lllll

III

I

1

|

—I_.x_\
I\J4>
m—‘m

 

AN ANALYSIS Of MICHIGAN’S
FROZEN FOOD LOCKER PLANTS

Thesis for the Degree of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE
Robot-f Christian Kramer
1948

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
11-; ILIAL‘L’SIS Ul" t.;.T.ullId.-1.1J'S
Flu-1L1: Fuel) Lucritdl PLAJTS

presented by

Robert Chris tian Kramer

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

.4_ _-.a.

-4—d¢--M—'—-

It; . 3. degree injgonomigg (Agric Illtural)

Maj/or prrofessor

 

\

AN ANALYSIS OF MICHIGAN'S FROZEN FOOD LOCKER PLANTS

By
ROBERT CHRISTIAN KRAMER

A THESIS
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Economics

" 191+8

THESIS-3
K «4 '7’

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation
to all who helped in this study.

Dr. Lawrence w. Witt, Chairman of the Agricultural
Economics Section, supervised the work and provided the
guidance necessary for its completion. Dr. G. G. Quacken-
bush and Mr. Lawrence L. Boger of the Agricultural Economics
Section, offered invaluable suggestions.

Mr. Miles A. Nelson, Chief of the Bureau of Marketing
and Enforcement, in the Michigan Department of Agriculture,
and his staff aided in the collection of the preliminary
data.

The locker plant owners and managers who were inter-
viewed made the study possible by giving confidential in—
formation about their business.

Miss Jane Vissing and Miss Doris Frace of the cleri-
cal staff of the Agricultural Economics Section prepared
the illustrations and typed the manuscript.

Finally, the writer is indebted to his wife, Sana,
who proofread the manuscript and encouraged him at all

times 0

ROBERT CHRISTIAN KRAMER

2040813

TABLE 9: CONTENTS

 

CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . .
Purpose of the study . . . .
Utility of the study . . . .
Sources and scope of the data
Sampling procedure . . . . .

Definition of terms . . . . .

II GROWTH, OWNERSHIP, INVESTMENT, BUSINESS ASSOCI-
ATION, AND SIZE OF MICHIGAN'S LOCKER INDUSTRY

Growth . . . . . . . . . . .
Ownership . . . . . . . . . .
Investment . . . . . . . . .
Business association . . . .

Sizes of locker plants . . .

III ANALYSIS OF SERVICES OFFERED . .
Meats . . . . . . . . . . . .
Poultry . . . . . . . . . . .

Fish . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fruits and vegetables . . . .
Changes in processing charges
Delivering stored foods . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . .

Iv LOCKER RENTAL RATES IN 19H7 . .

Arrangement of lockers . . .

Description of the most common locker

Rental rates . . . . . . . .

1

PAGE

\0 v1 \n ¥' 4?

12
12
15
16
19
22
25
25
28
3o
31
31
31
32
33
33

33
3M

TABLE QE CONTENTS - Cont'd

 

CHAPTER
Locker insurance . . . . . . . . . . .
Change in rates . . . . . . . . . . . .
Over-flow lockers . . . . . . . . . . .
The one-charge plants . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V SOURCE OF MEAT STORED IN LOCKERS AND

VI

VII

SLAUGHTERING DATA . . . . . . . . . . . .
Resale of meats at wholesale prices . .
Location of slaughtering facilities . .
Source of livestock . . . . . . . . . .
Slaughtering charges . . . . . . . . .
Economic aspects . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SALES OF MEAT AND FROZEN FOODS AT RETAIL .
Sales of meat at retail . . . . . . . .
Estimates were used . . . . . . . . . .
Pounds of meat sold at retail . . . . .
Lowered mark-up . . . . . . . . . . . .
Frozen foods in the future . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

POUNDS OF FOOD PRODUCTS PROCESSED IN 19%?
Red meats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fish and game . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

PAGE
.3lr

. 37
. 38

. 39
. 39
. 41
. A2
. A3

. n7
. A9
. R9
. 49
. 50
. 51
. 52

$3.53

TABLE QE CONTENTS - Cont'd

CHAPTER w
Curing and smoking . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Grinding Pork and beef . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Fruit and vegetables frozen . . . . . . . . . 69
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
VIII RECEIPTS FROM DIFFERENT OPERATIONS FOR 1947 . . 73
Source of receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
IX SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

iii

 

I

II

III

IV

VI

VII

LIST 0 TABLES

a;

Distribution of Michigan's 257 Eligible Locker
Plants According to Size and Type-of-Farming

Areas, MarCh, l9)+8 o o o o o o 0 0 o- 0 o o o 0

Percentage Distribution of Processing Charges
for Services Offered on Meats and Meat Prod-

ucts, 36 Locker Plants, Michigan, March, 19k8.

Percentage Distribution of Processing Charges
for Services Offered on Poultry and Fish Prod-
ucts, 36 Locker Plants, Michigan, March, l9h8.

Average Number of Pounds of Fresh Meats Sold
at Retail and the Average Percentage Mark-up
in Michigan's Frozen Food Locker Plants in

19”? o o o o c c o o c o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Beef Processed per Plant in Michigan in l9h7,

Frequency Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . .

Veal Processed per Plant in Michigan in 1947,

Frequency Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pork Processed per Plant in Michigan in 19R7,

Frequency Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

26

29

50

56

56

57

VIII

IX

XI

XII

XIII

XIV

LIST F TABLES - Cont'd

Fish and Game Processed per Plant in Michigan
in 19#7, Frequency Distribution . . . . . . . . 62

Poultry Processed per Plant in Michigan in l9h7,

Frequency Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Lard Rendered per Plant in Michigan in l9h7,

Frequency Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Meats Cured and Smoked per Plant in Michigan
in 19H7, Frequency Distribution . . . . . . . . 68

Sausage and Hamburger Ground per Plant in Michi-
gan in 19h7, Frequency Distribution . . . . . . 68

Fruits and Vegetables Frozen per Plant in Michi-
gan in 19h7, Percentage Distribution . . . . . . 70

Average Number of Pounds of Food Products Proc-

essed per Locker in Michigan in 19%? . . . . . . 71

Average Percent of Locker Plant Income from

blajor sources, M1Ch1gan, 191+? o o o o o o o o 0 71+

LIST 0 LLUSTRATIQNS

——-:

FIGURE
NUMBER

l

10

ll

12

13

Location of the 375 Frozen Food Locker Plants,
may 1’ 1948 o c o o o o o o o o o o o o c o o o

Type-of-Farming Areas in Michigan - County Line

BaSiS O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Location of the 257 Locker Plants Which Were in
Operation for the Calendar Year l9h7‘Under the

Same Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Growth of Locker Plants in Michigan . . . . . .
Years in Which 36 Sample Plants Began Operations
Type of Ownership of Locker Plants . . . . . . .
Total Original Investment - 3% Plants . . . . .
Investment Per Locker - 3% Plants . . . . . . .
Other Business Operated With Locker Plant . . .
Rental Rates For Draw-Type Lockers . . . . . . .
Rental Rates For Door-Type Lockers . . . . . . .
Mark-up on Wholesale Meat Sales . . . . . . . .

Pounds of Beef Processed Per Locker . . . . . .

vi

REA

3

7

10

13

1h

l7

18

20

21

35

36

55

 

1h

15

16

17

FIGURE
EU "M'B'ER

Pounds of
Pounds of

Pounds of

32 Plants

Pounds of

32 Plants

IST F ILLUSTRATIONS - Cont'd

Veal Processed Per Locker-32 Plants

Pork Processed Per Locker-—32 Plants

Lamb and Mutton Processed Per Locker

vii

PAGE

58

61

63

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The locker plant movement started in Chico, California
in 1903 when the Chico Ice and Cold Storage Company rented
an upstairs cold-storage space to local merchants for stor-
ing eggs, apples, and other produce. In 1908 it extended
this service to farmers for the storing of meat in boxes.
Beginning in 1910 individual family locker compartments were
installed and rented at the Chico plant and in a plant in
Crete, Nebraska.

The frozen food locker industry began in 1917 when an
ice plant in Centralia, Washington furnished freezer-storage
space to farmers and butchers for storing game and home-
killed meat. The locker movement spread rapidly in the Pa-
cific Northwest and lockers were used extensively after World
War I. The first locker plants furnished no processing serv-
ices; the patrons prepared and packaged their own products
and placed them directly in the locker.

The locker industry expanded eastward in the 1920's and
1930's; nevertheless, in 1937 most of the locker plants were
west of the Mississippi River. During the middle 1930's the
modern locker plant, with its sharp-freezer and meat-process-
ing service, was born in the Midwest.

L. B. Mann recently stated that there were less than

1,300 plants in the United States in 1938, but that the

2
number had grown to an estimated 10,000 in February, 19H8.l/
These 10,000 plants have a capacity of processing and stor-
ing annually over 1,600,000,000 pounds of food for approx-
imately 15,000,000 persons. The total investment in these
locker plants is estimated at approximately $225,000,000
with an annual gross income of about $715,000,000.

Michigan entered the frozen locker field in 1938, and
by the end of that year there were six plants in Operation.
About the same number of plants were opened each successive
year and at the end of 19k2 there were thirty-two plants in
the state. During and after World War II there was a tre-
mendous increase in the growth of the locker industry and in
May, 19H8, there were 375 plants in Michigan (Figure 1).

Seventy-five percent of these 375 plants were located
south of the Bay City-Muskegon line, and ten percent were
located in the Upper Peninsula. The smallest plant in the
state had thirty lockers and the largest had 3,500. It is
estimated by the author that the total investment in the 375
plants was over $12,000,000 and that the total number of
lockers in the state was over 215,000. These 375 plants had
a capacity of processing and storing annually approximately

 

l/’ L. B. Mann, The Locker Plant - A_Factor in,Marketing, a
talk given at the Annual Convention of the Association of
Southern Agricultural Workers, Washington, D.C., February 13,
19MB. (Mimeographed)

L. B. Mann is Senior Agricultural Economist in the Farm
Credit Administration. He has made studies and surveys of
locker plants for the last ten years.

 

 

 

 

43'

42'}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1
LOCATION OF THE
375 FROZEN FOOD
LOCKER PLANT8,
MA! 1, 1911-8.

MACKINAC

 

 

 

 

 

47‘

 

 

 

   

CRAWF'D

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MICOST

ISABELLA mougo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MONICA“! 6”" If SAGIM

  

 

MINI: ”WORD “155.4” 3C0“.
. ”a C
. C .
0 I
LAKE m0“ CLARE DWI” M‘NAC
.
O
. .

 

 

 

   

 

 

 
 

   
    

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

as
u

 

 

     
 
     
    

 
   

 

     
  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

 

 

 

Each dot locates O qg
one plant . o . ”m" ”Om-0".
O %’0 ’C .5.
.0 o .0... L
nag” 5.411214. C‘UIOUH Mair. mint/aw .
O.
. O .0
55403.01: MA II. .Izuspur LI‘AW£;. manor
0 . O O. ‘. l . 0 .. 0
O O
I r
89‘ as“ 07’ a" as‘ 04‘ as’

 

 

 

 

 

 

1,
85,000,000 pounds of food if the lockers were filled twice
each year.

Purposes of the Study. The purposes of this study were
to determine the extent of the development of locker plants
in Michigan as local markets for meat, to ascertain the
present practices in the Operation of these plants, and to
inquire into the possibilities and limitations of locker
plants in increasing their services to their communities.

Utility of the Study. Although there have been locker
plants in the State of Michigan for the past ten years,
there has been no previous state study of their operations.
The existence of locker plants in most counties of the
state created a large potential local market for livestock.
How had these locker plants affected local slaughter of
livestock? Where did locker plants sell their bones, suet,
and offal items? Did the locker plants act as wholesale
distributors of meats? What products were retailed by
locker plants? Answers to these questions and to other
similar questions were attempted in this study.

This study was used as a part of the regional study
entitled, "The Place of Frozen Food Locker Plants and Home
Freezer Units in the Slaughtering, Processing, Distribution,
and Consumption of Meats." The participating states were
in the North Central region of the United States. The
schedule or questionnaire used in the study was prepared

by the technical committee of the regional committee.

Sources and Scope of_Qa§a. The historical data were
obtained from Farm Credit Administration publications. The
names, locations, and sizes of the locker plants were ob-
tained from The Bureau of Marketing and Enforcement in the
Michigan Department of Agriculture. The detailed data were
obtained from personal interviews of managers and owners of
a representative random sample of the locker plants in the
state.

Many locker plant owners and managers did not keep de-
tailed records. When detailed records were not kept, esti-
mates had to be used. The use of these estimates prohibited
exact findings; however, it was felt that the findings were
fairly representative of the true picture. For example,
some plant managers did not know exactly how many pounds
of beef were processed, but they knew the number of cattle
processed. The total number of pounds was obtained by mul-
tiplying the estimated average weight of the cattle by the
number of cattle. Reasonably accurate estimates of income
from various sources were used when exact figures were un-
available.

Sampling Procedure. The questionnaire used in.this
study was so comprehensive that it was deemed desirable to
personally interview owners or managers of locker plants to
obtain the desired information. Since funds were limited,
it seemed best to visit only a small percentage of the total

number of plants in the state. The data on a complete year's

6
operation was wanted from each plant visited, so only those
plants which had been in operation under the same management
for a complete year were considered. The calendar year 19%?
was used for this study and the field work was done in.March,
19h8.

Of the 330 plants which were in operation on January 1,
19%8, only 257 had been in Operation under the same manage-
ment for the calendar year 19h7. These 257 plants were sep-
arated into groups or cells according to their location in
one of the seventeen type-of-farming areas (Figure 2), and
according to their size. Three size groups were used. The
small group consisted of those plants which had less than
#01 lockers; the medium group had between #00 and 751 lock-
ers; and the large group had over 750 lockers. Table I
shows how the 257 plants were thus divided. The plants
were then numbered from 1 to 257 across and down the table
within each cell.

Table I shows that there were nine plants in Type-of-
Farming Area 1 and Size Group 1, and that there was only one
plant (#257) in Type-of—Farming Area 17 and Size Group III.
There were no plants in some of the cells. One can also
notice that the number 1 is in the upper left corner of the
table and number 257 is in the lower right corner. Each
number in the table identifies one of the 257 plants.

