' I'..,‘~ II 7:, d'L' 5 “
II'" 4-1,“. M ‘0'} 32,;IflIII ‘QJT‘L ;‘“4 u fiafi
I IIII‘.I H I 'I ., " Ifi 11;:

I. f “515““. I22” 4'7“" II "“60““

..“ AI“ I Lu? (1,.“ I" ... t," it“.

  

 

L .

 

 

 

 

 

 

. I I II. . " .' c 0 ~10.”
of ‘1 . J ' TU‘Qi‘OII { .U: "I 'v.“ 3‘. :rR'Q"I.-‘. 'I' ”'4‘t' ,tt" ' . 7" r ‘.
-.. ' . 7-." .. . "? I‘I I7" "1173; I? «an» ~ 'I
J- I . I .:.' I.‘" _".|.::Q: . .. | II ‘:‘|‘ I' :4 "I h I . - g; 0“ r. w'n-o—w. .' “a.;roF-‘ .‘J
_ ' l I'. I I .9. Q ' _ _' . - '1 ' . rfi'.~‘-‘J“ ' 0-“ ‘ b..- .
' . 'IJ ill.“ ‘ :‘I . .., -' “- . 'J'L' — r. 07 '4}- jszd-Fg' u-uthI-‘I: ‘ g1. 233'
h'! 9 . I .I N ,. I I l I I d ,. ‘OS‘" '.| Ffi,’ ”3.; fii‘ngr‘.‘ H } .04
"' I '"‘ I' " 'I .' . 'u u I: I-I "3 I " . "d“: “'0'"? ' ' r: I O-..‘.“.'Q:,q '
- ’ I: l f . I :3 I f L Ivyo‘do‘“; '9 ' "' ..
2%,. -. --3I£‘—~'I " II “t 14"T'T' '33:?“ ““wIEfl" L3:
III- .-.,I I. M .I I . .I ...- . . .. ....
'.‘ .' I O ‘00 ‘lt. q.” -‘l. .. _

I}

2

i

1'

§

\

Io

E1

.. 93.

I!
5“"

4

I“

 

 

' o

 

to
.0.
I 1
-I
rI’
1“
' II
.C 1
lg. {14:41'
.1.
[A
an»
'a
is
31*
’
sa
!
!
'0
I‘ e
I IVFI'
I
"3
It“
0
'0
4
II
.5.
i

\JM-
?
t".
0:1:
3"
2‘
1
'
'fi.g"l" .
. .L ._.- '
“in: t1 1&-
II :Ll." . -
“I“.

o“"..
o . .

'I"-'.".' . L...» .
,“I‘is—J‘I“ I- I. -- .I'. ,I.

4
7‘
Q
5':
I
‘
'
- o
C
1 l
0
Q

In I' II 4. -'°. '.

1 ., ...".I
I" .- Mpg; .5 '3’”?
..- .. -I..

     
  

Wu .
- «3.21.

8:. 15—7 "III: -~ . ...::;I;
IOI H _' I "71-3"

       

- ‘I‘S‘
O

_ 00
.o..

I ‘
-O- N‘)!""
. «.Or .1 are“
:

~5I, “"3"?“ 1

._ .. l— - . -
"Framazb
o 5‘ r t -
- -
a:
'
3‘35."

0

 

       
 
 

 

 
  

 
 
   
  
   

 

 

4,. L
r a
I». N; .‘f;
I .I II 'J - II "N '
I , . .l" .I . :1: '5 I,.,"."pa °", ' '3"). 3‘1" E—JAQfi: .
§-. 0 Q . ' ‘ "_*I1"4.q t
V. .’ .II‘ I I I .'.‘ ‘. ‘ . 'I‘ I n“ 6'": m0. '1
Q3 3.. . Q Q P V ‘ 60"“51‘0..:N‘fi
-‘ l' t... | ' I I ‘4 - II I l. I f t. ‘ 4.2;1" I . 710::fi: L.

. i£*.I: I O 0 I. 4 ‘ ';I.. . I. ‘0“. ‘ I " .II-'“..' '0" 4"”: ‘n&'.“ '5';"' 5?.3‘ 11A, z ‘ . - ,o .g- 1. ‘ ‘Q‘ I... ‘_ .co-EIv‘ 53'- ' H‘ Q! ‘ “O.:§I . I" s
-‘ I" . " I . I'I . ~ . I" " . :1':" I “III I!” 'I x4597. "'73.: ‘ .2 " " I'IIII‘I; 332:3": ‘-
o ‘ I. . I I ' .4 O . In , III'I ",III 1', 'I’: -'6. A' a“ m w! E‘:? J ri-’w.k 45»...f" 4:1 II...’ . 4:- .‘Ig!
I 4 .. § I 1‘ ‘ Q _ l .. _ ,. _ . .Ld“ r1“ “‘31.”. {a} . “u. I|;' 1II ’44 II 'N:""‘:Ofo J. I . It‘d, - I

I I, . , , “ I. _ '1‘. .I.- . " "7.": I'm :2 ~.I.2I sun .,.-' 5 . It“ «#89,; 1: 'Ik-- '91..“="-—.' “'5‘

to I I ' "3 '. ‘ I-‘I N‘ “"4 I “ " .. ." ' I " ..“ -13 ’. ' '" 3’ ~ "" ‘3‘37 3.; 4' “ ,4 ' :1 J".
'1 *4 . ' . II|.‘- '11- ' ,JQ' Ir“I ’- I. "I‘- I I. I-I.II3.J '4' A. 11' ‘| '7 .u . .Q? ‘- “1010;90- “.0“.- O'LC’ i

3 ' I z I Q Jé'r . I— I III IIII‘III‘Q'II ItI'l" I I "”4 ','Ii- I,‘ ".l‘ ..' $n'y‘w' ' "II fia" " .‘ :2. .i' :. - . m'.‘ ‘ (1' "" H. Li 3. 1“ 'ig.

