENSIVENESS OF FOOD CONSUMED WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR NATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION BY Cheryl Lynn Holmes A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Family Ecology 1976 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to take this Opportunity to express my thanks and appreciation to the following people for their contributions to my educational experience: Dr. Peter M. Gladhart, as my major advisor, for his methodological and statistical guidance and expertise; for his willingness to meet many long hours on week-ends and evenings at personal cost to his family time; for his continuous support, encouragement and advice during all processes of my thesis writing and research. Dr. Beatrice Paolucci, as a committee member and professor, for her guidance, encouragement and support academically and personally throughout my Master's program and, especially, during the research and deve10pment of my thesis; for her high academic standards and unwillingness to accept any less than the best she believed I could give; for her sincere interest in my personal growth and development. Dr. Linda Nelson, as a committee member and department chairman, for genuine concern for both my academic and personal growth and development; for her assistance in designing an independent study and class projects which met my changing professional needs as well ii as challenged my academic and creative abilities; for her willingness to listen when I was discouraged; for her high academic standards. Dr. Mary Zabik, as a committee member, for her willingness to serve on my committee when she did not yet know me; for her expertise in food science and nutrition; for her assistance in coding food recall data; for her support and sincere interest in my research project. Barbara and Robert Holmes, my parents, for their confidence and support during my Master's program and their acceptance of my educational route. Sara Myers, Susan Hendricks, and Sue Diehm, my friends and roommates, for their confidence, support and friendship throughout. Dr. Alberta Dobry, a former committee member, for her earlier guidance and interest in my academic and personal development. Dr. Mary E. Thompson, a former instructor at Central Michigan University, a special person whose con- tributions both academically and personally have been invaluable in my life. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LI ST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Chapter I. II. III. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . Food Consumption . . . Fossil Energy Cost of Food Assumptions . . . . . . . . Objectives . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . Food Habits . . . . . . . . . . . Income and Occupational Status and Food Consumption . . . . . . . . . . Education and Food Consumption . . . . Employment of Wife and Food Consumption Race and Food Consumption . . . . . . Resudence and Food Consumption . . . . Energy Needs and Food Consumption . . METHODOLOGY 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O The Sampled Community . . . . . . . . Selection of the Sample . . . . . . . Selection of the Subsample Description of Variables . . . . . . . Independent Variables . Dependent Variable . . . Fossil Fuel Cost of Food . Cultural Energy . . . . Processing Energy . . . Transportation Energy . Retailing Energy . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page vi viii 24 24 25 29 29 30 31 33 39 41 42 Chapter IV. FINDINGS, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS Tests of Differences Between Energy Costs of Food . . . Energy Per Gram of Protein Energy Cost/Food Energy Energy Cost/Pound . . . Energy Cost/Serving . . Implications . . . . . . . APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Groups A. PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF COMMODITIES B. PERCENTAGE CHANGE PER YEAR CONSUMPTION FROM 1971 O O O O O O O O C. INGREDIENTS NEEDED FOR INDIVIDUAL SERVING SIZES OF COMBINATION FOODS . D. DATA SUPPORTING HYPOTHESES OF NO DIFFERENCE IN FOOD CONSUMPTION BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . INTAKE Page 82 85 87 91 Table 1A. 1B. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Distribution of Sample by Income Class-- Urban Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Sample by Income Class-- Rural Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assumption of the Form of Food Individuals Consumed Based on Seasonal Availability When Not Stated by Individual . . . . . . Efficiency Factors for Conversion of Plant to Animal Products . . . . . . . . Animal Feed Cultural Energy Component Per Pound Retail Weight of Meat, Poultry, and Dairy Products . . . . . . . . . . . Cultural Energy Per Pound of Various Food Commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Processing and Store Yield . . . . . . . . BTU Costs for Processing One Pound of Food BTU Costs for Processing One Pound of Food BTU Cost Per Pound Commodity Transported . Energy Retailing Costs . . . . . . . . . . Allocation of Milk According to Pounds Needed Per Dairy Product . . . . . . . . BTU Cost Per Pound Formula Component and Total BTU Cost Per Pound Commodity . . . BTU's Needed to Produce One Gram Protein, BTU's Needed to Produce One Pound Edible Product, BTU's Needed Per Serving of Product, and the Ratio of Energy Cost to Food Energy for Foods Recognized as Protein Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 27 28 32 34' 35 37 39 40 41 43 45 47 48 4O Table 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. A1. B1. D1. D2. D3. D4. D5. D6. BTU's Needed to Produce One Pound Edible Product, BTU's Needed to Produce One Serving Product, the Ratio of Energy Cost to Food Energy for Foods Not Generally Recognized as Protein Sources . . . . . . . Simulated Menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Intake of Family Member According to Employment Status of Wife . . . . . . . . . Mean Intake of Family Member According to Occupational Status of the Wife . . . . . . Mean Intake of Family Member According to Husband's Occupational Status . . . . . . . Energy Per Gram of Protein . . . . . . . . . Energy Cost Per Calorie of Food Energy . . . Energy Cost Per Pound of Food Item . . . . . Energy Cost Per Serving of Product . . . . . Per Capita Consumption of Commodities . . . . Percentage Change Per Year Consumption From 1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wife's Mean Energy Cost Food Consumption According to Income Level . . . . . . . . . Husband's Mean Energy Cost Food Consumption According to Income Level . . . . . . . . . Children's Mean Energy Cost Food Consumption According to Income Level . . . . . . . . . Mean Intake of Family Member According to Educational Status of the Wife . . . . . . Mean Intake of Family Member According to Race Of Wife 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Mean Intake of Family Member Based on Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 51 54 59 59 60 62 63 68 7O 80 83 88 88 88 89 90 90 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Cultural Energy Formulas . . . . . . . . . 38 2. Complete Energy Formula . . . . . . . . . . 46 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The American consumer's food consumption patterns have changed from relatively low energy intensive to high energy intensive food choices. From 1950 to 1971 the per capita consumption of beef increased 36.9%; poultry increased 65.6%; fats and oils increased 12%; canned fruits did not change. Frozen fruits increased 57.9%; canned vegetables 17.8%; frozen vegetables 65%; frozen potato products 67.1%. Eggs decreased 23.8%; fresh potatoes increased 11%; whole wheat flour decreased 22.7%; fresh vegetables 15.5%; fresh fruits decreased 34%; and fluid milk decreased 18.1%. Most of the foods with large increases in per capita consumption require more process- ing before being eaten than the foods with decreased con- sumption. (For a more complete breakdown see Appendixes A and B.) Individual food consumption choices in the United States are many and complicated. If consumer wants and their individual efforts to satisfy these wants are to become energy economizing, i.e. "getting goods to satisfy wants with the most frugal use of resources," consumers must gain a better understanding of the implicit costs of 1 their want and need fulfillment (Fitzsimmons, 1972). The average American consumes 3,300 calories daily; this amount, however, represents 12,000 calories of input (Borgstrom, 1974). At a rate of conversion of approxi- mately 1:3, the fixed supply of energy resources will be inadequate to meet consumer needs as currently expressed. Environmental constraints are creating the need for the pOpulation to adapt its high energy cost food choices toward those of lower energy cost. Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study is to examine the rela— tionship between food consumption choices and their asso- ciated energy costs to isolate implications for national conservation efforts. To determine the associated energy costs of food consumed it is necessary to develop a methodology for determining fossil fuel expended from agricultural processes to the point of consumer purchase from the supermarket. This study will not pursue the fossil fuel energy cost of food storage in the home and meal preparation, nor will it differentiate energy cost intensity between meals consumed in the home and those eaten outside the home. This study examines the relationship of socio- demographic characteristics to food consumption choices and their associated energy costs. Cain discusses the issue of the energy cost of present consumer food choices. He states: We are at a point of no return in the food industry. To provide our peOple with their present needs and desires the foOd industry is forced to compete with ever growing energy demands of the rest of society against a limited supply of fossil fuels. Since most of us want to continue eating, the food industry has been given, and probably will be given, priority in getting its food needs satisfied (1973, p. 9). Udall also emphasizes the need for decreased energy inten- sive food choices. He states: With the increase in high energy intensive food consumption and the possibility of an inadequate supply of fixed resources available to meet consumer needs, it appears valid that the only reasonable course for the United States is to admit it is in trouble in terms of energy consumption and begin a transition to a lifestyle and an economy which empha- sizes thrift (1971, p. 76). The socio-demographic variables to be studied as they relate to food consumption patterns include income level, educational status, employment status of the wife, occupational position and prestige, presence and age of children, race, and urban or rural residence. Research is not presently available concerning energy intensive- ness of food consumption as related to these variables. Information is available, however, concerning the rela- tionship of some socio-demographic variables to actual food consumption choices made. Therefore, the review of literature will be based on the relationship of food consumption practices to the various socio-demographic variables. This study of the relationship between socio- demographic characteristics and energy cost of food con- sumed is important for society as a whole, the family unit, and for the individual consumer. Energy waste is described by Udall as this generation's great scandal which has brought us to the edge of a crisis that will soon force us either to husband our resources or witness a serious disruption of our whole societal system (1971). The knowledge of the implicit costs of high energy food consumption of various lifestyles can assist the indi- vidual in making rational choices in the marketplace, which will then affect society as a whole, the family unit, and the individual consumer. Food Consumption The consumption of food may be regarded as a sys- tem of behavior involving the selection, acquisition, preparation, and evaluation of food and meals by a family. It is influenced by, and in turn affects, other activi- ties of the family and other people. Although the need for food is largely the result of individual bio- physiological processes, the individual and the family are involved in the processes by which decisions are made as to the foods to be obtained (Coughenour, 1972). It should be possible to identify food consumption goals, specify activities which have the function of attaining the goals and strengthening the family system as a whole. Coughenour states: Maintenance of a pattern of food consumption can be viewed as related to the ability of the family system to solve different functional problems involved in the acquisition and allocation of necessary inputs and their processing into desired outputs, i.e. food for consumption (1972, p. 652). To isolate implications for national energy con- servation it is necessary to determine which socio- demographic variables, if any, are associated with consump- tion of the highest energy intensive foods. Margaret Mead noted: Food habits may simply be a carry over from a situa- tion of relative scarcity to one of plenty and to the development of food vending methods which continually expose people to an extreme amount and variety of foods (1964, pp. 24-25). Learning is very important to developing the complex of particular sets and attitudes that determine what foods are selected and when and how they are eaten. Peryam states: One does not change food habits in general, one achieves achange of behavior toward a particular item or group of items, in a particular direction, in a particular situation (1963, p. 717). Niehof also noted: Perception of the individuals of the advantages to be gained from change is the key to the