It was considered desirable to take a sample represent-

ing approximately fourteen percent of the plants; hence one

I

 

 

 

 

 

 

41‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

DICKINSON

 

 

 

    
 

/

(MARIE. TMOR. ALPINA

‘5' ANTHM :5’

 

-.¥

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F__ Figure 2
TYPE-OF-FARMING AREAS IN “ Imus tram
MICHIGAN-COUNTY LINE BASIS 30““ “am '1 '5

MAUI: 0RD WSW $60M. All

Air—so has.
” l.Corn and Livestock
2.81181 Grains and Livestock _
“iw 3.Southwestern Fruit and won OLA LAR cuowm ARENAC “.
Truck Crops ' AW"
I-I-.Poultry, Dairy and
Truck Crops
I 5 .Dairyand General Farming
6.Dairy and Cash Crops

 

 

Y

 

OtEAN (”761 COSTA
TUSCOLA

 

 

MUSKE . MONTCALM GRAIIOT “6‘07 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.Da1ry, Haymd Smcial Crops ,, I,
d 8.Beans , Sugar Beets , and ‘ mu"
4! —— Dairy . 0mm mural! 3"""4- ‘
9.Cattle, Sheep, and Forage mo
10.Centra1 Potato and Dairy mm, , , m, mm mm?
11 .Northern Fruit and Dairy 5 6
12.Northern Potato andDairy
13.Genera]_ , Self-Sufficing : u . cu m: Acxsou mun Am:

and Part-Time
.,. 1h.Cattle, Potatoes, and
T Self-Sufficing -
l5.Catt1e, lay, and Spring
Grains TI
16.Dairy and Potatoes
17.Potatoes, Dairy and
Part-Time i

I l

a" or 07' a" u' M' or J

3 3.

As: was: new II LLSDAIE w : non/nor :3-

I

 

45?
a

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

 

Table I - Distribution of Michigan's 257 Eligible Locker
Plants According to Size and Type-of-Farming Areas,
March, 19H8.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sizes I II III
T.0.F. Areas ( 30-hogj19ckers) (1401-750 lockegsl gover 251 lockers)
1 31-9 (1)3/ 19;;63/ (1) 12,18 {02
2 I 1-22 1 23-31 L131 32,33 L0)
23 I 3H237 .51) 38-Hh Q3) R5-H7 (0)
’+ I 1+8-62 (3) 63-20 (_1_)_____p_one (0)
5 I 199% (3) 95-119 (R) 120-125 $12
6 I 126-1 1 l -1 2 152-161 S2)
1 I 162-16A (o) 16 -1 1 1 __172 (o)
8 I 1 -1 1 128-12n (22 __1_9_5-200 1.1.).
9 I 201-2OR 1 __g05-207 LO) fing (0)
10 I 20’-2l6 2 __g;y-222 (0) none 19)
11 I__ppne .10) 223-226 {12 __g27 (0)
12 I 228-239 (I)__ 231-23h none 10)
l I none (0) ingpe (0) none (0)
1% I 2 -236 (o) 237 11) 238 To)
1 I 239 (0) __3ngpe (0) none (011
6 I 2R0-2HH l L___ngpe (0) none £0)
1 I 2% -2 2 (1) 253-256 (0) _257 (0)

 

 

 

 

g/ The number in parentheses in each cell is the number of
plants that was chosen from that cell to compose the repre-
The sum of the numbers in the pa-

sentative random sample.
rentheses is thirty-six.

3/

The numbers not in parentheses in each cell, i.e. 1-9,

10-16, etc., designate the number of locker plants falling
in each cell and the number assigned these plants.

9

plant in seven was selected. After the number of plants to
be taken from each cell was found, a book of random numbers
was used to determine which plant or plants in the cell was
or were to be visited. Again referring to Table I and to the
cell representing T.0.F. Area 1 — Size 1, the number in paren-
theses shows that one plant fell there. The numbers in that
cell were 1 through 9 and the book of random numbers was used to
find which one of the nine numbers was to be used in the study.

Starting with number six and choosing every seventh number
a sample of 36 plants was obtained. This sample of 36 plants
is very close to 1H% of 257. As a check on the representative-
ness of the sample, adding the numbers in parentheses either
horizontally by T.0.F. areas or vertically by Size Classifica-
tions and dividing by the total number of plants in that Area
or Size Group, a percentage figure of approximately fourteen
was obtained. Figure 3 shows the location of the 257 eligible
locker plants and the location of the 36 plants in the sample.

Definition of Terms. (a) Frozen Food Locker Plant: As
used in this thesis a frozen food locker plant means any place
artificially cooled to or below a temperature of forty-five
(#5) degrees above zero Fahrenheit in which articles of food
are sharp frozen and stored in lockers, such lockers being

rented to the public.&/

 

-/ This definition was taken from the R__1_J_l___es an___d_ Regiiationg
Governing Frozen Food Locker Plants published by the Bureau

of Marketing and Enforcement which is in the State of Michigan
Department of Agriculture. The actual temperatures prescribed
for the Chill Room, Locker Room, and Sharp Freeze Room are
given in their definitions.

 

 

05°

 

 

 

 

47'

 

sow”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

47‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“fikk

Figure 3

LOCATION OF THE 257
LOCKER PLANTS WHICH
WERE IN OPERATION FOR

THE CALENDAR YEAR 19k7

UNDER THE SAME HAN-
AGEMENT.

The black dots en-
circled with red show
the plantscomprising
the sample.

 

 

 

LUCE

 

 

 

MACKINAC

 

 

 

45*

 

 

  

 

 

' OSCODA

ALCOM

  
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MANIS. WORD 11135.40“! NSCOM. OGE‘MW [0560
O
. 0
WE mou CLARE LADWIN MENAC.
C
O

 

‘CIANA WM 760

 

 

 

ISABELLA

IO

 

mmwvo a

 

 

6! I07
.‘6

SAGIM
O

 

 

CLI
C

 

JNIA WA

 

 

I"

 

(A 70”

 

26H4‘1..LIN63N
C .Ob::.:.. © .OOQ

 

o 0 O
“mm! Mum
O

C‘L ”on:

.Fqgcgu.

WAgTEMW ”A”:

.6: p.

 

use
0 0

he"-

WM‘: :0
O

 

C .@Q 0

 

SIJOSIPH Mg I!
O

 

 

 

 

 

 

ILLSMLE LENAWEE M0 OE

  
  

70513“ JANILAC

 

CLMR

   
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

87’

as"

03'

 

 

11

(b) Main Plant: This means a frozen food locker plant
which provides processing and storage services.

(c) Branch Plant: A branch plant means a frozen food
locker plant which provides storage services only. The foods
are processed for storage in the main plant, but stored in
the branch plant as a convenience for those patrons living
far away from the main plant.

(d) Processing: Processing means the preparation of
food for storage. Chilling, cutting, wrapping, freezing,
curing, smoking, grinding, rendering, and glazing are in-
cluded in processing.

(e) Chill Room: The chill room has temperatures with-
in two (2) degrees Fahrenheit of thirty-five (35) degrees
Fahrenheit with a tolerance of ten (10) degrees Fahrenheit
for a reasonable time after fresh food is put in for chilling.

(f) Sharp Freeze Room: The sharp freeze room is where
food is frozen. It has temperatures of minus ten (10) degrees
Fahrenheit or lower, or temperatures of zero (0) degrees Fah-
renheit or lower when forced air circulation is employed, with
a tolerance of ten (10) degrees Fahrenheit for either type of
installation for a reasonable time after fresh food is put in
for freezing.

(g) Locker Room: The locker room means the room in which
the individual lockers are located. The temperatures in this
room are not to exceed zero (0) degrees Fahrenheit with a plus

tolerance of five (5) degrees Fahrenheit.

12
CHAPTER II
GROWTH, OWNERSHIP, INVESTMENT, BUSINESS ASSOCIATION,
AND SIZE OF MICHIGAN'S LOCKER INDUSTRY

gaggth, In eleven years 375 frozen food locker plants
in.Michigan opened their doors to locker patrons. At the end
of 1937 there were no locker plants in Michigan, but by the
end of 1938 six plants had started business. Five more opened
in 1939, ten opened in 19h0, eight opened in l9hl, and three
Opened in 19%2. During World War II the number of frozen
food locker plants Opening each year increased greatly. Eighty-
one opened in 19h3; 18 opened in 194%; and 55 Opened in 19H5.
A similar expansion occurred in other sections of the United
States. This expansion movement continued after the war had
ended and in 19h6, 93 new plants started Operations. More
new locker plants Opened in 19%6 than in any other year. From
the end of 19%6 until May 1, 19H8, 96 more locker plants be-
gan Operating. Figure h shows graphically the growth in Mich-
igan from 1937 to l9h8.

The 36 plants which were interviewed showed a growth
trend similar to the growth trend of all plants in the state.
Three percent Of the 36 plants Opened in 1938; eleven percent
began business in both 1939 and 19h0; no plants in the sample
Opened in l9hl; six percent Opened in l9h2; three percent
Opened in 19%3; eight percent opened in l9hh; fourteen per-
cent opened in 19%5; and forty-four percent Opened in 19#6
(Figure 5). It must be remembered that only those plants

4/0/06:
0f

to/an 7’3
.150
340
2 I
' I I
I50

/0

.50
0 6 //
0
mi? 38 15:9

Hat/25 4.

13

 

 

 

.32

   
  

2/ a9

 

140 ’4/ ’42 ’43 24 ’45 ’45 ’47 2463:
Years

626?er OF Locos-e FLA/U713 /U
M/CH/Gmu.

Mao/55,2 04/ 57% WA .3 r074 L Mart/5.56
04/ Decay/5542 3/ OF V542 Ava/CA 750.

x .45 OF MAV /, A948.

42

.76

30

£4

/6

/2

6

0

11+

 

percent
0f
P/on 7‘5

44

// //

   
 

     

3 3

0

0

A937 ’36 :19 2:0 ’4/ ’42 «’43 144 4.5 {as

ye 0/:5

fie [/25 5 K4642; AU WHICH 36 5.4 44ng P441175
5564/1/ 0/9584770/1/6‘.

/U /.946 FOE/'V-FOUE PEECEA/T
0/: THE 7H/27V-J/X SAMPLE
FLA/0715' 0.0510152? F06 gas/#555 .

15
which were in operation for the full calendar year 19%? were
included in this sample, so plants Opening in 19%? and 19MB
are not included.

Ownership. Generally speaking, the first locker plants
in Michigan were started as supplements to, or side lines of,
established small business enterprises. Owners of grocery
stores, creameries, produce plants, and meat markets added
locker facilities to their existing businesses, and in most
cases, these existing businesses were operated by single in-
dividuals as proprietorships. It appears only natural that
the first locker plants in the state were in the main Oper-
ated as proprietorships.

As the locker movement progressed, additional lockers
were added to the existing plants, and larger new plants were
built; consequently, the capital investments involved usually
were larger than single individuals could or were willing to
finance. The partnership, incorporated and cooperative type
of ownership thus came into the picture.

In.Michigan there was a rather close correlation between
type of ownership and size of plant. The smaller plants
were usually operated as proprietorships and the larger plants
were Operated as partnerships, cooperatives, or corporations.
Information was not available at one location so that the
type of ownership for all plants could be accurately deter-
mined. Results from the field work for this study showed
that #8 percent of the plants sampled were Operated as

16
prOprietorships, 37 percent as partnerships, 13 percent as
corporations, and 2 percent as cooperatives (Figure 6).

It is significant that only two percent of the locker
plants Operating in Michigan were cooperative. Recent studies
have shown that approximately 16 percent of the locker plants
Operating in eight Southeastern states were owned coopera-
tively; 1% percent of the plants in the North Central states
were owned cOOperatively; and 8 percent Of the plants in the
Western states were owned cooperatively. In the United States
in l9h6, 13 percent of all locker plants were owned cOOpera-
tively.

Cooperatives in Michigan were generally hesitant in enter-
ing this new industry. When the locker plant movement began
in Michigan, cooperatives were reluctant to enter the field.
Furthermore, as adjuncts to existing cooperatives, there was
less opportunity than in other states having a larger number
of creameries, cheese factories, and other cooperative busi-
nesses. Private investors, however, Jumped in and got an
early start in most communities.

investment. Over one-half of the locker plants in the
sample interviewed had an original investment of less than
$20,000 (Figure 7). The minimum investment per plant was
$2,500 and the maximum investment was $95,000. The average
investment in the plants interviewed was $32,630. There was
no direct correlation between size Of plant and original in-

‘vestment because of differences in the price level when plants

17

co OPE/6'4 7/1/55
3 92

 

PEOPE/ETOESH/ '

PARTUEEJH/P

46°
37% fl’

 

 

£76 025 6. 734%? OF OWA/EeJH/P 0F
LOCKEE FLA/U723.

AU MlCH/GAA/ A 1.44057 0115 -
HALF OF 7H5 LOCKER

PA Alt/75 WEEE OPEEA 750
AS pea/02 lEfOZSH/PJ‘.
THE coo/052.4 f/VE 77405 OF
own/5e5pr WAS V53 Y
5114 I. 1..

18

 

percent!

 

24
I6
/2

5

3
0 O O
/-/0 Z/fiO 4/ “50 6/- 70 8/-.90
//- 20 3/140 57-40 7 / -80 .9/-/00

/ 000 0 o/lons

£76025 7. 7237/41. 02/6 lA/AL M/t/ESH/IE/Uf -34
p4 Ali/715‘

//UFOQMA r/ox/ Fe 0M rwo Pl. ADA/715‘
WAJ‘ A/or AVAILABLE. 01/53, OAIE—HALF
0F 77/5 LOCKEE FLA/Ur oth/Ees
HAD 45.55 7HA/U 1290, 000 M/VES—
750 Ml THE/2 pt. 44/ r3.

19
were built, the types of building used, and the location of
the plant (rural or urban area). Some plants were built by
the owner's manual labor and some were built by commercial
contractors. The estimated total investment in the 375
locker plants was over $12,000,000.

The investment per locker ranged from a low Of $18.35
to a high of $100.00. One plant visited had an investment of
$176.67 per locker, but this figure was high because this
plant had an unusually large amount of refrigerated bulk stor-
age space. The average investment per locker in the plants
visited was $53.83 (Figure 8). Investment per locker fluc-
tuated in the same manner and for the same reasons as the
original investment.

Business Association. It was mentioned earlier that
most locker plants were run in conjunction with other busi-
nesses. In fact, only 19 percent of the plants sampled had
no other business association (Figure 9). Over one-half
(53 percent) of the locker plants visited were associated
with a meat market or a grocery store; 11 percent of the
locker plants sold-home freezers; 6 percent were operated
with ice plants; and 11 percent were associated with other
businesses. Other businesses include: cream buying stations;
ice cream Jobbing; restaurants; cheese factories; and retail-
ing of fresh and frozen fruits and meats.

