A STUB‘Y OF A CWPER EVE TURKEY
MARKETMG PROJECT EN OHEO

Thai; fa: «2m Dag!» c§ M. S...
MECHIGAN S?ATE UNWERSYE‘Y
Daria D. Meyer
1958

 

If!)
. .rt‘i'i"

A STUDY OF A COOPERATIVE TURKEY
MARKETING PROJECT IN OHIO

By
DARIS D. MOYER

AN ABSTRACT
Submitted to the College of Agriculture
Michigan State University of Agriculture and

Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural Economics

Year 1958

Approved fig 19%

Abstract Daris D. Moyer 1.

In this study, an analysis was made of the operation
of the Ohio Turkey Growers Marketing Association for the
1954 marketing season involving 34 Ohio turkey producers.

No significant correlation was found between the
volume of sales made to buyers and the net prices received
in any of the weight classes.

Producers marketing hens up to 14 pounds in weight
during December received the highest price. Under similar
marketing conditions, this would necessitate starting poults
in June to have the desired weight hens by December. Hens
weighing 14 pounds and up brought the highest price when
marketed in November. This would necessitate starting
poults in April or early May to have the desired weights '
by November.

This study showed that producers who marketed toms
under 20 pounds during December received 1.2 cents per
pound more than those in the same weight range but marketed
in November. To produce this desired weight by December
would require starting the poults in June. Toms in the
weight range of 20 to 24 pounds brought more favorable
prices than did the lighter weight toms during November and
December. Toms that weighed over 24 pounds could have been
marketed at any time from the standpoint of prices received
during the period of this study. However, it was suggested
that the additional cost of producing toms over 24 pounds

in weight may more than offset higher prices received.

Abstract ‘ Daris D. Moyer 2.

There were no statistically significant differences
between prices received for ready~to—cook Grade A turkeys of
the various sizes and the average quoted live prices for
Ohio. However, the 311,888 pounds of hens marketed through
the association in 1954 netted $ 916.98 more (.029 cents
per pound more) than they would have received if the turkeys
had been marketed at the average quoted live prices (ready-
to—cook equivalent).. 0n the same basis, the 718,381 pounds
of toms marketed through the association netted $ 15,951.76
more (2.2 cents per pound more). The 89,473 pounds of fry-
ers marketed through the association netted 3 2,690.97 or 3.0
cents per pound less during the period of study.

Over—all, the prices received by producers who marketed
Grade A hens and toms were higher than the prices they would
have received through alternative methods of marketing based
upon the average quoted live prices. However, in the case
of fryers, producers would have received more by marketing
them alive at the average quoted live prices. The importance
of processing at maturity, reduction of risk, payment on the
basis of quality, and a storage program to provide for more
orderly marketing, are important factors in making comparisons
between alternative methods of marketing.

The primary reason for the failure of the program to
obtain greater support from the turkey producers was
because of the delay in payment between the time of proces-

sing and the time of selling.

Abstract Daris D. Moyer

A postal survey in 1958 of former active members
indicated that due to increased production and few live
buyers and processing plants operating, there is greater
need for the marketing program now than in 1954, the last

year of operation.

A STUDY OF A COOPERATIVE TURKEY
MARKETING PROJECT IN OHIO

By
DARIS D. MOYER

A THESIS
Submitted to the College of Agriculture
Michigan State University of Agriculture and

Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural Economics

Year 1958

‘1; --
/..’ ’9‘ v ‘ .2)

G-7ZLQ3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author wishes to express his appreciation to
Dr. H. E. Larzelere, of the Agricultural Economics
Department, for his guidance and suggestions for the scope
of the study and his valuable assistance in the preparation
of this thesis. Sincere appreciation is also extended to
Dr. L. R. Champion, of the Department of Poultry Science,
for his excellent suggestions and assistance in the
statistical analysis of the data used in this study.

I An expression of thanks is also extended to

Dr. William Baten, Statistician for the Agricultural
Experiment Station, Michigan State University, for his
suggestions as to the statistical methods that would be
most practical in analyzing and presenting data used in
this study.

Sincere appreciation is also expressed to
Dr. H. C. Zindel, Head of the Department of Poultry Science.
for his encouragement, assistance, and suggestions in the

preparation of this thesis.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
PROCEDURE
CONCLUSIONS

SUMMARY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX

ii

Page

28
59
62
65

66

TABLE

6a.

6b.

LIST OF TABLES

PRODUCTION OF TURKEYS IN THE UNITED STATES
AND OHIO, 1929 — 1954

NUMBER, POUNDS, READY-TO-COOK AVERAGE WEIGHT,

GRADE, AND AVERAGE READY—TO-COOK PRICE RECEIVED

Page

11

FOR TURKEYS MARKETED THROUGH OHIO TURKEY GROWERS

ASSOCIATION DURING THE 1954 MARKETING SEASON

AVERAGE PRICES FOR LIVE TURKEYS QUOTED IN
CLEVELAND, COLUMBUS, AND CINCINNATI MARKETS
DURING OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, AND DECEMBER 1953
AND 1954 '

LIVE WEIGHT, READY-TO-COOK WEIGHT, AND DRESSING

PERCENTAGES ON SELECTED LOTS OF TURKEYS

DIFFERENCE IN AVERAGE QUOTED LIVE PRICES AND
READY—TO-COOK PRICES CONVERTED TO LIVE PRICE
EQUIVALENT FOR THE 1954.MARKETING SEASON

TOTAL SALES BY MARKET PERIODS 0F GRADE A
TURKEYS, AVERAGE READY-TO—COOK PRICE RECEIVED
COMPARED TO BREAK—EVEN PRICE (BASED ON A
QUOTED LIVE PRICE CONVERTED TO READY—TO—COOK
PRICE EQUIVALENT) DURING THE 1954 MARKETING
SEASON, NOVEMBER

TOTAL SALES BY MARKET PERIODS 0F GRADE A
TURKEYS, AVERAGE READY-TO—COOK PRICE RECEIVED
COMPARED TO BREAK—EVEN PRICE (BASED ON QUOTED
LIVE PRICE CONVERTED T0 READY—TO—COOK PRICE
EQUIVALENT) DURING THE 1954'MARKETING SEASON,
DECEMBER

TOTAL SALES BY MARKET PERIODS 0F GRADE A
TURKEYS, AVERAGE READY-TO—COOK PRICE RECEIVED
COMPARED TO BREAKAEVEN PRICE (BASED ON QUOTED
LIVE PRICE CONVERTED TO READY-TO-COOK PRICE
EQUIVALENT) DURING THE 1954 MARKETING SEASON,
JANUARY 1955

SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF SALES, AVERAGE READY—

TO-COOK PRICE RECEIVED AND AVERAGE LIVE BREAK-
EVEN PRICE (READY-TO—COOK EQUIVALENT), GRADE A

TURKEYS, SOLD NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 1954,
JANUARY AND LATER, 1955

iii

25

3O

32

43

43a

43b

46

TABLE 'Page

8. COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION OF VOLUME OF SALES
vs. PRICE, NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER SALE PERIODS,
HENS AND TOMS BY WEIGHT CLASSES FOR TURKEYS
MARKETED DURING THE 1954 MARKETING SEASON 53

iv

FIGURE

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

LOCATION OF PROCESSING PLANTS AND ACTIVE
MEMBERS - 1954 23

AVERAGE QUOTED LIVE TURKEY PRICES FOR CLEVELAND,
COLUMBUS, AND CINCINNATI MARKETS, OCTOBER,
NOVEMBER, AND DECEMBER, 1953 — 1954 31

COMPARISON OF AVERAGE QUOTED LIVE PRICES AND
READY-TO-COOK PRICES (CONVERTED TO LIVE
EQUIVALENT) FOR TURKEYS MARKETED IN 1954 33

COMPARISON OF READY—TO-COOK PRICES RECEIVED

AND THE AVERAGE LIVE PRICE (READY—TO—COOK
EQUIVALENT) FOR HENS CALCULATED FROM AVERAGE

LIVE PRICE FOR 1954 MARKETING SEASON 39

COMPARISON OF READY—TO-COOK PRICES RECEIVED
AND THE AVERAGE LIVE PRICE (READY-TO—COOK
EQUIVALENT) RECEIVED FOR TOMS DURING THE

1954 MARKETING SEASON 44

COMPARISON OF READY-TO-COOK PRICES AND AVERAGE
QUOTED LIVE PRICES (READY-TO—COOK EQUIVALENT)
RECEIVED FOR FRYERS DURING THE 1954 MARKETING
SEASON 45

TABLE

‘ LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES

DISTRIBUTION OF FRYERS 4 — 8 POUNDS BY DATE
OF PROCESSING AND TIME OF SALE AND PERCENTAGE
SOLD DURING THE RESPECTIVE SALES PERIODS

DISTRIBUTION OF HENS 8 POUNDS - 9 POUNDS

15 OUNCES WEIGHT CLASS ACCORDING TO DATE OF
PROCESSING AND TIME OF SALE AND PERCENTAGE
SOLD DURING THE RESPECTIVE SALES PERIODS

DISTRIBUTION OF HENS lO POUNDS - 11 POUNDS

15 OUNCES WEIGHT CLASS ACCORDING TO DATE OF
PROCESSING AND TIME OF SALE AND PERCENTAGE

SOLD DURING RESPECTIVE SALES PERIODS

DISTRIBUTION OF HENS l2 POUNDS - 13 POUNDS
l5 OUNCES WEIGHT CLASS ACCORDING TO DATE OF
PROCESSING AND TIME OF SALE AND PERCENTAGE
SOLD DURING RESPECTIVE SALES PERIODS

DISTRIBUTION OF HENS 14 POUNDS AND UP BY DATE
OF PROCESSING AND TIME OF SALE AND PERCENTAGE
SOLD DURING RESPECTIVE SALES PERIODS

DISTRIBUTION OF TOMS TO 16 POUNDS BY DATE OF
PROCESSING AND TIME OF SALE AND PERCENTAGE
SOLD DURING RESPECTIVE SALES PERIODS

DISTRIBUTION OF TOMS 16 POUNDS - 19 POUNDS
15 OUNCES WEIGHT CLASS BY DATE OF PROCESSING
AND TIME OF SALE, AND PERCENTAGE SOLD DURING
RESPECTIVE SALES PERIODS

DISTRIBUTION OF TOMS 20 POUNDS — 23 POUNDS
15 OUNCES WEIGHT CLASS BY DATE OF PROCESSING
AND TIME OF SALE AND PERCENTAGE SOLD DURING
RESPECTIVE SALES PERIODS

DISTRIBUTION OF TOMS 24 POUNDS AND UP BY DATE

OF PROCESSING AND TIME OF SALE AND PERCENTAGE
SOLD DURING RESPECTIVE SALES PERIODS

Vi

Page

66

67

68

69

7O

71

72

73

74

INTRODUCTION

During the period of 1940 to 1950, turkey growers in
Ohio were repeatedly confronted with the problem of locating
dependable marketing facilities; especially<Ras this trua in
years of heavy production. The opinion held by many turkey
growers was that the major portion of their marketing prob-
lems could be minimized or solved by the formation of a
strong producer—controlled marketing association. With this
type of marketing facility, a program in which turkey quality
could be improved and controlled, more favorable returns to
producers would be realized. In developing this idea, many
turkey growers met at frequent intervals to study and dis—
cuss various methods of marketing turkeys.

In 1942, leaders in the turkey industry in the state
of Ohio approached Extension Staff members in the Department
of Poultry Husbandry at Ohio State University with their
turkey marketing problems. A majority of turkey growers
were convinced that a producer-controlled turkey marketing
association would prove successful if the program included
two major facilities - processing and storage for handling
their turkeys. However, there was considerable opposition
to the formation of the proposed marketing association by
turkey growers who had established their own processing
facilities and market outlets. The individuals in this
latter minority group felt that an association selling in

large volume would tend to absorb their established markets

./f, _
,q,
and, further, tend to lower prices they would receive.

/!

In the formation of the proposed cooperative turkey
marketing program, detailed studies were made of successful
marketing programs which had been established by turkey
growers in Virginia, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Thus, in 1953, more than ten years after the initial stimu-
lus, the Ohio Turkey Growers Marketing Association was formed.

As an Extension Staff member in the Department of
Poultry Science, Ohio State University, the author was in~
timately associated with the formation, organization, and
Operation of the Ohio Turkey Growers Marketing Association.

After the Association had been in operation for two
marketing seasons, there was considerable divergence of
opinion, within the membership and among non—cooperating
turkey growers, as to the impact and effectiveness of the
Association in providing improved processing and storage
facilities for Ohio turkey producers. Further, the question
most frequently raised was: "How did this method of marketing
compare with other methods of marketing in net returns to
the producer?"