adop- tion of changes (1969, p. 11). Attempts to change attitudes about a given food must be directed to goals which are important to the individual or group. When these goals are known, an individual can be convinced that what he eats may affect his achievement of these goals (Dean, 1968). Family food consumption studies have traditionally used the homemaker as the sole source of information. However, the homemaker has no way of knowing exactly what each family member consumes away from home. Therefore, more reliable data might be collected if each member of the family contributes information about his away from home food consumption patterns. For this reason the analysis of food consumed in this study will consist of food recall sheets recorded individually by the husband, wife, and one child over 12 years of age where present in the sampled families. Fossil Energy Cost of Food The development of the methodology for determin- ing the fossil fuel energy cost of food through agricul- tural production, processing, transportation, wholesaling, retailing, and in-store costs is critical in that the author knows of no comparable method of calculating the energy intensiveness of specific individual diets. Data have been computed on the energy costs of a few selected food items for a particular state as in the paper, "Energy Requirements for Wheat Production and Use in California" (Avlani, 1975). Also, data have been compiled on specific segments of agriculture, processing, transportation, and retailing. The Lifestyle Index is one of the most complete guides currently available, but the food sector's energy costs are computed on a per capita basis for America and represent average annual levels of consumption for each item consumer (Fritsch, 1974). Often these are based on a calculation of a household of four family members. It does not give the cost per pound nor gram of each food item so that one can calculate actual personal consump- tion. Rather, one must estimate based on an average computation without knowledge of how much actual weight of food consumed this number represents. The merit of developing a methodology is the compilation of the available fragments of energy cost data by stage of deve10pment and forming, as precisely as present data permit, a framework for determining the energy cost of food per gram equivalent consumed. This framework allows one to make judgments concerning the energy cost of food choices made_in terms of the energy cost per pound of product, the energy cost per gram pro- tein, and the ratio of kilocalories of energy expended to produce the product to the kilocalories of energy received from the product. One can then compare foods to one another, in food category groups and in general, to examine energy costs of foods of similar and nonsimilar nutritive value. Given this information, the individual can examine energy implications of food preferences to consider the impacts of dietary choices on energy conservation. Paolucci expands the idea of the indi- vidual's role in energy conservation in this statement: Each person is a part of a living, breathing, loving, caring (family) system, but one that's inextricably tied to the natural environment and (those) finite resources. . . . The family is the place where all our strategies must begin (1976, p. 14). With knowledge of the energy cost of food it is possible to apply the cost of each food item to a random sample of individuals to discover if socio-demographic variables are related to energy intensiveness of food consumed. These results can be utilized to isolate impli- cations for national energy conservation. In this study a methodology for determining fossil fuel costs of food per pound consumed was developed. An attempt is then made to discover if socio-demographic variables are related to the energy intensiveness of food consumed, which will then isolate implications for national energy conservation. Specifically, the study examines whether or not level of income, education, employment of wife, occupational status, race, and rural or urban resi- dence are related to the energy intensiveness of food consumed. Assumptions 1. Respondents will be able to record accurately the food item and amount consumed for a 24-hour span of time. 2. Individuals purchased all their food in stores in a form ready for cooking or consumption and did not grow their food at home nor eat in restaurants. 3. One can combine the computations of the var- ious individuals and governmental reports for different sectors of food production and achieve a reasonable degree of accuracy in develOping a methodology for deter- mining energy cost of food. 4. One can classify individuals according to food consumption choices for a 24-hour span of time and make inferences concerning the energy intensiveness of their dietary intake. 5. Transportation energy costs can be estimated according to fossil fuels needed to transport major food category groups. 6. Transportation energy costs for dairy products can be estimated according to the number of pounds of raw milk needed per product when weight is adjusted for multi- usage of raw milk. 7. Dairy product energy cost can be estimated according to total pounds of raw milk needed per product, when weight is adjusted for multiusage among products. 8. In-store energy costs are one-half of utility COStS . 10 Objectives 1. To develop a methodology for determining energy cost of food consumed in the U.S. per pound of food consumed. 2. To determine if socio-demographic character- istics are related to the energy intensiveness of food consumed by individuals in the U.S. 3. To iSolate implications for national energy conservation efforts. Hypotheses Hypothesis I: The energy cost of food consumed will not differ between individuals in families of low, median, and high incomes. Hypothesis II: The energy costs of food consumed will not differ between individuals in families where the wife's educational attainment is greater than high school completion and those where the wife's educational attainment is high school completion or less. Hypothesis III: The energy costs of food consumed willinot differ between individuals in families where the wives are employed outside the home and those in which they are not. Hypothesis IV: The energy cost of food consumed will not differ between individuals in families where hus- bands have white collar occupations and blue collar occupations. Hypothesis V: The energy costs of food consumed will not differ between individuals in families where wife's race is white and where wife's race is other than white. Hypothesis VI: The energy cost of food consumed will not differ between individuals in families of urban residence and families of rural residence. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The discussion in this chapter will center on the following points: 1. The development, change, and reason for the study of food habits. The relationship between level of income and food consumption patterns. The relationship between occupational status and food consumption patterns. The relationship between educational status and food consumption patterns. The relationship between employed and non- employed wives, and food consumption patterns. The relationship between race and food con- sumption patterns. The relationship between rural and urban residence, and food consumption patterns. The relationship of energy needs and food consumption patterns. To analyze the relationship between food consump- tion and various socio-demographic characteristics, it is helpful to consider first how food habits are developed, 11 12 how they can be changed, and even why a study of food habits is of value. This study can also assist in develop- ing greater perspective in isolating implications for public policy recommendations. Food Habits Every person has learned what is prOper or improper within a cultural system. This learning has been for the most part unconscious and powerful emotions have been generated to support these attitudes. In the same manner people learn what foods are proper and posi- tive emotional feelings, particularly taste, become associated with these foods (Niehof, 1969). Similarly, Parrish stated: There are important differences among societies and subcultures in the pervasiveness of established food habits. Generally, this strength is correlated with other indices of traditionalism: the more slowly social, economic, religious and other changes have taken place the more fixed and persistent will be the food habits (1972, p. 140). Food habits, once established in an individual person or in a culture, tend to be resistant to change. Change, then, should occur not randomly or capriciously but only when there is reason and motive to make changes (Peryam, 1963). To understand the changes in food pat- terns we must understand the environment in which food is purchased and consumed. How, when, where, and the form in which it is prepared, served, and consumed are all influenced by other aspects and events in our lives. 13 Each new condition introduced by changing political organization, new scientific developments, or changes in environment will call for adjustment in the food habits of the population (Ullensvang, 1969). In the United States food habits have undergone profound change in recent years. Parrish noted: The change has been associated with and causally relatedtx>increasing urbanization, greater mobility, and altered style and manner of living, all accompany- ' ing the diffusion of affluence (1971, p. 140). Coughenour views maintenance of a food consumption pattern as related to the ability of the family system to solve different functional problems involved in the acqui- sition and allocation of necessary inputs and their pro- cessing into desired outputs which is food for consump- tion (1972). The purchase and preparation of food for consumption is one of the important, everyday task goals of families, and in this respect consumption may be regarded as a goal-directed social interaction process. To the extent that this is so, family member behavior is organized on a means-end basis, resulting in varying degrees of goal attainment (Coughenour, 1972). If there is to be a shortage of food or a shrink- age of purchasing power, a knowledge of the people's food habits is essential to make the necessary adjust- ments to preserve health and strength. Knowledge of the foodways of a society, i.e., the food habits of the members of that society, is a meeting ground for all 14 those attempts to apply modern science to the subject of human nutrition (Mead, 1964). Variations and changes in food consumption result from a complex interworking of social and economic fac- tors which have varying effects over time (Burk, 1961). Regionality, urbanization, and income are key factors into which merge a wide range of economic and social characteristics or factors which are difficult to study separately. Their net effects may be mirrored in basic food preferences which do not seem to form patterns. Where consumption patterns differ, the economist expects to find major reasons for the differences. These include differences in food supplies, ethnic background of the population, and the family composition of particular groups (Burk, 1961). Income and Occupational Status and Food Consumption Rising incomes mean more discretionary spending and greater willingness to spend. Jalso stated: People are not going to eat more food because they have more income, but they will spend more for convenience, variety and quality (1965, p. 267). Economic necessities may become supported by taste pref- erences. Niehof noted: Taste reactions on record indicate that meat, eggs, vegetables and fruits are generally considered the most desirable kinds of foods in the U.S. and EurOpe. 15 The poorer peoples of tropical countries depend much more heavily on starch foods, whether from grains or roots, which is probably the result of economic circumstances (1969, p. 10). A USDA study in 1965 found in both northern and southern regions of the U.S. that high income households consumed more milk and milk products, meat and poultry, fish, and vegetables and fruits per person than low income households. Low income households used more grain products, sugar, and sweets (1968). It is realized also that yearly incomes are sub- ject to wide fluctuations for some groups and may not be the basis for expenditures on food. Some households reported incomes that were less than their yearly expendi- tures for food. Past studies of household food expendi-i ture suggest that the effect of income on expenditures varies among households of different sizes and in differ- ent urbanization and regional categories (Hermann, 1967). It was also determined that expenditures of one and two person households for food vary less with income than do those of households of three or more. Although differ— ences in income elasticity of food expenditures between household size categories have been found in previous studies, these differences did not appear to have any clear-cut pattern (Hermann, 1967). On a per person basis, urban families with their smaller average size had food worth more than farm families in every region but the West. Rural nonfarm families were generally between 16 the urban and farm families in both average household size and money value of home food (USDA, 1965). Income is related to a number of other economic and social factors such as occupation, education, age, race, location, and general situation. These, too, are related to food consumption patterns (Burk, 1961). To some extent, occupational differences are related directly to food consumption choices, but they are also one of the major elements affecting variations in present and past income. Occupation is tied in with social status and physiological needs; i.e., workers doing heavy manual labor require more high calorie food than do sedentary workers (Burk, 1961). Occupation reflects family food choices, and since most foods are purchased by the contemporary urban family, income par- tially determines food choices. Occupation also reflects status, and therefore, perhaps differences in values placed on certain foods (USDA, 1961). Education and Food Consumption Education and higher standards of living are creating an increasing awareness of cultural niceties in everyday life, all of which affect what peOple want to eat and when and where they eat (Jalso, 1965). Education of the mother has been found more highly related than income to dietary components (Eppright, 1970). Families at the lowest educational level served dairy products 17 least frequently. The relative frequency of serving dairy products rose with increases in the educational level of the wife. Patterns for serving beef were highest for the intermediate group, falling off at both extremes (USDA, 1961). With increasing education of the mother, the intakes of calcium, iron, thiamine, riboflavin, and ascorbic acid increased significantly. Thus, in general, better educated mothers appear to stress the vitamin and calorie rich foods (Eppright, 1970). Employment of Wife and Food Consumption According to Jalso, working mothers are affecting our economy in many ways, but one of the most important is the impact on food patterns. Food shopping, prepara- tion, and eating patterns have all been affected by the movement of women to the working force. Working wives have less time and inclination to cook but family income is higher because there are two income producers. As a result they spend more money on carry-out items: cold cuts, prepared meat, pie fillings, frozen and ready-to- eat desserts, frozen vegetables, packaged dinners, and entrees. Time-saving convenience foods take on new importance (Jalso, 1965). With this trend the employment of the homemaker can lead to a greater flexibility and use of prepared food (Burk, 1961). 