Discussions with locker owners revealed several reasons

why they conducted other businesses with their locker plant.

Percent
of
9/0/7713 24

2/

/5

/5

IE

 

20

 

 

 

//-20 57-40 5/-60 7/-80

5730 40-50 6/- 70
00/ / 0/15“

8/—.90

9/400

/7/-/80 *

FIGURE 6. /M/E5 THE/UT FEE 1. OCKEQ — 34 .01. A U75.

//(/FO.QM/47'/OA/ FEOM 7W0 FAA/(I719 W45 U07

0874/4/50.

3K SOME FLA/U75 HAD A LAEGE AMOUA/TOF
QEFE/GEQA 7'50 50/46 5705.465 5,0,4c5

WH/CH MADE THE /A/l/ES‘7‘ME.(/f P52 LOCKER

OUT OF PEOPCAZT/OM

\

21

 

   

Geocze/Es 4/02 4/547 41464157 53

[OCKER PLANT OA/LV A9
SELL HOME FREEZERS

/CE pLAA/T

ll

   

OTHER BUS/MESS 3K

 

 

0 IO 20 30 40 50 60

percenf 0f R/an/s

flea/25 9. Ont/5e 5445/4/55: 0.0524 750 Mary
1.0a KER .04 44/7.-

xceE4M BUY/U6 37:4 7704/, ICE CREAM
JOSE/U6) RES r4 0244/)" 44/0 (245/ch
44/0 25 7:4 It I/UG 0/: 43202.50 rue/<5 V3
44/0 Fe 0254/ 5/. UeaEee/ES.

22
Several had added the locker business to their grocery busi-
ness because they felt the locker patrons would purchase more
groceries than they otherwise would, since they came to their
lockers frequently to take home stored frozen foods. The re-
verse situation was equally true. Several locker owners who
started with just a locker plant have added groceries as a
service to their locker patrons and a supplement to their
locker business. The addition Of other items for sale fol-
lowed the same reasoning. In about one-half Of the cases
the locker business was the major enterprise and the other
business was a supplement or minor business.

Sizes of Locker Plants. When data from the 257 eligible
plants were being analyzed in preparation for determining
the plants to be interviewed, it was found that 105 of them
had fewer than #01 lockers; 118 had between #00 and 751 lock-
ers; and 3% had over 750 lockers.

The smallest known locker plant in the state had 30
lockers and the largest plant had 3,500 lockers. The larg-
est plant which fell in the sample had 1,55H lockers and the
smallest had 60 lockers. The average number of lockers in
the sample was 573.

Two of the locker plants visited in the sample were self-
contained plants having 60 lockers each. These two plants
were operated in association with grocery stores and sat on
the floors in the two stores. These units were assembled

on location and required no separate or individual room; the

23
refrigeration was built into the unit. After they were as-
sembled, they were connected with the electric circuit and
the built-in refrigeration.unit started functioning. The
author learned that the owners of these two plants were in
quite a bit of trouble when the electric power went off for
a few hours.

Using the average number of lockers per plant found in
the sample (573) and the number of locker plants in business
as of May 1, 1948 (375), it was estimated that there were
approximately 215,000 lockers in the state at the time of
this writing. If these 215,000 lockers were filled twice
each year, approximately 85,000,000 pounds Of frozen foods
could be stored annually in the existing locker plants. These
statements indicate the present capacity for storing frozen
foods.

Only five of the thirty-six plants in the sample had
branch plants. The largest branch plant had 80% lockers and
was five miles from the main plant. The smallest branch plant
had 222 lockers and was eleven miles from the main plant.

This distance of eleven miles was the longest distance any
branch was from the main plant.

In.March, 19H8, when the sample plants were visited,
ninety-two percent of their lockers were rented. Eight Of
the thirty-six had all of their lockers rented; however, one
owner had only 50 percent of his lockers rented and two owners

had only 70 percent rented. These three owners had empty

2h
lockers principally because Of competitive conditions in their
locality.

Several of the locker plant owners stated that their per-
centage of lockers rented had fallen off in the last year.
They attributed this to the Opening Of new locker plants in
their locality and to the increasing use by families of home

freezers.

25
CHAPTER III
ANALYSIS OF SERVICES OFFERED

The processing services are the major services offered
by locker plants. These include chilling, aging, cutting,
wrapping, freezing, curing, smoking, grinding, rendering,
glazing, waxing, dressing, and drawing. Some plants offered
other services to their patrons and these included packing
fruits and vegetables, delivering frozen foods from the
locker to the patron's home, making sausages, and slaughter-
ing.

Mgatg. Six percent of the plants visited did not pro-
vide the major processing services for their locker patrons.
The only services these plants provided were sharp freezing
and storing. The other ninety-four percent rendered complete
or fairly complete services. All of the latter group pro-
vided for chilling, cutting, wrapping, and freezing Of meats.
Most of them provided an aging service. The locker plants
which did no cutting or wrapping were just cold storage
buildings with individual lockers provided.

The services just mentioned were generally grouped to—
gether and only one charge was made for the group. Results
from the field work showed variations in the rates charged.
The rates ranged from 2% to 5 cents per pound. Forty-four
percent charged 3 cents per pound (Table II), which was

most common. A comparison of charges was made between

26

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nomnuno waanmooonm

 

 

.nopnssv no use you smudge peak a van mumsan on» no mm amend \w
8” m m m a 5i
03 fl 3 mm m o mm 23 team
RR m m m i S m m 3 mm 838... 33 65.3—
RR m S S S m m 5.3 “SA
.Tlllllllll 1»!
Ram m m. 3 S m m E: 335—
Ram w m «N S m is 38—
84 e mm in am 6 NH 0 .38 83.4m—
ooa o S S i S S 03235 new: 53 .3201
«made:
a m a m a m a a a a a a
may m m... L: Mm m «m N f” H MOM mayhem
Ego fig eonmto
canon new mpaoo covsdoaH poz mooabpom
ooahnom

 

 

QJaH .Aonsz .admunoaz .mpndfim noxooq wm .mposbonm new:
and mpmoz do commune mooabnom you mownwno wnfimmooonm HO downsnanpman owapaoonom n HH manna

27
type-of-farming areas, size Of cities in which the plants
'were located, years when the plants Opened, and size of the
plants.é/ It was found that there were more variations within
the groups than there were between them.

When freezing only was considered, the variations in
rates charged were wide. Six percent Of the plants did not
do custom freezing; six percent did do custom freezing but
they charged the same for freezing as they did for chilling,
cutting, wrapping, and freezing; six percent charged % cent
or less per pound; thirty-seven percent charged 1 cent; four-
teen percent charged‘lé cents; twenty-five percent charged 2
cents; and six percent charged 3 cents per pound (Table II).
One cent per pound was the most common charge for freezing
meats.

Only fifty-six percent of the plants visited cured meats.
Thirty-nine percent charged either 2% or 3 cents per pound for
curing. The most common charge was 3 cents per pound. Cur-
ing and smoking were usually done together. Fifty-six percent
smoked meat.‘ The range of charges for smoking was wider than
that for curing; however, the most common charge was also 3
cents per pound. ‘

Two cents per pound was the most common charge for grind-
ing meat. The charges varied from 1 to 3 cents and some

plants included this charge with other services.

 

6/

Statistical F-tests were run.

28

Thirty-two percent of the plants visited did not make
sausage and eleven percent did not levy a separate charge for
making sausage. The charges ranged from 1 to 5 cents per
pound, and the most common charge was two cents per pound.

Only sixty-two percent of the plants rendered lard. Six
percent of the plants included the charge for rendering lard
with other services. The most common charge was 3 cents per
pound on seventy percent of the green weight of the fat.2/ .

A new processing service in the frozen food locker busi-
ness was waxing. .Only nine percent of the plants in the sam-
ple had begun waxing. The average charge for this service
was 3% cents per pound.

It is evident from the above discussion that many pos-
sibilities existed for providing more complete services on
meats for locker patrons. By providing more, the locker plants
could not only better satisfy their customers, but they could
also supplement their income, especially by the addition of
curing and smoking equipment.

Poultry. Sixty-three percent of the plants sampled did
not dress and draw chickens (Table III). Sixty-seven percent
2/ Locker plants used several systems of charging for render-
ing lard. Some plants took a percentage of the lard. Some
charged a definite rate per pound on each 70 pounds of lard
from each 100 pounds of fat, and if more than 70 pounds of lard
were rendered from the 100 pounds Of fat, the locker plant kept
this. Some plants charged on the basis of the green weight of
the fat and returned all lard to the patron. The majority Of
the plants charged on the basis of 70 pounds of lard from each

100 pounds of fat. The rates from all plants were adjusted and
given in Table II on this basis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00H m w m: HH m mm and“ ouoonn was man:—
OOH m :m mhcxusp ouoonu and Nas—
ooa w :m manOHno enough and Na:—
ooa ma :H o m m Hm 4H dd mhcxnsp muoonm use gauz—
oo.n m w :m m m m an HH .3 maoxoano 33.5 was man:—
ooa m m m m Ha m m we whoxnsp sand and awake
00H m 0 Ha m m m mo msox0fino sane and among
Panels REFEREE? Ila!
Smog ammo“ 913mm ommm 8.3 gm m s m m T
UHHm H0“ @9300 Uflfibm Hmm mgnOO UOMMMHO mmofiphwm
ooabnom
nomndno wqammmoonm

 

 

meH .nonu: .nstnOfiz .muqaaa noxoon om .uposeonm mean and
hnpanom no venouuo movabnmm you newuwno wafimmooonm no soapsnfinpmfin omspaoonom a HHH canes

30
did not dress and draw turkeys. For the thirty-seven percent
of the plants which did dress and draw chickens, 20 cents per
bird was the most common charge; however, the charges ranged
from 5 cents to 35 cents per bird. The range of charges for
turkeys was much wider. Three percent charged 5 cents per
bird, and three percent charged over 50 cents per bird. Sev-
eral locker plants' managers admitted that they disliked
dressing and drawing poultry and that they either flatly
refused to do that type of work or that they charged an un-
usually high fee for performing the service.

There were two methods of levying service charges for
wrapping and freezing poultry; namely, by the pound and by
the bird. Eleven percent of the plants did not wrap and freeze
poultry. About half of all the plants sampled charged by the
pound. For wrapping and freezing both chickens and turkeys,
three cents per pound was the most common charge. Ten cents
per chicken was the most common charge on the bird basis.
Twenty-five cents per turkey was the most common charge for
this type poultry.

Only six percent of the plants froze and waxed chickens
and turkeys. This six percent charged three cents a pound for
the service.

Eigh. The most common charge for wrapping and freezing
fish was 3 cents per pound (Table III). Here again many lock-
er plant managers stated that they disliked handling fish in

their processing room. Twenty-two percent did not process

31
fish. One locker owner charged 3 cents a pound for process-
ing fish. He added a 10 cent charge for each package and
had a one dollar minimum for each mess of fish brought to
his plant. In this way he discouraged the practice Of hav-
ing two or three small fish brought in for processing.

Fruits and Vegetables. Locker plants used two methods
of charging for the freezing of fruits and vegetables. One
was by the container, either quart or pint, and the other
was by the pound. In the plants sampled, the most common
charge was 2 cents per pound. Some plants charged as high
as 5 cents per quart and others charged 3 cents per pound.

ghgggesgin Processing Charges. Seventy-two percent of
the plants in the sample made no changes in their rates for
processing services during the calendar year 19%7. Many
plant managers who did not change their rates in 19%? stated
that they had raised their rates in the latter part of l9k6
when O.P.A. was ended. Eleven percent raised the rate for
chilling, cutting, and wrapping meat % cent per pound.
Eleven percent raised the rate for this same group of serv-
ices 1 cent per pound. Three percent of the plants raised
the rate for these services 1% cents per pound. Six percent
of the plants raised their rates for processing poultry and
for fish.

Delivering Stored Frozen Foods. Six percent of the
locker plants in the sample delivered frozen foods from the

patron's locker to his home. The plants in this group also

32
ran grocery stores and delivered groceries. When a locker
patron called in an order for groceries, he told the manager
to include some packages from his locker. NO charge was
made for this service. Other locker operators talked of
starting this, so it will probably increase in the future.

It appears to be one of the many little ways of increasing
business and satisfying customers.

Conclusions. Many locker plants do not Offer complete
processing services because they dislike doing certain types
of jobs. It is the writer's Opinion that competition will
force them to perform these services when economic conditions
become stabilized and a greater number of locker plants are
operating. If more services were provided, locker patrons
could be served more completely, the labor force could be
better and more evenly utilized, and income could be increased.

33
CHAPTER IV

LOCKER RENTAL RATES IN 19%?

Arrangement of Lockerg. In the typical locker plant
the individual lockers were arranged in rows, and the lockers
were five tiers high in each row. The bottom three tiers of
lockers were drawer-type lockers, and the two top tiers were
door-type lockers. There were many variations from this stan-
dard set-up, and most locker owners adapted the number of
tiers of lockers to the height of the storage room, as many
locker plants were being operated in buildings built for
other purposes. Locker plants were visited which had lockers
four tiers high and others had lockers nine tiers high. The
number of tiers of drawers and of doors varied widely from
all doors to all drawers.

In most plants the drawer-type lockers formed the bot-
tom tiers, and the door-type lockers comprised the top tiers.
Door-type lockers were more difficult to use than drawer-
type lockers. The drawer type lockers could be pulled out
and the locker patron could easily sort through his packages
and locate different cuts or cartons. To get a package in
the back of a door-type locker most of the packages in front
had to be first removed. And since the door-type lockers
were usually placed at the top of the tiers of lockers, a
step ladder was necessary in most plants to use these lockers.

Description Of the Most Common Locker. The standard

frozen food locker was about six cubic feet in size. This

3H
six-foot locker was 30 inches long, 2% inches wide, and 16
inches high. It held slightly over 200 pounds of frozen food.
The standard lockers were made of metal.

There were many variations from the standard locker. The
type Of material used in constructing the lockers varied as
did the size. Several plants had home-made lockers built of
ply-wood or wire-mesh which held from 1/3 to 1% times as much
frozen food as the standard lockers.