The objectives of the study reported herein were: (1)
to determine the relationship between time of processing
and month of sale and prices received per pound for ready-
to-cook turkeys, (2) to determine the relationship between
volume of sales and prices received, (3) to compare the net
returns from turkeys marketed through the Ohio Turkey Growers

lMarketing Association with the average live prices quoted

for Ohio turkeys during the same period, (4) to determine

if the rapid turnover of active membership was justified
from net prices received through the Association as compared
to alternative methods of marketing, and (5) to study the
attitudes of the former active members toward cooperative
turkey marketing three and one—half years after the
Association had discontinued its operation.

These objectives are discussed under the following
headings: Review of Literature, Reasons for Cooperative
Marketing Interest in Ohio, Description of the Marketing
Program, The Method of Operation, The Analysis of One Year's
Operation, Survey of Current Opinions of Members as to the

Value of the Marketing Program, and Conclusions.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

COOperative turkey marketing had its beginning when
the Clay County Farm Bureau in West Point, Mississippi,
marketed a shipment of five turkeys in 1918. By 1922,
twelve turkey marketing organizations were located in Minne—
sota, Colorado, Missouri, Wyoming, and Mississippi. In 1923,
eight more cooperative turkey marketing organizations were
started in Montana, Colorado, Idaho, Utah, and Texas.1

This movement developed rapidly and by 1936, 115 such
farmer cooperatives were handling turkeys. At this point,
expansion ceased and turkey marketing cooperatives began to
decline in number. By 1936, only 30 cooperative turkey
marketing organizations remained. This reduction in the
number of associations was due to the basic changes in the
industry and not the decline in the importance of coopera-
tive turkey marketing.

The typical early turkey organizations were called
"pools."2 They were actually small informal groups of turkey
raisers who processed their own turkeys on the farm and
delivered them to a central point of assembly for grading,
boxing, and shipping to markets, usually in distant cities.
The turkeys were usually dry picked and either sold ahead
of shipping or consigned to brokers for selling after arri—
val at the market.

From these informal early pools came the development

of incorporated marketing organizations, which hired a

manager to handle the assembling and selling functions
during the fall marketing period. Usually the personnel
was made up of one or more leading producers who had an
interest in getting their own production marketed to a
better advantage.

One good characteristic of these early organizations
was that producers shared in the returns and expenses in
proportion to the volume and quality of turkeys they market—
ed through the organization. The selling function was
usually composed Of two "pools" in a season, Thanksgiving
and Christmas. Later, some developed a "freezer pool" that
carried over into the out-Of-season marketing period after
the holidays.

The early associations encountered many difficulties.
The lack of support from members, insufficient capital to
carry on Operations, and usually only one or two bids re—
ceived for each pool made it difficult to develop good out—
lets. Frequently, the manager was forced to sell the pool
immediately, regardless of price, because producers wanted
immediate payment for the turkeys they consigned.

The consignment of shipments to be sold on arrival at
terminal markets was followed in some instances. This was
especially true where associations could make an “advance"
which constituted a partial payment when the turkeys were
shipped. The balance was then paid to the growers when the
returns were received from the shipment and all expenses

deducted.

6.

Cooperative marketing organizations soon realized that
growers wanted their money as soon as possible after shipment
to the market. The need to build up operating capital
became apparent. A small amount per pound (usually a frac—
tion of a cent) was retained to accumulate funds in order
to provide operating capital. ’

A basic weakness of the turkey marketing pools was
that they were not large enough in volume and capital to
provide efficient marketing service. By operating as indi-
vidual marketing units they competed with each other for
marketing outlets, thus often lowering the price to sell
their volume. Out of this weakness came the development
of "federated"3 sales organizations.

The first of these federated sales organizations to
be Organized was the Northwestern Turkey Growers Association,
in 1930, with headquarters at Salt Lake City, Utah. Later
the name was changed to "Norbest" which was the brand name
for turkeys marketed by this sales organization.

This organization originally handled turkeys for
about forty-five organizations in the western states. Mar-
keting organizations were developed in Colorado, Texas,
Oklahoma, and North Dakota to serve the turkey pools located
in these areas.

The development of the federated sales organization}
proved to be an important forward step in cooperative marke-
ting. Establishing a brand name and the development of

their own sales agencies in the larger cities in order to

sell to large wholesalers and retailers rapidly improved
their competitive position in the market. The elimination
of competition among pools, plus standardized grading and
packing, helped to reduce marketing costs. By handling a
larger volume of turkeys, the effect of economy of large—
scale purchasing of supplies was demonstrated. By initiating
a program to build up operating capital through withholding
a fraction of a cent on a pound, called patronage retains,
they were able to strengthen their financial position.

This enabled them to make more prompt payments to growers.
It was also the basis for securing additional operating
capital through private banks and banks for cooperatives.

During the 1930—31 marketing season, the Norbest mar—
keting organization marketed 3,500,000 pounds of turkeys,

New York dressed weight. By the 1940—41 marketing year,
over 10,000,000 pounds were handled by Norbest. After 1951,
nearly all the turkeys were sold on a ready-tO—cook basis.
During the 1956—57 marketing season, 65,000,000 pounds of
turkey were marketed by Norbest.

Due to its strong financial position, many of Norbest's
member organizations now make payment, or a substantial ad-
vance on the value of the turkeys, at the time turkeys are
delivered to the plant. The pool method has been discon—
tinued because birds are usually bought on an outright basis.
Member organizations of the Norbest organization have, for
the most part, been able to expand their plants, providing

the most modern processing and freezing facilities. Thus,

8.

they have been able to continue to be a very strong influence
in turkey marketing in the western and midwestern states,
where they now operate.

By having well developed sales outlets in principal
cities, Norbest turkeys are found in most of the major mar-
ket areas. Their quality control program has gained for
them a good reputation wherever Norbest turkeys have been
distributed.

While there are many other cooperative marketing or-
ganizations that are processing and marketing turkeys, the
federated type of sales organization developed by Norbest
Turkey Growers, of Salt Lake City, Utah, has not spread to
any extent to other turkey marketing groups.

Land O'Lakes Creameries, Incorporated5 was organized
in 1924 to serve as a sales agent for a group of cooperative
creameries in Minnesota and Wisconsin. While the organiza—
tion built its business around butter, it started handling
poultry in 1928 and turkeys were added in 1931. The volume
of turkeys handled by Land O'Lakes Creameries, Incorporated
jumped from 2,927,000 pounds in 1931 to 10,798,000 pounds
in 1947. This vertically integrated marketing organization
sought to carry the diversified products as far toward the
consumer as possible by performing the marketing functions
of wholesale assembly, grading, branding, and selling to
the trade in wholesale and job lots.

The accomplishments and limitations of the turkey

marketing cooperatives were cited by a special committee

made up of leaders in the field of marketing and grading

and United States Department of Agriculture officials in
1937.6 The committee stated that turkey marketing coopera—
tives had, by adopting uniform grades and grading methods,
encouraged the selling of dressed turkeys in more attractive
packages. By their educational program they were able to
influence the grading of live birds which resulted in a
better quality product, at the same time lowering processing
costs. Turkey cooperatives, in 1937, were not financing
growers and thereby they had very little influence in the
production and marketing of turkeys financed by private
agencies. An impOrtant problem of these cooperatives was
that growers who were not familiar with cooperative marketing
principles expected better prices in every instance when
marketing cooperatively and they failed to see the benefits

beyond comparative prices. Their disappointments often

resulted idfldropping out of the associations.

During the early part of 1952, a study was completed
in Indiana7 in regard to the need for cooperative marketing
in that state. The study included an analysis of production
areas, processing facilities, potential markets, and pro—
ducer attitudes toward financing their own marketing program
and facilities. Although the study showed there could be
benefits from the existence of a cooperative marketing pro—
gram, an urgent need was not evident. The idea of developing
a marketing program in Indiana was dropped at this point.

HOWever, this study was not completed until after the group

10.
of Ohio turkey producers made definite plans to organize
a cooperative turkey marketing association.
REASONS FOR COOPERATIVE MARKETING
INTEREST IN OHIO

Turkey production in Ohio increased rapidly during the
period of 1935 to 1954. Table 1 shows the production of
turkeys in the United States and Ohio from 1929 to 1954.

By 1952, Ohio reached ninth in importance in turkey
production in the United States and, in 1953 and 1954, it
ranked sixth and fifth, respectively.

During 1936, a small group of Ohio turkey producers
organized a pool to market their turkeys. The producers
participating in this program processed and delivered the
turkeys they consigned to a central point for grading and
packaging.‘ The graded birds were then sold to wholesale
buyers and retail chain stores. The produCers were paid
on the basis of quality of the turkeys delivered to the
central point for grading.

The group believed they could improve their bargain—
ing position with large wholesaler and retailer outlets.
They felt they would receive a higher price commensurate
With the quality grade of turkey delivered to the associa—
tion. However, it failed the first year for lack of support
by Ohio turkey producers.

During World War II, producers experienced difficulty

in getting turkeys processed due to production expanding

TABLE 1. PRODUCTION OF TURKEYS IN THE UNITED STATES AND
OHIO, 1929—1954.

 

 

 

OHIO

PERCENT

OF U.S.
YEAR UNITED STATES OHIO PRODUCTION

Number Number Percent

1929 18,476,000 195,000 1.5
1934 21,702,000 660,000 3.0
1939 33,587,000 771,000 2.3
1944 35,132,000' 979,000 2.8
1949 41,266,000 1,186,000 2.9
1952 60,868,000 1,878,000 3.1
1953 56,541,000 1,972,000 3.4

1954 65,945,000 2,960,000 4.8

 

12.
faster than processing facilities. This resulted in many
producers buying processing equipment. After processing,
the turkeys were sold by the individual growers to whole-
salers and commission houses in the larger cities in Ohio
and adjoining states. Wholesale buyers boasted of the fact
that it was easy to get turkeys at a lower price than ac-
tual price quotations due to price cutting competition among
the many individual marketers. This situation meant that
the growers had little bargaining power.

The Ohio Turkey Association, for several years, spon—
sored a Research and Development Committee that took an
active interest in what was being done in other areas in
the fields of production and marketing. Frequent trips
were made to some of the major turkey production areas to
study methods of production and marketing.

As production in Ohio increased, the marketing prob—
lem became more acute and growers found themselves more and
mOre at the mercy of the buyers. In years of heavy produc-
tion, the common complaint was that buyers would contract
for the entire flock at a definite price, then during the
major marketing season take the hens only and leave the toms
until after the holidays. The buyers then frequently failed
to take the toms later unless the producer would adjust the
price downward.

Producers in the central western part of the state
in 1945 and 1946 investigated the possibility of building a

processing plant. The study revealed that the minimum cost

13.

to build a modern plant, equipped with fast-freezing facili—
ties, would be from $250,000 to $300,000. The idea was
dropped because financing was impossible at that time.

Following the 1952 marketing season, many growers
again expressed dissatisfaction with the methods of marketing.
,They urged that a COOperative turkey marketing program be
given serious consideration as a possible solution to their
problem. A group of‘yprthwestern Ohio growers made a visit
to the Penn's Best Turkey Marketing Cooperative at Johnstown,
Pennsylvania, to study this marketing setup. The group was
of the opinion that a similar program would materially help
to promote more orderly marketing of turkeys in Ohio and
urged that a more detailed study he made.

A committee of 20 growers was called together in
April, 1953, to discuss the plan. Other meetings were held
to explore the possibility. Finally, a steering committee
of 14 producers was formed. From this group, a committee
was appointed to study processing and markxing costs. afiIher
committee, had the task of getting information on the diff

(,ferentJt pes of marketing organizations.5 This included
,awwjfngfi: S 0:!financingjfiUOnstitution, anéffiy-laws. A manage—
ment committee was charged with the responsibility of

working out details for the operation of the proposed organ—
ization.

After the committee on marketing programs had reported

its findings, it was decided to pattern the proposed marketing

association after the one at Johnstown, Pennsylvania. This

l4.
association served as a procurement and sales organization
and had the turkeys processed on a custom basis with privately
owned dressing plants. The plants packed the turkeys in
printed cryovac bags and boxes at a previously contracted
price per pound. The turkeys were then moved to cold storage
warehouses and stored until sold.

The objectives of the marketing program as set up by
the over-all committee were as follows:

1. To stabilize live turkey prices by providing
processing and storage facilities so that growers could get
their flocks processed when they reached maturity.

2. To reduce price depressing factors by more orderly
movement of turkeys to retail outlets in quantities that
market conditions would warrant.