18 Race and Food Consumption Hueneman found racial classifications showing some significant differences in nutritional intake. Caucasian boys had higher intakes of protein, calcium, Vitamin A, riboflavin, and ascorbic acid than Negro boys. Oriental boys had higher intakes of protein, Vitamin A, niacin, and ascorbic acid than the Negro boys. Caucasian boys had greater intakes of ascorbic acid than Orientals. Negro boys had mean intakes of ascorbic acid slightly below two-thirds of the RDA allowance. Caucasian girls had higher intakes of protein, calcium, riboflavin, and ascorbic acid than Negro girls. Nutrient intakes of Oriental and Caucasian girls showed no differences. Negro girls had mean intakes of calcium below two-thirds of the RDA and all girls had mean intakes of calcium below two- thirds of the RDA (1967). This is the only study the author was able to find regarding racial differences in nutrient intake. It has also been pointed out that food products that have existed solely on regional or ethnic customs are disappearing or being assimilated throughout the U.S. culture (Jalso, 1965). Residence and Food Consumption Around the turn of the century, U.S. families produced at home about 25% of all food they consumed. In many rural areas, this production was 80 to 90% of the total food the family consumed. The overall 19 percentage declined.to 20% in 1935, rose to 40% during WOrld War II, and then dropped abruptly. By 1965, the U.S. families produced only 4% of their own food. Food production for home use declined dramatically even among farm families. The percentage of home—produced food declined from the very high level of 80 to 90% in 1900 to 31% in 1965. This decline was brought about by the obvious shift of population from farm to city (Parrish, 1971). Eating trends of farm families now closely par- allel those of other families (USDA, 1965; Jalso, 1965). In 1968 net income of big farmers was $24,000. With this kind of income the big farmer could and did buy what he wanted in town in convenient form. The small farmer had no time to produce his own food. His median income was $7,300, but of this 36% came from work off the farm (Parrish, 1971). Energy Needs and Food Consumption Energy is used in mechanized agricultural prod- ucts for machinery, tranSport, irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, and tools. Fossil fuel inputs have, in fact, become so integral and indispensable to modern agricul- ture that the energy crisis will have a significant impact upon food production in all parts of the world that have adopted or are adopting the Western system of agricul- ture (Pimental, 1974). It is anticipated that increasing 20 investments of fossil fuel energy will be needed to meet both the changes in diet and the increase in pOpulation. This surely will escalate demands for food, feed, and fiber. Agriculture's energy needs to feed the U.S. popu- lation are expected to increase 60 to 180% within 25 years and will depend strongly on future trends in feed efficiency of animals and energy efficiency of cropping systems (Heichel, 1975). In 1970 the U.S. accounted for more than one-third of the total world energy consumption and 35% of the world's petroleum with only one-seventeenth of the world's population (Pimental, 1974). The cultivation of each acre of land currently requires a direct energy input of 2.52 x 1016 kilocalories, or formulated another way, the feeding of each American requires fuel input equivalent of 600 liters of gasoline per year. This constitutes two times as much energy as the amount actually contained in any food intake. Yet, the figure includes neither the energy expended in making the farm equipment nor criti- cal costs of food shortage (Borgstrom, 1974). In the satisfied world the ratio between man and livestock as protein consumers is 6:1; for the poor world it is only 3:1, or half as much (Borgstrom, 1974). It is useful, then, to assess the process of food production in terms of the energy of creation and to utilize this to distinguish between one method of rj ' -5 21 production and another (Slesser, 1974). The efficiency with which animals convert feed into meat, milk, and eggs has been debated extensively, particularly in the case of beef production where some have found evidence of declining efficiency. If the apparent increase in effi- ciency of broiler production, decrease in efficiency of hog production, and decrease in efficiency of cattle production in the next quarter century mirror the trends of the past 22 years, the resulting increase in feed energy to produce a 1972 diet level of caloric gain will require an addition of 149 x 1016 barrels of crude oil in grain production for animals in the year 2000. This is 16 barrels per year pro- 25 percent more than the 119 x 10 jected at 1972 levels of feed efficiency (Heichel, 1975). Hirst estimates the total energy cost of food to be 6,119 trillion British Thermal Units. Of this amount 1,898 trillion British Thermal Units are household food expense. The remainder of 4,221 trillion British Thermal Units is consumed in agriculture, processing, transportation, and trade (1974). Hannon rank orders the 20 most energy intensive personal consumption activities of consumers in the U.S. Food purchases are the seventh most energy intensive per- sonal consumption activity according to his analysis (1975). Families, however, do not make explicit deci- sions to consume a given amount of energy to some 22 specified dollar amount. Instead families participate in chosen activities which presumably meet family goals. In the process energy is consumed (Gladhart, 1975). A comprehensive but simplified set of consistent measures drawn from a single external conceptual system is needed to improve the analysis of interrelations and trade offs among environmental consequences, economic costs, material requirements, and resource availability (Gilliland, 1975). CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This study focuses on the examination of the relationship between patterns of food consumption and their associated energy costs to isolate implications for national energy conservation efforts. To determine the associated energy costs of food consumed it is necessary to develop a methodology for determining fossil fuel energy expended from agricultural processes to the point of consumer purchase from the supermarket. This study is a part of a larger interdisciplinary study entitled "Functioning of the Family Ecosystem in a World of Chang- ing Energy Availability," funded by the Michigan Agri- cultural Experiment Station, Project No. 3152. Within this chapter discussion will center on the following points, with detailed discussion of the development of the formula for the determination of the fossil fuel cost of food from agricultural processes through in-store costs in a supermarket: 1. Description of sampled community 2. Sample design and selection 3. Description of subsample A. Independent variables B. Dependent variable 23 24 4. Methodology of fossil fuel formula devel- opment The Sampled Community The initial sample, selected from the larger interdisciplinary study, was drawn from the greater met- rOpolitan area of Lansing, Michigan. This S.M.S.A. is a well-defined community, containing a unique diversity of functions. The area contains light and heavy industry, a major university, and is the seat of the state govern- ment. It can be defined as a centrally located area of commercial enterprise and activity, surrounded by a pro- ductive agricultural sector. Lansing, Michigan, was considered to contain a heterogeneous population from which it would be possible to draw a multistage probability sample, consisting of urban, suburban, and rural families. The interdisci- plinary team, with this type of sample, was offered the opportunity to study the impact of the energy crisis on a relatively contained geographical area with diversity in its socio-economic characteristics. Selection of the Sample A multistage area probability sample design was carried out for the sample selection of the urban area. A random selection of ten census tracts was made with each tract having a probability proportionate to the number of households therein. The selected tracts were 25 determined to be a reasonable approximation of the urban area of the Lansing S.M.S.A. A total of 613 households were randomly selected from the addresses available in the 1973 Polk City Directory for Lansing and suburbs for the 34 blocks contained within the 10 selected census tracts. In the rural area of the Lansing S.M.S.A., the sampling was done from counties, to townships, and finally to selected sections in each township. Households to be interviewed were randomly selected from the list of rural addresses. For both urban and rural sample, procedures were established to assure attainment of at least 150 urban and 50 rural families. The final sample contained 216 families, 160 urban and 56 rural. To assess the representativeness of this sample, a compari- son was made between the census data of 1970 for the Lansing, S.M.S.A._Enui the sample. It was determined the selected sample was representative of Lansing S.M.S.A. families. A complete discussion of sampling procedures can be found in Zuiches, Morrison, and Gladhart (1975). Selection of the Subsample To obtain a randomized subsample of families from the larger randomly selected total sample of families surveyed for the interdisciplinary study, the computer was programmed to organize the 216 families into the fol- lowing large classifications: blue collar worker, white 26 collar worker, wife works, and wife does not work. Each of the families was then placed into categories of no children, eldest child under 12 years of age, eldest child between the ages of 12 and 18, and eldest child over 18 years of age. This procedure resulted in the division of families from the full sample into 16 sub- groups. It was then decided to choose four families per subgroup of all families classified into blue collar, white collar, wife works, and wife does not work and four age categories of eldest child, if any. The four fami- lies per subgroup were chosen with the aid of a table of random numbers. This, then, gave 63 families for analysis, as one subgroup resulted in only three families rather than four. In order to check for racial or occupational differences the remaining nonwhite or Spanish-surname families and farm operators were added to the study. This resulted in an additional 22 families for a total of 85 households. Since the principal concern was to esti- mate the differences in energy intensiveness of diets between identifiable subgroups of the larger sample, it was felt that the sample drawn would accomplish this while minimizing the possibility of bias in the sampling process. The characteristics of the subsample are pre- sented in Table 1A (urban households) and Table 1B (rural households). 27 OHQE .HO H N v v w e m 38» .2 ”mm? MO 83898 mme no 0 N v S m s m 886» NH “8H3 mo 838:3 530 o o H H N m N ”momnmfids 323 H N v m m s m "mom“ OOH; gQfiHEHQRu H v n m OH m m HMHHoo OUHQB ccmnmsm coHummsooo o o o h v v m HwHHoo OSHA ucmnmsm xgo3_uo: o m s m m o s 88 8E H H v n h m m mxH03_OMH3 cmmsmmm ooo.omm mmm.vaomw .mmm.mmIHNm.rmmm.omrme Immm.VHIHHm mmm.0HImw mam.hIom muommpmu .mocprmmH :mnHSIImmmHo mEousH an OHQEMm mo :OHuanHumHOII.