I“ -“ . . "I . I ' “‘9 -"‘ "' 'III" 'IIII'=' : I .. ' , “M25; 5;.“ ya. .33" a "- ~-I- IIII...;31‘" .II
M h ' ' I ' I 0.. I " I' i g" . '“ "‘ I"I " “‘t'hfl “"m- ‘ -'< ..'-, . » '- 9 J5.“ 3L3; 10" 'z" """1" “fl .- ' .'
‘ ' “I. I". ' I" ’ ' " I .' “.152?“ "I' 23' '1": THAN ' ' " ‘ ‘I‘ no: in}! L ‘ ' ‘32 '4'3837131

. I "'I .I." “I" :LI- ""."“J -- Y Iriit K. .. :II..III- ,.;...._. I E
r H “ I ’- 2.
- ‘ ' ' ‘ I l ‘ ,I “ h“ I IIIIII . ‘I' ‘. VI.

.. I .
'I‘ ' ‘|| . .I . , - I .
I I I I . .0- _I ' , - loo&_ ‘9' —l 0'
“ml ' ‘ ’ ‘- I . '
I I' . . I" .' i o - I I . ‘5 d
II.‘I—l no . ._ I" I ‘ ‘ '
. .. . _
' " I. I . 'I .‘- -
.. I. o I .I It ,I . . r
I .
.

    

I " I' “I
3 ‘ b I." ' n l . D t N I‘-
! “ 3 ' .I ‘04I : a, ' I!!!“ .1 II ‘0' ' 15"; Q 4-. :.':T." :‘ |fi I‘u1.l""'II I "‘ LI uh. " - .
' I I i : "' I'1M f'I, .V' ' "1“ -‘ "'“fl‘ U" "N I HH' 'Y ’ '“S'E. ' '. '
" IL; “'I' I '-' '"If‘ "I “I I" ‘0 ‘I III. I ,- -:: . -'
I ‘ I I . . I.I. I . IIIIIII 4v!“ .~I 1. III n '1'.) “ft IIII .1“ JIf‘QILI , I?“ I III Q £§4Me 3J4)" . Q
.I . . - H , I I‘I-I M I' I I I. ,. , .-. , ‘ ' I "I ‘- . . I. ,, I ~- O 0"- "I
' " “"I: : '1'” , . "" “I. 1‘ " ‘.‘ MI '~"‘"'“0'I".".“£"““ '3‘ ' ' 4"" 'If .‘ ' I I‘flIIInfi'I'II ,‘I . §§ ' " .,
; I - I'."- I. 'Q.-:-L.:u EII II I.III “"I- (I ‘1'."‘04-"d" #444011.” -I If " ' "‘ 43"“ . . . v-3.“ I‘ .' ,4? “I “QT-3F fi‘ I ’
'sII I . .. ‘I'-' I-"I I III I. «I I I“ If“; ' “5‘“ I" ’ . w :I: m “In“ I'I“ .. In"
'I.i', ' - ' ' "b ' ”pf" I'll“ ‘ 5' ' I 1““ ".'-":. ‘ . 0 ‘53h :a..-'." 0'...‘ " ' - o
"I". I.‘r'-'"“- . k“ ‘ “"' “I“ II.‘ “IN" aIz“;t.III:.'.-; 'I' .‘ ““- 3" Int: '. ' }' 4’1“" .- '~Ia--I¢""~"I:-I'I~‘“$3" "WT I‘. ‘ _ .
H 'b 9‘ "I I" l' ' .4; EA” '7 :3 11(5" !;&II01 41"}. \I r; "L" ."..... .1:- h. 0f .
. . I. '35.“ “"“"" f” :2- ”‘"""f“"" ' 7“?“ I 31;} ”Ma gaI'Ii-tk‘k': 'ii'uyi.‘ 5: ”It." ‘ "T"
I ' ’ I!" ,._ .I" I D:;I:I "2“II'I 1' I," , ".l .. U. p'l ." I" Y)‘: . ‘ In H 3‘ Q
. “I," r,I --"I.. II' IJ ”II I... l .I . I, II “' If“ .54 In. :1" u... was”! .I i I)“
" 7“ ““ "“.-I.I‘I.I.II.'III--.II.. '“I-Il III?":;.-‘.I.IIII "“I""'1“' V" “1"" ’I“ "" “I“ .I. .3 “I, II I I M. “In “fiI‘szIt'Q 92'4"" ,, ., -~
' “I 3' t I . ' 1 '-HI“ h<0 I, ‘ “‘3'" "" ' I] 'Q . '0' ‘ “12' ' ' ' fl'. ' ‘ I .3.‘ I j ::=:
“Ii“ 4- ' I". " . | - ' I. 5" "'w ‘ "'L' I't'I'I IS'I‘ICHII' {h ". '1‘ ”f? ax ‘OQLC ' I "' "I" I '5" 9""
.f I. .I .; III“ I! ‘3‘.“ 0' ‘44:. . .I: I. 35*: Y '“I 1" I'l'I‘." I Ili". & ‘51:, . ':" ... i" . .. ,. . Iv: my... .1 .'." I" ' “ 3! J .
“I II ;.;..::: 'I'IIItIII. -. III?“ “-‘3 I..1I"'“:I‘ If“. It. ..I.._I IIW ' "'"I’
.[II .' III ' “ ' ' l "1". H t “F Q 50'- 1* 71,8.6. "'II\ “'1: ”4“" I j!" .--4
II '_I"'I(I."I ....I ' I-"I 'I ‘7”, . .II
. 3‘". In I" “,5. an I III. “'5" o.- “I. . .
I" “l ': 31' I:’1"‘:I.m.ufi‘§‘\t ' .\ {w 5: r‘ :I Pf ‘: fl..." fl, $3.“; ".