3. To reduce competition in the markets among growers
who had been processing and marketing their own birds because
too frequently they were bidding against each other for the
same markets which usually resulted in price cutting.

4. To secure outlets which individual growers could
not service because of insufficient volume of the desirable
market weights.

5. To establish a brand name by which the association
could build a reputation for Ohio-grown turkeys to better
compete with out-of—state brands.

6. To conduct a sales program throughout the year.
Orderly marketing would be provided through a storage program

/\l a"
l ’ l‘ (I
ma 7 I -
a." K .’

to Faggihedmar et outlets for heavy toms as well as fryer—

15.
roaster turkeys.
7. To benefit the entire turkey industry because of
the stabilizing influence of the storage program, even
though the assPciation expected to market only a small

in.»

PE
percentage of total volume of turkeys sold in Ohio.

/?
DESCRIPTION OF THE MARKETING PROGRAM

Organization Plans

 

In June, 1953, the following program was presented at
a meeting of nearly 150 growers.

l. The association was incorporated as a producers'
marketing cooperative under the cooperative laws of Ohio,
with the requirement that each member purchase one share of
common stock of $100.00 par value. The share of stock was
purchased when the grower joined the association.

2. Additional working capital was raised by sale of
certificates of investment to members and others having an
interest in the marketing program. Members were required
to purchase a $100.00 certificate of investment for each
1,000 birds marketed through the association. Certificates
were interest—bearing and were to be redeemed when the
association had sufficient working capital. It was planned
that the association would raise $30,000.00 to $40,000.00
from sale of stock and certificates of investment during the
1953 marketing season, the first year of operation.

3. The association was governed by a Board of Direc-

tors elected from the membership. The state was divided

16.
into four districts. Two members on the Board of Directors
were elected from each district, with one member a director
at large, or a total of nine directors. Four directors were
elected for one—year terms and four directors for two-year
terms. The director at large was elected for one year.

4. The association hired a full—time general manager.

5. The association madecontracts with various pro—
cessing plants to process, package, freeze, and deliver to
cold storage warehouses all the turkeys that were consigned
by members to the association.

6. Processors agreed to provide the processing service
including freezing and delivering to the cold storage ware-
house (for 5% cents "ready-to-cook” weight).

7. The association furnished the bags and boxes
printed with the association label to the processors.

8. The association sold the birds to established
wholesale outlets, including chain store buyers. Costs in
addition to those for processing and packaging were:

(1) selling, 1 cent per pound; (2) reserve for Operating
capital, % cent per pound; (3) transportation and storage
were extra; (4) the % cent per pound for operating capital
was to be revolved and returned to members when the associa—
tion had sufficient operating capital.

9. The association agreed to advance sixty per cent
of the market value at the time of delivery of the turkeys,
less processing and packaging charges. This advance was

paid after the processed turkeys reached the cold storage

l7.
warehouses and warehouse receipts were issued to the assoc—
iation. This procedure applied to both hens and toms. The
association then could borrow on the official warehouse
receipts. The balance was paid after all birds in the
particular pool were sold. After the first year, individual
producers' lots were sold and returngd to the produce;:%g%ed
on the selling price of each lot.

10. All birds were graded according to grades estab—
lished by the Board of Directors. Separate pools were es-
tablished based on the time the turkeys were processed for
the months of September, October, November, and December.
After January 1, the length of the pool period depended upon
the type and volume of birds consigned to the association
for processing and selling.

11. The association eStablished a brand name for
grade ”A" turkeys.

12. The association marketed only turkeys from pro-
ducers who were members of the marketing association.

13. Members were asked to make tentative commitments
by June 15, after the first marketing season, as to the
number and sizes of birds they planned to market through the
association during the year.

14. Flocks were scheduled for processing well ahead
of marketing time so that producers knew in advance when
and where their birds were to be processed.

15. A year-round marketing program for fryer—roaster

turkeys was attempted.

18.

The 150 growers attending the organization meeting
represented a tentative production of 529,400 turkeys that
year, which represented nearly 27 per cent of the actual
production in Ohio for 1953. Thus it was demonstrated, be-
yond a doubt, that leading turkey producers were interested
in their marketing problem. During the meeting, 45 producers
agreed to become members and indicated a willingness to
~support the organization, immediately pledging an average
of $500.00 per member to provide capital to get the associa-
tion incorporated. Plans were made to complete the incor-
poration procedure and to start operations by October 1, 1953.

The Finance Committee had indicated that it would take
a minimum of $50,000.00 to provide office equipment and
packaging materials. With this amount of working capital,
producers could not be paid for their turkeys until after
they were sold. After the sale of each producer's lot of
turkeys, an advance of about sixty per cent of the net
market value was made to the producers. The balance was not
paid until the entire pool was sold.

At an early meeting of the Board of Directors,

Herbert Beyers, General Manager of Norbest Turkey Growers
Association, Salt Lake City, Utah, suggested that the Ohio
Turkey Growers Marketing Association become an associate

member of the Norbest organization. At that time, Norbest
had accrued nearly $1,000,000.00 in operating capital plus
Open credit with private banks and banks for cooperatives

of around $5,000,000.00. Thus Norbest was in financial

position to finance consignments of turkeys if the asaniation
desired to sell turkeys through the Norbest sales organiza-
tion. The attorneys employed by Norbest were in a position

to give opinions on legal matters. Their accountants were
available for help in setting up a recommended bookkeeping
system for cooperatives. Norbest could also provide weekly
market information as to price trends in major terminal mar—
kets by telephone and letters. This type of service was
provided to marketing cooperatives that would become associate
members of Norbest.

Norbest's fee for this service was one-fourth cent
per pound to be paid by the association on all turkeys sold
in Ohio by the association. For sales outside Ohio by the
Ohio Association, Norbest was to receive one cent per pound.
This fee was to protect their sales agency from competition
by their own associate members. The extra fee of 3/4 of a
cent for out—of—state sales made it difficult to sell in
competition with their sales agencies located in principal
terminal markets.

The penalty of 3/4 Of a cent per pound for out-of—state
sales, plus the fact that the Salt Lake City Office was too
great a distance away to get rapid service on financing through
the surrender of warehouse receipts, made the associate member—
ship in Norbest impractical. The Ohio association continued
as an associate member for only the first year of operation.
However, no turkeys were consigned to the Norbest sales

organization for selling during the 195‘ marketing season.

MarketingVCharges:

 

Marketing charges based on oven—ready weights

up as follows:

1. ProcesSing all sizes of turkeys 4% cents
2. Packaging (bags and boxes) 2 cents
3. Freezing % cent
4. Transportation to the freezer % cent
5. Selling 1 cent
6. Operating capital reserve % cent

20.

were set

per
per
per
per
per

per

pound
pound
pound
pound
pound

pound

Y\
‘AThe first year of operation when the pool method of

selling was in effect, any storage charges against any lot

of turkeys in the particular pool were merely added and

charged in the expense against the pool. During the time

the pool method of selling was used, the average expense,

1

including the storage and the % cent operating reserve, was

9% cents.

After operating four months under the pool arrange-

ment, the Board of Directors decided to make settlement to

individual producers on the actual price their turkeys sold

for, minus the marketing charges and actual storage charges.

Many members objected to the pool method of selling.
felt they should receive the actual price the individual

lots of turkeys sold for, minus the marketing costs.

They

The

pool method had proved to be time consuming both from a

bookkeeping standpoint and from the fact that final returns

to producers had to be delayed until all the turkeys in that

21.

particular pool had been sold. Producers did not like the
long wait for final settlement.

To simplify bookkeeping and to speed up final settle—
ment with producers, a Cardex system was set up. All infor—
mation on processing, including number of turkeys, weight
class, etc., was recorded on a producer's card for each lot
of turkeys handled by the association. When the lot was
sold, the card was reversed and the sales information was
recorded, including the date, buyer, and amount, which made
it easy to transfer the information to the producer's
settlement forms. This change in method of selling and

records greatly simplified the office work. Instead of

"!\
. J Y ) '-
’Hf/it 4m at

of one cent was added to the marketingpéhargés to cover the
storage charges for sixty days after the turkeys were
processed. Thus a total charge of 10 cents per pound was
made on all turkeys sold within 60 days of processing.

Financing

 

During the,¢wo,years of operation there was a total
mafia:- J“? 3.4-.21. W

of 75 membersnat $100.00 pol share of common stock. By
issuing certificates of investment through the assessment
of $100.00 per thousand turkeys marketed, plus the one—half
cent per pound deducted for operating reserve, a total of
$28,000.00 was raised. With such limited financing, it was
difficult to purchase boxes in sufficient quantity to make

savings on volume purchasing. The larger box companies

refused to sell the assOciation on credit. However, one

22.
smaller company designed a box for the association and was
willing to extend some credit.

Procurement

- One of the objectives that marketing authorities had
emphasised to the members was that a quality product was a
"must" in order to establish a good reputation for the pro-
duct of the association. Whenever possible, the manager or
the custom processor checked the turkeys for feather maturity,
flashing, and the amount of finish befOre processing. This
was necessary, especially early in the season for the pro-
ducers for the most part had been selling alive and had very
little appreciation of the quality factors necessary for a
turkey that would grade "A" after it was processed.

Processing

 

As turkeys were custom processed in several plants,
it was difficult to keep the grading up to uniformly high
standards. Five of the plants were owned by members of the
'association, two of whom did an excellent job of processing
and grading. During the first year of operation, seven
different plants processed turkeys and in the second year
five plants processed turkeys for the association. Uniform
grading was difficult because the graders were employed by
the plant and not by the association.

Figure 1 shows the location of the five processing
plants that processed turkeys for the association in 1954
and the location Of the 34 active turkey growers during

that year.

 

FIGURE I. LOCATION OF PROCESSING PLANTS
AND ACTIVE MEMBERS I954

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

”TWA
ER‘E E
LUCAS '4 , E
I, ,‘a,\
+ OTTAWA \ LAX . \A ’ “W
+ V g
D VAHOGA MIMI.
‘WWPW cm: LORAIN
warm
H Il‘l’
30! ECA "so" M
HANCOCK + + H- W
YANOOT “wrong Enigma » [STARK
Q cum
umom 'H' +
cmm L
“Rm” —J nouns
NORROW
KNOX + 4» Wm
LOGAN Oman 0
”a" cosuoc‘rou
m OELA WARE
WI .__._ Cnmpmou Llcxmo may.
mam "mom
”‘50“ FRANKLIN WSN‘NGUM
+4
. CLARK
AIRFIELO PERRY NOBLE
DICKAWAY
* I’ Gaunt. W
FAY : 1’ 1’;
”Tl-ER WARREN CLINTON #
ROSS ATHEN:
VINTm
HAmLfao fi 16m. Mo
MT
9,“ new:
,1 ‘ mason
Show». ADAMS GALUA
SCIOTC
NE
‘W to

 

 

 

OLOCATION OF PROCESSING PLANTS
+ REPRESENT!) LOCATION OF AN ACTIVE MEMBER

23.

 

24.
Selling

All of the major chain store organization meat buyers
and the large wholesalers in Cleveland, Columbus, Toledo,
and Cincinnati were contacted ahead of the time the associa-
tion started operating. It was through these contacts, and
prospective buyers directed to the association by members.
that the sales program was developed.

Market outlets in Ohio included Columbus, Cincinnati,
Cleveland, Akron, Canton, Youngstown, and Toledo. Sales
during the two years outside Ohio indduded Detroit, Michigan;
Albany, New York; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Washington, D.C.;
and Miami, Florida.

During the first year of operation the association
marketed 81,019 turkeys, totaling 1,013,522 pounds, for 40
producer members, netting a total of $426,202.76 returns
to growers after all deductions. In addition, $5,176.00
was assigned to the members' credit as operating reserve.
After paying all expenses the first year of operation, there
was a balance of $17.23 undistributed savings, in addition
to the % cent per pound which had been accumulated in the
operating reserve. "This indicated that the marketing charges
had been set at the right level as the actual cost of per-
forming the marketing functions provided by the association.