¢H OHQMB 28 mung HO o m o m e m e G E8» 3 8h; moflsfiuflxfim mmmH no o N o m w m s o .88» 3 “8H3 moflsfiumgamn amfifi. o o o o o o o H "OONHMMHS mflHsz o N N m v n m m ”mgfinmuus “HHHQHHUO H o o H o H o o “HHHQUMHJBE unmfiafi cQfifidgnxv o o o H N m m m .BBHOOMHHQ osmfiam xBHaDOs o H N o m m m v HRvawgs o H o m H m m m 8183 OH: nmmsmmm ooo.omm mmm.vao m ,mmm.mNIHNw .mmm.0NImHm mmm.vHIHHw mam.0HImm mmm.hIow .muomoumu .mosmchmH kusullmmMHo wEoosH an OHmem mo coHuanHumHnII.mH OHQMB 29 Description of Variables For the purposes of this study, it was necessary to recode the data from the original pilot study. The following discussion focuses on the ways the original data were transformed in order to be usedeIthe analysis of this study. Independent Variables Blue Collar Worker: White Collar Worker: Rural: Urban: Wife Works: Wife Not Working: Education of Wife: Race of Wife: Those heads of households having a nonskilled, manual labor occu- pation. Those heads of households having a skilled, managerial, or pro- fessional occupation. Family lives in a rural township. Family lives within a census tract of the Lansing Metropolitan area. Wife is employed outside of the home. Wife is not employed outside the home. Wife has completed more than 12 years of school or 12 years or less of school. Wives of black, Mexican-American, Spanish, or Oriental were classi- fied as other. Caucasian wives were classified as white. Race determination was based on inter- viewer's report and family surname. 30 Dependent Variable Energy Cost of Twenty-Four Hour Food Intake by Individuals Each item of food and amount consumed per serving for a 24-hour span of time was recorded by an individual family member on a Food Recall Sheet as part of the origi- nal study. Responding family members were the husband, wife, and eldest child 12 years of age or older if present in the home. These data were then classified by the author according to the amount consumed per serving of every food item. The classification used was the Home and Garden Bulletin 72 (USDA, 1971). This was chosen because the foods are recorded in household servings which corresponded most directly with food recall data. The nutritional data file, Data Set 72-4-0, available from the USDA is based on this handbook and was used to determine the nutritive values of food consumed (USDA, 1972). For composite food dishes constituent ingredients were classified by the author according to amount of ingredient present in the number of servings which the individual indicated had been consumed. Standard recipes used were developed by the author or taken from the Betty Crocker Cookbook (1974). (A list of recipes develOped by the author can be found in Appendix C.) A special Fortran computer program, develOped by Peter M. Gladhart, Depart- ment of Family Ecology, Michigan State University, was 31 employed to associate each food entry with the nutri- tional values of the food and the respective energy cost estimates deve10ped by the author. These were then cumu- lated for each individual respondent for all foods eaten during the 24-hour span of time. When indicated by the individual, the actual form of the food consumed was classified. For foods not recorded according to purchased form such as "fresh," "frozen," or "canned," certain assumptions were made. They are shown in Table 2. Fossil Fuel Cost of Food To determine fossil fuel costs of food, four main components were computed separately for each food and then added together. The four main sectors were (a) cultural energy or fossil fuel agricultural costs, (b) transporta- tion costs, (c) processing costs, and (d) in-store costs. The energy costs once the food is purchased, tranSported to the home, stored, and prepared for consumption were not included in this study. The main interest of this study was the costs of individual foods. Data were not available on the energy costs that families incurred in transport from the store to the home, food storage, and food preparation. Further, one cannot differentiate among individual food energy costs when family food tranSportation, storage, and preparation energy costs are incurred jointly for differing groups of foods. It is 32 Table 2.--Assumption of the form of food individuals consumed based on seasonal availability when not stated by individual. Commodity Food Form Assumed Meat Fresh Dairy: Fluid milk Fresh Cheese Fresh Ice cream Frozen Vegetables: ASparagus Fresh Beans, snap & lima Canned Broccoli Frozen Cabbage Fresh Carrots Fresh Cauliflower Fresh Corn Canned Onion Fresh Peas Canned Potato Fresh French fries Frozen Spinach Canned Squash Fresh Sweet potato Fresh Fruits: Apple Fresh Apricot Fresh Blueberry Canned Grapefruit Fresh Orange Fresh Peaches Canned Pineapple Canned Plums Fresh Rhubarb Fresh Strawberries Fresh 33 recognized that a household may exercise much discretion, but for this study it was not feasible to pursue costs of food once the item left the supermarket. It is also recognized that the supermarket choice determines to a large extent the type of home storage necessary; i.e., frozen peas as compared to canned peas require different facilities for storage in the home. Cultural Energy The majority of the energy economists analyzing agricultural costs employ the term "cultural energy." For purposes of this study the term "cultural energy," defined by Heichel and Frink as the fossil fuel energy required to grow crops and to feed and care for live- stock, was employed (Heichel, 1975). The California Department of Food and Agricul- ture and the Agricultural Engineering Department of the University of California, Davis, have prepared the most comprehensive study that could be found showing the cul- tural energy costs of many different crops and of animal husbandry (Cervinka, 1974). This study by Cervinka does not include feed costs of raising animals as the study was intended to account for energy used in California agriculture rather than the total energy costs of specific foods. The cultural energy component of animal feed was not included, then, as this would have resulted in double counting. For animal product adjustments a study by 34 Heichel and Frink was followed. In this study they cal- culated feed energy cost by using the per capita consump- tion of food and the caloric content of plant and animal products (Heichel, 1975). To calculate the calories of feed required to grow the animal products in the daily diet, the effi- ciency of producing meat and other animal inputs from feed must be known. From available information on the pounds of live gain or other produce produced per pound of corn equivalent, the caloric content of various animal products,anuidressing percentage adjustments, the calcula- tion of estimated energy expended to grow crops for a selec- tion of basic foods was possible. Heichel and Frink (1975) suggest efficiency factors for the conversion of plant to animal products, taking into account yields for dressing percentages. They are shown in Table 3. Table 3.--Efficiency factors for conversion of plant to animal products. Commodity Efficiency Factor Beef, veal, lamb .05 Dairy .19a Pork .13 Poultry .12 Eggs .13 aFor dairy, assume it is raw milk. 35 If the caloric gain of converting cultural energy to feed energy is known, the cultural energy associated with the animal feeds can be estimated. Following Heichel and Frink, the caloric gain of Illinois corn of 4.4 to 1.0 was chosen as representative generally of the United States and animal feed was expressed in corn equivalents. Then, using representative caloric values for one pound of meat and dairy products, the feed energy required (in corn equivalents) to produce one pound of product could be estimated. These results appear in Table 4. The last column indicates the cultural energy in kilo- calories required to produce the food energy shown in the second column. Table 4.--Animal feed cultural energy component per pound retail weight of meat, poultry, and dairy products. CMlhnal . Fbaifimenfiz Omnmmsflmi Iflxxiand Caknflc lfimmgy camodlty Kcal/Pound Factor Feed Energy Gain Kcal/ ZRmmd Beejlf' veal 1,165 .05 23,300 4.4 5,795 Dfiry (3.5 parts 295 .19 1,553 4.4 353 flflfl Pork 1,397 .13 10,746 4.4 2,442 Poultry 565 .12 4,712 4.4 1,071 Eggs 658 .13 5,062 4.4 1,150 36 The California study was used only for agricultural energy costs, with adjustments for feed costs by Heichel and Frink (1975) because the author wanted to use United States averages for transportation, processing, and in- store fossil fuel costs. California produces more than 50% of the United States production of 18 fruits, vege- tables, and nuts (Cervinka, 1974): Asparagus Celery Almonds Green beans Lettuce Apricots Broccoli Melons Grapes Carrots Strawberries Lemons Cauliflower Tomatoes Peaches Walnuts Prunes Plums To eliminate the energy cost computations for trans- portation and processing, Tables 44-83 (Cervinka, 1974, pp. 66-106) in the California study were recalculated to include only agricultural constituents. Then, using Tables 84, 85, and 86 the energy costs of fertilizer, irrigation, and other fossil fuel costs were added to the number obtained from Tables 44-83. These estimates do not include indirect costs of fossil fuel energy required to produce agricultural equipment. The result was an adjusted estimate of kilocalories cultural energy per ton farm product. See Table 5 for the cultural energy of food per pound farm weight in kilocalorie units. Table 5.--Cu1tura1 energy per pound of 37 various food commodities. Commodity Kcal/lb. Livestock Beef . . . . . . . . . . . 6,470.945840 Hogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,749.672190 Lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,491.281990 Chicken and 1,696.000000 Eggs ' ° ' ' 1,931.000000 Dairy Fluid milk . . . . . . . . 556.487208 Fruits Apple . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.346090 Apricot . . . . . . . . . . . 146.906160 Grapefruit . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.871610 Grapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.673625 Lemon . . . . . . . . . . . 26.199000 Orange (tangerine) . . 27.045110 Peaches . . . . 57.883314 Plums . . . . . . . . . . . . 142.118085 Prunes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404.510689 Strawberries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.951220 Blueberries, blackberries, raspberries, boysenberries, cranberries Vegetables Asparagus . 378.866805 Beans, green & yellow snap . 333.069620 Broccoli . . . . . . . 213.875280 Beets . . . . . . . . . 48.829780 Brussel sprouts . 53.904140 Cabbage . . . . . . . . . . . 53.904140 Carrots . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.829780 Cauliflower . . . . . . . . . 163.876011 Celery . . . . 33.259835 Cucumber . . . . . . . . . . . 73.024790 Dry beans (lima, mung, navy) and peas 423.172055 Lettuce . . . . . . . . . . . 53.904140 Melon . . . . . . . . . . 73.024790 Onions . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.868885 Pepper, green . . 23.951220 Potatoes, sweet . . . 32.441520 Potatoes, white . . . . . . 32.441520 Pumpkin . . . . . . . . . . . 73.024790 Radish . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.868885 Squash . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.024790 Tomato . . . 23.951220 Food Grains Rice . . . . . . . . . . 130.000970 Wheat . . . . . . . . . . 97.642650 Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478.720840 Sugar . . . . . . . . . . 15.763935 Almonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601.995680 Walnuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977.371920 38 Using the factor 3,986 BTU's per kilocalorie, cultural energy estimates were converted to BTU's per pound farm product. These figures were further adjusted for loss in processing or fresh sale and the feed cost of animal products according to the formula expressed in Figure 1. CroEs: Cultural Energy Per Lb. Farm Weight/Processing Yield = Cultural Energy Per Lb. Retail Weight Livestock: ([Husbandry Energy Per Lb./Processing Yield])/Yie1d in Store + Feed Cultural Energy = Cultural Energy Per Lb. Retail Weight Daigy: Husbandry Energy + Feed Energy/Processing Yield = Cultural Energy Per Lb. Retail Weight Figure 1.--Cultura1 energy formulas. Fresh meat is subject to losses in cutting at two stages--first, when it.is cut into wholesale cuts at the packing plants and, secondly, when it is cut into 39 retail cuts in the store. The factors used for the processing and store yield are shown in Table 6. Table 6.--Processing and store yield. Commodity Processing In-Store Beef 60% 67% Pork, fresh 70% 70% Pork, cured 70% 100% Lamb 50% 67% Processing Energy To calculate processing energy, a study was. selected which was considered to be the best available source of information on a comprehensive, national level (Development Planning & Research Associates, 1974). The study includes estimates of fuel and electrical usage in processing for the following broad groups of foods: livestock, canned fruits, frozen fruits, frozen citrus concentrate, canned vegetables, canned tomato products, frozen vegetables, frozen potato products, fluid milk, bread and rolls, cakes and sweet rolls, and sugar. The study made estimates of the total fuel and electricity used in selected industries based on informa- tion from the Census of Manufacturers for 1971 and esti- mates of the volume of commodities in terms of processed products. The fuel and electricity expressed in millions 40 of British Thermal Units was then divided by the product output to obtain a measure of BTU's per pound of product. In the case of meat products and milk, these estimates were representative only rather than being based on total product produced. These estimates were compared with those used by the Economic Research Service and found to be similar (USDA, 1974). For some products the study produced estimates of the total energy required to process certain product cate- gories. These combined with the estimate of total con- sumption and production yield of energy cost per pound as indicated in Table 7. Table 7.