Rental Rates. Because of their location and the accessi-
bility of the packages, drawer-type lockers most generally
rented for more money per year than did the door-type lockers.
In the thirty-six plants which were visited the rental rates
for drawer-type lockers varied from $10.60 to $25.50 per
year (Figure 10). Two-thirds of the plants charged from
$1h.00 to $17.00 annually for the drawer-type lockers. The
lockers renting for over $20.00 were in the small, self-
contained plants mentioned earlier. _

In the plants sampled, the door-type lockers rented
from $9.00 to $23.50 per year. Thirty-seven percent of the
plants charged between $12.00 and $13.00 per year. This was
the most common charge, but the charges varied widely (Fig-
ure 11). In most plants door-type lockers rented from two
to three dollars less than the drawer-type lockers.

Locker Insurance. Sixty-four percent of the plants in
the sample had their locker patrons pay for insurance to

cover their stored frozen foods. About twenty percent had

35

"OWN M. UO .w munxkk ..\S TWO WON. N RM)
WW0. Owe. .VVOQ \VNWK >003sz OK. DAMWK TOOK SCOT
.QWOQSTU .Okblxwox Winn 1&0 RQWOQWO. NBSKQCKSW
.OQWMOOQ anxhn (\S TQQ NOE. ,0qu WW QVKRWW. .Q\ WWQOQ

(«Omm KTQx .OKO\\OQ

QnuumN W\uk\ W\|.h.\ V\IM.\
DOWNQWU VNJNW

. \NnQoU Q\.. Q\ \\..W\ h<st
I 4 O " O

m: m.

MVJN<

 

,N

    

 

0m.

n. §O\ . .
\ \OQx
VQOEOQ

Retreat

42

.36

30

/8

IE

6

O

P/an/J

   

O

  

36

   

3

      

49-9 /o —/I 42-49 /4-/5 l6 —/7 55—24

9-!0

£70025 //

//-/e 0-“ xs—Ie
Deflans per year

254/74 4 54 755 555 00 05 - 7 >495
LOG/€523.

50ME FLA/(I715 0/0/1107 HAVE DOOQ-

.7 VPE LOCKERS.

THIRT Y -6' E l/EA/ PERCEl/f' OF THE PEA/U723
l/AV/UG DOOR-TVPE LOCKERS CHIRGED
FROM 7WELl/E 7'0 TH/RTEEA/ DOLLARS,

37
the frozen food insured, and the insurance was added to the
locker rentals without the patrons' knowledge. The average
charge the patrons paid for locker insurance was 68.% cents
per locker per year. The minimum charge was 50 cents and
the maximum charge was $1.00 per locker per year.

Change in Rates. Eighty-two percent of the locker plants
visited did not change their rental rates in l9h7. Six per-
cent raised the rental rates on all lockers one dollar per
year. Six percent lowered the rental rates on either all
lockers or some tiers of lockers one dollar per year.

Over-flow Lockers. Most plants had over-flow lockers
which patrons rented for short periods of time when they
had frozen foods which could not be placed in their lockers.
These over-flow lockers were usually rented by the month,
and the product of the monthly rate multiplied by twelve
usually was two to three dollars more than the annual rate
for comparable lockers.

The One-Charge Plants. A few plants had started levy-
ing a flat charge to cover the annual locker rent and all
processing for one year. For those patrons who used their
lockers regularly and placed frozen food in their lockers
almost every month this system worked out fine; but for those
patrons who did not use their lockers much this system was
expensive. In l9k7 one locker plant charged a flat fee of
$32.00 for drawer-type lockers and $28.00 for door-type

lockers. These rates included the rental and processing

38
rates for the year, and processing charges were to average
$20.00. If processing had averaged $20.00, the drawers
would have cost $12.00 and the doors $8.00 each. The actual
average processing cost per locker patron was around $11.50.
This means that the drawers actually averaged $20.50 for
the year and the doors averaged $16.50. Since these figures
are averages, some patrons actually paid more than this for
their lockers. If this system is used, the patron should
sit down and figure out, before he rents a locker, just how
much processing he plans to have done.

Conclusions. The ordinary locker had six cubic feet of
space and held about 200 pounds of frozen foods. The drawer-
type lockers were usually placed nearer the floor than the
door-type lockers. The drawer—type lockers were more easily
accessible and generally rented from two to three dollars
more per year than the door-type lockers.

In the 36 sample plants which were visited the most
common annual rental rate for drawer lockers was between
$15.00 and $16.00. The most common charge for door-type
lockers per year was $12.00 to $13.00. Only eighteen per-
cent Of the locker plants visited changed their rental rates
in the calendar year 19%7.

Some locker plants charge a flat fee which covered the
annual locker rental and processing charges. Locker patrons
should predetermine how much they plan to use their locker

before renting lockers in these plants.

39
CHAPTER V
SOURCE OF MEAT STORED IN LOCKERS AND SLAUGHTERING DATA

Eleven percent Of the locker plants visited bought live-
stock, slaughtered it or had it slaughtered, and sold the
meat. Only six percent of all locker plants had their own
slaughter houses. The livestock was bought mainly from local
farmers; however, some was bought from local livestock dealers
and from local auction markets. Three percent of the plants
did on-the-farm slaughtering.

In previous locker studies in other states it was found
that two-thirds or more of the locker patrons were rural peo-
ple. These rural people generally raised and slaughtered
their own meat; however, on-the-farm butchering was decreas-
ing. The estimated one-third of the locker patrons living
in urban areas had to purchase their meat from the locker
plant or elsewhere.

Resale of Meats at Wholesale Prices. Eighty-nine per-
cent of the locker plants bought wholesale meats and resold
them to their locker patrons at the wholesale price plus a
small markdup. The usual mark-up for handling these meats
was 2 or 2% cents per pound. Forty-seven percent Of the
plants charged from 2 to 3 cents per pound for handling the
meat (Figure 12). There was no normal curve of brokerage
charges. Six percent of the plants handled the meat without
charging a markaup, while three percent of the plants charged

25% over cost.

Rf rec/It
0f
‘_ Hon 7‘s

 

* W la? 8’3 3'4 4-5 5-6 6—7 T’EMDK!
MAM-(JP

Cenr‘s per pound

Hat/725 /8. 1445/0079 04/ WHOLEJALE M547
34LES,”‘"

X ELEVEN PERCENT OF THE PLAUTS
D/D NOT SELL MEAT AT WHOLE“
SALE,

** THE HLAA/TJ‘ WH/CH CHARGED 7 T0
9 CEA/TxS' PER ROU/t/D BROKER/465
//AA/DLED OA/LV H/A/D QUARTERS
0F BEER

XXX! ELEVEN RERCE/l/T OF THE PLAT/725‘
WERE A/CT //(/CLUOED //1/ THE
F/GL/RE (SVA/CE THEV COMPUTED
THE/R 44455-510 AS .4 PERCENTAGE
OF CTOxS‘7.~

Ml

Locker plant managers reported that prime, choice, good,
and common meat was bought for the locker renters. The an-
swers they gave were not reliable enough to present a percent-
age breakdown. One manager was telling of his ability to
Judge meats and name the correct government grade. He pointed
to a side of beef and said, "That's a good side of beef. It
would grade commercial choice." The writer thought it was
a low commercial.

Location of Slaughtering Facilities. Only six percent
of the locker plants had slaughtering facilities. Where
were the animals slaughtered? When the field work was done
for this study, the locker plant managers were asked to es-
timate the approximate percentage of livestock slaughtered
for locker storage by farmers, custom slaughterers, and locker
plants. Results from these estimates show that for cattle:
48 percent were slaughtered by farmers; #7 percent were
slaughtered by custom slaughterers; and 5 percent were
slaughtered by locker plants. Estimates for calves showed:
56 percent were slaughtered by farmers; Ml percent were
slaughtered by custom slaughterers; and 3 percent were
slaughtered by locker plants. For hogs: #6 percent were
slaughtered by farmers; 51 percent by custom slaughterers;
and 3 percent by locker plants. For sheep and lambs: #7
percent were slaughtered by farmers; #7 percent were slaughtered
by custom slaughterers; and 6 percent were slaughtered by

locker plants.

42

All locker plant managers stated that very little lamb
or mutton was stored. This was easily understood when one
remembered that the average.annual per capita consumption
was only about seven pounds and that the eastern and far
western states lead in lamb and mutton consumption.

Source of Livestock. The locker plants which sold meat
to their locker patrons and users of home freezers obtained
it mainly from two sources. Local farmers supplied some of
it and meat packers furnished most of the rest. Some was
bought from string butchers and local meat markets, but very
little. Fifty-five percent of the plants reported that all
meat that they resold at wholesale was purchased from meat
packers; twenty-two percent stated that they bought meat
from both meat packers and local farmers; six percent ob-
tained all of their meat from local farmers; six percent
bought meat from all four sources mentioned above; and eleven
percent sold no meat at wholesale. When it was stated that
the plants bought from both local farmers and meat packers,
usually the beef was obtained from the packers and the pork
and poultry was gotten from local farmers.

Many custom slaughterers began operations during World
War II. Some began in properly equipped buildings and others
began in converted barns and sheds. Generally speaking, much
meat was slaughtered under conditions which were not sanitary.
Locker plants would be doing a service to their community if '
they installed sanitary slaughtering facilities so they could

slaughter for their locker patrons and also do custom work.

H3

glaughteriggCharges. It was found that slaughtering
charges varied greatly. Some custom slaughterers charged
one dollar and the hide for slaughtering cattle. PeOple who
permitted this, when hides were sixteen to twenty cents per
pound, were paying a very high price for having their work
done. The six percent of the plants having slaughtering facili-
ties charged similar prices. They took the hides for slaught-
ering cattle and calves, one cent per pound for butchering
hogs, and the pelt and fifty cents or $1.50 for slaughtering
sheep and lambs. Plants which had no slaughtering facilities
were asked how much custom slaughterers charged. Over fifty
percent stated they did not know. In the group that did know
over one-half said the hide was taken for slaughtering cattle
and calves; and the rest said the charge for cattle ranged
from $2.25 to $7.00 per head; calves cost from $1.00 to $3.00
per head. The average charge for butchering hogs was two cents
per pound with a $3.00 minimum charge, but charges ranged from
one cent per pound to a flat $5.00 charge. Three percent of
the plants in the sample of thirty-six did on-the-farm slaugh-
tering. Their charges were: $3.50 for cattle; $2.00 to $3.00
for hogs; and they had no set charge for sheep and lambs be-
cause they had never been asked to slaughter any.

The plant which did the most slaughtering slaughtered
306 head of hogs, 96 head of cattle, 10 head of sheep, and
10 head of calves in 19%7.

Ln,

In Michigan locker plants must store hides and pelts
in a building which is not a part of the locker plant. Be-
cause of this requirement, the small profit involved, and
the character of hides fifty-eight percent of the plants
sampled did not buy hides.

Over one-half of the plants sampled in the state sold
bones, suet, and by-products to one rendering company. In
areas which have several locker plants a cooperative render-
ing company to use the by-products from the cutting rooms of
these plants might well be established.

Economic Aspects. The meat packing industry is the third
largest industry in the United States in plant value of prod-
ucts. It operates on a very small margin, and the price of
the meat it sells at wholesale is only slightly above the
cost of the meat in the form of livestock because of the
large volume of meat handled and the complete use of by-
products.

By-products from animals slaughtered by farmers and cus-
tom slaughterers generally are not used, because a large num-
ber of animals is required to get a sufficient volume of by-
products to make their use worth while.

On the surface the question might well be asked why the
large meat packers should not handle all of the nation's meat.
For many years they handled most of it, and their plants were
established in large cities in the midwest. Competition from

smaller packers caused a decentralization, and this decen-

‘+5
tralization movement is still in progress. It appears that
the locker plant movement is causing further decentralization,
and rising transportation costs may make this further decen-
tralization advisable.

From the standpoint of meat storage, the development of
the locker plants over the United States is very important.
Using locker plant facilities, farmers can slaughter and
have their meat processed in the summer months as well as
in the customary winter months. In the past farmers have
slaughtered hogs during the winter months and have home-
cured the pork for use during the rest of the year. There
was considerable waste to this system, as the meat often
spoiled around the bone or got too salty to be palatable.

A beef was usually slaughtered and fresh meat was eaten for
a time, and the rest was canned for use during the warm
months. Fresh beef during the summer had to be purchased
from retail meat markets. During the summer the livestock
producer had to buy fresh meat from the retail meat market
and pay for all the services and margins involved.

When a livestock producer sends his livestock to market
he has to pay transportation costs, insurance, yardage fees,
and commission fees. If he buys meat in a retail meat mar-
ket which came from his own livestock, he would pay a price
which included the above charges plus the packer's small
margin, more transportation costs, and the wholesaler's and

retailer's margins. Maybe placing meat from his own livestock

#6
into a locker would be cheaper than sending his livestock
to market and buying meat in the retail butcher shop. Many
people get satisfaction from knowing the source of the meat
they eat.

Many agencies today are devoting much time and effort
to consumer education. Housewives are being taught the many
different grades of food products, how to prepare and use
frozen foods, how to determine a product's quality, etc.
Locker plants are helping in this program with information
on the freezing and use of meats, fruits, and vegetables.
They are stressing that freezing a product does not enhance
its quality. If a product is to have a high quality when
it comes out, it must be a high quality product when it is
put in the locker. Because of this, today's families are
becoming more quality conscious.

Many urban residents are renting lockers. They own a
farm, know a farmer, or have connections so that they can ob-
tain produce from the farm or at wholesale prices. By buying
at wholesale they have more purchasing power with which to
buy other goods, and they are usually getting and eating a
high quality product.

The economy as a whole stands to benefit from the de-
velopment of locker plants. Everyone should be alert for
changes which may come. Our pOpulation is expanding and
people are eating more meat. Many will rent lockers and

many will continue buying their meat at the corner meat

l+7

market. It will take time for locker plants to sell some
people on frozen foods and to develop local sanitary slaugh-
tering facilities. Locker plants should consider cooperating
in some way in utilizing the valuable by-products. Some
butchers may have to move to the locker plant or start a
plant of their own. Some peOple may have to change their
jobs and some may have to shift to other types of work.

Conclusions. Six percent of the locker plants in the
sample had their own slaughtering facilities. Eleven percent
of the locker plants bought live animals, slaughtered them
or had them slaughtered, and sold the meat at wholesale to
locker patrons or home freezer users. Local farmers and local
livestock auctions furnish most of the animals to the locker
plants.

On-the-farm slaughtering was decreasing and custom slaugh-
tering was increasing. The locker Operators stated that much
of the slaughtering done by custom slaughterers was done in
'unsanitary buildings. Locker plants should investigate the
possibilities of offering sanitary slaughtering facilities
to their communities.