Table 2 shows the volume marketed through the associa—
tion during the 1954 marketing season. There was an increase
of 1,174 turkeys and 182,235 additional pounds marketed as

compared to 1953. This volume netted the members $394,199.72

25.

no: mo: m>homoh wcfipmhoao uzsoa Mom “zoo mamaloao one

 

.copozcmc who: mpmoo

.cmuosumc
wnflumom was

 

 

.:ofiuoohonm:MH¢ .owMHOPm .wcfluoohw .wcwwaxomn hwawmmoOOAQ hopma muo0560hn ow mnthoh poz**
enmaoz xooouoesmeoom*
me.mm~.emm @ sme.mo~.~ mo~.mm
H.mm mm.emm.m o.m He.» mmm.m Hem.fi m
H.em Ha.mmm.mm o.Ho ma.» mee.om www.ma < mmmwme
«.mm mo.mmm.o~ e.m ao.mfi mme.me msm.m m
m.om mo.ooo.oam m.em oo.oH Hmm.m~e mmo.em < m:oe
o.mm me.ome.e m.» eo.m~ ome.em emo.m m
H.mm em.meo.mm~ m e.mm mv.HA mmm.-m cam.em < mzmm
canon
hon magma peso Hog mcazon mausoa
mouse **nm>mmomm m a < enema:
mw<mm>< q<eoe ma<ma mw<mm>< *mz:ho> mmmzsz mn<¢w mmeqo
Mooouoe sooonoe
nan<mm umn<mm
.zom<mm ozwemam<z some may czuman
one<Hoomm< mmmzomw swamps oumo manomme amemam<z msmxmae mom mm>Hmomm monm
mooonoeuunemm mc<mm>< nz< .mn<mo .amuams moamm><.sooonoeswn<mm .mnzaom .mmmZDZ .m mhm<e

26.
or $32,003.04 less than the volume marketed in 1953, due to
lower turkey prices. However, the % cent per pound operating
reserve of $5,978.79 was not deducted on the volume handled
in 1954. While the increase in production in the United
States in 1954 was 9,401,000 turkeys, production increased
in Ohio 988,000 over the 1953 figure.

The membership in the association totaled 75 members.
Forty members marketed turkeys through the association in
1953. Sixteen who marketed through the association in 1953
did not do so in 1954. Only 34 members marketed turkeys
through the association in 1954, but they consigned a larger
total number of turkeys. Twenty—four members did not con—
sign turkeys either of the two years of operation. In most
instances, the reason given by this inactive group for
joining was that they felt it was a good program and wanted
to support it. In addition, they felt that they could fall
back on the association if another outlet were needed.

In the group of 16 that drOpped out of the association
after the first year, the reasons given at the time of
withdrawal were: (1) A higher not price had been expected,
(2) final payment was often delayed too long after birds
were processed, and (3) dissatisfaction with the percentage
of turkeys that graded "A."

Some of the complaints about price were the result of
several marketing only toms. These were held in storage and
were later sold on a declining market. Furthermore, addi-

tLonal storage charges reduced the net price to the producers.

27.
One producer openly accused the processor of switching the
birds because he thought he delivered higher quality toms
than the grade report reflected. In fact, one producer
threatened to bring suit against the association if money
invested in his membership and certificate of investment was
not immediately returned. He had made one shipment through
the association and was very dissatisfied with grade and
price received. Records showed that this particular producer
had not attended any of the preliminary educational or
organizational meetings but joined because he thought it
was a way to net a much higher price for his turkeys.

THE ANALYSIS OF ONE YEAR'S OPERATION

In an attempt to interpret the results of the market—
ing program to the producer in providing marketing service,
the following questions were raised:

1. Was it more profitable or less profitable to
market turkeys through the cooperative marketing program,
rather than to market them alive? (the customary alterna—
tive at the time)

2. Did the association consistently return more or
return less than the average quoted live prices for Ohio
markets?

3. Did the prices received show any relationship
between the month of processing and the period of selling?

4. Was there a definite relationship between the

Prices of the different weight classes of turkeys and the

time of year they were actually marketed?

5. Was there a correlation between the volume of
sales units and the prices received per pound?

Procedure

 

The data used in the study were taken from the pro—
ducers' and sales records for the 1954 marketing season,
involving 34 producers. The sales were divided into three

marketing periods: November, December, and January and

28.

later. The processing periods were: (1) before September,

(2) September, (3) October, (4) November, and (5)

December.

The breakdown on ready—to—cook weight sizes included:

Fryers ........ . ............. 4 pounds to 9 pounds

Hens ............. . ........ 8 pounds to 9 pounds
15 ounces

Hens ...... ' ................ 11 pounds to 11 pound
15 ounces

Hens ...................... 12 pounds to 13 pound
15 ounces

Hens ...................... 14 pounds - — up

Toms ... ........ . .......... Under 16 pounds

Toms .................. .... 16 pounds to 19 pound
15 ounces

Toms ..... ................. 20 pounds to 23 pound

15 ounces
Toms .................. .... 24 pounds and up
The data were taken from the 1954 market year record
rather than the first year of operation (1953) because the

pool method of selling was used with the pool based on the

S

S

S

S

S:

month of processing. Information as to the month the turkeys

29.
were sold was not kept in 1953 except on individual sales
invoices. To secure the information from the pools would
have been very difficult. In the second year of operation,
with the use of the Cardex system of record keeping of
processing and marketing information, it was possible to
get the pertinent information. In addition, the average
marketing charge of ten cents per pound ready—to-cook weight
was established. This made the net price available without
extensive calculations on each pool for each grade and
weight size for hens, toms, and fryers. On turkeys held
over to January and later marketing periods, the extra
storage charges were added.

The 34 members who were active in 1954 were contacted
in 1958 to see if they had kept actual live prices which
they had received in 1954. Only a small number indicated
they had records of live prices on turkeys sold alive in
1954. Therefore, the live prices for October, November,
and December were taken from the special turkey market
report published daily in Chicago for Cleveland, Columbus,
and Cincinnati by the United States Department of Agriculture,
Production and Marketing Administration, Dairy and Poultry
lflarket News Service, Chicago, Illinois. The January price
‘das estimated from the average price reported in Ohio for
‘both.hens and toms as given by the Federal State Crop Re-

porting Service, Columbus, Ohio.

30.
These live prices are shown in Table 3 below.

TABLE 3. AVERAGE PRICES FOR LIVE TURKEYS QUOTED IN
CLEVELAND, COLUMBUS, AND CINCINNATI MARKETS
DURING OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, AND DECEMBER,
1953 and 1954.

 

 

HENS TOMS FRYERS
MONTH CENTS PER CENTS PER CENTS PER
POUND POUND POUND
1953 1954 1953 1954 1953 1954
October 37.3 31.0 32.1 24.3 36.1 32.0
November 38.7 30.4 31.3 23.8 41.0 32.6
December 40.6 35.2 31.4 23.6 40.3 30.0*

Source: Data from Special Turkey Market Report, United
States Department of Agriculture Dairy and
Poultry Market News Service, Chicago, Illinois,
1953 and 1954.

 

*No fryer price quoted on the live market. Average price
from Federal State Crop Reporting Service, Columbus, Ohio.

Figure 2 and Table 3 show that live prices for toms
were relatively stable during October, November, and Decem-
ber during 1953 and 1954 while hens in 1953 advanced 3.3
cents from October to December and 4.2 cents from October to
December in 1954. Fryer prices advanced 4.9 cents between
October and November, 1953, but showed a slight decline
from November to December in 1954.

To answer the question whether it was more profitable
or less profitable to market turkeys through the association
than through live buyers, it was necessary to convert the
actual ready—to-cook prices received to live weight price

equivalents. This was done by determining the average ready—

PIC-.2

AVERAGE QUOTED LIVE TURKEY
PRICES FOR CLEVELAND. COLUMBUS, AND

CINCINNATI MARKETS OCT, NOV, DEC»
I953 I954

2 ~o- _
,° ° “0-0-9 ,(HENS 1953
* ‘T'rnveas l953
4o 0’ . ’

I
39 o v

4|

33 0 ¢
37
36

HENS I954
x

35

34 ,“
-’ 33
a. 32
an
30
29

 

ER

TOMS I953

 

FRYERS I954

CENTS

28

27

2.

25

24":::33332::;;;;5:£:HH:44T0M5I954

23

9 O l _l_.___
OCT NOV DEC

32.
to—cook yield and converting the prices received for ready—
to—cook weight to a live weight price equivalent.

In Table 4, the live and ready—to-cook weights were
taken from selected producers' processing records where
turkeys had been weighed alive on or near the farm. These
yield records were secured on 33.00 per cent of the turkeys
- marketed through the association in 1954. The ready—to—
cook per cent yield in the fryers was higher than would be
expected and was due to the fact that practically all of the
live weights were secured from shipments of toms of the
large white breed of turkeys. The hens in these flocks
were grown to maturity.

TABLE 4. LIVE WEIGHT, READY—TO-COOK WEIGHT, AND DRESSING
PERCENTAGES ON SELECTED LOTS OF TURKEYS*

 

TOTAL TOTAL AVERAGE PER CENT
POUNDS LIVE READY- READY- READY-T0
NUMBER LIVE WEIGHT TO-COOK TO—COOK COOK
WEIGHT PER BIRD WEIGHT WEIGHT WEIGHT
PER BIRD OF LIVE

 

WEIGHT

head pounds pounds pounds pounds per cent
HENS 7,356 121,549 16.5 100,228 13.6 82.5
TOMS 14,904 388,147 26.0 321.720 21.6 83.0
FRYERS 4,905 48,690 9.9 39,160 8.0 80.5

TOTAL 27,1"65 558,386 461,108

*Data from selected producers' shipments weight alive at
the farm

 

Table 5 shows live prices quoted for Cleveland, Colum—
bus, and Cincinnati during October, November, and December.
1954, from the Special Turkey Market Report, United States

Department of Agriculture, Dairy and Poultry Market News

FIG 3
COMPARISON OF AVERAGE QUOTED
LIVE PRICES AND READY TO'COOK
PRICES CONVERTED TO LIVE PRICE
38 EQUIVALENT FOR TURKEYS MARKETED
IN I954

\
\AV. LIVE HEN
PRICE I954

1 .-V LIVE FRYER
RICE I954

V. READY TO COOK
HEN PRICE LIVE EQUN

 

 

£23 I '5 AV. READY TO coon
FRYER PRICE
327 LIVE EQUIV.
26
o
00000000 0°00
25 °°Oo. Av. READY TO coon
TOM PRICE
24 LIVE EQUIV.
23 \
22 Av. PRICE TOMS
2|
2.
W
0
OCT NOV DEC JAN AND LATER

33.

34.

Service, Chicago, Illinois, and the estimated average live
prices for Ohio in January, 1955. The January prices were
calculated from the average live prices for both hens and

toms provided by the Federal State Crop Reporting Service,
Columbus, Ohio. The ready—to-cook price on a live equiva-
lent basis was calculated, using the average yield percentages
shown in Table 3, in order to convert ready—to-cook weight

and price to a live weight and live price equivalent.

The average live price was calculated from the delivered
prices at the markets in Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati.
The average ready-to-cook prices were calculated F.O.B. at
the processing plants to make the comparisons comparable.

The producers were required to truck their turkeys to the
processing plant or pay the transportation charges from the
farm to the processing plant when the association arranged
for the trucking. (See figure 3.)

For the hens marketed in 1954, the ready—to—cook
price (live price equivalent) exceeded the average quoted
live price during November only when the ready-to-cook price
was 1.5 cents per pound higher than the live price.

For example, the average grower received 31.9 cents
per pound for oven—ready hen turkeys consigned to the asso-
ciation that were sold during December, 1954. If the tur—
keys had been sold to a live buyer at the quoted live price
delivered to the terminal markets, 30.4 cents per pound

would have been received.

35.

wcwwaoaom aoso opopm Hwhocmm

.mmma

.mhwzasn .oflno hon moowna o>fl~ owwho>w Scum copoafipmm

.oHSO .mznasfioo .oow>Hom

m

.w wands EOHH

monswww caowz owmao>w magma psoaw>flzvo mewhm obwa cu copho>aoo Deana acceloplmcmmmfi

 

m.~l
b.~l
¢.NI

mvnmhom xoooIoe

m.wm
©.mm
m.mm

macoo

 

ooaohow

ooflhm mooo
cplzumom

I'll-'|'l|'I'll.|l"""l"l'l"'ll'|l"l'l'l|"ll|5ll|ll ll |"||'|ll‘lllllll'5|l

m.mm «.ms 8.8m mo.mm Shannen
©.mm m.~u . m.mm «.mm Lonsooon
m.mm m.~\ m.~m 4.0m Ronao>oz
m.vm . o.~m honoeoo
mpcoo
mewhm oososom qoofihm mooo ooHRm mezoz
o>aq .uaan oenseoom o>Ah

.zomdmm GZHBmMm<Z vmm~ ENE mom BZWA<>HDGm WOHmfl W>HQ

OB Dmsmm>zoo mmonm MCCOloelmndmm DZ< mmOHmm H>HA QHBODO mc<dm>< ZH mozmmmbmHQ .m mamde

 

36.

During December and January, the ready—to—cook hen
price (live price equivalent) was 1.9 and 2.4 cents less,
respectively. The sharp rise in live hen prices was respon-
sible for the live prices being more favorable than the ready—
to—cook price. January hen prices declined due to reduced
demand for hens after the holiday season.