--BTU costs for processing one pound of food. Millions of Thousands of Thousands Commodity BTU's for Total Pounds of BTU's Processed Processed Per Pound Fruits: Canned 16,900,000 6,515,056 2.59 Frozen 2,010,000 665,478 3.02 Citrus, frozen 9,610,000 1,585,046 6.06 Vegetables: Canned 15,600,000 5,240,904 2.98 Tomato 17,900,000 2,245,800 7.97 Frozen 6,450,000 2,158,290 2.99 Potato, frozen 2,780,000 2,565,118 1.08 Breads/rolls 37,400,000 15,580,000 2.40 Cakes[sweet rolls/cookies 10,600,000 3,420,000 3.10 41 For other products it was not possible to isolate the energy devoted to a product group and, therefore, estimates of total energy requirements were made. While less precise than desirable, they were the best avail- able and were used by the Economic Research Service (USDA, 1974). The corresponding foods are found in Table 8. Table 8.--BTU costs for processing one pound of food. Thousands of BTU's Commod1ty Per Pound Dairy: Fluid milk .300 Cream 3.500 Cottage cheese 3.500 Whole milk cheese 3.800 Ice cream 3.800 Meat: Beef, fresh 1.345 Beef, canned 4.645 Beef, dried 13.345 Pork, lamb, chicken 2.527 Pork, cured 12.527 Sausage, fresh 4.027 Hot dogs, lunchmeat 5.726 Transportation Energy Computation of transportation in BTU's was accomp- lished using the Economic Research Service (1974), Fritsch (1974), and the Statistical Abstract of the United States (1972). The Economic Research Service document lists the ton miles of various commodities by mode of transportation 42 for the year 1970 and the amount of diesel and gasoline fuel in millions of gallons used per mode of transporta- tion. The Statistical Abstract gives the amount of food item consumed per capita. This, multiplied by the popu- lation of the United States for 1971, results in the total consumption of the specific commodity. Using the above data, the following formula was developed to deter- mine cost per pound per mode of transportation used. I. Commodity Ton Mile Agricultural Ton Mile Total x Fuel Per Mode x BTU Conversion Factor = BTU Per Commodity Group II. Per Capita Consumption x U.S. Population = Total U.S. Consumption The sum of the energy used in all transportation modes for each commodity was divided by the estimated weight of the commodities consumed. The results appear in Table 9. Retailing Energy Fritsch and Castleman estimated both direct fuel consumption and indirect use of energy in buildings and supplies for the U.S. Commercial Sector for 1972. Based on the dollar volume of production they allocated 54.8% to wholesale and retail trade. Sales of groceries and other foods accounted for 20.3% of the total sales of the wholesale and retail sector or 5.1107 million BTU's per 43 mo msmcmo cam .Aooo.HH~.oo~V mama sags uom cowumflsoom may .m.o 0:» mo uomuumna Hmoflumflumum .mom mHnme scum omuoosoo n .ean .4omo em .mm .Hm moHnme scum omuoosoom mam mmH.NHH sea.mao.moa gag: mem.H oHH.HN omm.mkm.mm umoom mNN.H mom.m> emH.o-.nm moanmuooo> mm~.H 4mm.o~ Amo.aom.mm mufloum noo.a mso.m~ Hmm.nmm.mm moflmum ooom omm.H Hmm.mm omm.n~o.mo xooumm>flo .smfiem... afiewmmfig, SWEENMMHN 6%.... .cmuuommcmuu hquoEEoo canon Mom umoo DBmll.m OHQMB 44 capita.when applied to the wholesale and retail energy use (Fritsch, 1972, pp. 50-51). Multiplying by the July 1971 pOpulation of 206,211,000 yields an estimated 1,053,896,703 million BTU's used for wholesaling and retailing of food. The total energy used in food selling can be allocated among major grocery departments by weighting each department share of total sales by the percentage of department sales allocated to energy costs. The share of department sales attributable to energy is available from the Economic Research Service (USDA, 1974, Table 65, p. 76). The authors note that this estimate is based on the assumption that energy costs are one-half of utility costs. Major department sales as a percentage of all sales in 1971 are reported in the Journal of Supermarket- $22 (1972). When these sales percentages are weighted by department energy cost factors, the allocations of whole- sale and retail energy use given in Table 10 result. Summary In summary, then, the principal emphasis of this study is the relationship between patterns of food con- sumption and their associated energy costs to isolate implications for national energy conservation. To deter— mine the associated energy costs of food consumed it was necessary to develop a methodology for determining fossil 45 .mmuoum CH UHom mum3 mDOSpoum muHmc mo mmh umau maHESmmm ma mama mm3 HHmamH How mumEHumm HHmumH mmmau maHms ama3 cmEdmmm OmHm mm3 DH mmumEHumm .mms mEmm mau aH pmuMOOHHm mm3 mmuoum umauo HHm CH hmumam umap maHEswma .GOOM HHm How mumaums map No mmm co cmmma mum3 mmmmusmoumm may umau muozm a .mccma .mumHHmumH map amsouau ucmB mHmEdmcoo HHm umau dump .mumaHmE ©00m HHm mo msuu ma UHso3 mac.a ooonmo.oHo.emH ~m.~mo.nHm.mmH mo.~H me.mm 4H. suooono_mao mmm.m ooomma.Ham.He me.mmm.mmH.omm m¢.>m «H.OH mm.H mooooum oe~.ma oooooo.Hmm.HH ne.Hem.Hmm.oH~ mm.o~ Hm.e mm.H mooom amuoum m-.H memmoe.oom.mm oo.~am.~oo.mo Ho.o me.o mm. amuHmo onH.o oooomm.m~m.mm ao.nmo.aam.mem ea.m~ mH.mm am. new: nomcmwmam mo MMMMMMH2. mo mmwwwaflz. wmmmmm mquMHMMuos mmowmmowm suaooseoo :oauoaomooo .m.o sonocm H6069 ooom w A we moamm m.mumoo maHHHmumu mmumamII.oH mHama 46 fuel energy expended from agricultural processes to the point of consumer purchases as available data were exis- tent only in many segments or computed for only a few isolated food items. To determine fossil fuel costs of food, four main components were computed separately for each food and then added together. The four main sectors were (a) cultural energy or fossil fuel agricultural costs, (b) transportation energy costs, (c) processing energy costs, and (d) in—store energy costs. The methodology is expressed in Figure 2. Cultural Energy Per . . _ . Pound Farm Weight /(Process1ng Y1eld)/(In Store Yield) + Processing Energy Per ) _ _ (Pound Processing Weight / (In Store Yleld) (Transportation Energy Per) + Retail Energy Per Pound Purchased Retail Pound Retail Weight = Total Energy Per Pound Retail Weight Total Energy Per) / (Yield in) = Energy Per Pound Retail Cooking Pound Consumed Figure 2.--Complete energy formula. To determine cultural energy, processing, and transportation costs of dairy products, whole milk dairy products were adjusted according to weight of pounds 47 whole milk to pound product. This was done in order to minimize double-counting because of the multiple use of milk. The following yields were arbitrarily chosen for products listed in Table 11. Table ll.--Allocation of milk according to pounds needed per dairy product. Milk Allocation Product (Process Yield) Fluid skim milk .96 Cream .30 Cottage cheese .42 Hard cheese .11 Butter .30 Ice cream .12 Fur further explication of the methodology see Tables 12, 13, 14, and 15. Table 12 lists the BTU cost according to major components for retail weight, the cooking yield of each food item, and the BTU's per pound cooked weight. Table 13 lists the BTU's needed to pro- duce one gram of protein, the BTU's needed to produce one pound edible product, the BTU's per serving size of edible product, and the ratio of energy cost to food energy for foods recognized as protein sources. Table 14 lists the BTU's needed to produce one pound edible product, the BTU's needed to produce one serving of edible product, 48 Table 12.--BTU cost per pound formula component and total BTU cost per pound commodity. O i'ty Cultural Processing Transport In-Store Cooking EHUV Energy Energy Energy Energy Yield 11» --—---B'I‘U's /Pound Retail Weight-—--— Sz‘i’kfi REEF 9 Butter 22,083 3,500 3,049 1,223 1.0 29,855 Cheese: American 17,954 3,800 7,414 1,223 1.0 30,394 Ann Process 19,371 3,800 7,960 1,223 1.0 32,354 Cbttage 5,308 3,500 2,196 1,223 1.0 12,227 Cream 7,361 3,500 3,048 1,223 1.0 14,132 Hard 19,371 3,500 7,960 1,223 1.0 32,054 Swiss 16,730 3,800 6,913 1,223 1.0 28,666 Swiss process 18,250 3,800 7,533 1,223 1.0 30,806 Ice cream 7,361 3,800 3,048 1,223 1.0 15,432 Milk: Butterndlk 2,253 300 915 1,223 1.0 4,691 Skim 2,291 300 915 1,223 1.0 4,728 Whole 2,208 300 915 1,223 1.0 4,645 Yogurt 5,308 3,500 2,196 1,223 1.0 12,227 Protein: Egg 7,665 —---- 2,546 1,223 .89 12,848 Beef, fresh 32,620 2,008 1,580 6,170 .92 46,063 Beef, corned 28,790 4,645 1,580 6,170 .64 71,008 Beef, dried 28,790 13,345 1,580 6,170 .58 49,885 Liver 32,620 2,008 1,580 6,170 .93 45,568 Chicken 6,730 2,527 2,546 6,170 .72 26,048 Pork, fresh 13,802 3,609 1,580 6,170 .56 44,931 Pork, cured 12,569 12,527 1,580 6,170 .69 47,602 Bacon 12,569 12,527 1,580 6,170 .33 99,531 Hot dog 12,569 5,727 1,580 6,170 1.00 27,708 Sausage 12,569 4,027 1,580 6,170 51 47,736 Lamb 27,794 2,527 1,580 6,170 .72 52,876 Nuts 10,859 ----- 7,706 1,075 .92 21,347 Peanuts 2,779 2,500 7,706 1,075 1.00 14,080 vggetables: Asparagus, fresh 1,652 ---- 1,225 9,385 .53 23,136 Asparagus, canned 1,790 2,977 1,225 1,075 .60 11,777 Lima beans 1,825 ----- 1,225 9,385 .74 16,804 Beans, snap 1,786 ----- 1,225 9,385 .88 14,087 Beans, snap, canned 908 2,977 1,225 1,075 .58 10,663 Beans, mung 1,679 ----- 1,225 9,385 .94 13,073 Beets, canned 153 2,977 1,225 9,385 .84 16,356 Brussel sprouts 267 ---- 1,225 9,385 1.06 10,261 Carrots 200 ----- 1,225 9,385 .82 13,182 Carrots, canned 248 2,977 1,225 1,075 .66 8,371 Cabbage 230 ----- 1,225 9,385 .93 11,656 Cauliflower 707 ---- 1,225 9,385 .66 17,147 Celery 142 ----- 1,225 9,385 .93 11,561 Corn, fresh 2,063 -—-—- 1,225 9,385 .54 23,468 Corn, canned 4,942 2,977 1,225 1,075 .68 15,028 Lettuce, butterhead 230 —---- 1,225 9,385 .72 15,056 Lettuce, crisphead 230 -—-- 1,225 9,385 .78 13,897 Lettuce, looseleaf 230 ---- 1,225 9,385 .64 16,938 Onion 194 ~---- 1,225 9,385 .90 12,004 Onion, green 194 ----- 1,225 9,385 .96 11,254 Peas, canned 1,257 1,217 1,225 1,075 .64 10,146 Pepper, sweet 103 --- 1,225 9,385 .82 13,065 Potato, baked 134 ---- 1,225 9,385 .81 13,264 French fries 134 ---- 1,225 9,385 .55 19,535 Potato chips 129 ---- 1,225 9,385 1.00 10,739 49 Table 12.--Continued. Cknucdfity' cultural Processing Transport In-Store Cooking ETU/ Energy Energy Energy Energy Yield 11» -—-—---BTU's/Pom1d Retail Weight -- m Vegetagles (oont'd): Weight Potato, boiled 134 --- 1,225 9,385 .97 11,076 Pumpkin 805 2,977 1,225 9,385 .92 15,643 Radish 196 --- 1,225 9,385 1.00 10,805 Sauerkraut 340 2,977 1,225 1,075 .88 6,383 Spinach 1,708 --- 1,225 9,385 .77 15,998 Spinach, canned 1,214 2,977 1,225 1,075 .68 9,546 Squash 290 --—- 1,225 9,385 .88 12,386 Sweet potato 143 --- 1,225 9,385 .78 13,786 Sweet potato, canned 147 2,977 1,225 1,075 .65 8,344 Tanato 112 --- l,225 9,385 .98 10,841 Tomatoes, canned 148 2,977 1,225 1,075 .66 8,219 Truato, catsup 235 2,977 1,225 1,075 .75 7,348 Tomato juice, canned 145 2,977 1,225 1,075 1.00 5,422 Snapbeans, frozen 1,321 2,988 1,225 18,420 1.00 24,039 Fruits: Apple 241 --—- 1,239 9,385 .78 13,930 Apple juice, canned 319 2,594 1,239 1,075 1.00 5,227 Applesauce 641 ----- 1,239 9,385 .91 12,378 Apricot 641 -—-- 1,239 9,385 .93 12,112 Apricot, canned 418 2,594 1,239 1,075 .58 9,183 Apricot, frozen 582 3,020 1,239 18,420 .91 23,319 Blueberry 215 ---- 1,239 9,385 .98 16,345 Blackberry 227 ---- 1,239 9,385 .92 11,794 Cantelope 315 ----- 1,239 9,385 .56 18,504 Cherries, canned 594 2,594 1,239 1,075 .97 1,075 Cranberry sauce, canned 83 2,594 1,239 1,075 .95 5,254 Grapefruit 77 ---—- 1,239 1,075 .97 2,465 Grapefruit, canned 151 2,594 1,239 1,075 .58 8,783 Grapes 269 ----- 1,239 9,395 .91 11,970 Lime juice 104 ---- 1,239 9,385 .47 22,825 Lemon 108 ---- 1,239 9,395 .96 11,179 Orange 111 -—--- 1,239 9,385 .75 14,313 Peaches, canned 235 2,594 1,239 1,075 .61 8,431 Plums 594 ---- 1,239 9,385 .97 11,565 Plums, canned 376 2,594 1,239 1,075 .51 10,360 Rhubarb 221 ----- 1,239 9,385 1.00 10,845 Strawberries 227 ---- 1,239 9,385 .94 11,543 Tangerine 114 ---—- 1,239 9,385 .72 14,914 watermelon 322 ---- 1,225 9,385 .52 21,023 Grains: Bread: White 245 2,400 1,007 1,075 1.00 4,728 Cracked wheat 245 2,400 1,007 1,075 1.00 4,728 Whole wheat 245 2,400 1,007 1,075 1.00 4,728 Cake 1,550 3,099 1,007 1,075 .84 8,013 Brownie 155 3,099 1,007 1,075 .94 5,677 Cookie 171 3,099 1,007 1,075 .90 5,947 Cornflakes 4,942 2,401 1,007 1,075 1.00 9,425 Wheatflakes 355 2,400 1,007 1,075 1.00 4,838 Graham cracker 215 2,401 1,007 1,075 1.00 4,698 Saltine cracker 387 2,401 1,007 1,075 1.00 4,870 Pastry 161 3,099 1,007 1,075 .98 5,452 Doughnut 159 3,099 1,077 1,075 1.02 5,236 Muffin 176 2,401 1,007 1,075 .86 5,417 50 Table 13.--BTU's needed to produce one gram protein, BTU's needed to produce one pound edible product, BTU's needed per serving of product, and the ratio of energy cost to food energy for foods recognized as protein sources. BTU's Per , , Keal Energy (Ixunmiity (BEER IBigoinger BTU 8 Per Costtbeood Protein sex ““9 Energy Hairy: Cheese: American 311.33 30,394 934 5.23 Am. Process 284.06 32,354 1,988 4.77 Cottage 199.26 12,227 6,575 6.37 Cream. 403.31 15,132 2,823 2.22 Hard 281.43 32,054 1,970 4.32 Swiss 220.22 28,666 1,762 4.23 Swiss process 236.66 30,806 1,893 4.77 Ice cream. 750.08 12,848 2,252 4.42 Milk: Buttermilk 280.30 4,697 2,523 7.06 Skinl 255.29 4,728 2,533 4.42 Whole 276.40 4,645 2,488 3.92 Yogurt 939.35 12,227 6,575 11.05 .Meat and .Meat Substitutes: Egg 235.00 12,848 1,410 4.44 Beef, fresh 429.70 46,063 8,594 6.56 Beef, corned 602.18 71,008 13,248 18.05 Beef, dried 328.48 49,885 6,241 13.68 Liver 380.07 45,568 5,701 11.05 Chicken 214.97 26,048 5,374 8.74 Pork, fresh 419.14 44,931 8,383 6.60 Pork, cured 495.45 47,602 8,881 9.13 Bacon 655.39 99,531 3,277 9.18 HOt dog 486.53 27,708 3,406 5.05 Sausage 544.84 47,736 2,724 5.49 Lunchmeat 650.20 57,170 7,153 13.35 lamb 448.41 52,876 9,865 10.58 Nuts 273.33 21,347 6,560 2.11 Peanuts 120.28 14,080 4,450 1.34 Dried bean 482.34 16,804 6,270 8.32 51 Table l4.