Eighty-nine percent of the locker plants in the sample
sold meat at wholesale, plus a small handling charge, to
locker patrons and users of home freezers. The normal mark-
up was two to three cents per pound. Meat packers furnished

most of the meat to these plants.

H8

One rendering company in Michigan bought the by-products
from over one-half of the locker plants which were visited.
The big meat packers derive a large income from the use of
by-products, and it seems that locker plants should consider
the possibility of disposing of their by-products coopera-
tively.

Slaughtering charges varied considerably from plant to
plant. Custom slaughterers and locker plants have charged
what the traffic would bear; consequently, locker patrons
in 19%? often paid as high as $15.00 for having a steer
slaughtered. Everyone having livestock slaughtered should
learn what hides, pelts, heads, livers, etc., are worth be-
fore consenting to let the slaughterer have them to pay for

his service.

‘9
CHAPTER VI
SALES OF MEAT AND FROZEN FOODS AT RETAIL

Sales 9£_Meat at Retail. It has been mentioned pre-
viously that over one-half of the locker plants in the sam-
ple sold groceries and meats at retail. A retail meat trade
worked out well in most locker plant Operations. Locker
patrons many times found that they did not have the kind
of meat in their lockers that they wanted and they then
bought it at the locker plant. A frozen food box in the
locker plant also offered the locker patron frozen foods
to supplement the food he had stored in his locker, and it
provided the locker plant owner with an additional source
of income.

Fifty-five percent of the thirty-six plants in the rep-
resentative random sample sold meats at retail. Sixty-one
percent sold frozen foods at retail. The volumes of meats
and frozen foods sold at retail varied as did the size of the
plants and the volumes of processing.

In the group of locker plants which sold meats at retail,
Table IV shows the average amounts of meats sold and the re-
spective average markaup.

Estimates Were Used. The averages given in Table IV
were computed from estimates given by the plant managers. A
very small percentage of the locker plants kept records and

knew, in an itemized way, exactly how much income was received

50

Table IV - Average Number of Pounds of Fresh Meats Sold at
Retail and the Average Percentage Mark-up in Mich-
igan's Frozen Food Locker Plants in 19%?

 

 

Kind °f Meat Quafigfigggoid percefi‘éiéigfiarmp
(pounds) (percent)
Beef 46,908 22
Veal h,lh6 2%
Pork 18,928 22
Lamb and Mutton 1,258 23
Pork Sausages 2,0h5 2%
Bacon 3ah51 23
Cold Cuts 12,626 27

 

from their various services and how much was paid for each
group of expenses. It appeared that the lack of itemized
bookkeeping was one of the weaknesses of the present organi-
zation of most of the locker plants in Michigan. Many plant
owners and managers said as long as receipts were so much

above expenses they did not worry how much each service brought
in or cost.

Pounds of Meat Sold at Retail. It has been mentioned that
the amounts of meat sold at retail varied greatly. The amount
of beef sold varied from a low of 6,000 pounds to a high of
200,000 pounds. The percentage mark-up varied from 10 to 30
percent. The amount of veal sold ranged from 1,000 pounds to

12,000 pounds. The mark-up on veal ranged between 20 and 30

51
percent. The amount of pork sausages sold ranged from 200
to 10,000 pounds, and the mark-up from 20 to 30 percent. The
amount of bacon sold varied from 500 to 12,000 pounds and
the mark-up from 17 to 30 percent. The quantities of cold
cuts sold varied from 50 to 75,000 pounds, and the markaup
from 20 to 33 l/3 percent.

Lowered Mark-up. Many of the locker plant operators,
who had sold meats at retail for years, reported that they
could not use their old standard mark-ups in 19%7. They said
in previous years they always marked up beef cuts a certain
percentage and bacon another definite percentage. In 19H7
the cost of food and meat caused them to use a lower mark-up
which would move their meats.

The locker plants which sold frozen foods started sell-
ing them mainly in 1947. Some plants sold them before this,
but 19%? seemed to be the year when most of the plants began.
The mark-ups on frozen foods ranged from 20 to 30 percent.
Some plants added 10 cents per pound to the cost price.

Several locker operators stated that they had entered
the locker business so that more customers could be drawn
into their established store and purchase more groceries and
meats. Other operators said they added groceries and meats
to their locker business for similar reasons. At the time
the field work was being done the locker operators were asked
the approximate percentage of retail meat sales made to lock-

er renters. Results from this question showed that on the

52
average 38 percent of the meat sold at retail was sold to
locker renters. This percentage varied from 10 to 90 percent
of retail meats being sold to locker renters.

Frozen Foods in the Future. A bright future seems to
loom for the handling of frozen foods by the locker plants.
They can either process and freeze foods for sale, or they
can handle frozen foods prepared by other firms. Some locker
plants could become community warehouses for large frozen
food companies.

When the field work for this study was being done, a
locker plant was visited which had developed a huge frozen
food business. The owners of the locker plant also owned
a blueberry farm and a turkey farm. Both blueberries and
turkeys were processed at the plant, frozen, and sold at re-
tail. Locker plants should think about supplementing their
present business with a phase of this sure-to-come frozen
food business.

Conclusions. Over one-half of the locker plants sold
groceries and meats at retail. These businesses worked in
well with the locker business. One supplemented the other.
Sixty-one percent of the locker plants sold frozen foods at
retail. The frozen food business also worked in well.

The plants that sold meat at retail in 19%? said they
had to abandon their old standards when marking up meats.
High meat prices caused them to adjust the mark-up downward

so that the meat would sell.

53

Some locker plants have started processing, freezing,
and selling frozen foods. Doing this stabilized the work
load for plant employees and should supplement the plant
income. Locker plants should watch developments in the

frozen food field and be prepared to enter it further.

CHAPTER VII
POUNDS FOOD PRODUCTS PROCESSED IN 1947

Processing volumes varied from plant to plant. Beef,
pork, veal, lamb, and mutton were the food products which
constituted the largest volume processed in most plants.
Averages showed that these red meats made up two-thirds of
the total processing volumes.

Red Meats. In nearly all locker plants the managers
estimated that they processed more beef than they did pork.
Here again the lack Of sufficient records kept by locker
plants prohibited one from determining exactly how many
pounds were actually processed. The volume of meats proc-
essed per locker plant differed from plant to plant because
of size of plant, location, aggressiveness of plant manager
and other reasons. Table V shows how the volume of beef
processed per plant varied.

Of more value for comparisons is Figure 13 which shows
the pounds of beef processed per locker. As the figure
shows, 37 percent of the plants processed between 100 and
1H9 pounds Of beef per locker per year. The average number
of pounds Of beef processed per locker in l9h7 for all
plants in the sample was 138 pounds.

It has been mentioned that very little veal was placed
in frozen food lockers. From the estimates of the locker
Operators, a smaller amount of veal was placed in lockers

in 19%? than previously. Probably the reason for this was

55

Ebrcer/f
0%
10/0/7/5
36

30

/3

I33

 

0
”04/5 i .50 «9.9 /50- 9.9 850-299
I- 4.9 IOO-IJQ 200-249

Pounds per Iocker

FIGURE A9. pOC/A/DJ 0F BEEF
PROCESSED PEA: 40C (.542 ——

32 PIA/{I719

it 5/A’ PELZ’CE/l/T OFT/IE
9441/71? 0/0 U07" HAVE
PROCESS/U6 FACILITIES

FOUQ FAA/(I713 DID NOT
GIVE E57'IM47’ES.

THE A VEEA GE vac/7552
OF Poo/um 0/: BEEF
PEOCESS 50 FEB 4 OCKEQ
was“. I36.

56

Table V - Beef Processed per Plant in Michigan in l9h7,
Frequency Distribution

 

 

 

Amount Of Beef : Plants
(pounds7 . (percent?
None 6
l - 19,999 16
20,000 - 39.999 1”
n0,000 - 59.999 1%
60.000 - 79.999 16
80,000 - 99.999 6
100,000 - 119.999 6
120,000 - 139.999 11
1n0,000 — 159.999 8
Total 100%

Table VI - Veal Processed per Plant in Michigan in 19%7,
Frequency Distribution

 

 

Amount Of Veal : Plants
(poundsy' . (percent)
None 6
1 - H99 27
500 - 999 6
1,000 - 1,H99 16
1,500 - 1,999 11
2,000 - 2,099 1%
2,500 - 2.999 8
3:000 - &:”99 3
Over , 000 9

 

Total 100%

 

57
the high prices of veal calves on the livestock markets in

19%7. Table VI shows how the poundage of veal processed per
plant ranged from zero to over 10,000 pounds.

Figure 1% shows the pounds of veal processed per locker
in 1907. The plants in the sample which did no processing
are grouped with plants which processed no veal in 1997.
Figure 1% shows that there was no similarity Of veal to
beef in volume processed. The average number Of pounds of
veal processed per locker was 3.3 pounds. The high was 9
pounds per locker and the low was zero.

I The volume of pork processed in 19%? was lower than
that of beef. There were variations in the amounts proc—
essed as there were for beef and veal. Table VII shows

how the poundage of pork processed per plant varied.

Table VII - Pork Processed per Plant in Michigan in 1997,
Frequency Distribution

 

 

Amount Of Pork : Plants
TTTpoundSY— . (percent?

None 6
l - 199999 30
20,000 - 39.999 22
90.000 - 59.999 27
60,000 - 79.999 3
80,000 - 99,999 3
100,000 - 1199999 0
120,000 - 139.999 6
190,000 - 159,999 3

Total 100%

58

/‘?:/S(e/7 6'
o
20 P/an /5

I6

I2

 

Pea/7045' per /0c:/<5r

96025 /4. I90 04/0 05 V5.4 L peoc55550 P52
zoo/:52 - 35 .04 ,44/ 75.

551/5344 .01. xix/75 0/0 U07 peoc5ss‘
AUV V544, 44/0 /7 WAS 55.00.2750
er 7H5 6705.465 05 V544 WAS
51/744452 //l/ /947 VHAU 0.50.44.
THE PE/CE 05 V5.4 L CAI. {/55 W45
H/GH M/ 5047 xix/0 TH/S FACT .050—
5,4 51. V .455 OI/A/ 75 Foe 7H5 515441.

AMOC/A/f $70250

59

Figure 15 shows the percent Of plants which processed
various amounts of pork per locker. The average number of
pounds Of pork processed per locker in 1997 was 77 pounds.
The high volume was 20% pounds per locker and the low was 3
pounds per locker.

Locker plant managers reported that there was almost
three times as much veal stored as lamb and mutton. Sixty-
four percent of the plants processed less than 500 pounds Of
lamb and mutton. On a per locker basis only tenths of pounds
were sometimes reported.

Six percent Of the plants processed over 6,000 pounds
Of lamb, but on a per locker basis only 5.5 pounds were proc-
essed. These data confirm once more that very little lamb
and mutton is consumed in the mid-west when compared to
beef and pork. The volume processed per locker ranged from
a high of 7 pounds to zero. The average poundage of lamb
and mutton processed per locker was 1.3 pounds (Figure 16).

Fish and Game. The volume of fish and game processed
in 19h7 was almost twice as large as the volume Of mutton,
lamb, and veal combined. Game made up most of the poundage
Of fish and game, and venison constituted the largest vol-
ume Of the game meats.

There were many plants which processed over 50 bucks
in 1997. The largest number of bucks processed by one plant
in the sample was 256. Although it was not possible to

determine exactly the average number of deer processed, it

6O

Page/7t
)0/0/71‘5
.90

 

24

I6

I23

I - a4 50- 74 I00 424 I50 —/ 74 800'224
‘ 2.5-4.9 75.99 IZ5-I49 I75- I99

Pout/05 P542 Locz5e

F26 [/55 I5. Po 0.1/0.3 05 P025. Peoc 5.51350
P52 40c K536 - 35 PI. AIM/'3.

THE AVERAGE MUMEEE 0F
POUNDS 0E PORK PEOCEJSED
PEE LOCKER W45 77.

61

Per-c nt
0
plan 7'3

 

I6

IE

W5! [04.9 30-39 5.0-5.9 20- 2.9
QI-O. 9 2.0-2.9 40- 4.9 609619

Pounds per Iocker

£76025 /6. Poem/0.3 05 z. 4.0/5 44/0 Marrou
Peoc 55520P52 4 00:52 —
35 Pl. .441 75.

-X SIX PEECEl/f OF THE FLA/(I725 DID
NOT HAVE EEOCEJ‘S/A/G EAC/L/f/E.S'_

77/5 41/524 GE NUMBER 05 POI/U05
P52 Loo/<52 W45 za.

62
is estimated that 50 bucks would be fairly close. The field
work indicated that over ten times as much deer as fish were
processed.

Table VIII shows a breakdown of the volume of fish and
game processed in the sample plants in 1907. It has been
mentioned that many locker managers did not like to process
fish. About as many managers disliked processing deer.

Some plants charged on the per head basis, and $5.00 per
head was the modal charge.

Table VIII - Fish and Game Processed per Plant in Michigan
in 1997, Frequency Distribution

 

 

 

Amount of Fish and Game : Plants
(pounds) . (percent)
None 6
l - H99 8
500 - 999 1%
1.000 - ”.999 39
59000 " 99999 19
10,000 -1h,999 8
15.000 -19.999 3
Over 20,000 3
Total 100%

 

Figure 17 shows the pounds of fish and game processed
on a per locker basis. The average number of pounds proc-
essed per locker was 8.h pounds.

Coating meats with liquid wax,which hardens and forms

a protective covering, has been mentioned. Some plants had

63

 

-— / - - — 4
ME 04 5_3 out/51950 2425_2930 3

Pound: per @5255

FIGUB 5 / .7 pct/.005 05 FISH ,44/0 GAME

PEOCEfi‘é'ED p52 LOCKEQ—
32 [OLA/V723.

77/E NUMBER (4VEEAGE) 0F
POOL/0.5 EEOCESSED PER
LOCKEE WAS 8.4. 7HEEE WAS
APPVEOXIMATEL)’ TE/(I TIME?

MOCE VE/UISO/V THA/l/ FISH
PROCESSEO.

61+
begun using wax on fish and reported it worked very well.
The use of wax was relatively new, and many experiments
needed to be run. It was felt that more and more plants
will use wax in the future.

Poultry. Only 22 percent of the plants in the sample
dressed and eviscerated poultry. The Older housewife was
never confronted with the task of preparing from two to
three dozen broilers for a frozen food locker. She probably
had to dress from two to four chickens when several guests
were coming for dinner, but this was not considered too
large a job because her mother had done the same thing. TO-
day consumers are demanding and using more and more services.
Many of the younger housewives dislike dressing and drawing
poultry and are willing to pay experienced personnel for
this service. Therefore, it seemed that the percentage Of
locker plants dressing and drawing poultry should have been
larger than 22 percent.