A high percentage of the hens were delivered to the
processing plants by members prior to December as evidenced
by the fact that the association handled only 1,950 hens
during December, 1954, as compared to 6,461 hens in November.

In the case of toms, the ready-to-cook prices (live
price equivalent) exceeded the average quoted Ohio live price
by 1.5, 2.0, and 2.4 cents per pound for November, December,
and January, respectively. This indicated that holding toms
until January or later netted 2.4 cents per pound more than
the average quoted live price for January.

The ready—to-cook price received for fryers failed to
equal the average (live price equivalent) for any period
they were marketed. Therefore, it is questionable whether
the extra cost of packaging and freezing to sell fryers
frozen rather than in fresh form was justified.

It was hoped that a year-round fryer marketing program
on a fresh basis could be developed. However, the price
level was not favorable enough to encourage fryer production
during the winter and early spring months.

Even though ready-to-cook prices in the case of hens

during December and January and fryers in November, December,

37.
and January did not equal the average live price, the fact
that the flocks were processed at maturity which reduced the
cost of additional feed for carrying the birds to a later
period was a distinct advantage. In addition, holding turkeys
through more severe weather in December and January involved
greater risk of losses, which likewise would have increased
production costs.

The results of analyzing the data on the basis of com-
parison of the ready—to—cook price received for the turkeys
marketed through the association and the quoted average
price converted to the ready—to—cook price equivalent are
summarized in Table 6. The live prices and the percentage
yield were taken from Tables 3 and 4. For example, the
average quoted live hen price for November was 30.4 cents,
which divided by the percentage yield of 82.5 per cent for
hens gives the calculated ready-to-cook equivalent price of
3634 cents. Converting the average quoted live prices to
ready—to—cook equivalent prices gives a direct comparison
between ready—to-cook prices received and the quoted live
prices, which are referred to as break-even prices in this
discussion.

The sales were divided into the November, December, and
January sales periods by weight classes. Some fluctuation
was observed in the prices received for the various weight
classes. In the case of the hens, the price pattern was
relatively uniform for all weight classes except the 14 pound

and up group that were marketed during November. This weight

38.
class involved only 857 birds and all were sold to a buyer
who was willing to pay a premium for heavy weight hens of
excellent quality for a special order.

The live price (ready—to—cook equivalent) reflected
the sharp rise in the live hen price during December. Another
interesting fact is that the price pattern for hens 12 pounds
to 13 pounds 15 ounces was higher for all sales periods than
the 10 pound to 11 pound 15 ounce weight class. Otherwise
the price pattern for the different weight classes was ac—
tually in the price relationship that would be expected,
namely, that lighter weights are usually higher priced.

Table 6 reveals that it was not profitable to hold hens
processed in any of the processing periods into January or
later, because the ready-to—cook prices received fell faster
than the live price (ready—to—cook equivalent). However,
practically all of the hens were from one producer who held
them too long and failed to get them marketed alive for the
Christmas season trade. They were then consigned to the
association and processed after the Christmas holiday.

In addition to the depressed price received, a storage
charge of .8 cent per pound was assessed on the lots of hens
sold during the sales period of January or later. Figure 4
shows graphically the price relationship of hens for the
various weight classes (ready—to—cook prices received) and
the average live price (ready—to-cook price equivalent). The
live price converted to ready—to—cook equivalent is the

average breakeven price.

FIG 4
COMPARISON OF READY TO'COOK
PRICES AND AVERAGE LIVE PRICES
READY TO COOK EQUIVALENT RECEIVED
FOR HENS DURING THE I954
MARKETING SEASON

 

43
42
a -\
\
‘ s
’ v.
00 \‘
O Oo \\\\‘
o \ ‘\\AV. BREAK-EVEN PRICE
00 \ K HENS
o ‘ AV. READY TO COOK
0° \ PRICE HENSIZLB-I3LB.
o \ 1502.
° , ‘ , AV. READY TO COOK
. \ PRICE HENS lOLB.-IILB.ISOZ.
° . AV READY TO COOK
° PRICE HENS I4LB. UP
AV READY TO COOK
PRICE HENS 8-9Ls. Isoz.
3|
30
29
28
27
26
25
0
NOV DEC JAN

39.

40.

Table 6 shows that the net price received for toms Of
all weights during the three marketing periods was greater
than the average live price (ready—to-cook equivalent). There
were two distinct price patterns, the toms in the weight
classes under 16 pounds and less than 20 pounds falling into
one pattern and the 20 pound and up falling into the other
pattern. Figure 5 shows the price relationship between the
different weight classes of toms and the average live price
(ready-to-cook equivalent). The price line was flattened,
showing less change during the three marketing periods. One
exception to this was that chain stores tended to bid higher
for the toms in the weight classes under 20 pounds for re—
tail trade at Christmas. Later the price of these lighter
weights was depressed due to less demand for toms of the
lighter weights. The cost of holding heavy toms 24 pounds
and up into the January and later marketing period was 0.75
cents per pound, slightly below that for hens.

The ready—to-cook fryer price was 2.6, 2.1, 2.1 cents
below the average live price (ready—tO-cook equivalent) for
the November, December, and January and later marketing
periods. (See Figure 6.)

By using the average ready-to-cook prices received for
Grade A turkeys for the three marketing periods, in compari—
son to the average live price (ready—to-cook equivalent) the
net gain for 311,888 pounds of hens was $916.98 or .029 cent
per pound. For the 718,381 pounds of toms, the net gain was

$15,951.76 or 2.2 cents per pound. For the 89,473 pounds of

41.
fryers, there was a loss of $2,690.97 or 3 cents per pound.
Due to the fact that there was only a small percentage Of
Grade B turkeys marketed, they were not included in the com—
parison. Thus, on the total volume of 1,196,767 pounds of
Grade A turkeys there was a margin of $14,167.77 or 1.2 cents
per pound in favor of marketing through the association for
the 1954 marketing season.

For the producers who consigned fryers to be sold dur—
ing any of the sales periods or consigned hens that were sold
in the selling periods of December and January, the partici—
pation in the program meant a lower price than they could
have received if they had sold their turkeys at the quoted
live prices. On the other hand, those who consigned toms
that were sold during any of the marketing periods realized
a greater price than the average live price.

Statistical analysis, using Chi Square, was used to
determine if there were significant differences in the ready—
to-cook prices received for the various weight classes, as
compared to the break-even prices which were calculated from
the average quoted live prices converted to ready-to—cook
price equivalent. There were not significant differences in
any of the comparisons.

Although statistically there were no significant dif-
ferences in ready—tO—cook prices received and the quoted
adjusted live prices, from a practical standpoint the average
producer would have benefited if the net price received had

been only 1/4 to 1/2 cent per pound above the price that

42.
could have been secured through alternative methods of mar-
keting. While the quality program was not in effect long
enough to build a good reputation for the association brand
of turkeys, the producer did receive a price in proportion
to the quality of turkeys he delivered to the processing
plant. The advantages of processing at the time of maturity
and decrease of risk by not having to hold the turkeys longer
before marketing are advantages difficult to measure from a

marketing standpoint, but nevertheless important.

Due to lack Of sufficient producer support and their
unwillingness to provide adequate financing, it was decided
to terminate the Operation of the marketing association
after the close Of the 1954 marketing season. The associa—

tion was then dissolved without loss of investment to members-

e>wrm m. eoe>r m>rmm wfl z>wfime wmeOUm ow mw>um > eCWNMKm. ><mw>mm EE>UNI60IQOON wwmom
mmom~<mu. OOZfi>NMU eo wwm>film<mz wwHom Aw>mmc oz DCOHMU FH<M wanna OOZ<mwemc
e0 wm>d<leOIoooK fiwHOm mocH<>rmzev UCNHZQ 6mm Hemp Z>fifimenzm mm>moz.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zo<mzwmw
Zdzwmw <OPCZM ><mw>mm ><ww>mm wwmbfil
wwHum m<w2 wwHOm *
Auosbnmw awocdmv aooaamv
mobm
m HG.
w HO. Hm ON. mum momww ho.m wa.#
HO HO.
Hp HO. Hm ON. msdfih mhoomw w4.© mm.$
Hm HG.
Hm HG. Hm ON. Pthhh mqomwc mm.4 am.»
He pd. :6 HPNOQ Hmkhww #H.h wm.#
eoam
GSQOH Hm HO. 4mm Hwbwoo wH.w Mm.m
Hm HG.
Ho HO. Hm ON. QCHwO QOLHQO wo.m wm.m
NO HO.
mm HG. Hm ON. Nkmwm uhcmwm wo.w WWPO
we HO. :6 m4 HPwNO wm.d mm.m
aezoeo o.mw4 «o.mcm mq.m Ao.e

 

*wHOOWIm4ms CHHCO
m<mwmmo wwmwam.

omposwmaoa o: Homawldolooow dwmwm :mmsm m<mdmmm Hw<o uwuoom man

'8?

e>wrm mm. eoe>r m>bwm ww ZPmee wmwmouw ow QNPUM > adwfiwmm. ><mm>mm NH>UNIHOIOOON WNHOM
wmomH<MU. oozw>WMU Go wwmpfilm<mz wwHQm Aw>mmc Oz ccoamc rH<m wfiHom ooz<mwemu
eo wm>UNIeOIOOON fiwHom MDCH<>EEZHV ccwmzm 6mm Heme Z>Nmmenzm mm>mcz.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Omomzwmm
ZGZONN <Obczm ><mm>Om ><mw>mm wwm>ml
wwnom m<mz meom*
AOOEOOOV Aomuamv Acosamv
mosm
m HO.
O HO. HO ON. Htmmo Hmpmmo PH.M Pm.4
Ho HO.
Hp HO. HO ON. mtmmo mPOOwa No.0 Pm.4
Hm HO.
pm HO. HO ON. w.mp~ moowpm AO.P Pm.4 II
we HO. cm. men otmOH PO.N Pm.4
eoam
Gamma Hm Ham. Hommm mmemqw ww.m mm.P
HO HO. .
HO HO. Hm ON. m.mmp HOOPAOP wO.4 mm.»
NO HO.
mm HO. Hm ON. D.wmq omrwoo wo.w mm.»
we HO. cu 44H H©.Oamw ww.m mm.P
wwwmdm H.wwo 0.0~w mm.w ww.m

 

*wHODWIo<O= OHHOO Omwocflmama On HOmOVIaOIOOOw dmwwm sebum m<oammo H~<O OHHOOO man
O<Oflmmo %~O_Om.

‘9 817

e>mbm md. aoe>r m>rmm w‘ Z>WNM6 OEWHODm ow mm>bm > edmmmdm. ><mw>mm wMPUNIEOIOOON WNHOM
wmomH<MU. oozw>NMU so wwwbfilm<mz wwHom Aw>MMU OZ occemu rH<m Omnom OOZ<MWQMU
eo wm>UKI60IOOON wfihom mcdn<>rmzev UQNHZO 6mm Home KPWNMHHZQ mm>moz.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q>ZE>NN
Zdzwmm <OFC3M ><MW>QH ><HW>QH wwm>NI
VWHOM m<m2 WWHCM **
AOOOOOOV Aoobamv Noobamv
mono
m H3.
0 HO. Hm ON. N.me HmAHQm mm.m mm.fl
HO HO.
HH HG. Hm ON. mum Nomdm wu.m mm.4
Hm HG.
Hm HG. Hm ON. Hfiw Hbmmd mm.m mm.4
-Hfl HG. 5v mum WOMON mm.©
605m
COQOH Hm HG. meww wPPmMO II w0.0 N4.H
Hm HG.
Hm HG. Hm ON. wrWOm QHPPmQ mm.m NQ.H
NO HG.
NW H3. #0 ON. Quwmm HmHLw44 wO.H N4.H
NO HG. Mb woowm qmcwhw m~.© N4.H
wdwmnO HOOmO HO.NPO mm.~ wq.m

 

**Om=:mw% OHHOO omwozwmdoa waoa m<mwmmm HH<O was man dos OHHOOO. mOOOHmH mdmdm OHOO
OOHOBOSOO OOHO.

NOOOHRHON mOH<HOO.

'q 8?

CENTS PER LB.