--BTU's needed to produce one pound edible pro- duct, BTU's needed to produce one serving product, the ratio of energy cost to food energy fOr‘foods not generally. recognized as protein sources. Kcal Energy I l Commodity BTgofinger Eggrjiier Cost to Kcal 9, Food Energy Vegetables: Asparagus, fresh 21,136 3,047 76.78 Asparagus, canned 11,777 6,308 35.32 Beans, snap, fresh 14,087 3,865 32.47 Beans, snap, canned 10,663 5,594 31.32 Beans, mung 13,073 3,587 25.83 Beets, canned 16,356 8,832 26.18 Brussel sprouts 10,261 3,491 16.00 Broccoli 18,906 6,432 40.52 Carrots 13,182 1,447 18.23 Carrots, canned 8,371 514 12.96 Cabbage 11,656 1,791 30.09 Cauliflower 17,147 4,516 45.42 Celery 11,561 2,538 42.63 Corn, fresh 23,468 7,212 25.96 Corn, canned 15,028 8,444 12.52 Lettuce, butterhead 15,076 7,270 61.07 Lettuce, crisphead 13,897 1,731 58.17 Lettuce, looseleaf 16,938 1,859 46.84 Onion 12,004 2,898 18.26 Onion, green 11,254 1,235 15.56 Peas, canned 10,146- 5,545 8.47 Pepper, sweet l3,065~ 2,122 35.65 Potato, baked 13,264 2,882 8.07 Potato, boiled 11,076 3,306 7.94 Potato, french fries 19,535 2,444 3.97 Potato chips 10,739 471 1.03 Pumpkin 15,643 7,828 26.30 Radish 10,805 949 47.81 Sauerkraut 6,383 3,292 39.82 Spinach 15,998 6,321 39.82 Spinach, canned 9,546 3,771 21.12 Squash 12,386 5,709 47.96 52 Table 14.--Continued. Kcal Energy | l Commodity BTgofinger Eggrsifier Cost to Kcal g Food Energy Vegetables (cont'd): Sweet potato 13,786 3,329 5.41 Sweet potato, canned 8,344 3,993 4.28 Tomato 10,941 4,803 30.26 Tomato, canned 8,219 4,348 21.91 Tomato catsup 7,348 4,403 3.83 Tomato juice, canned 5,422 2,892 16.19 Snapbeans, frozen 24,039 6,010 Fruits: Apple 13,930 4,586 16.51 Apple juice, canned 5,227 2,845 5.98 Applecauce 12,378 3.097 14.19 Apricot 12,112 3,031 13.89 Apricot, canned 9,183 5,220 5.98 Apricot, frozen 23,319 5,829 Blueberry 14,142 4,346 12.88 Blackberry 11,794 3,728 11.05 Cantaloupe 18,534 16,507 69.33 Cherries, canned 1,075 3,037 7.29 Cranberry sauce, canned 5,254 3,194 1.99 Grapefruit 2,465 1,304 7.30 Grapefruit, canned 8,723 4,863 6.81 Grapes 11,970 4,020 15.58 Lime juice 22,825 12,325 47.78 Lemon 11,179 2,699 34.01 Orange 14,313 5,655 21.92 Peaches, canned 8,431 4,756 5.99 Peaches, frozen 22,966 5,741 Plums 11,565 1,523 15.35 Plums, canned 10,360 5,821 7.16 Rhubarb 10,845 6,474 4.24 Strawberries 11,543 3,775 17.30 Tangerine 14,914 3,797 23.92 Watermelon 21,023 12,612 54.11 53 Table 14.--Continued. BTU's Per BTU's Per Kcal Energy Commodity . Cost to Kcal Pound Serv1ng Food Energy Grains: Bread: White 4,728 259 .93 Cracked wheat 4,728 261 1.00 Whole wheat 4,728 291 1.13 Cake 8,013 957 .96 Brownie 5,677 249 .74 Cookie 5,947 131 .66 Cornflakes 9,425 517 1.30 Wheatflakes 4,698 319 .76 Graham cracker 4,698 289 .66 Saltine cracker 4,870 118 .59 Pastry 5,452 778 .71 Doughnut 5,236 368 .74 Muffin 5,417 476 1.00 Frozen Fruit Concentrate: Grapefruit 26,298 11,948 10.04 Lemonade 25,933 14,116 32.34 Orange juice 26,353 14,403 30.25 and the ratio of energy cost to food energy cost to food energy for foods not recognized as protein sources. Table 15 is a simulated menu depicting the energy costs of major components at retail weight, processing yields of the food product, store yields of the food product, and the yield after cooking of the product. This, in turn, determines the BTU's per pound of edible product and the BTU's per serving. In processing the data for this“ study, each food item and number of servings consumed were 54 «3.5 H8333 a... Mom .98 ha 92m H88. OOO.N ONN.NH OO.H OO.H OO.H m-.H OOH.N Oom.m OO~.~ xHHz Oom.OH Oom.OH mm. OO.H NO. mmm.m Om~.H uuuuu mHm wmsonucmo mum mmm.m~ OO.H OO.H OH. mm~.H OOO.m Oom.m MOO.- umuusm one OHO.m GO. OO.H ON.~ mOO.H OOO.H HOO.~ OOH :Hweaz mom.m OOO.OH Om. OO.H Om. mmm.m mNN.H nuaun OOO.H ammum .mammn dmcm NOO.~ www.mH HO. OO.H om. mmm.m mmm.H unuuu OMH nexus .oamuom Omm.m MO0.00 Om. OO. OO. OOH.O Omm.H OOO.~ ONO.~m nmmnm .mmmm "mmmmwm OOO.N ONN.~H OO.H OO.H OO.H mm~.H OOH.N oom.m OO~.~ gays Gm0.0 HOO.O HO. OO.H Om. mOO.H Om~.H «Om.~ mmm emacmo .mmnummm HOO Om0.0H OO.H OO.H OO.H mmm.m mmm.H uuuun ONH mmHso cannon Omo mm0.0~ OO.H OO.H OH. m-.H OOO.m oom.m mOO.mm Ame umpusm OHm ONF.O OO.H OO.H Om.H mOO.H BOO.H OOO.~ mvm Ame ammum mmH.O OOH.em am. Oh. Oh. OOH.O Omm.H mO0.0H ~O0.0H ummenuqu “gonecmm "avg Omm mmm.mm OO.H OO.H OH. mmm.H OOO.m oom.m mmO.mm umuusm Omm ONO.O OO.H OO.H Om.H mOO.H OOO.H OOO.~ mew ummoa OHO.H OOO.NH Om. OO.H OO.H mum.H OOm.~ nunuu mO0.0 mom mOO.OH mmm.m~ OO.H OO.H OH. ONO.OH Om~.H mO0.0 HmO «OHSO manage mmmmmmmmwm mcH>nmm mason onHw nHme _.onHw.. mmumqm‘... mmumcm ‘ mmumqm mmumcm emuH moon \DE \DE #000 muoum mmmooum mnoumlsH uhommqmfi. mmwooum Huang .same cwumHssHmuu.mH «Hams 55 then translated into the BTU's per meal and summed to give the total BTU cost per daily dietary intake of each individual. Extensive discussion of the implications of the results of the calculations is reserved for Chap- ter IV. This methodology for determining fossil fuel cost of food does contain limitations. First of all, the resources used to determine fossil fuel costs in each of the four phases are based on national averages, yet the subsample of which these numbers are applied in this study are all Michigan individuals. Secondly, the indus- try numbers given are all estimates, so while the num- bers containing seven digits to the right of the decimal appear very precise, these are still only estimated num- bers. The data, thirdly, are based on "middle of the road" assumptions. For example, the costs of machinery, air-conditioning or heating equipment are contained in the energy cost estimates for the in—store segment of the methodology, but are not included in the numbers representing energy costs for cultural energy, process- ing, or transportation of food. Yet, an energy cost final number is given for each food which is representa- tive only in part of hidden costs. Packaging is estimated to be approximately 15% of the energy cost of food (Steinhart, 1975). Yet, this study does not allow for packaging costs in the energy 56 cost per pound of food consumed. Data to differentiate between food packaging forms were not available nor were data given in the Food Recall Sheet as to the type of container used in packaging the food consumed. It is recognized that these limitations are important factors to consider when analyzing the energy cost data of food consumed. Yet, the estimations of the energy cost per pound of edible product, per serving of edible product, per gram of protein, and energy cost expended to food energy received are much closer approxi- mations than were previously available for one to evalu- ate dietary choices and the impact of these choices on national energy use and conservation. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS Tests of Differences Between Groups In order to test each hypothesis, the mean energy cost of the diets of wives, husbands, and children in each hypothesized subgroup were analyzed using a one- way analysis of variance to test for differences in group means. Without exception, the tests support all the hypotheses that there were no significant differ- ences between groups as were stated in the hypotheses below. Hypothesis I: The energy cost of food consumed will not differ Between individuals in families of low, median, and high incomes. gypothesis II: The energy costs of food consumed will not differ between individuals in families where the wife's educational attainment is greater than high school completion and those where the wife's educational attainment is high school comple- tion or less. Hypothesis III: The energy costs of food consumed will not differ between individuals in families where the wives are employed outside the home and those in which they are not. gypothesis IV: The energy cost of food consumed will not differ between individuals in families where husbands have white collar occupations and blue collar occupations. 57 58 Hypothesis V: The energy costs of food consumed will not differ between individuals in families where wife's race is white and where wife's race is other than white. H othesis VI: The energy cost of food consumed W111 not differ between individuals in families of urban residence and families of rural residence. While there were no significant differences between mean energy costs of the household with employed or nonemployed wives, there was a slight trend for wives, husbands, and children of nonworking wives to have a higher mean energy cost food consumption. The mean energy cost of wives was 33,530 BTU's. The mean energy cost of the nonworking wife was 34,210 BTU's while the working wife had a mean intake of 32,720 BTU's. Husband's mean energy cost of food was 37,940 BTU's. Those husbands with nonworking wives had a mean intake of 38,970 BTU's. Husbands of wives who are or were employed have a mean energy cost of food consumption of 36,670 BTU's. Children's mean energy cost food consump- tion was 35,700 BTU's. Those children in a family of the nonworking wife had a mean energy cost of 31,540 BTU's. The children of working wives had a mean intake of 40,110 BTU's. Table 16 gives greater explication of the data. The areas of greater difference were associated with the occupational status of the wife's present or former occupation (if any were reported) and with the 59 occupational status of the husband. Both wives and husbands had higher mean energy cost in families where the wife reported no present or former occupation. These results are presented in Tables 17 and 18. Table 16.--Mean intake of family member according to employment status of wife. Wife ' s E‘nployment Family N 1:31 F Sig sunms Mednm .nuzke working ‘Wife 37 32,720 19 66 ‘Ncnworking 'Wife 44 34,210 ° ' Wbrking Husband 35 36,670 40 53 NOnworking Husband 43 38,970 ' ° working Child 16 40,110 1 65 21 Nanworkflmg Child 17 31,540 ' ' Table 17.--Mean intake of family member according to occupational status of the wife. VfifeHsOcmmnmhaEd; Famihr N 3:?1 F Sig. SUfiEB Medxm' Inl] Blue collar Wife 26 32,890 . White collar ‘Wife 35 32,225 2.50 .08 No occupation given Wife 14 35,570 Blue collar Husband 26 35,080 White collar Husband 34 37,110 1.50 .22 ‘No occupation given Hquand 13 44,420 Blue collar Children 12 41,340 White collar Children 10 31,520 .64 .53 ‘No occupation.given Children 8 42,430 60 Table 18.-—Mean intake of family member according to husband's occupational status. Itsbmxrs . Mam: Oammntflmufl. :fmuly N EH] F Sig. SUNEB DMEke Blue Collar HUsband 35 40,280 2 30 13 White collar Husband 32 34,660 ' ° Blue collar Wife 36 33,338 23 62 White collar Wife 31 35,260 ' ' Blue collar Children 16 32,680 91 34 White collar Children 13 39,800 ' ' For a complete explication of all data supports ing the hypotheses of no difference in food consumption intake, see Appendix D. Energy Costs of Food Energy Per Gram of Protein When analyzing BTU cost per gram of protein according to foods normally considered by nutritionists to be foods high in protein, one can see large varia- tions both within each main food category and across groups. Dairy products range between 20 and 40 BTU's per gram of protein, except for ice cream which utilizes approximately 75 BTU's per gram protein. Meat products have rather extensive fluctuations, depending on the product. Fresh beef and fresh pork carry the same approximate BTU cost per gram protein, except in the 61 case of sirloin steak which is 100 BTU's more costly than fresh pork or other fresh beef. Cured pork products are approximately 100 BTU's per gram protein less costly than corned beef, and both are 100 to 200 BTU's per gram protein more energy costly than a fresh product. Dried beef is less energy costly than either fresh or corned beef. Chicken and eggs are the least energy intensive when analyzing BTU per gram protein costs, with an average of 210 to 260 BTU's per gram protein. Vege- tables and fruits are not generally recognized as pro- tein sources, except in the case of dried lentils. Dried lentils are equivalent in BTU per gram protein to cured pork, and therefore more energy costly per pound than fresh meat or dairy products. Detailed results of the energy computations for protein were presented in Chapter III, Table 13. Table 19 lists the protein energy costs of many foods analyzed. Energy Cost/Food Energy When one considers the ratio of kilocalories of energy cost to kilocalories of food energy for one pound of product the dairy analysis changes as compared to energy costs per gram of protein. Cottage cheese has a ratio of 6.37, while all other dairy products range from 3.92 to 5.23. Ice cream, most costly when comparing BTU's per gram protein, has an average energy cost of 4.42 in this consideration. 62 Table l9.--Energy per gram of protein. Food Item BTU/Gram Protein airy: Cheese: American 311.33 American process 284.06 Cottage 199.26 Cream 403.31 Hard 281.43 Swiss 220.22 Swiss process 236.66 Ice cream 750.08 Milk: Buttermilk 280.30 Skim 255.29 Whole 276.40 Yogurt 939.35 Meat and Meat Substitutes: Egg 235.00 Beef, fresh 429.70 Beef, corned 602.18 Beef, dried 328.48 Liver 380.07 Chicken 214.97 Pork, fresh 419.14 Pork, cured 495.45 Bacon 655.35 Hot dog 486.53 Sausage 544.84 Lunchmeat 650.20 Lamb 448.41 Nuts 273.33 Peanuts 120.28 Dried beans 482.34 Source: Table 13. 63 Table 20.--Energy cost per calorie of food energy. Food Item Kcal/Kcal Dairy: American cheese 5.23 Cottage cheese 6.37 Hard 4.32 Ice cream 4.42 Whole milk 3.92 Yogurt 11.05 Meat and Meat Substitutes: Egg 4.44 Beef, fresh 6.56 Beef, corned 18.05 Beef, dried 13.68 Chicken 8.74 Pork, fresh 6.60 Pork, cured 9.13 Lunchmeat 13.35 Nuts 2.11 Peanuts 1.34 Dried lentils 8.32 Vegetables: Asparagus, fresh 76.78 Snapbeans, fresh 32.47 Broccoli 40.52 Cauliflower~ 45.42 Lettuce 61.07 Potato chips 1.03 Spinach 39.82 Fruits: Cantaloupe 69.33 Lime juice 34.01 Rhubarb 4.24 Watermelon 54.11 Source: Table 14. 