"I. ‘.,.“|'

I III, 'III , I 'I' a 11'1"." .'0
- I 'I III- II“ “ LII: I II... .
.',-. I' . - I II, ’I' I 9| I ‘w.‘_ Iqu; - .- . '
I II I-' ”.‘In '- rI;w Ic'c'nnI-I-I _- II. 4.3“ 'f" ‘1 P‘I‘h‘nI

 

   

 

' m" '3'; L‘alll‘fl "" “i '.

I.“
‘ ' ' I" '2‘: '1 'I'L'10‘lz'r""~' ‘ ' r. '-
I ‘ QI QI'." .IIIIII _ .I III I I4IJJIL -'I- I-I" IIIII14, ”935' "f IKI'vI'QaE-k' I . I-Iir flui I.,, .. It.“ ’4
. “in“. “."l'I‘J’I I, "II , ,‘J'I’Q‘LI, " 'I‘i‘l'": L? '31:” Id" “"8 3“?"{4‘ L?" “i“: 4"", Wild-21:1 3'34' M" H "*I‘I
I '. I ,II I-"".' I'I 'I 'I "I ”III. 'III r' I “ I I “‘ III .'. ._ o ’I n- . \‘I II -. I“. I- II . . u‘ . ‘ t‘
. I' Jill-4,4 '" "l ' “fffi'I-tl‘“ rIIf‘II ‘1“‘Ih 'Lng' II'"_, I V.- ‘;.II.;I MW!“ ’3“ iii-3 1"wa ". I {‘A:'&:1.I“:»Q-.¢ “.1 ' JI)“ 1‘
IzIfI.I-. I. "TI“. “I“ " '39.": IIII‘I"I:I.I 34...... 15 .1...“ 35'" ~ .I... .-‘I I “It!" ‘ “'14- ""4 -“-“ ‘1.” " '1 '“ 5317. 5'1"
‘ I'"' “ ' I'I'I' ' ‘|'|‘ 'IIM'I'I; 1'." d;“‘I”Q'I"I\FF'I ' ’I ""1” I'IifIq IUJ'V" 0” Euro, '- J. ,IQ‘ ‘ I.“ '
"" ‘I'? ;:41I'| II " ‘ I1 "I . ' ,"-' "' "2"" I; . "I'-‘$<" II'H‘“ 4" “'J". ”J" '1) if .-h
‘ "I" . “II'I' "‘ "'I 'I‘ “:9 0I ' )' ,I:I' “x 4 “I“ 1({wléh‘vv‘$ Lu .' ‘ "'ff 1 L23 5' .2137- J . ‘
' 'I I III' | I- I I- I'..~' v'. S .1“! I9 ‘4: hi!“ J'fiI“ :QIII' ‘4‘ "“3”.“ 'k ‘1" '3‘24‘ ‘I. ’1‘ II a! :"."' .
_.I. ". IIIIIIII. J". ““i'“ 333533 “:"IIsIlI‘ “III“ .-.., "I’w' if“. III,II., III, “I“. .;. IL} I. I. {1,4 E” 3“ ‘I; 1!;ng 3‘17" "'
* Q-tISI-I' ‘H 'I‘:|," 'I'" ‘;lp' ,' 5" "Q' i: a" I E': "' ""' X "h". w :' stir." {W ”\I 'l'h' ‘2' D 11' (’4; Jim gi‘i; Kerk: "g‘ Q; “‘2“ 3:1; :L‘ :‘::.:" g ’jt; E‘JJ§.:A;QL.'
I IIKII-III ‘44:. ‘I'FII I4 “ltd :h if“ r|41“QQQu:‘I.“I- L'III'III-II I \IQ' ‘71— |- “If." ‘43' h I" m :fii‘n" ‘IJ;£1I-"yé‘f. ‘ _* .1
“T“ “I: Is ”It. . “M "I“ I?" “I"; “l. "I. II 2.2““; I‘I~ "I ' I-""== r "-3 I»
‘ ~'~“'—"'I III I "II“ “4"?“ III .2.;. “I “III“: I" . i: “III “III 2:331: III-“I“ "‘ “III ". 'I 5.; ’f' .. It" -I.~I:~III"I~I';‘ '2‘? 3"
I D .' . ' “' I'LL ." '1‘. I" S" I " I " I I u. .A.‘ I l I '01' 'fl " I” ~ . . “‘15-". '5‘.“ ' ,"' I ‘-
Ilka" IIIIII“ I. III “I IIIII'Ia III ’I I'III SIII '." 'rIII‘III-l II 'gfi .‘hfl'n' II I." [Ip'I'III 'II "i". &3 '1“: Rh: III 'llex‘I'I IfiIz- 4 If:- a) .. 1“" .M‘ 1 r: “1"“: ‘.'..’ :I‘i. . A: 14.1 I
n- I'II" "I. II' I‘x'III (IL. I . ' -‘ _ _ .
”2““! “ ' 'l t“ '-