FIG 5
COMPARISON OF READY TO-COOK
PRICES AND AVERAGE LIVE 'PRICES
READY TO COOK EQUIVALENT RECEIVED
FOR TOMS DURING THE I954
MARKETING SEASON

 

42
4|
4O
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
00000000000000°
.. O T O O 0
..o x o o Av. READY TO COOK
32 o’°’° 0‘0 °°°PRICE TOMS 24LB.UP
T x
3 I 0‘0
" " - " ‘ ‘ . —-Av. READY TO COOK
3O \ PRICE TOMS 20LB.TO
‘\ 23LB. I502.
\
29 \\ AV. READY TO COOK
~.\ PRICE TOMS UNDER IOLO.
\ AV. READY TO COOK
28 PRICE TOMS IOLB I9Las.
Isoz.
Av BREAK EVEN
,2 7 PRICE TOMS
26
25
0
NOV DEC JAN AND LATER

44.

CENTS PER LB

FIG 6
COMPARISON OF READY TO'COOK
PRICES AND AVERAGE LIVE PRICES
READY TO COOK EQUIVALENT RECEIVED
FOR FRYERS DURING THE I954
MARKETING SEASON

42

4|

4O

39

38

s Av. BREAK EVEN
3 7 ‘ ‘~ 4 ~ » PRICE FRYERS

36 , ‘~-~

35 T‘~~ AV READY To COOK
PRICE FRYERS 4-9LB.

34
33
32
3 I
30
39
28
27
26

25

Nov DEC JAN AND LATER
4 5.

46.

 

 

 

 

TABLE 7. SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF SALES, AVERAGE READY—T0-
COOK PRICE RECEIVED AND AVERAGE LIVE BREAK—EVEN
PRICE (READY—TO—COOK EQUIVALENT), GRADE A TURKEYS,
SOLD NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 1954, JANUARY AND
LATER, 1955.
TOTAL AVERAGE AVERAGE
CLASS MARKETED VOLUME PRICE* BREAK—EVEN
PRICE **
TIpounds) (pounds) (centéIfi (cents)
NOVEMBER
Hens 31,188 145,245 38.7 36.4
Toms 718,381 141,076 30.4 28.6
Fryers 89,473 70,212 37.5 40.4
DECEMBER
Hens , 9,301 40.2 42.7
Toms 237,808 30.9 28.4
Fryers 9,012 36.3 38.5
JANUARY AND LATER
Hens 26,120 35.9 38.7
Toms 339,496 30.0 27.1
Fryers 10,249 35.0 37.2
*Price received ready-to—cook weight.

**Average live price (ready-to—cook equivalent) calcualted
from average live price quoted and converted to ready—to-

cook,

using dressing percentage yields in Table 4.

47.

Table 7 summarizes the total volume sold according to
marketing periods for hens and toms and fryers and the com—
parison of ready—to-cook prices received and average quoted
live prices (ready—tO-cook equivalent).

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TIME OF PROCESSING AND

SELLING FOR MAXIMUM RETURNS FOR VARIOUS
SIZED BIRDS

Some of the members indicated at the time of consign—
ment when they preferred to have the turkeys sold. In some
instances, members who consigned hens in September or Octo—
ber asked that they be sold during December. Other members
who consigned heavy toms preferred to have them sold after
the holiday season when they felt the price for 24—pound
and up toms would be higher. Other members left the time
of selling to the discretion of the manager.

The relationship between the month of processing and
the best month to sell from the standpoint'of maximum re—

turn is summarized in Tables 1 through 9. (See appendix.)

Fryers 4 — 9 pounds

 

The fryers sold in November brought a higher price
than those marketed during any other marketing period.
Those processed before September and sold in November brought
38.6 cents per pound compared to September processing which
brought only 36.8 cents per pound. This was due primarily
to the quality of the fryers consigned to the association
during the two months) September processed fryers sold in
December brought only 36.3 cents per pound. Those processed

in December and sold in January netted only 35.1 cents per

48.

pound due to less demand after the holiday marketing period.

Hens 8 pounds - 9 pounds 15 ounces

 

The turkeys processed in September and sold in Decem-
ber brought 41.4 cents per pound as compared to those pro—
cessed and sold in December which averaged 41.3 cents per
pound. Birds processed in October and sold in December
averaged 41.0 cents per pound. December proved to be the
'best selling period regardless of the processing period.

Hens 10 pounds — 11 pounds 15 ounces

 

The highest price received for turkeys Of this class
was for those processed in November and sold in December,
averaging 41.8 cents per pound, followed by those processed
in December and sold in December, averaging 39.4 cents per
pound. January and later was the period in which the lowest
average price was received. Hens in this class processed in
November and sold brought the highest price.

Hens 12 pounds — 13 pounds 15 ounces

 

Hens in this weight class that were processed in Dec—
ember and sold in December brought 41.4 cents per pound.
November processed birds sold in December brought 41.3 cents
per pound, followed by September processing sold in December
which brought 40.0 cents per pound. Those sold in January
brought the lowest price regardless of period of processing.
Those processed in November and sold in January brought
39.5 cents per pound whereas those processed in December
and sold in January brought only 35. 7 centsfper ppund. This

L4 41TH

was due to only a small number remaining to sell.after the

Id"

49-

holiday season.

Hens 14 pounds and up

 

Hens in this weight class processed in September and
marketed in November brought the highest price, 42.4 cents
per pound, followed by those processed before September and
sold in November, bringing 41.7 cents per pound. Only a
limited number of this weight class were sold in December
and January or later. The birds processed in September were
of excellent quality and sold at a premium to one buyer.

Toms under 16 pounds

 

Table 6 shows that the toms processed in September and
sold in December brought an average price of 33.8 cents per
pound, whereas toms processed in October and November and
sold in December brought 33.5 and 33.3 cents per pound,
respectively. December proved to be the best time to sell
lightweight toms regardless of when they were processed.
Toms 16 pounds - 19 pounds 15 ounces

In this weight class turkeys processed in October and
sold in December brought 33.7 cents per pound, followed by
November processed turkeys sold in November bringing 31.9
cents per pound. Those processed in December and sold in
December brought 31.0 cents per pound. The average prices
for November and December were 30.5 and 30.7 cents per pound,
respectively, indicating very little difference in prices

received for the two markets.

50.

..p—

 

Toms 20 pounds - 23 pounds 15 ounces

While toms 1? this weight class processed in November
and sold in Novomber.brought 33.3 cents per pound, those
processed in December and sold in December brought 31.7
cents per pound, followed by those processed in September
and sold in Decemberu netting 31.3 cents per pound. The
vr/Jam c? '1’; :4; 3 m’vt” . rim.-
a erage.forfiNovember and December was the same, 30.3 cents

/

per pound, and January was only slightly below with an aver-
age Of 30.1 cents per pound. From a practical standpoint,
it did not make too much difference when turkeys in this
weight class were sold.

Toms 24 pounds and up

 

Only 57 birds in this weight class were processed in
September and November and marketed in November, and this
was not a large enough sample for analysis. September,
October, and November processed turkeys brought 32.5, 32.8.
and 32.6 cents per pound, respectively, when marketed in
December. January net prices averaged 31.9 cents per pound
after a charge of .075 cents per pound storage. The demand
for turkeys in this weight class was the reason the average
price was higher and remained stable even after the holiday
period.

One intangible factor was the cold storage location
which had a bearing on the price received for turkeys sold
after the holidays. Lots of turkeys stored in cold storage
warehouses in Canton, Cincinnati, and Toledo were more dif—

ficult to sell than the lots stored in Cleveland. This

51.
situation probably can be attributed to the larger number of
volume buyers located in Cleveland than in the other cities.
In some instances, it was necessary to truck the turkeys
from these points to other warehouses, reducing the net
price due by added storage, handling, and transportation
charges.

The general relationship of time of sale for the dif—
ferent weight classes was as follows:

The lighter weight hens sold best in December, includ—
ing 8 pounds to 9 pounds 15 ounces, 10 pounds to 11 pounds
15 ounces, and 12 pounds to 13 pounds 15 ounces weight range.
In the l4—pound and up hens, slightly higher prices were
netted in November.

Light weight toms sold best in December which included
the birds up to 20 pounds. In the 20 to 23 pound 15 ounce
and up and 24 pound and up weight classes the price averaged
nearly the same for the three sales periods. (See appen-
dix tables 1 - 9 for details.)

A COMPARISON OF VOLUME OF SALES AND PRICES RECEIVED

To determine whether there was a correlation between
the volume of specific sales and price received, coefficients
of correlation were calculated for the hens and toms by
weight classes. As there were only a few sales of fryers
4 to 8 pounds, they were omitted from the analysis.

The results of the analysis is summarized in Table 8.

One explanation why the analysis failed to show a

correlation between volume of sales and prices received was

52.
due to the method of selling. The ready-to-cook turkeys
were sold by producer lots regardless of how large or small
the sale. In most instances, it was possible to get the
same price for a large volume as for a small volume sale.
There were times when certain producer lots were sold at a
premium price due to the fact that they were above average
quality.

Another explanation of the failure to show a corre-
lation between volume of sales and price received was the
shift in wholesale prices within a month. The variation in
the type and quality of turkeys consigned by the members
made it necessary to adjust prices for different lots of
turkeys even though they all met the minimum grade require—
ments. Then7—400, requently small lots more specifically
fitted the needs of a particular buyer, but he was unwilling
to pay a higher price for a small number of birds. In cal—
culating the coefficient of correlation for the different
weight classes as to volume of sales and price received,
only the toms 16 to 19 pounds 15 ounces for November and
the toms 24 pounds and up for December even approached the
level of significance. For the toms 16 to 19 pounds 15
ounces, it was .2909 and the level of significance was .340.
For the toms 24 pounds and up, it was .3945 and the level

of significance was .532.

53.

 

 

mmmzmomn Q24 mmm2m>oz .monfi

mean. om.mm NNO.8A a: use ..OA am
«who. Om.mm www.mm emeo. ee.mm mme.sm .No NA .HOA mm
OOAA.I He.mm Nem.ooA moon. mm.om www.me .No ma .HMM mm
memo. mo.mm mmN.eA meemo. Ao.om NOO.NN .mp3 OH ”mom“
mzoe
«mom. Am.mm Aom.m Nemm. em.mm www.mA a: use ..mpa ea
memm.I NA.oe mem.om Ommq.x em.mm mem.em .No ma .Hna ma
ONAo.I ON.OO Nom.ee meoA.I mm.mm moo.eo .No ma .Hm” m“
mesa. mo.Ae oem.oA mono.n OO.oe A~m.m .Ro ma ..mw MA
I .OA m
mzmm
mpsoo musson mpcoo monsom
zo~e<ammmoo mo NOHNE mzpqo> zo~a<ammmoo EO NOHNE azaao> mm<qo emeHmz
ezmuoaaamoo Ne<mm>< ezmuoaaamoo mwamm><
mmmzmoma mmmzm>oz

zom<mm OZHBmamdz Ommfi

mfle OZHMDD Gmemwm<2.m~mfimbe mom mmmm<ao emwumz fin mice 92¢ mzmm .onHmmm ma<m
.m> mmq<m no HZDAO> ho ZOHBOAmmmoo mo BZQHOHEEMOD

.m mam<e

54.

POSTAL SURVEY OF CURRENT OPINIONS OF MEMBERS AS TO THE VALUE
OF THE MARKETING PROGRAM

A questionnaire of seven questions regarding the ac—
tivities and value of the marketing program was sent to 52
former members of the Ohio Turkey Growers Marketing Associa—
tion. (See questionnaire in Appendix.)

In addition to the seven questions, information as to
date, make—up of shipment, and ready-to-cook weight was re-
quested on the questionnaire. The former members were asked
to fill in the live weight and price if they had split ship—
ments, with part of the flock going to a live buyer or in—
dependent processor and the remainder consigned through the
association.

It was hoped that these growers would be in a position
to fill in the live weight and price information so that the
actual live prices could be used in making comparisons in
the study along with the average live Ohio turkey prices.

Thirty members filled out the questionnaire and re—
turned it, but were unable to prOVide the live weight and
price information because they had not kept live weights or
had not sold any alive at the time the birds were consigned
to the association. They also indicated that they had not
kept any record of live prices.

Below are the questions together with the most repre—
sentative answers:

Question 1. Having marketed turkeys through the pro—

gram, what were the important advantages
and disadvantages?

55.

 

 

Advantages

a. ”Strengthened live prices."

b. "Birds could be processed when finished, not
when the buyer wanted to take them."

0. "Grower had an interest in marketing as well as
production."

d. "Not at the mercy of the live buyer."

e. "Didn't have to worry about selling the turkeys —
liked the selling service."

f. "Paid on the basis of quality."

"More orderly marketing."

h. "Greater bargaining power than individual pro—
ducers competing against each other."

Disadvantages

a. "Lacked prOper dressing facilities."

b. "Not enough working capital."

0. "Lacked uniformity in processing and grading due
to not owning processing plant.”

d. "Provided competition for own markets already
established."