64 Meat products also have a much different appear- ance when analyzing kilocalories of energy cost to kilo- calories of food energy. Beef products, fresh, dried, and corned, have a cost to output ratio greater than six to one. In fact, corned beef has a ratio of 18.05. Pork products, including cured, are less energy intensive than beef, with ratios ranging from 4.68 to 9.13. The exception in the case of pork is lunchmeat, which has a ratio of 13.35. Chicken is less costly than all cuts of beef except ground beef, but very close in energy expen- diture to cured pork. Eggs have the least energy cost ratio of 4.44. Dried lentils are equivalent to cured pork and chicken in energy cost when analyzing ratio of kilocalories of energy to kilocalories food energy received. Vegetables are very high in certain instances with ratios ranging from 39.82 for fresh spinach to 1.03 for potato chips. Some of the most costly vegetables in terms of energy expended to food energy are spinach, lettuce, broccoli, and cauliflower. Fruits are also energy intensive with similar average energy costs as vegetables. The exceptions in fruits are watermelon with a ratio of 93.53, cantaloupe with a ratio of 69.33, and lime juice with a ratio of 47.78. Other fresh fruits have ratios ranging from 12.88 to 21.92 for rhubarb. 65 Energy Cost/Pound When one considers the energy cost of food per pound, changes again occur as to which foods have the greatest energy costs. Fluid milk in the dairy cate- gory is much less costly than any other dairy product; hard cheese and processed cheese are eight times more energy intensive than fluid milk. Cottage cheese, cream cheese, American cheese, and ice cream are four times more energy intensive than fluid milk per pound. Yet, all dairy products except hard and processed cheese are less energy intensive than meat products per pound. When compared to fluid milk, meat ranges from 6 to 25 times more energy intensive per pound product. Eggs are equivalent in cost to cottage cheese and ice cream. Meat products vary in BTU cost per pound. Ham- burg and dried beef, due to their cooking yield, are approximately one-third less costly than sirloin steak. Corned beef is the most energy intensive of the beef products. Fresh and cured pork are approximately equivalent to fresh beef per pound, except in the case of bacon, which is twice as energy intensive due to its 33% cooking yield. Chicken and hot dogs per pound are equivalent in energy cost. Fresh vegetable and fruit energy costs per pound vary greatly, depending on which vegetable or fruit one is analyzing. Cultural energy expended per crOp type is 66 dependent upon agricultural procedures necessary to ‘produce one pound of product. For example, fresh asparagus requires 1,650 BTU's per pound, while lettuce needs only 230 BTU's. For fruit, differences are also seen, but not such an extreme as one finds in vegetables. An apple requires 241 BTU's while an apricot requires 641 BTU's and a tangerine requires only 114 BTU's. Energy cost of fresh fruits and vegetables vary in energy cost per pound due not only to the differences in major components, but also in the yield of edible product depending on the fruit or vegetable one is analyzing. Energy cost per pound varies with fruits and vegetables according to the processed form, due in part to the actual processing of the food and the in-store energy cost differences. No energy cost is attributed to fresh fruits or vegetables for processing, although it is recognized that there is some energy expended, as data were not available. The amount of energy expended for canning and freezing of fruits and vegetables was very close in energy cost, with canning approximately 2,977 BTU's and freezing approximately 3,020 BTU's per pound. The great energy variance is seen between frozen fruits and vegetable items as compared to fresh or canned in the in-store sector. When the item is frozen it is estimated to be two times more energy costly than in- store costs for the same item purchased in its fresh 67 form. It is approximately 18 times more costly.to pur- chase a fruit or vegetable in its frozen form as com- pared to its canned form. For example, fresh shapbeans' energy cost is 1,075 BTU's; frozen snapbeans' in-store energy cost is 18,420 BTU's. Frozen snapbeans are two times more energy costly per pound than fresh snapbeans and two-thirds more energy costly than canned snapbeans. Frozen apricots per pound are twice as energy intensive as fresh apricots. Canned apricots are one-third less energy intensive than fresh apricots per pound, and therefore, less energy intensive than either fresh or frozen apricots. Detailed results of the energy compu- tations per pound of product were presented in Chapter III, Tables 12 and 13. Table 21 lists the energy cost per pound of the foods analyzed. Energy Cost/Serving When one considers BTU's per serving of a product, energy costs again vary from other energy considerations of per pound product, per gram protein, or kilocalories energy cost to food energy. In the dairy product area American cheese is two times less costly per serving than cottage cheese and only one-half the cost of all other cheese except for American processed cheese food, 9 which is six times more energy intensive per serving than American cheese. Ice cream is equivalent to whole 68 Table 21.--Energy cost per pound of food item. Food Item Energy Cost Per Pound Dairy: Cheese: American 30,394 American process 32,354 Cottage cheese 12,227 Cream 15,132 Hard 32,054 Swiss 28,666 Swiss process 30,806 Ice cream 15,432 Whole milk 12,227 Protein: Egg 12,848 Beef, fresh 46,063 Beef, corned 71,008 Beef, dried 49,885 Chicken 26,048 Pork, fresh 44,931 Pork, cured 47,602 Bacon 99,531 Hot dog - 27,708 Vegetables: Asparagus, fresh 23,136 Beans, snap 11,777 Beans, snap, canned 10,663 Beans, snap, frozen 24,039 Lettuce 15,056 Fruits: Apricot 12,112 Apricot, canned 9,183 Apricot, frozen 23,319 Source: Tables 12 and 13. 69 fluid milk in cost per serving. It is two-thirds less energy costly than yogurt or cottage cheese. When con- sidering fluid milk on a per serving basis, it is equivalent in cost to a serving of cheese. This change in fluid milk and cheese energy cost is important to note, as the per pound energy cost indicates cheese is eight times more energy intensive than fluid milk. When compared to fluid milk or cheese per serving, meat ranges from four to six times more energy intensive per serving of product. This is again a notable difference from the per pound energy intensiveness of meat products, which were 6 to 25 times more intensive. Meat and meat substitutes vary in BTU cost per serving. Eggs are slightly less energy intensive per serving than fluid milk or most cheeses, and the hot dog is equivalent in energy cost per serving to fluid milk and cheese. Fresh beef and fresh or cured pork are equivalent in energy intensiveness on a per serVing basis. Dried beef is one-fourth less energy costly than fresh beef, pork, or cured pork. Corned beef is the most energy intensive of the meat or meat substi- tutescnia per serving basis, ranging from two to six times more energy costly. Bacon was noted to be twice as energy intensive on a per pound basis as fresh beef or pork. When considering the per serving energy cost, it is only one—half as energy costly as fresh beef or fresh or 70 Table 22.--Energy cost per serving of product. Food Item Energy Cost/Serving Dairy:. Cheese American 934 American process 1,988 Cottage cheese 6,575 Ice cream 2,252 Milk, whole 2,488 Yogurt 6,575 Meat and Meat Substitutes: Egg 1,410 Beef, fresh 8,594 Beef, corned 13,248 Beef, dried 6,241 Chicken 5,374 Pork, fresh 8,383 Pork, cured 8,881 Bacon 3,277 Hot dog 3,406 Lamb 9,865 Nuts 6,560 Peanuts 4,450 Dried lentils 6,270 Vegetables: Asparagus 3,047 Lettuce 7,270 Potato 2,882 Pumpkin 7,828 Fruits: Apple 4,586 Apricot 3,031 Grapefruit 1,304 Lime juice 12,325 Lemon 2,699 Orange 5,655 Tangerine 3,797 Frozen Concentrate: Grapefruit 11,948 Lemonade 14,116 Orange 14,403 Source: Table 14. 71 cured pork. Hot dogs and chicken are equivalent in energy cost per pound; when considering energy cost per serving, chicken is one-third more energy intensive. Lamb is the most energy intensive per serving of all the meat and meat substitutes except for corned beef. Dried beef and nuts or dried lentils per serving are equivalent in energy cost. Peanuts are one-third less costly than nuts. Detailed results of the energy computations per serving of product are found in Tables 13 and 14. Fresh vegetable and fruit energy costs per serv- ing vary greatly, depending on which vegetable or fruit one is analyzing. The energy cost per pound of lettuce and asparagus was noted with interest due to the energy intensiveness of asparagus as eight times greater than lettuce. The energy outlook is much different on a per serving basis with lettuce twice as energy costly per serving as asparagus. Fruit differences were noted in the discussion on energy cost per pound with the apricot three times more energy intensive per pound than an apple and six times more energy intensive per pound than tangerines. The energy outlook again is quite different on a per serving analysis, with the apricot one-fourth less energy costly than the apple and slightly less energy costly than a tangerine. Frozen fruit concentrates are much more energy intensive per serving than the actual fruit item per 72 serving. Frozen grapefruit concentrate is six times more energy intensive than fresh grapefruit per serving. Lemonade, when compared to a lemon, is five times more energy intensive and when compared to an orange is three times more energy intensive. Orange juice frozen con- centrate per serving is three times more energy costly than oranges per serving. When compared to each other, grapefruit frozen concentrate is slightly less energy intensive than lemonade or orange juice, and lemonade and orange juice are equivalent in cost. Implications From this discussion of the energy cost of food, one can see that the energy intensiveness varies depend- ing on the analytical approach, i.e., BTU's per gram of protein, BTU's per pound of edible product, BTU's per serving, kilocalories of food energy expended per kilo- calorie of food value. Large variance in energy cost between products in a category suggests the amount of complexity involved in the process of determining energy costs, as in the case of BTU costs of vegetables when analyzing kilocalories expended to kilocalories gained. This study ends with the in-store segment but the method of home storage, if any, and method of preparation could drastically change the energy inten- siveness of food consumption choices. The shopping 73 patterns of the consumer in the number of miles traveled and gas milage obtained from the automobile, if used, must also be considered as part of the energy cost of food. This study is limited in the actual number of people analyzed, but the sample was stratified and randomized so as to minimize possible sampling biases. Keeping in mind the limitations previously discussed of the lack of completeness of data in the Food Recall Sheets, the combination from a variety of sources of data to determine energy costs of food, and lack of energy cost of packaging of each food product, it seems a tenable proposition that there are no significant dif- ferences in the energy intensiveness of food consumption choices from one group to another. The author is not certain what may have been left out of the food recall data as the people recording did not always include all possible information. If all diets were equally complete, changes in the results might occur. However, it seems unlikely that the groups analyzed would have varied sysé tematically in the completeness of reporting so as to mask real group differences. The analyses strongly support the conclusion that the sample analyzed is homogeneous in the energy intensiveness of individual food consumption. The broad groups do not differ sig- nificantly in their food consumption choices. This 74 study does not support the idea that energy conserva- tion policies in the area of food consumption should be directed toward any one group, but rather to the total population of the United States. One must realize that the energy intensiveness of food varies depending on how one is analyzing the food item. The more energy costly food per pound, such as dairy products, becomes one of the best consumer choices when concerned with the grams of protein received per BTU expenditure. If the consumer is making a choice based on kilocalories expended to produce kilocalories of product, a food item such as watermelon becomes one of the most energy costly food choices. And, if the consumer is simply choosing based on BTU's per pound of product or BTU's per serving of product, the choices again are different than when looking at grams of protein or kilocalories of food energy expended for food value. Given what is known about the American people's dietary preference for meat and the energy cost per pound of meat products, there is evidence to encourage less costly ways to produce meat. It has been stated by many agriculturalists that it is important to limit energy costs at the husbandry level, but when one looks at the energy cost per pound of product for processing, transportation, and in-store costs, one can see the tremendous complexities of reducing energy costs per 75 pound of livestock. The consumer has to face the choice of spending more energy for protein or he must be pre- pared for more dietary shifts in food consumption choices. As world population increases and energy costs continue to rise, the more favorable aspects of choosing the lower cost protein sources such as many of the avail- able dairy products becomes a possible consumer selec- tion which controls to an extent the energy intensive- ness of his dietary intake. Animal products are used to upgrade the nutritional quality of plant food sources by their high-quality complete protein structure, B-vitamin content, and iron. Grain proteins are gen- erally low in lysine, while milk and meat products are good sources of tryptOphan and lysine. Cereal grains are low in calcium while milk and other dairy products are high in this nutrient (National Dairy Council, 1976). Thus, the consumer does presently have the option of choosing the less energy intensive animal products and still select the protein foods which are important in maintaining a good diet. Due to the complexity of food from agriculture to the table, assessing energy costs is a difficult task. The average consumer has not had information available with which to make informed decisions to conserve energy in the area of personal food consumption choices. The 76 complexities of food involving fossil fuel energy are almost infinite and impossible to account for in total except for estimated or approximate.amounts. This study has attempted to piece together exist- ing information of fossil fuel consumption from agri- culture through in-store sectors and is, at best, a rough estimation of the fossil fuel costs per pound of pro- duct, per serving of product, per gram protein, and the ratio of kilocalories food energy expended to kilo- calories of food value. The energy cost per serving may be the most useful information for the average consumer who will eat food based on daily servings. With knowl- edge of the energy cost per serving, the consumer can make decisions in the marketplace which will conserve energy at the individual level. The individual or family level of energy conservation was considered by Paolucci (1976) to be the place where energy conservation must have its basis. 