‘u " ,. l "I" “{ 3‘, i 19‘
“l "."'h'""' :47}. 1‘ ““0“." '0'"; ‘4“) “Ir“ ...(I. I":." I'IKI‘!‘ ..I ItI:;£¥J£ 44‘5““. :5.’ Tb: Tr
:

WV
;”
:.:‘
as:
x
b.”
3.:
efiv
:'Y;;:__’

 

    
   
   
     
  
      
  

 

  
    
 

 

I" . “fiilfim‘l 0’4 I- .'
.I..I.... «my: .
”Lima““L",I'II‘9'1“”'IIf‘IIIfI‘I’mIIIIIklI) 7“, 4,,

I. II n-I-IIII. I I ’I‘o}. .' ‘
:I£"'~'I._;g£gg‘i, 3'," Q" 2'. _ _ 1

“53W II' “ [3"4,
"”3““ ”id‘ III..;I;I.IIINI . I
' M“ "'I‘I‘I“ “I“m" “I‘m
“H" 'IV‘III “I“"l'l ‘I‘r'tj
“‘“ “i“ “I“

. I“'"II.I ';..I,

'- “I ““' I" ' “II,“i. -.|'I 45"“ .- ; mo ..3
. 'In‘IIII '“‘ I ‘“ ‘W'p 3"1'“""I 'l\' M Him" t-I\r:,"bx‘4' “L I.I.4'I I‘:\'“ I ':'IL'I"" ’" .3 1“"? ‘h? 5 . f-
I, II I“! I '. I“ .M’ .'. "I“ I. t: .I I I “I . . F A“ 44%" \I3’I.0hu - . In . .vs I ‘ "I. A .I .
WE “ “I“ “ "III“ III '35“ “III“?"I'I-I“ 'I‘TIII‘I .. "-"I' “I“ "‘I’II‘II’I'I”. :‘IE I“ "“3“.“ “"“W‘I “III“ “ I “we:
I"I£“"1LI':I“‘“I'I‘I "II'III" "I}.‘.;,I "I ‘II‘II “I.“ "I"-"“’I“I"""‘"'" 3‘“ "'-*"“ W“ “I" ““"":'r'I"I-I;1-I,.I“ IIIII...-.'.f."=-.‘;E".1I" 'IICII- I . -

. II.III,,JIIII‘IIIIII III IIIIII IIIIIDI y'I-III '.‘ I: III,II 'I'III“"j';"I"-""‘“ 'I‘I‘I;, MN, Ir“ ”‘3 'IIFI-I IIIIII “RHI m'. I' I _I Ir'I ”I“- -l I. I‘ 0.1;, “I a: 1’ .o. » - - .
' '“ .‘II '.“-I " ' “'I'I '“I."'.'I'““I' ' "'" " ' ., "I‘ ~."I“ ’ I" r I, r . 0" M '. usmwl-I' “-3_ "‘ '* :41: ; I-
"-"-‘“'I'“I}“'“'.I“ ‘f, MW “'3" "‘iII'II ““‘If'hi‘I/‘Wé “WI“: -,.,I III“ III-““3?“ E" IE'II'O “I,“ III,I"‘,;,?_.I33IP,:,““-§'+;.:siII._,..‘I: “'2'“ wig; . I“I “AI; 'II-

‘-“I““*’I:“".II"II “ “i““éw “1“.."III'"‘I'"I;I I?" “III I‘ " “H.21- -- I :II" III-“II III-“III" " If.“ 7: III “I -' '" “

II'III 5W“ ”III "“ {Ii "h?" 443., II

I “7““ III “"II:1.““I .“I III .I-I I“““ . II. I
. 4“" “A ““434”,“: ":.“"'"|III“1,I'“III, :Ig"'I"II’ ‘JE

1"“, "'l' IIII I“‘. "L l' "9" I .‘" "I“; ""le """

I: I...‘:I..III,I'“J ““ ' """I

III; .II. I,, “ “

. ’ "II" '"“

      
   
  
  

2830'!“

a" --.

 

'I‘IIIP I;
'.‘ “If.“

'T

"'l‘

q.
‘7

23931-1
:‘fi.
‘F—r I... . .

.-o‘

 

.5,“

m‘
‘
.J

I!" J‘LI;
l|-.' '

-w4x

     
 

if??? ‘

m "3.: Q’.

   

a-..
m;

  

’. I55“:
I ‘ I

W“?
«=57:-
- at“

1.2;;

“

I;". ““194“ 1““. I.

___:,4—< ..

B':.'.El
TIE-51--

  
 
 

    

47““
. I III “ 'I‘
",J ,“"I“““I.' 'I"i““'"
“I“ “1'.“ 'I'? ““4““ng ,,.I' 'i
, !“'“I""""" .