8. "Not able to get paid when turkeys delivered
to the processing plant."

f. "Producers used the association as a fire escape
or dumping ground for turkeys they could not
market somewhere else."

g. "By-laws with more teeth to compel producers to
support the organization were lacking."

h. "Uncertainty of favorable sale soon."

Question 2. From the standpoint of the individual

grower, is there more or less need for
a similar program now? Yes or no.

All but one grower indicated there was greater need

now from the standpoint of the individual grower. The

56.

grower that answered "no" felt that he had established his
own markets and could do very well without the help of an
association.

The other growers indicated strongly that today's buy—
ers are large buyers such as chain stores. Producers opera-
ting individually cannot bid for such markets and business
goes to out-of—state marketers. One person said that with
the coming of integration there is greater need for coopera—
tive marketing. It was the consensus of opinion of several
producers that some similar program is essential for the
future welfare of the producer because it is getting more
difficult to get buyers.

Question 3. From the standpoint of the turkey industry
in Ohio, is there more need, less need,
for a similar program in Ohio?

All replies but one answered "yes." The one felt

that Ohio growers have not changed and are too individualistic
to cooperate.

"The compulsory inspection law is going to change the
picture,” reported one leading grower. He stated that some
who would not support the program are now going to be hit
the hardest by the new inspection laws. Several plants are
already shut down and others will have to close as soon as
compulsory inspection begins. In view of the fact that the
program did not get the proper support before, he felt that

he would not favor starting another marketing program.

57.

Question 4. Did the program measure up to what you
expected in prices received for your
turkeys? Yes or no. Comments.

Two—thirds of the producers answered "yes." 'Most of
them said they did not expect a higher price, especially in
the beginning. Some felt they should have received more for
high quality turkeys which they stated were delivered to the
processing plants. Several commented that the downward
trend in prices during the period of operation handicapped
the program. Some believed that if the association had been
started several years earlier when prices were more stable
or now with prices lower, it would have been more successful.

Question 5. Do you think that because the association
operated two years, it had any influence
on live prices?

Answers to this question were half "yes" and half

'"no." Those who said ”yes" felt it removed enough turkeys
to make live buyers bid up and therefore helped their own
live market. The "no" answers felt the association was too
small a factor to have any influence on the market price.

Question 6. Did the association provide the kind of
service you expected, trucking, processing.
storage, selling?

More than two—thirds answered "yes" but indicated
dissatisfaction that the processing was not satisfactory
because so many plants were used to process the turkeys.
They expressed the opinion that one or two large capacity
ultra—modern government inspected processing plants, with a

United States grading program for standards of quality and

cooperatively owned, would meet today's producers' and

58.
market needs. However, some expressed concern as to how a
producer organization might be started now in the face of
integration rapidly moving into certain areas.

Question.7. Do you think a similar marketing program

would receive greater or less support, if
organized now, rather than 1953?

More than 75 per cent said "yes." One reason given
was that there were fewer live buyers and fewer processing
plants so producers would be more interested in such a pro—
gram now than they were in 1953. Individual producers have
lost their direct selling and retailer outlets due to the
low prices in chain stores, expressed one grower. One
grower felt that unless the association could be set up to
pay the grower at the time the turkeys were processed, it
would have difficulty getting volume because more growers
are financed now than at the time the association was in
operation.

The answers to the questionnaire, given by the growers,
indicate that the marketing problem is more acute now than
three and a half years ago. With a continued expansion in
production and lower prices, many growers expressed the Opin-
ion that unless prompt payment could be made after turkeys
were delivered to the processing plants it would be a
serious disadvantage that would keep many Out of the program
if they could find alternative outlets that would make

payment immediately.

CONCLUSIONS

There are several important lessons that can be learned
from this study that would be very helpful to other groups
contemplating the development of a similar cooperative turkey
marketing program.

The most important facts are listed below:

1. From the experience gained in being associa-
ted with this cooperative marketing program, it would be
recommended for any group interested in a marketing project
to first have a comprehensive survey as to the major pro-
duction areas and the existing marketing facilities in or
near the areas to arrive at the feasibility of providing
additional marketing facilities. The study should include
the potential volume needed for efficient operation, availa—
bility of membership, their attitudes towards cooperatives,
and their willingness to furnish capital necessary to de—
velop the program.

2. The association should have its own processing
facilities. Privately owned plants or other cooperatives
doing the processing would be in direct competition with
the association. This custom processing contract procedure
with plants did not work for the best interests of the
association.

3. With the heavy investment that would be re-
quired to set up processing facilities and provide working
capital, it would be essential to associate with a federated

sales organization that could advance capital to provide

60.
immediate payment when turkeys were processed.

4. Producers did not fully appreciate that this
program was a method of marketing designed to provide pro—
cessing of birds at maturity, thereby reducing production
costs. This also permitted more orderly marketing by
adjusting the sales to the market situation.

5. The experience showed clearly that producers
are easily aroused to extreme enthusiasm when a program is
developed that they feel will solve their marketing problems.

6. The experience also showed that producers
have very little appreciation for the problems and costs
involved in providing the essential functions in marketing.
They fall to appreciate that cooperative marketing does not
necessarily eliminate any functions or costs of marketing
unless set up more efficiently than other marketing
facilities.

7. With rapid changes in turkey production,
fewer and larger flocks, and many growers becoming associa—
ted with integrated programs, it is doubtful if cooperative
marketing could get sufficient support in a state like Ohio
with the production of about 3,000,000 turkeys annually
in widely scattered production areas.

8. Producers seem to expect higher prices for
their product when handled by a cooperative. Such organi—
zations should avoid selling their program on the basis
that the producer necessarily is going to receive higher

prices for his product. Rather, it should be sold as a way

61.
of marketing in which the producers receive payment according
to the quality of the birds marketed.

9. In widely scattered production areas, such
as is the case in Ohio, it would be difficult to provide one
centralized processing plant without increasing procurement
costs.

10. For any producer group interested in marketing
it would be desirable to give them a course of study in the
functions of marketing and costs involved in moving products
from the farm to consumers. This information may change
their desire to form a marketing organization or engage in

marketing operations individually.

62.

SUMMARY

1. In this study, an analysis was made Of the opera—
tion of the Ohio Turkey Growers Marketing Association for
the 1954 marketing season in which 34 Ohio producers
participated.

2. The review of literature for this study revealed
that early turkey marketing pools did not receive the pro-
ducer support anticipated because in most instances the
payment for turkeys consigned could not be made until after
the entire pool was 801d.

3. Turkey marketing cooperatives led the way in
quality improvement by adopting standardized grading, more
attractive packaging, and establishing brand names for the
turkeys they marketed.

4. A comprehensive study as to the need for additional
marketing facilities and producers' attitudes toward finan—
cing their own marketing program was not made before organi—
zing the Ohio Turkey Growers Marketing Association.

5. There was no significant correlation between the
volume of sales and net prices received in any of the weight
classes.

6. It was found that the producers marketing hens
up to 14 pounds during December received the highest price.
Under similar marketing conditions this would necessitate
starting poults in June to have the hens at the desired

weight by December.

63.

7. For growers who had hens weighing 14 pounds and
up, marketing in November was preferable. Similar marketing
conditions would necessitate starting poults in April and
early May to have the desired weight by November.

8. Producers marketing toms weighing under 20 pounds
during December received 1.2 cents more per pound than those
marketed in November. Under similar marketing conditions
this would necessitate starting poults in June to have them
at the desired weights by December.

9. Toms weighing 20 to 24 pounds brought more favor—
able prices than lighter weights during November and December.
Toms weighing over 24 pounds could have been marketed any
time from the standpoint of prices received during the period
of this study. However, the additional costs of producing
over 24 pound toms may more than offset higher prices received.

10. There were no statistical significant differences
between prices received for ready—to-cook turkey of the
various weight sizes and the quoted average live prices for
the period of this study. However, the ready—to-cook prices
received for Grade A turkeys as compared to the quoted live
prices revealed the following:

a. The 311,888 pounds of hens marketed in
1954 netted $916.98 more or .029 cents
per pound more through the association.

b. The 718,381 pounds of toms marketed in
1954 netted $15,951.76 more or 2.2 cents

per pound more through the association.

64.
c. The 89,473 pounds of fryers marketed in
1954 netted $2,690.97 or 3.0 cents per
pound less through the association.

11. On an over—all basis, the prices received by pro—
ducers who marketed Grade A hens and toms were higher than
they would have received through alternative methods of
marketing using the average quoted live prices for the
marketing period studied. In the case of the fryers, pro—
ducers would have received more by marketing them alive at
prices quoted for the period of the study. However, the
importance of processing at maturity, reduction of risk,
payment on the basis of quality, and storage program to
provide for more orderly marketing are factors which must
not be overlooked.

12. The biggest complaint by producers participating
in the program was that there was too long a delay in re—
ceiving payment after the consigned turkeys were processed.
To overcome this complaint a marketing association of this
type should affiliate with a federated sales organization
with sufficient financial backing that could provide enough
working capital to make possible prompt payments to producers.

13. The postal survey of former active members in-
dicated that due to increased production and fewer live
buyers and processing plants operating, there was a greater
need for the marketing program three and one-half years

after the association ceased operations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bradford, Henry W., and John Scanlon. Cooperative
Marketing of Turkeys. U.S.D.A. FCS 23, 1957.

Sprague, C. W. Cooperative Marketing of Turkeys in
the Northwest. U.S.D.A. October, 1929.

Bradford, Henry W., and John Scanlon. Evolution of
Cooperation, U.S.D.A., FCS 23, 1957

Norbest Turkey Growers Association, Salt Lake City,
1956 Annual Report.

Shepherd, Geoffrey S. Marketing Farm Products, page 274.
Iowa State College Press. Revised printing, 1949.

Joint Report of the Special Committee on the Turkey
Industry, U.S.D.A. BAE June, 1937.

Bradford, Henry W. Feasibility of Marketing Turkeys
Cooperatively in Indiana. Special Report 225,
February, 1952.

APPENDIX

66.

 

 

 

 

 

 

O.AA N.AH O.OA m.o~ e.me m.me eeoo woe
A.mm oeN.OA mmm.~ m.em m~o.o Omm.~ m.em mam.oe 8mm.m mee.om www.ma Hoeoa
o.ooH O.OOH o.OOA o.oo~ eeoo Lem
A.mm meN.O~ omm.A mem.OA mmm.~ Aonaooon
OQOZ HOQEO>OZ
OEOZ HOSOHOO
o.oo~ O.OOA eeoo Lem
m.om Hem.me emo.o Hem.me emo.e Aonaoeaom
v.mm A.ON O.me m.me o.OOA O.OOA Demo Rom
n.8m WHO.O Omm.~ O.mm Hem.em mme.m mmm.em NAH.m .eaom osoeom
Amosoo% museum- .mpqcou
canon canon Onzom
MOO mundom Honasz NCO mussom Nonasz Non mezzo; Nonasz mcszom Nopasz made
OOAMA CORAL modem. wOHmmOOONL
MONO: CEO hamzzmw . Honaeoon honao>oz

ma<m ho MZHB QZ< wszmmOOflm no @949 Mm .mQZDom m I w wmmwma mo ZOHBDmHmemHQ

MAOm mo WZHB

mQOHmmm mma<m m>~eommmmm mmB OZHmDD Odom m¢<Bzmommm QZ<

.~ Ham<e

67.

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.me m.me O.mm o.mm H.8H «.83 . Demo Lem
m.em mN~.mA mmo.m N.Ae OO0.0A mom.~ 0.0e Ham.m 8N8 www.me Ohm.e Howey
0.00A 0.00A 0.00A 0.00A Demo Aom
O.om oom.e mmo woo.» mam Lonaooon
A.mm m.ON m.NO m.me O.m 4.8 0.00A 0.00A eeoo Dom
m.mm and.” can m.He Nem.o mom N.oe ANO.~ OAH mON.AA NON.A Aenao>oz
8.4m e.mm m.mm 0.0m O.mm 0.0m 0.00A 0.00H eeoo Ame
m.em RAH.» NON O.Ae mem.N Hum m.oe ONO.O moo 4mm.om mmm.N Loaopoo
8.8o «.mo H.mm O.~m 0.00H 0.00~ eeoo Rom
e.~e mem.m oem o.om mOO.A AHA Nam.m Ann Aenaoeaom
Osoz .Pnom ONOHOm
Ampnoov Ampaoov AOPOOOV
Ossom Oczom OOOOm
MOO mcazom Nonasz MOO munzom Nopasz MOO mussom henazz muszom Nonasz mags
OOHRL DONNA OOwNm wawmmOOONm
HONDA Ono ANOOOOO NOQEOOOO Ronao>oz

OB.OZHQMOUO< mm¢ao BMOHWB mmUZDO mm MQZDOA m I mQZDOL m mzmm mo ZOHBDmHmBmHD

ma<m mo HZHE

.mQOHmmm WHQ<m
W>H90fimmmm awe OZHmDQ Odom mw<azmommm 92¢ ma¢m mO EZHB :24 OZHmmmoomm mo me<n

.m mqm<9

68.