The percentage was not larger because locker plant
managers, like many housewives, did not like to do the job.
Modern and adequate equipment makes dressing and drawing
relatively simple and permits the locker plant to do a good
job. One does not dislike doing a task nearly as much when
he can do it efficiently and well. If some Of the locker
plants not now dressing and drawing poultry would change
their attitudes, Obtain equipment, and begin this type Of

processing, the housewife would be pleased and, in most

65
cases, willing to pay for this service. The locker plant
would have summer work to do when the processing of red meats
is in a slack period.

Ninety-four percent of the plants in the sample wrapped
and froze poultry. There was a large variation in the pounds
processed in the different plants (Table IX).

Table IX - Poultry Processed per Plant in Michigan in 1947,
Frequency Distribution

 

 

 

Amount of Poultry Q Plants
(pounds) . (percent)
None 6
1 — M99 22
500 - 999 16
1,000 - 2.999 19
3:000 "' l+9999 ll!-
59000 - 6:999 11
7.000 - 8,999 3
9:000 - 10.999 3
11,000 - 12,999 3
19,000 - 20,999 3
Total 100%

 

Lard. Thirty-eight percent of the locker plants in the

 

sample did not render lard. The 62 percent who did render
had widely ranging volumes. The smallest amount rendered
that was reported was 200 pounds, and the largest was 30,000
pounds. Table X shows the percentage of plants in the sample

which rendered different volumes of lard.

66

Table X - Lard Rendered per Plant in Michigan in 19H7,
Frequency Distribution

 

 

 

Amount of Lard Q Plants
(pounds)' . (percent)

None 38
1 M99 3
500 999 6
1,000 2,999 11
3.000 9.999 11
5.000 6.999 8
7,000 8.999 3
9.000 10.999 6
11,000 12,999 5
13.000 19.999 3
15.000 16.999 3
Over 17,000 3

Total 100%

 

On-the-farm rendering was decreasing as was on-the-farm
slaughtering. It is felt that this was not due to the eco-
nomic condition Of the farmer at this time. The keeping of
rendering equipment on the yearly basis to be used once and
maybe twice per year was not liked by many farmers. Render-
ing at the farm can be an onerous task. The kettle must be
cleaned and moved; the fat must be cut; a fire must be built
and tended; and the lard must be stirred, even if the smoke
blows in the stirrer's eyes; and hot fat must be run through
the press. The weather is usually cold. One big advantage
to this is that the farmer knows his lard is made from his

animal's fat. Several locker renters who have had their

67
fat rendered at locker plants were not well satisfied with
the lard.

Although the investment in a lard kettle, a press, and
other equipment necessary for lard rendering was greater
than in smoking equipment, it seemed likely that this serv-
ice should and will occupy an increasingly important place
in the locker plants in Michigan. It was not implied that
all locker plants should render lard but that more might well
start Offering this service.

Curing and Smoking. Plants curing meats also smoked
meats; plants smoking meats also cured meats. These services
went hand-in-hand, and in most cases one charge was levied
for doing both. The Operators were asked to separate their
combined charge for the two services and their answers are
presented in Chapter III.

Fifty-six percent Of the sample plants cured and smoked
meats. As with other processing volumes, the pounds of
meats cured and smoked per plant varied considerable (Table XI).

The minimum amount Of meat cured and smoked by the sam-
ple plants was 1,200 pounds; the maximum amount reported was
50,000 pounds.

Grinding of Pork and Beef. It was easier for locker
plant managers to approximate the poundage Of both sausage
and hamburger ground than it was for them to give an approxi-
mate total for each, so the totals for each were combined

for each plant. Six percent of the plants did no grinding

Table XI - Meats Cured and Smoked per Plant in Michigan
in 1947, Frequency Distribution

 

 

 

Amount Cured and Smoked : Plants
(pounds) . (percent)
None 44
1 ' l+9999 11
5.000 - 9.999 14
10,000 - 14,999 10
15,000 - 19.999 0
20,000 - 24,999 3
25.000 - 29.999 6
30.000 - 39.999 6
359000 ' 399999 0
1+0.000 - 49.999 3
45.000 - Lt9.999 0
50,000 - 593999 3
Total 100%

 

Table XII - Sausage and Hamburger Ground per Plant in
Michigan in 1947, Frequency Distribution

 

 

Amount Of Sausage and Hamburger : Plants

(pounds) A (percent)
None 6
No estimate 6
l.- 4,999 24
5.000 - 9.999 22
10,000 - 14,999 19
15,000 - 19.999 6
20,000 - 24,999 3
25,000 - 29.999 0
30.000 - 34.999 8
35.000 - 39.999 3
Over 40,000 3

 

Total 100%

 

69
and six percent gave no answer stating they had no records
and would not attempt to approximate the pounds of meat
they ground in 1947.

For the eighty-eight percent who did grind meats, 20
pounds per locker was the average. The minimum amount re-
ported was 1,950 pounds, and the maximum was 54,000 pounds
(Table x11).

Fruit and Vegetables Frozen. None of the locker plants
in the representative random sample blanched vegetables.
There are plants, however, which do offer this service.
Some of the sample plants packed bulk fruit and vegetables
into cartons. All Of the plants were equipped to freeze
fruits and vegetables. Eighty percent of the plants gave
estimates as to the number of quarts and pints of fruits
and vegetables frozen. In this thesis all pints were con-
verted to quarts and it was assumed that one quart weighed
one pound.

In all the plants visited, the renter had to prepare
his fruits and vegetables before bringing them to the locker
plant to be sharp frozen and placed in his locker. Some
plants sold bulk fruits and vegetables. Most of the locker
Operators stated that there were more pounds of fruits than
vegetables placed in lockers. The leading fruits (not in
order Of importance) were strawberries, peaches, cherries,
blueberries, and raspberries. The leading vegetables were

corn, peas, spinach, cauliflower, and broccoli.

70

The average number of quarts of fruits and vegetables
frozen per locker in the sample plants was 21.5. One plant
estimated it froze 30,000 quarts in 1947; it had the largest
volume reported. Another plant estimated it froze only 600
quarts; it had the smallest volume in the sample. There
probably are locker plants in the state which froze larger
volumes of fruits and vegetables and processed more pounds
in each of the categories mentioned in this chapter. Pounds
of processing and freezing are presented so that one can
have an idea of the average volumes. Table XIII also helps
in this respect.

Table XIII - Fruits and Vegetables Frozen per Plant in
Michigan in 1947, Percentage Distribution

 

 

 

Amount Frozen ; Plants
(pounds) , (percent)
NO estimate 17
1 - l+.999 36
5.000 - 9.999 6
10,000 - 14,999 13
15,000 - 19.999 11
20,000 - 24,999 3
25.000 - 29.999 11
30.000 - 34.999 3
Total 100%

 

Conclusions. Most of the locker plants in Michigan did
not keep detailed records, and practically all of the data
presented in this chapter were Obtained as estimates from

locker plant Operators.

71
Table XIV shows the average number Of pounds of proc-

essing per locker in 1947.

Table XIV - Average Number of Pounds Of Food Products
Processed per Locker in Michigan in 1947

 

Food Product Processed Average Number per Locker

 

 

(kind) (pounds)
Beef 138.0
Veal 3-3
Pork 77.
Lamb and Mutton 1.3
Fish and Game 8.4
Poultry (Wrapped and Frozen) 8.5
Lard Rendered 11.1
Meats Cured and Smoked 28.4
Pork and Beef Ground 20.0
Fruit and Vegetables Frozen 21.5

Total 3170 5

 

The volume of processing per plant varied because of
size and location of plant, aggressiveness Of plant manager,
equipment, and experience Of personnel. Table XIV shows
that 317.5 pounds of food products were processed per locker
in the average plant. One hundred times more beef than lamb
and mutton was processed per locker.

The Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Michigan
State College estimated that there were 5.8 million people
in Michigan on July 1, 1947. The average per capita con-
sumption of meat in 1947 in the United States was slightly

72
over 155 pounds. Assuming that each Of the 5.8 million
people ate 155 pounds of meat, there were 910 million pounds
of meat consumed in Michigan in 1947.

It was estimated early in this thesis that there were
probably over 215,000 lockers in all of the locker plants
in Michigan. Table XIV shows that 285 pounds of meat were
processed per locker in the sample plants in 1947. If it
can be assumed that each plant in the state processed an
average Of 285 pounds of meat per locker, the total amount
of meat processed in 1947 was 61 million pounds. This means
that between 6 and 7 percent of the meat consumed in Michi-
gan in 1947 was processed in locker plants.

Many locker plants did not do certain types of process-
ing because they disliked the work. They often disliked
the work because they were not properly equipped to do it.
In the United States each man can do as he wishes, but prof-
its keep businesses running. In many plants profits can
probably be increased if additional food products are proc-
essed. With additional processing the work load during the
year can be evened, plant personnel can be used more uni-

formly, and additional income can be Obtained.

73
CHAPTER VIII

RECEIPTS FROM DIFFERENT OPERATIONS FOR 1947

Source of Receipts. Locker plants obtain receipts from
locker rentals, processing Operations, commissions on Whole-
sale sales, margins on retail sales, sales of hides and
pelts, sales of bones, suet, and inedible offal, slaughter-
ing, and margins on the sale of sugar, containers, and
locker supplies. In most plants the receipts from locker
rentals and from processing operations were the major
sources of income.

When locker plants were run in conjunction with gro-
cery stores and retail meat markets, it was usually diffi-
cult for the managers to differentiate the receipts. If
a retail meat market was run with a locker plant, there
were bones and suet from each business. Usually these items
were sold to one concern and separate accounting was not
attempted. If groceries were sold, the sale of sugar, con-
tainers, and other locker supplies was usually kept in the
grocery account. Many plant owners felt they could not
afford a large cash register which permitted ringing up
sales to different accounts.

This study did not attempt to determine which plants
were making profits and which were not. Expense data were
not collected. Receipts were collected only so that an idea
could be gotten as to the source of the income and how im-

portant each source was. Twenty-two records, which had

74
complete receipt data, were selected and used in computing
the data given below.

In finding the percent that each source of income was
of the total income, all receipts in one category in the
twenty-two records were added together and divided by the
sum of the total receipts of all of the twenty-two.

Table XV shows the relative importance of each source
of income. The receipts from locker rentals were one and
one-half times as much as the receipts from processing Oper-
ations. The receipts from these two sources made up four-
fifths of the total gross income. Locker rental and proc-
essing receipt data in the fourteen records not used in this
analysis were complete. Analysis of these records showed

Table XV - Average Percent Of Locker Plant Income From
Major Sources, Michigan, 1947

 

Source of Income Percent Of Total Income

 

(Source) (percent)
Locker Rentals 48
Processing Operations 32
Wholesaling Meat 6

Retailing Meat 6
Sale of Bone, Suet, Inedible Offal 5
Sale of Hides, Pelts - Slaughtering (less than %)

Other Sources:
Sale of Containers )
Sale Of Sugar )
Sale of Appliances ) 3
Sale of Locker Supplies )

 

Total 100%

 

75
that receipts from rentals and processing comprised about
the same percentage of total receipts as did those in the
twenty-two which were used. When the field work for this
study was done, several Of the plant managers stated that
they thought they were making their profits from process-
ing Operations. There was not enough data collected in this
study to determine if they were correct. Results from a
study made in New York by Cornell University showed that
locker plants just about break even on processing Opera-
tions.§/ The percentages that receipts from processing
Operations were of total gross receipts in New York were
higher than in Michigan. This suggested that some locker
plants in Michigan were Just breaking even or losing some
on processing Operations.

Many plant managers stated that they had peaks in their
processing Operations. During these times additional help
had to be used. They stated that there were slack times
when the regular help was not kept busy.

Conclusions. Businesses should know at all times which
Operations are making a profit and which are not. The un-
profitable ones should be made profitable or eliminated.

The locker industry, in general, has processing peaks for
meat and fruit.

An elaborate system of records need not be kept to en-

able a business to determine the profitableness Of an

 

§/ Farm Economics, March, 1948, Cornell University, Ithaca,
New York.

76
Operation. Certainly some records must be kept. When this
study was made some locker plants kept only total receipt
and expense data. It was impossible for them tO know which
Operations made and which ones lost money.

Locker plant managers should attempt to level out their
processing peaks by urging their patrons to change the sea-
sonableness of their produce to be processed. Not much can
be done with fruit, but a lot can be done with meat. By
eliminating the processing peaks the labor investment, one
of the big cost items, could be used more efficiently.

Referring to Table XV, gross income can probably be
increased from the following sources: processing, whole-

saling, retailing, slaughtering, and other sources.

77
CHAPTER IX

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The first locker plant in Michigan began Operations in
1938. Since 1942 locker plant numbers have grown rapidly.
There were over 215,000 lockers in the 375 plants Operating
in May, 1948. Over $12,000,000 were invested in these 375
plants, and only one-fifth Of them were Operated as separate
enterprises.

Locker plants are one of the fastest growing branches
in the food industry, and many variations in plant practices
were Observed. A majority of the plants did not keep de-
tailed records, and it was difficult for these plants to
determine which Operations were profitable. Locker rental
rates, processing rates, processing volumes, and services
Offered varied; and size Of plant, type of ownership, and
location were not discernible criteria.

Since locker plants have Opened, more locally produced
livestock have been slaughtered near the home community.
Slaughtering by the locker plants has been small in volume,
but custom slaughterers have been increasing their slaughter-
ing volume. Many new custom slaughterers have begun Opera-
tions. Locker plants appear to be causing a further de-
centralization in the marketing of livestock.

Many locker plant managers reported that patrons brought
meat which had not been handled prOperly during the slaughter-

ing process to their plants for processing. Some custom

78
slaughterers and farmers were not prOperly equipped to do a
sanitary slaughtering job. Many locker plants would be doing
a service to their community if they began a sanitary slaugh-
tering service.

Receipts from locker rentals and processing services
made up slightly over three-fourths of the gross income in
the plants sampled. Almost one-half of the gross income was
received from rentals and one-fourth from processing. Rental
receipts were about one-third larger than processing receipts.

Only one-fifth of the locker plants in the sample were
run as separate enterprises. Over one-half of them were as-
sociated with a grocery store or retail meat market. The
other one-third either sold home lockers or were associated
with ice plants or other businesses.