6 For the food professionals, agriculturalists, energy specialists, and educators the energy cost per pound of product, gram of protein, kilocalories of food energy expended for kilocalories of food value as well as energy cost per serving may be of optimal value. Decisions to conserve food consumption energy may best be made by the specialist on a basis other than energy according to serving of food; for example, a high 77 protein diet may best be planned according to energy cost per gram of protein. Energy costs do vary, as was previously noted, with the focus of the analysis one selects. The important consideration is that food con- sumption choices can be rational decisions made not just on dietary preference, but with the application of available information so as to promote energy conser- vation through the marketplace. APPENDICES 78 APPENDIX A PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF COMMODITIES 79 80 m.mm~ h.m N.Hm N.mm N.0H m.HN m.mh m.HmH Hhma m.oom o.m H.Hm m.mm m.m m.mm N.Hm m.mma onma m.mmm 0.5 ¢.mv m.moa H.m m.NN «.mm o.omH ommH o.mvm. v.m H.Nv o.wHH m.v o.NN v.hoa m.¢va ommH o.Hmm o.o ¢.vm m.mHH m.H H.mH H.Nva v.N¢H ome c.5mm IIII v.mm m.HHH m.o m.NH o.mma o.mNH ommd o.mvm IIII m.mH o.mm IIII v.m «.mva o.mMH ommH o.mHm IIII m.vH IIII IIII m.m m.hma v.mva oama IIIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIIII H.HmH coma .5: 8mm». elm”? FM... ”mm.“ wwwmm wwwwm .82 a...» .meuHcOEEoo mo coaumfismcoo muflmmo HmmII.H« OHQMB fl xHQmenflN 81 H.OH O.O O.OHH 0.0 H.OO OHH H.OOH O.OO OHO HOOH H.HH O.O O.OHH 0.0 O.Om OHH O.~OH O.OO HHO OOOH O.O H.O H.OO 0.0 H.OO OHH O.nO H.OO OOO OOOH H.O H.O O.HO O.O O.OO OOH O.OOH O.O~ OOO OOOH I--- O.m O.~O O.O H.OO OOH O.mO O.OH OHO OOOH u--- uuu O.OO O.O H.OO OOH O.OOH O.OH Hmm OOOH I--- In: H.OO H.O -unu HOH O.OO O.OH OOO OOOH u--- nu- O.Oh O.O u--- OOH H.OO m.mH HOO OHOH u--- nu- O.OO O.O n--- OHH H.OO nun- u--- OOOH H... .cwsswucounu.Hm manna APPENDIX B PERCENTAGE CHANGE PER YEAR CONSUMPTION FROM 1971 82 83 .Homp .Homp .Homp w .m Hm.mm Ho. 0 wm.~ o o mm.Hm wo.H oan .uomp .Homc H .mm wm.om wn.wm wo.hH HH.MH wm.h HH.N wo.om mm.m owma .Homc .Homc H .mm ww.mm Hm.mm ww.mm wo.~H wh.mm mh.v wo.mm wm.mm ommH .uomo .Hcmc H .mm wv.mm wm.vv wm.mH wo.HH wm.v mm.w wo.mo wm.H ova .Homc .Hcmc .Howp IIIIIIIIII wH.Hm wm.mv mv.mH wm.mv wo.h ww.m> wv.m omma .Homc .Homc llllllllll wo.Hv ww.mv IIIII w¢.mm wo.mH IIIII ww.v ommH .Homp IIIIIIIIII wo.mm wm.mv IIIII wh.mw wv.mm IIIII ww.m OHmH .Homo IIIIIIIIII wo.nm wm.mm IIIII wm.vm wv.mm IIIII IIIII oomH mmoumuom mHHO Hson wmxnse cmuoum moam mmmm mussmmm much pmmnz Hmmsm cwxowso mmmm Hmmw .HhmH Scum COHumecmsoo How» Mom mmsmno wmmusmoummll.am QHQMB xHazmmmd 84 .Homp wo.H wH.H wm. Hm. wo.v 0 HH wm OOOH .uowp wo.mm mm.nm wm.mH w>.o ww.0H o th whH coma .uowo .Hooc wH.mH mo.mm mm.hH wm.mH wm.hm o wvm wmm omma .uomp .Howc wo.~H mm.m mm.mm mm.ha wm.nm woo.MH mmh wwm ovma .uomc .Homc .Homo mo.vH IIIII mm.v¢ ww.mH wH.m me.m who wmm ommH .Homc wh.hH lllll Hm.mo wm.v IIIII moo.mm wmm wom ommH .uomc wm.w IIIII wH.mm IIIIIIIIII woo.vm wmh wvm OHOH IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III wmm coma .mm> .mm> .mm> muwsum muwsum mufisum MHHE Gmuoum coccmo ammum cmuoum cognac ammum 9mm: Ham» .cmscHucoouu.Hm anme APPENDIX C INGREDIENTS NEEDED FOR INDIVIDUAL SERVING SIZES OF COMBINATION FOODS 85 APPENDIX C INGREDIENTS NEEDED FOR INDIVIDUAL SERVING SIZES OF COMBINATION FOODS MEAT LOAF l/4 1b. hamburg 1 T. breadcrumbs l T. onion 1/8 egg HAMBURG l T. milk "" 1/4 lb. hamburg 2 slices of bread = l bun l T. ketsup l T. mustard POTATO SALAD l T. onion 1 medium potato 1 t. radish l t. celery 1 t. onion 1/4 hard boiled egg 1 T. salad dressing 1 T. mustard 1/8 head lettuce l/2 medium tomato 1 t. onion 1 t. radish SANDWICH l t. celery 7 l T. salad dressing 2 slices of bread 2 pats of butter (1 t. each) 1 ounce of lunchmeat or cheese or 1 T. peanut butter 86 APPENDIX D DATA SUPPORTING HYPOTHESES OF NO DIFFERENCE IN FOOD CONSUMPTION INTAKE 87 APPENDIX D DATA SUPPORTING HYPOTHESES OF NO DIFFERENCE IN FOOD CONSUMPTION INTAKE Table Dl.-—Wife's mean energy cost food consumption according to income level. Mean BTU . Income Level Intake N F Sig. $ 9,999 or less 35,320 25 $10,000-$15,999 35,360 27 1.09 .33 $16,000 or more 30,040 28 Table D2.--Husband's mean energy cost food consumption according to income level. Mean BTU . Income Level Intake N F Sig. $ 9,999 or less 39,180 23 $10,000-$15,999 37,530 25 .06 .93 $16,000 or more 38,150 29 Table D3.--Children's mean energy cost food consumption according to income level. Mean BTU Income Level Intake N F Sig. $ 9,999 or less 28,460 10 $10,000-$15,999 37,640 10 1.04 .36 $16,000 or more 30,770 13 88 89 Table D4.--Mean intake of family member according to educational status of the wife. EfluafljonalsmaUEB Famfly' g:?1 N F St; ofththfe Memer .nner High school or less Wife 32,100 54 l 44 23 Mbre than high school Wife 36,390 27 High school or less Husband 38,920 51 19 65 JMore than high school Husband 37,260 26 High school or less Children 35,690 25 00 99 .More than high school Children 35,730 8 90 Table D5.--Mean intake of family member according to race of wife. Race of Family Mean BTU . Wife Member Intake N F 519' White Wife 33,200 53 .02 .88 Other Wife 33,990 9 White Husband 34,740 54 2.50 .11 Other Husband 44,450 7 White Children 33,440 26 06 79 Other Children 30,480 3 Table D6.--Mean intake of family member based on residence. . Family Mean BTU . ReSIdence Member Intake N F Sig. Urban Wife 33'99° 51 .12 .72 Rural Wife 32,740 30 Urban Husband 38,930 48 .48 .48 Rural Husband 36,360 30 Urban Children 36,670 20 .12 .72 Rural Children 34,200 13 BIBLIOGRAPHY 91 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Burk, Marguerite C. Influences of Economic and Social Factors on U.S. Food Consumption. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Burgess Publishing Company, 1961. Cain, Jarvis L. Energy, Food and Man: 2,000 A.D. and Beyond. College Park, Maryland: University of Maryland, 1973. Betty Crocker's Cookbook. New York: Golden Press, 1974. Fitzsimmons, Cleo, and Williams, Flora. The Family Economy. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Edwards Brothers, 1974. Industrial Energy Study of Selected Food Industries. DevelOpment Planning and Research Associates, Inc., Prepared for the Federal Energy Administra- tion, Department of the Interior. Distributed by the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce. Mead, Margaret. Food Habits Research: Problems of the 1960's. Publication 1225. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, 1964. Udall, Steward L.; Conconi, Charles; and Osterhour, David. The Energy Balloon. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974. Journals Coughenour, C. Milton. "Functional Aspects of Food Con- sumption Activity and Family Life Cycle Stages." Journal of Marriage and the Family, November 1972. Eppright, Ercel; Fox, Hazel; Fryer, Beth; Lamkin, Glenn; and Vivian, Virginia. "The North Central Regional Study of Diets of Preschool Children, Nutritional Knowledge and Attitudes of Mothers." Journal of Home Economics 62 (May 1970). 92 93 Gilliland, Martha W. "Energy Analysis and Public Policy." Science 189 (September 29, 1975): 1051-56. Hampton, M. C.; Hueneman, R. L.; Shipiro, L. R.; and Mitchell, D. W. "Caloric and Nutrient Intakes of Teen-Agers." Journal of the American Dietetic Association 50 (1967). Hannon, Bruce. "Energy Conservation and the Consumer." Science 189 (July 11, 1975): 95—102. Heichel, G. H., and Frink, C. R. "Anticipating the Energy Needs of American Agriculture." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, January-February 1975. Hermann, Robert 0. "Interaction Effects and the Analysis of Household Food Expenditures." Journal of Farm Economics 49 (November 1967). Hirst, Eric. "Food Related Energy Requirements." Science 184 (1974). Jalso, Shirley; Burns, Marjorie; and Rivers, Jerry. "Nutritional Beliefs and Practices." Journal of the American Dietetic Association, October 1965. Niehof, Arthur. "Changing Food Habits." Journal of Nutritional Education 1 (Summer 1969). Paolucci, Beatrice. "The Energy Crisis and the Family: Impacts and Implications." Edited forum discus- sion transcript in Journal of Home Economics, January 1976, pp. 6-14. Parrish, John B. "Implications of Changing Food Habits for Nutrition Educators." Journal of Nutrition Education 2 (Spring 1971). Peryam, David. "The Acceptance of Novelty Foods." Food Technology 17 (June 1963). Pimental, David. "Food Production and the Energy Crisis." Science 182 (1974). Slesser, Malcolm. "Energy Subsidy as a Criterion in Food Planning Policy." Journal of the Science of Food Agriculture, Part II 24 (1974). Steinhart, John S., and Steinhart, Carol E. fEnergy Use in the U.S. Food System." Science 184 (April 19, 1974): 307-15. 94 Ullensvang, Leon P. "Food Consumption Patterns in the 1970's: The Dimensions of Change." Journal of Vital Speeches of the Day 36 (1970). Zuiches, James; Morrison, Bonnie M.; and Gladhart, Peter. "On Interviewing Families, Methodology and Design of 'Energy and the Family' Survey." Occasional Paper No. 2, Project 3152, "Functioning of the Family Ecosystem in a World of Changing Energy Availability." East Lansing, Michigan: Insti- tute for Family and Child Study, College of Human Ecology, Michigan State University, April 1975. Printed Materials Avlani, Praney K., and Chancellor, William J. "Energy Requirements for Wheat Production and Use in California." Paper presented at the 1975 meet- ing of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, December 15-18, 1975. Borgstrom, Georg. "Food, Feed and Energy." Paper given at a symposium on Energy and Society, Swedish Academy of Science, Stockholm, Sweden, December, 1973. . "World Food Supply and Refrigeration." Address at the Frigoscandia Silver Jubilee Sym- posium on World Food Supply and Refrigeration, Perpsectives for the Future, Stockholm, Sweden, 1975. Cervinka, V.; Chancellor, W.; Caffelt, R.; Curley, R.; and Dobie, J. "Energy Requirements for Agriculture in California." California Department of Food and Agriculture, University of California at Davis, January 1974. Dean, Anita. Changing Food Habits. Extension Bulletin 613. Home and Family Services, June 1968. Fritsch, Albert J., and Castleman, Barry I. The Life- style Index. Washington, D.C.: Center for Science in the Public Interest, November 1974. Gladhart, Peter M. "Energy and Family Life-Style." Comments delivered at Michigan State University conference, The Energy Problem Continues: Impact and Implications for Urban and Industrial Cen- ters, East. Lansing, Michigan, June 27, 1975. in press. 95 Michigan State Agricultural Experiment Station. Specifying time Effects of Household Composi~ tion on U.S. Food Expenditures. Research Bulle- tin 16. East Lansing, Michigan: Department of Agricultural Economics, 1967. National Dairy Council. "The Role of the Dairy Cow." Dairy Council Digest 1 (January—February 1976): 1-5. Pennsylvania State Agricultural Experiment Station. Food Habits and National Backgrounds. Bulletin 648. Pennsylvania: College of Agriculture, October 1961. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Composition of Foods, Raw, Processed and Prepared. Agricultural Hand- book No. 8. Agricultural Research Service, December 1968. . Food Yields Summarizied by Different Stages of PreparatiOn. Agricultural Handbook No. 12, Agri- cultural Research Service. Washington, D.C.: September 1975. . "Food Consumption of Households in the North Central Region, Spring 1965." Household Food Consumption Survey 1965-66. Report No. 3. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, July 1968. . Nutritive Values of Foods. Home and Garden Bulletin No. 72. . The United States Food and Fiber Sector: Energy Use and Outlook, A Study of the Energy Needs of the Food Industry. Washington, D.C.: The Econ- omic Research Service, Government Printing Office. , and the Energy Research Service. Conversion Factors and Weights and Measures for Agricultural Commodities and Their Products. State Bulletin Number 362, 1974. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. His- torical Statistics of the United States: ColOHial Times to 1957. Consumer Income and Expenditures, Series G 552-584, 1959. . Statistical Abstract of the United States: Consumer and Familnyiving, No. 146, 1974. MICHIGAN STAT 3 1293 NIVERSITY LIBRARIES 3 58 0854 6 ii 0