' fi—fi-z
:3...—

- -

,_-t
4 —— fl. .— r A

gc_-~e~. _ =1- .. -

O
I
I " ., W
I I
. . l .
' I
I .
I I II I

5 "' ‘

 

  
   
   

 

 

_m

li'.'l

 

 

 

. '“ I .
I " .' “II I'“ III "I II "
“'4' III I:.“,,““’¥I:"‘I .. “'I'I‘ IIIIIIII
“I‘L' ' "I’““'I'I'“‘““'““'I' II“. “I" III
. . II

 

=-§ -‘II ’M
—-—— —.—‘- w
_—r—'

 

"I
I‘“ICI"""II 4 I

“hII

 

 

 

 

 

 

. r V |
u.) 44- . '- (“-4 '4" A ' ‘ M ‘ ' ~ ‘e _L__‘LI ‘. . _ .L _-:. I
. i ‘: - ‘.
I" i.) ' .
u ‘ I ‘
K ' Thishtooerflfgthat the .' ‘
thesis entitled 7' ' - /‘ ' ‘ T
"The Impact of Canadian Shipments of Eggs on Prices .i
t in the Detroit and United States Market" 1 ‘ ‘
- f ,
7 presented by .rj
; . L3 t
,« ' Robert W. Winters !_" ‘ .. . ,’ ’
I A ‘
. I
has been accepted towards fulfillment 4‘ _
' of the requirements for E ' , L
‘ M. S. degree in Aggicultural Economics '
- t”. . . .
’ a . r X 4
' Major professor y.
Due April 25, 1951 ‘
.3 1,:
E
0439 f , . ‘

 

 

 

 

 

THE IMPACT OF CANADIAN SHIPMENTS OF EGGS ON PRICES IN
THE DETROIT AND UNITED STATES MARKETS

By

ROBERT W. WINTERS

A THESIS

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

for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural Economics

1951

'4

IIIIIIIIEIIE‘I

y t4 5

 

"

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his deep gratitude to
Dr. L. W. Witt for the constant supervision and direction
so patiently given during this investigation.

To Dr. T. K. Cowden is also due deep thanks for plan-
ning work schedules to permit the greatest amount of time
to be devoted to this study in the winter quarter.

The author also appreciates the advice of Dr. H.
Larzalere of the Department of Agricultural Economics
and Mr. C. C. Shepard of the Poultry Department in re-
gard to the attitudes of poultrymen and the functioning
of poultry markets

Mr. George B. Murray of the Dominion Department of
Agriculture in Ottawa, Canada, also deserves much thanks
for supplying publications not available in Lansing, and
for clarifying Canadian grades and terminology.

Credit is also given to my wife, Ruth, for inspira-
tion and drive necessary to meet the time limitation
imposed by a pending recall to the United States Navy.

Without the financial assistance provided under
Public Law 546, and the graduate assistantship in the
Department of Agricultural Economics, the author un-
doubtedly would not have been able to obtain the neces-
sary requisites for conducting this study. Thus, to all

ZSSSWS

 

 

 

 

0‘

iii
the citizens of this vast country, who through their rep-
resentatives have made possible the splendid education
of those who are capable of utilizing the same, goes my
sincere appreciation.

If any errors inadvertently appear in this treatise,
they are the result of the author's oversight, and he

accepts full responsibility for them.

0“

iii
the citizens of this vast country, who through their rep-
resentatives have made possible the splendid education
of those who are capable of utilizing the same, goes my
sincere appreciation.

If any errors inadvertently appear in this treatise,
they are the result of the author's oversight, and he

accepts full responsibility for them.

 

 

 

.‘

THE IMPACT OF CANADIAN SHIPMENTS OF EGGS ON PRICES IN
THE DETROIT AND UNITED STATES MARKET

By

Robert W. Winters

AN ABSTRACT

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural Economics

Year 1951

Approved MM: 41/. WA

 

Robert W. Winters

THE IMPACT OF CANADIAN SHIPMENTS OF EGGS ON PRICES IN
THE DETROIT AND UNITED STATES MARKETS

In fairly competitive markets, tampering with the
pricing mechanisms creates many problems. Among others,
are the problems of the methods to be used in creating
the artificial price, the cost of such a program, and
the problem of imports in relation to such a program.
This research was conducted largely to analyze the last
problem - the problem of imports in relation to the
domestic price support program.

For purposes of limitation one commodity was
selected on the basis of its importance in the farm in-
come picture of both Michigan and the United States.

This commodity was eggs. Considerable sums of money have
been expended to artificially raise the price of eggs
since the passage of the Steagall amendment early in
World War II, and considerable attention has been focused
upon the imports of eggs by newspapers, magazines and
poultry trade Journals, which have demanded quotas
established under Section 22, Agricultural Adjustment Act,
as amended.

The primary purpose of this research was to determine
the impact of egg imports -- which are mainly from Canada
and China -- on domestic prices and to evaluate the

effect of this impact on the domestic support program

265878

.4

Robert W. Winters

vi
with a view to determining the need for Section 22 as a
control measure.

The findings of this research were that total egg
imports have never been more than one half of one percent
of the domestic supply and that Canadian shipments have
never been greater than one tenth of one percent. It
was also found that imports in the postwar years usually
have been smaller than those in the five year period
preceding the war.

From the above findings, an accurate indication of
the power of imports as a price determinant was not
evident. However, a measure of the relative importance
of foreign eggs as a price determinant was obtained by
comparing the changes in egg imports with the changes
in other components of domestic supply, such as, United
States farm production and egg exports.