The use of home lockers started on a major scale in the
latter part of 1947. Not much food processing was done in
1947 by locker plants for owners of home lockers; however,
in 1948 the volume processed was increasing. The interviews
held while doing the field work indicated that many locker
plant managers were afraid that the use of home lockers
would injure their business. A minority of the locker plant
managers saw a bright future in the processing for these
home lockers.

Most home locker owners are not prOperly equipped or
trained to process food for their own lockers. Many of them

do not raise livestock. Locker plants have the equipment

79

and the personnel to do a good job of processing foods, and
many of them sell meat and other foods at near wholesale
prices, provided they do the processing. Locker plants can
increase their processing volumes if they process for home
units and sell meat at a wholesale price plus a small com-
mission. This would be advantageous for both locker plants
and users of home lockers. Locker plant volumes would in-
crease and consumers would get food at reduced prices be-
cause part Of the costly distributive system from the pro-
ducer to the consumer would be eliminated.

Some plants were just about breaking even on processing.
An increased volume would not help them until they utilized
their labor more efficiently and reduced costs. Locker
plant managers reported labor peaks in their operations.
The processing of meat was heavy in three to four late fall
and winter months; and processing of fruits, vegetables,
and poultry was heavy in two to three summer months. During
these times additional help had to be hired. During the
slack times the regular help was not kept fully employed.
Locker plants could level out their labor requirements by
encouraging patrons to have more processing done during the
slack periods.

Locker plants sprang up under very favorable conditions.
They had not been forced to sell their services because of
meat shortages, high demands, high consumer incomes, and

rationing. When the field work for this study was done,

80

some plants were facing increasing Operating costs and

keener competition. When the buyers' market returns, they

will have to Operate efficiently and do a real selling job.

This study showed that many locker plants should:

1.

2.
3.
1..
5.

6.

Keep more detailed records.

Provide more services.

Stabilize their work load.

Process for home lockers.

Consider keeping pace with the frozen
food field as new developments occur.
Dispose of by-products as profitably

\

as possible.

81
BIBLIOGRAPHY

AnogflmousA
Agricultural Statistics, United States Department
Of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.

COtten, W. P. and Fenn, F. U.
1942 Frozen Food Locker Plants in South Dakota, Bulletin
360, South Dakota JAgricultural Experiment Station,
Brookings, S. D.

Dowell, A. A. et a1.
1940 Minnesota Cold Storage Locker Plants, Bulletin 345,
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, St. Paul,
Minnesota.

Dowell, A. A. and Bjorka, K.
1941 Livestock Marketing, Chapter XXI, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., New York.

Mann, L. B.
1938 Refrigerated Food Lockers, Circular NO. C-lO7, Farm
Credit Administration, Washington, D.C.

Mann, L0 B0
Address given at thE Annual Canvention Of the Asso-
ciation of Southern Agricultural Workers, Washington,
D.C., February 13, 19 8.

Mann, L0 B0 and Wilkins, P. CO
1948 Cooperative Frozen Food Locker Associations, Miscel-
laneous Report 116, Farm Credit Administration,
Washington, D.C.

1947 Frozen Food Locker Plants, Miscellaneous Report 105,
Farm Credit Administration, Washington, D. C.

Warrington, S. T. and Wilkins, P. C.
1945 Frozen Food Locker Plants, Miscellaneous Report No.
81, Farm Credit Administration, Washington, D.C.

1946 Cooperative Frozen-Food Locker Plants, Circular C-l27,
Farm Credit Administration, Washington, D.C.

Ziefiher, P. To
The Meat W2 Eat, Chapter 10, The Interstate Printers
and Publishers, Danville, Illinois.

 

APPENDIX A

A Copy of the Questionnaire Which Was Used
When the Field Data Were Collected

82

MICHIGAN AGRICULTURAL

Frozen Food EXPERIMENT STATION Confidential
Locker Study . Schedule A

TO PLANT OPERATORS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QENERAL: 1. Name of plant P.O.Address
5 2. Year operations began 3. Ownership
(Private, partnership, corp., coop.)
A. Number of plants owned providing processing and storage service
5. Number of branch storage plants Distances from central plant
. ’ ‘ , ’ 3 .
A 6. Number of lockers installed: in.main plant ; in each branch plant .
, , , . Number of empty lockers
7. Amount of bulk storage space having freezing temperatures: In.main plant ;
(cu.ft.)
in each branch plant (cu. ft.) , , J .
8. "hat other business is Operated with the locker plant?
(grocery store, ice
plant,-meat market, etc.7'
9. Total original investment in main plant and branchess

 

(covers land, plant, equip., etc?)

SERVICES: For each of the various services plant renders, indicate the rates charged.

10.

ll.

Meats Jan. 1, 19h8 rate per pound Poultry Jan. 1, 19h8 rate per pound

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chilling, cutting Dressing and (Chickens,
wrapping, freezing drawing Turkeys, etc.)
Freezing, only wrapping and (Chickens
' freezing Turkeys, etc.
Curing ; Fish Rate per pound
Smoking wrapping and freezing
Grinding only Fruits g Vegetables
Grinding &.making Blanching vegetables -
sausage
Rendering lard Freezing fruits & veg.

 

 

Indicate changes in rates for services during January 1, 19h? to January 1, 19h8

/

n
'.
' '1
I I
--or-
... .5;-
n
a v
. . .
u
.
--~
-.. .-
u
o .
n
0 .

u
a
. . 1
. nae-v
.
'
. ..
v on
a ' '
I . I.
a. . u .-
|
C
I
. t
.

- . .Au

0
-
-o
A-
.
F
i
.
.-

n...

I

i
_ O
I
- a
o

 

g n.. .
. . ‘ |
‘-i . -: : O4 ,
‘ a. . ..' . J
- v
u T $ ‘I z. "i
. ,A ~ ‘ I .
o. .
I e V
3.....‘.' ...
'0
‘.
I.‘.-.‘ I ‘ 'I I! l
V ..l.. o
. ,,.. .
.n o .‘n‘. -- I»:
01.,
. .
.....
- "
l '4
.
' I
n
.
c
. .
H u
.
o ', -
.1 Q ‘
I
.. ...

I
~
. .
.
u
I
~n-n
-

. ..'.A . . —,..
. , .fltl -‘Ava
_ -. u - . Q ‘ '
.o-t‘u '0 trtho'OnH. ‘
I
’ .
a - a
‘ o I I’lbl . >‘
u
_, . ‘ .3
. _ . .‘ ¢ . . 4 I _ .
.w.-. .- - -~o- v“ oowpu- no». .r'.“ u h
n '.lv". " ~ . . l -
. §a ' ~ )' ' I u _ . . .. , .
. u... --O..§OJI I‘D-.0. h '
L
.-V
i l
. u . ..
- ..~.-)‘... I.‘ , . g- 1" I. ' I .' ", I a - .
.1 '. ‘, n-. - .' 0‘ ‘ fi ‘0 ‘a o “ .-
I
. . .
Q. I _ t -- ‘ a .. _
" an... “ ' - " A... .. . - u .x
u u.- .-._. . -....,.
u I ( '
-. . u' g n . . g‘ to. - - .~,.. I
. .
' "I t V '. ' . ' n "
nl.¢.; ...4 . . . --. . .. I
l
.
. $. .
., r.
..9' --' . '. '
" ' .I ~ ' ..¢ . . . —.o u
u .- n
4. n ‘. _ .v. A . _ . 4 .
,‘u .‘4 - if ' . - A - . -
. a
. ' _
. , D
-o. .’--.v -..~.-
; . - ,
. , .L ‘ - O
u.... u ~- .- 4 ‘P' . '. v o"- -
.
- C
l
!
O
. . .v
i . I .
. . - ‘ fi.
‘ I - t " 0 C ' I ‘
. c
‘ ' 1 .
' I
' l - l .
.
- .
I
. 0 .
0Q.
.0 . .
.
.
o .
. A. n. u- , - — . ‘
\
a "
. I
. .
c I q, ‘ ‘
C
O .
. .
. g. .- loan-.a
. \
I I -
a-.- . n n. a. unau-
. 'v . Q n
v
I
I
... .. Q -s- o .n n . -.¢ ~
. . . . - . ... n... .- ... a.‘ n . n- .

-2-
12. Locker Rental rates per year as of Januanyfil, l9h8:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drawer Eypg : Doorégypgg ; Other fipgscribejii
Size* ;Tier** 1 Rate :Size* :Tier**; Rate :Size* £Tier** :Rate

~.—'—; iwz-fl ”:m:—*—“—:
i 1 3 3 E 1 ; E : 1 E
Ix'WxH"”" ; : 3mm 3 : ELxWxH 3 3
2 i g 3 2 : 2 2

g 3 3 3 ; 3 § 5 3 3___._
E h 3 i . h 3 1. f

5 s E i 5 i_____3_________i 5 E________

E 6 E E t 6 ‘ Ew_ E 6 5__~————-

r 37 a i i 7 E g E 7 '_____........

Size: Give in LXWXH in inches ‘ 3 ‘ ‘

Tier 1 indicates bottom.row, Tier 2 is second from bottom, etc.

13. Changes in rental during January 1, l9h7, to January 1, l9h8:
(If a printed schedule of charges is available, obtain same and attach to this
schedule)

1h. 'lhat other services do you plan to provide during l9h8?

 

 

HANDLING LIVESTOCK:

15. “oes plant,buy'animals for slaughter for resale of meat to (a) Patrons

If "no," omit question 16. (b)Public

 

16. Number of head and sources from which livestock were bought during the year 19h7.
:Number of :Number of :Number of :Number of sheep
Source ° Cattle : Calves Hogs : and lambs

From farmers '

 

 

1;.v4-u.‘ O

From local livestock dealers

O'Co-O-‘CO-

 

 

From auction markets

 

From terminal public markets

rattan-decua
oaaoIOO—uddoacnvddCQI-du‘LQQ

From.others (Name)

\
o

 

 

v

'Odlllldfifldunvidtd
COGCOCOOO—gndd

SLAUGHTERING LIVESTOCK BY PLANT (If plant does no slaughtering and does not provide
slaughter facilities indicate by writing "none" in following space and
omit Questions 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 2h.

1?. Location of slaughter facilities: In same building with locker plant

 

In owned or leased bldg. in or near town

In bldg. owned and operated by several locker plants .

-3-
18. Does plant provide on—the-farm slaughtering service? If so, by wiom

is this done?
(Plant employee, custom slaughter)

 

l9. Slaughtering Uharge by Plant: (indicate whether charge is on a head, cwt., or
other basis)
Cattle Hogs

 

 

Calves Sheep and lambs

 

 

20. ers slaughtering charge include other services? List

 

21. Number of Animals slaughtered in 19h?

; Ho 3 z’I'* Cattle

2 Animals; For g7Knimals : For
Month.owned by; otherszowned by : others
i plant *3 ** ? ,plant é

 

Calves 5 Sheep and Lambs
Animals; For ; Animals : For

owned by; others } owned by% others
plant 3 plant

 

- O.- au~ C. ..

 

 

Jan. 1 ‘
Feb.
March?
“pril;

' I
I . |
I

.4 “-CO“
V'm‘--—-fll. a
I v i r Orrm‘r‘m

Guy-.0—

E‘S‘E

Goo-dio-fldev-O ud-
CDC-UGQD-uao.

Aug.

i—J

Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.

C---«¢o-coo
I-v-v‘v-Ol-

‘—

W+

‘-‘ao‘--o-no- vvoow~b¢¢oaloallrmmfiiIICUOQQI

rfl'fl'o‘n‘b‘fifl‘.’ 'coroo-rrw-s‘mvouu .6

o 0'- .‘-u’
OO-ofi'cnoquvv
I'UU.‘-U.-¢"--..vod.
-‘.~”-'-“-~IOIIv-‘Ju-vuA-V..J ‘CNJ-Ooa—I—ono—l

no-uc.""

rural-a- 4-.

 

‘ t
TOTAL ; . . ‘ .
* Animals plant has bought and slaughtered for resale of meats to patrons.
** Animals slaughtered for locker renters, home freezer users, and others for a
fixed charge.
22. Are hides or pelts returned to farmers? Retained as part of slaugh—
tering fee?

 

 

 

 

23. What is paid for hides or pelts? 8

 

2b. How do you dispose of inedible offal?

 

Of bones?

 

CUSTOM SLAUGHTERING
25. How many custom slaughterers other than the plant itself slaughter for locker

patrons? Place of slaughter

 

‘Xfarm, slaughter house)
26. Rates charged: Cattle Calves Hogs Sheep & lambs . Are hidec

or pelts returned to farmers? Retained by slaughterer as part of fee?

Ala

 

-
A
.
ci-vv-r~-ol --
o-yo-u.o.. .

00- . ”~W’.
a. . n n .
. I
o. a. I. I C
O t . D "
- ”“1 . '
' ..o-ct

.
o 0.-.“..-
.
.
.
.
.
. \nu - .
.-..
.
.t
., .
.
. .
.
.. .. .
. A ..A ,

 

 

 

 

q ‘ '
. 5 II o .
‘ ' 9 O n - o . . : n
n
‘1'- w‘l ' "’" ~‘ . m. . -. e a- a ”O. .unvoaa. .- u.- o m
V~ - u . - -
' :4|‘ ‘1 ' ‘ ‘I .
. 0,. - . I- o. . u
, .
‘ I
I' n ' ' - . . I n
' ' ' I I I‘ I. ~
. .. noun.- ndooc-‘I-n - N' v- I
.
,f.. .' , . .‘ _ ~. .
.')-‘—v-' q' I-. A. .- ,
" ‘- " n.5h"'-.. . u... .-. -,.. .
. u
| .0 . ., . . . . . ._, ‘ . . s :1. . . _
. C . a ~_'.- - J- . . c ' l“.lnl
I O
.
.
.... . .1 ' . .
.---- —o.- «awn-n... . a~.'.o.- is n I -.—I. -: .0 ud« J--.- no .4 .
- . . . o
.
' C
._ . .uo- u. -- cu .. us... o -- - .Io.;~a . . --
Q
. ~- 2 u . o
c. u . . . g . . ' - o . a a . g
.
l h . O
I ' . 1'1.“ e . ’ .5 ‘ ‘V. ' ' ' ‘. " . ‘
.. O o - .- .— I y - ‘q . ‘ o I . I I I.
- - V -
I I
0 - . f l - - - , ‘
O . '..,_ a O . . o -
lo... - . .. . u.. .u...-Au-o-u~—-..'Qo. >0. In a - - v. o. u .v n «l.- '- - .'¢--- in b eu~v¢o chut-
. a
- l u
.
.
D ‘
“ ‘ - 0, ‘3‘}
I ‘ 1
' .