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.8 8.8 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 . 8888 888
8.88 888.8 888 8.88 888.88 888.8 8.88 888.88 888.8 888.888 888.88 88888
8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.888 8.888 8888 888
8.88 888 88 8.88 888 88 888 88 88858888
8.8 8.8 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.888 8.888 8888 888
8.88 888 88 8.88 888.88 888.8 8.88 888.8 888 888.88 888.8 Oopao>82
8.8 8.8 8.88 8.88 8888 I 8.88 8.888 8.888 8:88 888
8.88 888.8 888 8.88 888.88 888.8 8.88 888.88 888.8 888.88 888.8 Aesopoo
8.8 8.8 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.888 8.888 8888 888
8.88 888 88 8.88 888.8 888 8.88 888.88 888.8 888.88 888.8 888888888
Onoz .pOOm OMOMOO
AmpnOOv Op8OOV AOOOOOV
OOOOO OOOOO OOSOO
MOO mcqsoO MOnadz MOO muzzoO MOnasz MOO monsoO MOnasz mOOOoO MOOEOZ OEMB
OOMMO OOMMO OOMMO OMMOOOOOMO
MOQOA 8:8 2MOOOOO MOOEOOOO MOnaOPOz
8888 88 8288
8888888 88888
8>88888882 828888 8888 8888288888 828 8888 88 8288 828 8288888888 88 8888
88 828888888 88888 828882 888288 88 882888 88 I 882888 88 8228 88 288888888888 .8 88888

69.

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.8. m.8 8.88 8.88 8.mm 0.88 szo MOO
8.88 888.8 888 8.88 888.88 888.8 8.88 888.88 888.8 888.888 888.8 88888
8 8 8.8 8.88 8.88 o.oo8 o.oo8 82OO MOO
8.88 888 88 8.88 888.8 888 888.8 888 88888888
8.8 8 8 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.888 8.888 8:88 888
8.88 888.8 888 8.88 888.88 888 8.88 888.8 888 888.88 888.8 88pa8>82
8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.888 8.888 8:88 888
8.88 888.8 888 8.88 888.88 888.8 888.88 888.8 8888888
8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.888 8.888 8:88 888
8.88 888.88 888.8 8.88 888.88 888.8 888.88 888.8 888888888
Onoz pOOm OMOOOm
AmpOOOv AmasOOv AmvnOOv
uazoO COOOO UOSOO
MOO monsoO MOnasz MOO mcnsoO MOnasz MOO chSOO MOaasz mczsoO MOnasz OEHB
OOwMO OOwMO OOHMO wnwmmOOOMO
MOQOA 8:8 OMOOOOO MOQEOOOO MOQEO>oz
8888 88 8288
8888888
88848 8>88888888 828888 8888 88<8288888 828 8848 88 8288 828 8288888888 88 8888
88 828888884 88888 888883 888288 88 882888 88 u 882888 88 8288 88 288888888888 .8 88888

 

 

 

 

 

 

a.
7
¢.m~ m.- o.mm o.~m 0.0m h.>m 9:00 Q0;
m.mm pom.m mmm m.ow How,m ~00 «.Hw mmw,ma «om.~ fivm.mm owofim H0009
m.om m.om m.m¢ m.@¢ o.oo~ o.oo~ 9:00 H0m
w.mm mum.m 0mm 5.00 «hm.m fimm om©.© omfi h0na0o0n
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0m o.oo~ o.oo~ 9:00 90L
m.©m HmH m m.mm mmmha mm 00m.~ 00 h0na0>oz
0.00 ¢.~¢ 0.0m ©.mm o.oo~ o.oo~ 9:00 H0m
0.0m om~,m mm~ 0.0m 00~,m mfim 0mm.m ¢bm Monopoo
h.mm m.wm m.~v m.~¢ o.oo~ o.oo~ 9:00 h0m
0.00 «mo.m mmfi «.mw mam,H 0m~ www.w Ham gonaopgmm
o.oo~ o.oo~ o.oo~ o.oo~ 9:00 h0m
p.Hw mfiwflofi 0mm m~w.o~ bmm .000m 000000
Aman00v Amua00v Amwc0ov
canon canon uazom
H09 munsom #09332 #09 mcnzom h0nasz M00 mcasom h0nazz moasom M02552 0EHB
00HHA 0oflhm 00Hhm wnqmm000Hm
H0904 0:0 khmzumw 9098000: h0na0>oz
mq<m mo HZHB
onHmmm mmq<m m>~eommmmm quMDQ Odom mw<ezmommm nz<
mq<m no MZHB nz< wszmmoomm mo me<d wm a: 92¢ m92bom ¢~ mzmm mo zomebmHmemHn .m mqm<e

71.

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0:00 000
0.00 000.00 000.0 0.00 000.00 000.0 0.00 000.00 000 000.00 000.0 000000
0.00 0.00 00. 0.0 0.000 0 000 0:00 000
0.00 000.00 000.0 0.00 000 00 000.00 000.0 00050000
0 000 0.000 0:00 000
0.00 000.0 000 0.00 000.0 000 0.00 000.0 000 000.00 000 00pa0>0z
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0:00 000
0.00 000 00 0.00 000.0 000 0.00 000.0 000 000.00 000.0 0000000
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 000 0.000 0:00 000
0.00 000 00 0.00 000.00 000 000.00 000 000300000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:00 000
0.00 000.0 00 000.0 00 .0000 000000
A00000v A00500v A00000V
0:500 0:500 ©550m
009 005500 009a5z 009 000500 009552 009 000500 009a5z 005500 009552 0309
00000 00000 00000 w00000000m
00009 000 0005000 00950009 009a0>oz
00<0 00 0200
0000000 00000 0>00000000 0z0000 0000 0000200000
02< 00<0 00 0:00 02< 0z00000000 00 00<0 00 002000 00 00 0:00 00 200000000000 .0 000<0

72.

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.wm m.mm 0.00 0.00 m.om 0.00 0500 000
0.00 000.00 000.0 0.00 000.000 000.0 0.00 000.00 000.0 000.000 000.00 000000
0.000 0.000 0500 000
0.00 000.00 000 0.00 000.00 000 000.00 000.0 000:0000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 000 0 000 0:00 000
0.00 000.00 000.0 0.00 000.00 000.0 0.00 000.00 000.0 000.000 000.0 00000002
0 000 0 000 0:00 000
0.00 000.0 000 0.00 000.00 000 0.00 000.00 000.0 000.00 000.0 0000000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0:00 000
0.00 000.00 000 0.00 000.00 000.0 000.00 000.0 000000000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:00 000
0.00 000 00 000 00 .0000 000000
A00500v 00500v A00500V
05500 05500 05500
000 005500 009552 000 005500 009552 000 005500 009552 005500 009552 0509
00000 00000 00000 0500000000
00009 050 0005500 00950000 00950>02
0000 00 0200
0000000 00000 0>00000000 020000 0000 0000200000 020 00<0 00 0:00 020 0200000000
00 0000 00 00000 000003 000200 00 002000 00 I 002000 00 0:00 00 200000000000 .0 00000

73.

 

 

 

 

 

 

$.mm o.om o.om m.om o.b~ m.m~ gcoo awn
H.om ppm._o~ mm~.~ m.om mmm.mm somfiw m.Om omm.¢m mmw.m mfio.mom Q¢~.¢H mampoe
o.mm o.mm o.H~ o.- o.oo~ o.oo~ game gem
m.om Hom.~m Hm¢.~ p.~m .wmpfim omH mmmflmm Hmoafi gonsoomn
m.mm m.¢m m.mm m.om $.ma o.m~ o.oo~ o.oo~ acme ham
~.mm mm¢.co owm.m ”.mm mm~.mm Hmc.~ w.mm m~m.m~ omm mHH,0m~ Hw¢am umpaw>oz
m.mv o.mm ¢.mm ».mm w.mm p.pm o.oo~ o.oo~ pcoo you
m.Om mfim.ov «m».fi m.am moo.fim mp¢.H m.om mvm.vm ovm.H mmm.mm mom.v gopopoo
¢.mm o.wm «.ow o.~¢ m.om o.~m o.oo~ ‘o.oo~ ammo pom
o.om «mo.mm cam m.~m Hpm,mm moo.~ m.om mpm.HH m¢m omm.om .mmm.m .hmnampgom
acoz .vamm whommm
Amgnoov Amgnmov Amuaoov
ouzom canon cqaom
hmm moazom pwnazz hon munzom Hmnasz hon monsom hwpasz mcszom Hmnasz mafia
mowhm mowhm acqhm wnfimmmoohm
umpwq can mumsamn hmnaooon Hmnamboz
ma<m mo mzHe
mnonmm mma<m m>~eommmmm ozfiman nqom m¢<ezmommm nz< mqam no mzne nz< azmmmmoomm
mo me<a um mm¢qo gamma: mmozao ma mnzaom mm I mnzaom om mzoe mo zomssmnmsmun .m mqm<e

 

 

 

 

 

 

L
7
o.mp o.mb o.om o.om «.H v.~ ammo you
m.~m m¢_.mp mmo,m o.mm muo.a~ fipp s.~m omm,H pm www.mm oom,m mfimpoe
o.oo~ o.oo~ o.oo~ o.oo~ puma “on
m.mm o¢p,~m mom owu.~m mom panamoma
¢.om o.om o.m v.m o.fi o.~ o.oo~ o.oo~ pave hem
~.mm www.mm ¢mm om.m mwm.m Hm m.~m fihm HH mmo.om mmo.H uopam>oz
m.mp m.mp m.¢m m.¢m o.oo~ o.oo~ game gmm
m.~m ¢m~.~m hpo.fi w.mm owo.m can oh».mm bm¢.~ umnopoo
».mm m.mm m.mm m.mo m.m. m.m o.oo~ o.oo~ pamo umm
m.mm wo~.m mod m.mm m»~.m omm m.mm m¢o.~ m¢ Hmo.H~ vm¢ pmpaoagmm
maoz .aawm ogomwm
Ampnoov Ampumov "menoov
canon canon canon
hag mcasom Hoaazz hon monsom Monasz hmm muczom Hanazz mcasom hmaasz wage
wOMHm ovakh mewhm wqflmmooohm
amend cam mumsuwn hmnawomn honaw>oz
maam no mzme
mnchmm mma<m m>~eommmmm cszan :qom mw<ezmommm nz<
m4<m ac usue 92¢ wszmmoomm mo me<n um m: 92¢ mnzaom ¢m mzoe mo zoueamHmemH: .m mam<e

QIESTIONNAIRE

Live Prices of Shipments Through Ohio Turkey Growers Marketing Association
1953 8: 1954 Marketing Season

The figures filled in below cover the shipments you made through the 0mm.
Please fill in the live prices for the same period, and the live weight if avail-
able for the respective shipments. Live price—the price received if you sold
some birds alive at some time—or prices quoted at the time of shipment through
the Association.

SHIP- N0. N0. LIVE EIGHT _L__,IVE Fag; QRESSED umxggg
MENTS DATE TOMS HENS TONS HENS TOMS HENS TOMS HENS

l.
2.
3.
4.

Please fill in the questions below.

1. Having marketed turkeys through the program, what were the important
advantages and disadvantages? Please list below. '

Advantages Qisagvantages

3 f

.2...

2. From the standpoint of the individual grower, is there (more need)
(leas need) - (underline one) for a similar program in Ohio now? Your comments-
why.

_ 3. From the standpoint of the total turkey industry in Ohio, is there (more
need) (less need) - (underline one) for a similar program in Ohio now? Your
comment s--why.

4. Did the program measure Up to what you expected in prices received for
your turkeys? Yes or no. (Underline one.) Comments.

5. Do you think that because the Association operated two years it had any
influence on live prices paid in your area by processors and live buyers? Yes or no.
(Underline one.) Comments.

-3...

6. Did the Association provide the kind of service you expected (trucking,
processing, storage, selling, etc.)? Yes or no. (Underline one.) Comments.

7. .Do you think a similar marketing program would receive greater support
by growers (actual nmnber of turkeys marketed through it) if it had been organized
in 1957 rather than in 1953? Comments.

(Note: If additional space is needed for comments, write on back of questionnaire--
numbering the question.)

'JSES om

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
I

03142 9669

II.)
l
I.)
l
l
II
III
I
I!
III
I
I'll
Ill
|

3 129