It was found that changes in egg imports, and es-
pecially Canadian shipments, were unimportant as a
factor in price determination. Such a conclusion was
based on the fact that production increases have been 25
times greater than increases in total egg imports and
100 times greater than increases in Canadian egg ship-
ments in the past three years. Likewise, the export of
eggs has decreased ten tiies as much as egg imports
have increased. Thus, the changes in domestic production
and the decrease in exports has made negligible the changes
in egg imports.

 

 

(+55—

 

. «a

n 7‘.

....«....H1. ,
1;. ca...”
.Tf

Robert W. Winters

vii

Despite the insignificance of Canadian egg shipments
in affecting the total supply and thus influencing egg
prices, some question might be raised as to the validity
of allowing imports of eggs to flow into the United
States in view of the cost of the egg program. It was
determined in this research that a complete embargo on
Canadian eggs would have meant a savings of only 1.5
percent of the 80 odd million dollars spent on egg price
support in 1950.

The problem was then investigated to ascertain
whether or not the Detroit market was subject to price
pressures not existent in other United States markets
because of Detroit's proximity to the Canadian producing
region. No evidence was found to indicate price pressures
peculiar to Detroit.

On the basis of the findings of this study, there
is no evidence that egg imports lower egg prices re-
ceived by Michigan farmers, and there is little Justi-

fication for imposing controls on egg imports.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Importance and Use of the Study . . . .
The Problem and the Objectives

of This Study . . . . . . .
Hypothesis . . . . . . .

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . .

General Canadian-American Trade . . . .
United States and Canadian Price

Programs . . . . . . . .
Studies of Price Pressures . . . . . .
Control Measures . . . . . . . . . . . .
Source of Data . . . . . . . . .

NI—‘(DOl 01 01 “>03 03

FHA

III. PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION AND PRICE
RELATIONSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES
EGG INDUSTRY . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Egg Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Consumption . . . . . . . . . . 1?
Demand Elasticity for Eggs . . . . . . . 19
Price Program for Eggs . . . . . . . . . 20

IV. SOME FACTORS AFFECTING CANADIAN
SHIPMENTS OF EGGS TO THE UNITED

STATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Prices, Tariffs, and Exchange

Rates . . . . . . . 28
Shipments to the United Kingdom . . . . . 32
Canadian Egg Storage Program . . . . . . 54
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

V. CANADIAN SHIPMENTS AS RELATED TO
CONSUMPTION AND UNITED STATES
SURPLUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Imports as a Percentage of Production . . 40
Canadian Eggs and Domestic Surpluses . . 45
Monthly Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Chapter

VI. PRESSURES ON PRICES AT THE
DETROIT MARKET . .

Distribution of Canadian

Shipments

Canadian Eggs at Detroit . .
Canadian Shipments and Detroit

Prices

Price Differences Between .

. Detroit and Other United
States Markets .

VII.
PRODUCTS .
Turkeys . .
Chickens .
Live Poultry
VIII.

APPENDIX . . .

LIST OF REFERENCES

0

PRICE PRESSURES IN RELATED

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .

ix

Page
54
54

57
59

64

'76
'77
so
83

85

91
96

Table
I.
II.
III.

IV-a.
IV-b.
IV-c.
IV-d.
IV—e.

VII.

VIII-a.
VIII-b.
VIII-c.
VIII-d.

IX.

LIST OF TABLES

UNITED STATES EGG RELATIONSHIPS

EFFECTIVE TARIFF ON EGGS .

EGG PRODUCTION, SURPLUS, IMPORT

AND
U. S.
U. S.

CANADIAN SHIPMENTS, 1947

PRICE . . . .

PRODUCTION, SURPLUS AND
CANADIAN SHIPMENTS, 1946 . . . . . . .
PRODUCTION, SURPLUS AND

U. S. PRODUCTION, SURPLUS AND
CANADIAN SHIPMENTS, 1948 . . . . . . . .
PRODUCTION, SURPLUS AND

U. S.

CANADIAN SHIPMENTS, 1949 . .
U. S. PRODUCTION, SURPLUS AND

CANADIAN SHIPMENTS, 1950 . . . . . . . .

CANADIAN EGGS AT DETROIT .
ORIGIN OF RECEIPTS AT DETROIT,

1950 O O O O O O O O

O O O O 0 O O

O O O O O O O

DETROIT PRICES AND CANADIAN

RECEIPTS OF SHELL EGGS .

PRICE

PRICE
AND

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
OTHER MARKETS, 1947
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
OTHER MARKETS, 1948
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
OTHER MARKETS, 1949
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
OTHER.MARKETS, 1950

TURKEYS . . . . .

CHICKENS O O O O O 0 O O

DETROIT

DsTsoiT°
DéTAoiT'
DETROIT.

Page
14
51

42

48
49
50
51
52
58

6O

65

7O
71
72
75
79
81

I. INTRODUCTION

In 1950 the government of the United States pur-
chased 2,970,000,000 eggs at a cost of well over
$79,000,000. This was equivalent to 19.8 eggs for
every man, woman and child in the United States. De-
spite these purchases, the price of eggs remained below
those of 1948 and 1949, and were also low relative to
total agricultural prices.

At the same time, imports of eggs, especially those
of Canadian origin, climbed to new highs in relation to
the levels of 1946 to 1948. There were those in the
poultry industry who quickly correlated this increase
in imports with the depression of egg prices. This can
be readily substantiated by reading trade Journals, such
as Egg Poultrymgn (8),* where frequent references are
made to the import problem in poultry products.