 

 

.
A~
. . l
- u \ .
I u
v .
‘ o
o u
I
v
. o '| "hc
. . - 5.".
o _ .
u
I
.
e l .
O
. ' C
. .- ‘.
c
. a
I
. '. u g.
o ‘ . . «.
. . _
u ' ' '
' Do .
a
. - n .C
I ' g .
. ' r
p - o
I . O . '
.,. . u. .u- eQ—‘-.. - q-o- ...>*.- . n .0... l... - o n»..-—w - - I . .. -n . . —.~.--- 1. .Afio-I
9 .
O . '
O . .
.
l - . .
ut---u.-~~ .- . 'w.‘--. 4‘ a... I'c . .» h....ni pr. ’! ' .‘..,. . .. .i- n'- - nun
. _‘ . ‘ § . . A , ., . “ . n ‘ ‘
\ I . _ ‘
o . - u . a . o I .'
_ .
q: .. .. . ‘ .
h ‘: ~ ‘0. I ~ . . . .. _ ~
.‘ .
I -
lx
. ‘ - ’ . *. ‘ '
o ~ _ - 5 .
.. . . . . . . -o
I... a.-. 1.. u. ‘-
' ' ‘f‘
. .-. - t
. . u ,.
' I
OI . . ‘ n
.. -.-' u‘ u .
. .. .
u . _ a . no: . a. 0
.
‘ l
' u
— . . .- x - no - n .. . - . o . . .‘ - u
.
. \ '
I . . ' -.
I
. ~ ‘ - ‘ _. r .' l . .
' . . l , . .' . . I .3 .' . O
. .
. . - I
a». .,..o' .- vino . 0s g. ..
. . .
_ . ‘ -._-7- ,
. .5 . ' _
n 0- - 1 -:0 .vn-a . .
I .
' I . v " . '1-
. . L _

27.

28.

29.

30.

31

32.

33.

3h.
35.

—h-

Indicate changes in slaughter rates during January 1, l9h7, to January 1, l9h8:

 

Approximate percentage of livestock slaughtered for locker storage by

different agencies - 19h?
Cattle g7'¢ Calves %

 

slaughtered by

ova1

Hogs Z fSheep & lambs Z

O

..-..u.

t
I

Farmers

n-..-
.

Custom slaughterers:

Locker plant i

TOTAL 3

AL A...

Q ~ m~'
I-pvrupnrocopuu;
.‘

Do you accept for freezing and storage meat that is already cut and wrapped?

(yes or no)

 

 

 

 

Approximate percent of all meat stored in 19h? se received: Pork %
Beef %
lamb %
veal %

 

Is such cut and wrapped meat inSpected before storage by plant operator?

Never Occasionally Regularly .

 

Selling Carcasses and wholesale Cuts g£_Meat

Amount and sources of wholesale cuts and carcasses of meat bought for and sold
to patrons grenters and non-renters of lockers) 19h?

Beef Q Pork Veal : Lamb &. 5 Poultry : Fish
lbs. ' lbs. lbs. tMutton lbs lbs. lbs.

6

Bought from

0 oo-"

heal farmers ..

A

,.‘,....-uuv-D.'

I
6
b

y'ao'p—ovrfl
.

Local meat markets.

narrow-v0

o
. O
'3'

Meat packers

nu.-

'

6
C
I
I
O
n
1
I
b
I
'1»
t
v
I

up "o’Q'VUQ-O-r'rr'uolooauouvnu
O
\
-‘-'qu-u
I
I

1
9.0.0 I, O- at- p..- .—
u

v 00- I10

Other sources i :
Pounds of meat bought wholesale for persons who did not rent lockers, l9h7:
Beef lbs. Veal lbs. Pork lbs. Lamb and mutton lbs.

Grade of meat generally bought

 

Usual commission or margin on wholesale cuts of meat;

 

(percent—cf cost price or

 

cents per poufid.7

a '.
v I W,
’. a
I
o “JD"HI..-” .
. I..- -- . .-. . . o ..
.1 . ‘ I
I
.' ' - . ~-
-nofiv‘o-c. ...I o . -'- .- I...
o
I.
. .- .- ,...,. . n. - .
.- ..> .O‘ n . 0-. .n— ..
I.
I - - I
.
!
I "I. no. . VIII‘.\.
I
. .
‘5 o-' I' ‘0‘ I‘ a- -
u
o
. - .... ...‘.q... y.
.
I.‘-. A - m _-,I
n
I u
‘ .
»o- - - I ~ .-
' I I
3.
.
.._ :-....-—. . . . I
a
.
' ‘ u
.l
I
u . »
a
a
H
.. u .v.
‘ I V . 4
I

 

fl

'1 ..

.. .-
I
‘0
o

n
I .I
I
.-
-"s
Q
a
.1
I
a.
II
0

.. \ .
1
. "II-ac .o .-
' l
. -

   

. \-
’ 0- -- . ._
o
I
-M II'DQQQ. ’0“ - ..~
.
I
.
-. - .-
- . .a.
.-
s
.. '- 'I I
J ' I -.
' .
I \ . ’
. a - A
_ l
. n--~.—~
c.
I
I . .
O .
.. - . . .
u
I
I
I
l . ~uvI. ‘1
I
,-
g
o
. ' I '
. .‘I.-- o... .
. . f
u . "

I“~\ . ,-

v I '
O c .
. l
v' '
.- r0-
5 - .
'I - - ano- - ow

-—OIH -p'n ..

.
I . .
0‘ .
v
O
f
- 1 _
'1 . c-
. n
‘ I
.0.-.- .-o --. . -
. h
. O
o
: u- .
.
.
I
O ' O 0
a
. .
r u. . ,o..
l
. .
'1‘
.
.4 ‘IIIIo-a.

 

'I I
' - I
- ~.- -~ ,, .a. . .--.« .
‘ A
.
.. ', ‘_ ’
. --»< glo'¢. no. - 0‘" .. ..
. C ‘ I
-. con-o - . -I s. ”4. DM-~ru
I
-.-~ no ... : '\.
.o I 0 , <Q" d ---
. i n
n
n
s. ‘
’ 3
n
. O
, g .
o.‘ - .
‘t ‘ .
. :1
u
"~ 0-!
I
Q ~ '
- I
,o.... .- . .
. I
I ‘ .h
3' _ o
. . . ‘
1.x.-
'- .0. r o . ’ “r 0-.”5
v ..
O a O
- I
o
I
n - . I- .u..- -. ...,.. .3...
. I
n
‘ I
u
c
I ~ .
a
I
' I
a
. I
o
. I
' «I .Q'pv - 0 ->4 . ..
r
I
1 o
> I;
. .
a
.
‘I
O. u
. "“.t I". ' 0"

u!

'0

.ini.

 

36.

37-

38.

39.
hO.

-1-
About what percentage of these wholesale cuts are cut and wrapped at the plant

%. Are sharp frozen at the plant? %

 

Quantity of'Meats and Meat Products Sold‘at Retail in 19h? and Their Mark-up:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

: Quantities seld ; Percent u Quantities sold ; Percent
Kind ‘ : Fresh meat ; mark—up_; Frozen.meats i mark-up
7' § 5 :
Beef _,.MH..H._J. - .......... 3.,, ,,3: , , - N§.. ,. ...... ,
: t i I.
o ‘I ' '
veal .. v-vv'vwvr: rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr z rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr :u. wry-v rrrrrrrrrrrrrr vwrrjr- r' rrrrrrrrrrrr (II
I I ‘ s.
u u ' t
- - : 2
Pork ...w_" _;. - - _ -. .a. -._ 4. _ . ..... . .........................
O p ‘ U
' 5 3 :
O .
Lamb and mutton ‘ti ‘_ ,3“ L, .;M_- .-,
. E 3. i
Sausage _t__ __~ .2”_ 41L __ ‘4‘ ,,
i c .
t 3 : :
Bacon d.-c ...... 1 .......................... 5. .i. _ “z" --.
: a ‘ '.
' 2 t t
other I.' _- ........ - ___
_ - :m- - - r -
l : : v
I . i
otherwfu. .-H_-__,....“..-....:’,.. ....'.p. .. . ..;'......,................H
1 t’ i ‘2
‘ $ -: 2
other N‘,, ______________________ g ............ u,__ _ ...n_ _ .H..”.,L
O 1
A I'- L l
r * T _ '
Approximate percentage of retail meat sales to locker renters ‘ %
To non-locker renters %
Amount of gross sales of retail meat department in 19h? $ ' .

 

Do you deliver stored food from the locker to the homes of locker renters?

What is the charge, if any, for this service?

 

 

yes or no
Prehlems encountered in operating a retail meat business with locker plant?

(List)

 

.u- .. n.
..

0 n

I '-

I.

h-\-— r

‘0“..-

-
cs.-
c .-

.
s

h2..

h3.

-6-

Volume Processed in'l9h7

 

Indicate below the pounds of food.products processed in plant, l9h7.

For storage Not stored
in lockers in lockers
lbs lbs.

Item

Meat chilled, cut,

wrapped, frozen)
Beef

 

 

Veal

 

Pork,

 

Lamb

 

Fish &.game

 

Poultry
Dressed & drawn*

wrapped & frozen**

 

Net
For storage stored
in lockers in look-
Ibs. ers lbs.

Item

Lard rendered

 

Meat smoked

 

Hams and bacon cured

 

Sausage & hamburger
ground

 

Fruit frozen

 

Vegetables frozen

 

 

*Includes poundage ofjpoultry dressed and drawn at the locker plant which.may or
may not have been wrapped and frozen as well at the plant.

**Includes poultry that (a) was dressed and drawn before delivery to the plant,
plus (b) that which was dressed and drawn at the plant and also wrapped and fro-

zen at the plant.

Indicate belOW'the receipts from the different operations for 19h7:

(a) From locker rentals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

g
(b) From processing operations 8
(c) From commissions or gross profit on wholesale meat sales $
(d) From gross profit or margins on retail meat sales .$
(e) From sale of hides and pelts $
(f) From sale of bones and inedible offal . $
(g) From slaughtering charges 8
(h) From.other sources (gross profit on sale of containers,
sale of sugar, etc.) 3

TOTAL

 

 

1' ‘
’ II
V . ‘
I ' . I . J J
~I I I - ' "'
u .
r \. y . . N
h .l'
C d . .‘
I.-. ' - p <. V I‘s
.. v... _. .I-.. ‘ . a
I‘s-n.u-I\ nv. l o. -
Inst. ‘0’- Iv- |»' bA-l l‘ o
w...-.-.... ca I I
. o. .1 I - "l.'- .
, . . 9 .y I. o .
. s» . A... n
.\ a
' I 4 '
O
‘ I
u
I
.. . I
.
.. .. -. .I _ .
_. r . .I. - o
._ . .. .. - u. .. .
. I . p. n. I o.
" I V t
0 - I.
n 4 . .
‘ Q 0 h... ~

load

 

. ~ .. . .
. . . I
' - r“ .
l .,‘ o
' V _
i
. , O ' _
I . L-I .. - I. I0. ru M ‘C. A «0 -. a .4. . Ib
. ‘ I
. ~“-. .H
I .~
.....-Isnn tn.“-
. .
. . A » I v. .Iu - .
. l . n'
O 'I .
.IO. . .l .I -~
’ .
. I
l' .
I u , -.. . .
.-.. a . v ~ .0
' A .' . .
. o . l
.— . - u . ~-
. . . . .
l I... . . ar- e n . r . .o.‘ a: “oats v. n - . I
I ‘ ‘ I < -
I - ' co ‘u v ' -
I , _
o ‘ . .i
‘ ' l
. c
I _ o ‘. .
‘ I 4 l I . ‘ i ‘
~54 . I .‘ A. v
. a
I . - .-‘ l . ,
- I . . I .‘- I a I
I
r u a . " .- ', I
9 - A
,g '
' . , a I a
.I
I ‘,
~
‘ .. ‘ . o.
' . - U | -_ - .

«'1‘
_..,»
-._
-.

-I‘Mlflgfl

 

 

 

' * c. I
‘ . ‘0' . . 4 n
. . J. -..~.m. ~.
‘ I
I . -
. p. Iv' '. "
. .. _
o
l 4 O .-
v ' " '
o c .. . ~>-. .
... .
....... I.-. I..o---.~...--- .-
.I
- -I-- .4: .-I I '
V
. . I
s- 4...: -‘ - -u-. 'I' I
v
| Y
I I
-.«.-.-,.-.~-v . y .. .
\
I .
1 V.
I... .0 .. .. .Inm... .
. - .
I 0 v v '
r. ~0- ...--.I. -_ ~.
- I
I
l
I t ‘
4 . ' a
-‘ . l
.I ..,.I. ,- I .
. -I o - ‘ ~
v ' I .
. - _ . . . .
..-‘, . , . .-I. II-uo- '
w. .u.'\ n... ...-. .QN“~I .§.- - \ , .. , I-.-I-.... I. u
4
.. , . ~ .V. . ‘. .. ~
I l \ K , «A ' . . .
. I
r4. I ‘ . - . . .‘ I .
. I. ’ - A . . a '..
u
' V I
' ‘ I ‘ I ' v 4
, .
, . . .
" I' ‘ a -.I
o '-v . . . .
. I. . ' .1 ' ' I - .. ,
. . _ .. l
.. . H , . -. o
l- . . r i
I... 0.0 ' . , ' t.r
‘ 5 . , ~ . . .
t w“ .. . ' - I J
.
. .
. - . _l\ ‘113‘ ‘ (.u
. ‘ ‘ v _ I . .‘ . ‘
. I
. . , .‘ . . I
1‘. . ' . q - ~' ‘ - .
, .
._ ' I‘ . . I 5‘.
x ' o - . ~ -. .
. .
. .
. , , 'L l
l l U
_ l . . . l r .
‘ I
I .
- I
‘ . u. , . .

,__‘L\...,_ '
.~ '-H--I""-'1. '
V i; '

\
. ‘2

:‘.‘,.‘1;L:IF' .1
yarwzffl
Ir=.?.‘v“\‘f?¥ '_-
'- 13.3?cf*’rF’t 4".”
V 1*.“ '37 91'5"qu A.
'99:? ). r ‘512¢1\'.~‘1§..5* '
(ligfi‘y'b‘ ' ‘f u_;‘)
ka'zfi; 9‘ -

x

it;

 

 

”'TfiifilflmfilflfigflflufififlfljfijflififliflTflhflTiES