Agitation for the control of imports of eggs and
poultry was not confined to trade Journals alone. In
June, 1950, Congressman Charles B. Hoeven, in an action
endorsed by 56 other Congressmen, requested the Secretary
of Agriculture to initiate action under Section 22, Agri-
cultural Adjustment Act, as amended, for the control of

egg imports.

 

*Numbers in parentheses refer to bibliographic listing.

 

 

Secretary Brannan's reply to this request will be
discussed more fully in the review of the literature of
this problem. It suffices here to say that Brannan
refused to start the chain of events required under Sec—
tion 22. However, this refusal has not quieted the
demands for control, and thus this study is undertaken
to investigate the impact of imports, especially Canadian,

on domestic egg prices.
Importance and Use of the Study

The keen interest of poultrymen in the import prob-
lem is exemplified by the frequent references imports
receive in poultry trade Journals. If numbers of people
involved and the proportion of farm income derived from
poultry products are a criteria for Judging the need and
importance of investigating this problem, then this investi-
gation is warranted.

More farm peOple receive income from poultry and eggs
than from any other source. In 1945 more than 80 percent
of the United States' farms had poultry on them. Only
two commodity groups, meat animals and dairy products,
provided a greater share of the national farm income than
that received from poultry and eggs. In 1949 this share
amounted to 11 percent of the national farm income and 15

percent of Michigan farm income. Over 60 percent of

 

 

this income comes from eggs, whereas chicken meat and
turkeys contribute 12 and 8 percent respectively. Thus
it can be seen that egg prices and the factors relating
to these prices are of great importance.

In pointing out the importance of the study to farm
peOple, its relationship to other sectors of the economy
must also be considered. Eggs are becoming an important
dollar earner for Canada -- dollars that Canada uses to
buy coal, steel and other commodities in United States
markets. Hence, the import of eggs cannot be considered
solely in their relation to farm prices, but rather in
relation to the entire economy.

It is hoped that the results and conclusions arrived
at in this investigation will provide an obJective basis
for considering price pressures in the domestic egg
market. It is also hoped that the techniques used and
evaluated might be useful in ascertaining the impact
of imports on prices of other critical commodities such

as potatoes.
The Problem and the ObJectives of This Study

The problem then, briefly stated, is to determine
what the impact of Canadian egg shipments is on domestic
prices and also to determine whether the impact is of

sufficient magnitude to warrant the application of control

4
measures such as Section 22. The aims or obJectives of
this research are then fourfold:

1. To determine the impact of Canadian shipments
of eggs on domestic egg prices.

2. To evaluate the magnitude of this impact so as
to ascertain whether or not it constitutes a threat to
the domestic price support program.

5. To evaluate the tools or techniques used to
measure the above impact.

4. To arrive at a conclusion concerning the need
for and the applicability of Section 22 in controlling
egg imports.

Hypothesis

To direct this research toward the attainment of
the aforementioned obJectives, a null or void hypothesis
will be used. Thus the hypothesis is that the impact
of Canadian shipments of eggs is not of sufficient
magnitude to threaten our domestic price structure.
Therefore, there is no need to invoke Section 22 to

control egg imports.

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The literature relating to this problem can be
classified into about four major groups:

1. The literature dealing with the general field
of trade and trade relations between Canada and the
United States.

2. The literature dealing with American and Cana-
dian price and other programs in eggs.

5. Studies of price pressures and their measure-
ment.

4. Literature dealing with control measures.

Perhaps a fifth category of literature presents
itself. It is the type of material found in popular
publications, newspapers, and trade Journals. It will
not, however, be considered here as it has already been
alluded to in the introduction. Furthermore, material of
this nature is often more hysterical than obJective, and

hence is valuable only as provocation for research.

General Canadian-American Trade

writings in this field are quite numerous. However,
there are certain standouts in the field. Many articles
in the Foreign Commerce Weekly are valuable background
reading for the problem at hand. One of the finest of

6
these articles is reprinted in‘ngld,Tradg DeveIOQments
ig,lgg§ (18). This article clearly points out the
important role played by Canadian agricultural exports
to the United States as dollar earners with which Canada
has been able to increase her purchases of American
goods.

The Canadian viewpoint is well represented by
Gibson (6) in W Egonomy ix; a Changing 19:191.

This publication deals with Canada's position in postwar
trading. Gibson acts only as the editor of this work
which is a compilation of the writings of several authors.
Those authors providing the most information for this
study are Max Freedman (5), who writes about Canadian
agricultural trade, and Wynne Plumptee (7), who deals
with Canadian exports to the United States.

The preceding material does not, as it can be
readily seen, deal directly with the problem at hand.
However, if we are to fully understand the problem in
light of the entire economy, background readings of the

above nature are necessary.
United States and Canadian Price Programs

For running accounts of the operation of a changing

government program the Pgultry and Egg Situatign (15) of

the Bureau of Agricultural Economics should be followed.

7
Information on government purchases, and future commit-
ments to buy, are regularly given. Sales from government
holdings are also given, showing the price and destina-
tion of maJor sales or transfers.
The Poultry agg_Egg Situatigg also shows maJor
changes in Canadian egg policy. However, the best

coverage of Canadian policy will be found in the bi-

monthly Current Reviefl g; Agricultgrg; anditiong ;g_
games (2).

To comprehend the place of egg supports in the
overall United States program, Agricultural Information
Bulletin No. 15, 2§ig§_Progrgg§ 9; 3h; United Stateg
Depgrtment 2; Agriculture (15), provides a concise,
clear review of the 1950 program. An earlier publica-
tion of the same name, Miscellaneous Publication 685 (17),
presents much the same information for the price program
in 1949.

The most comprehensive coverage of the Canadian
program, the events leading up to its conception, its
effect on Canadian egg prices, and the technical points
of its Operation, is an article written by A. R. Turner
(9). It is entitled “Price Support for Canadian Eggs'
and appears in the Canadian issue of the 1259,5gggiggg,
Egg gag Pgultry Review.

Studies of Price Pressures

Since becoming law in 1955, only three commodities
have been studied for the existence of price pressures
threatening the domestic price programs -- wheat, cotton,
and tree nuts.

Wheat was the first of the three to be investigated
by the Tariff Commission under Section 22, Agricultural
AdJustment Act, as amended. In the report of the Com-
mission to the President (19) a quota was recommended.
The quota was ordered by the President and fixed wheat
imports at 800,000 bushels, of which Canada received
795,000 bushels.

The position of the Tariff Commission was that when
the price difference between Canadian and United States
wheat markets approached the 42 cent import duty, the
large quantities of wheat in bond in this country for
storage, trans-shipment and milling would be released
into trade channels and depress prices greatly.

Cotton quotas followed in 1942. In the case of
cotton much the same stand was taken as in wheat. Harsh,
short cotton was the first to be placed under quota.

The Commission's Report to the President (20) was later
supplemented by requests for supplemental quotas on
various longer staple cotton. In these supplemental

reports (21, 22) the Commission took the attitude that

9
even though domestic production of longer staples would
seriously threaten the price program in the shorter
staples.

Demands of tree nut producers brought about the
third maJor investigation by the Tariff Commission. In
its interim report (25) released in September, 1950, the
Commission refused to request a quota at this time.

It promised, however, to keep the situation under sur-
veillance.

Among the reasons cited for refusing to request a
quota for tree nuts were the following:

1. Prices received by growers in 1950 were higher,
for most nuts, than for either the 1948 or 1949 crOps.

2. The Department of Agriculture had ceased almost
all diversion programs under section 52.*

5. Most marketing orders on the 1950 crop have been
replaced by simple quality control agreements.'

4. China, a leading source of shelled walnuts, had
withdrawn from the General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade (Geneva Agreement), often called GATT, and thus

 

* Section 52 is an act which provides funds in the‘
amount of not more than 50 percent of the gross tariff
collections to be used for "dumping“ surplus agricultural
commodities abroad. Its text can be found in Th2 Compila—
LLinst rtQhantser-Tsnslu oo~Annliszahlafa
gggggggjz Credit Qggporgtion l . p

10
would be subJect to the old duty which would place Chinese
walnuts in an unfavorable competitive position.

The tariff Commission's investigations are of little
use to this study as empirical models. As will be
pointed out in detail later, little or no effective
tariff is present in the case of eggs._ Thus the tariff
cannot be used as a tool to measure the amount of the
spread between Canadian and United States Prices which
will cause a sufficient quantity of eggs to flow in and
threaten the domestic program. Furthermore, large stocks
of Canadian eggs are not in bond in American centers,
as is the case of wheat, to constitute a potential
threat to domestic prices. Eggs must be drawn directly
from Canadian producing areas.

Under Executive Order 7255*, the secretary of Agri-
culture must start the chain of events necessary under
Section 22 for the limitation of imports. Thus the
Secretary is the one who must make the first decision
as to the validity of a request for control.

Undoubtedly, many, many requests are received from
various groups and individuals. One of the most recent
was the request of Congressman Hoeven and his colleagues

for quotas on such items as eggs, cheese, pork, corn,

 

* See Appendix A for the text of this order.

ll

barley, potatoes and dried beans. Brannan's reply (1)
was released to the press, and thus is available for
review here.

Brannan recognizes the fact that retribution is
more often the rule rather than the exception in inter-
national trade and thus one must move cautiously lest
other export outlets are sealed up.

The technique used to isolate pressures in this
work is the position of imports in relation to total
supply. This type of analysis has been adapted as a part
of the empirical procedure to be followed in this re-
search. The question as to what percentage of production
constitutes a pressure and what percentage does not was
left unanswered. This study, however, will explore the

question from the standpoint of demand elasticity.
Control Measures

Many possible types of controls might be considered.
Among others, embargoes, quotas, or increased tariffs
present themselves. However, for purpose of limitation,
only Section 22, or quotas, will be considered as a con-
trol method in this study. Because of the simplicity
and shortness of this law, with its one principal amend-
ment, Executive Order 7255, it is transcribed in its
entirety in Appendix A.

12
However, one may gain a better knowledge of the
position of Section 22 in relation to other surplus con-

trol laws by referring to this measure in its original

source -- The Compilation 2; Corporate Chgrter gyfigggg,
Executive Orderg, and Rggulatigng Applicable 39 Commodity
Credit Cogporation (11).

Source of Data

The only sources of statistical data used in this
investigation will be secondary in character and from
reputable government agencies such as the United States
Department of Agriculture and the United States Depart-
ment of Commerce. '

The only other source of statistical data is the
publication ngdg g; Cangdg (5) which is produced by
the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The above publica-
tion's annual volume is comparable to Foreigg Qggmerge
ggd Ngvigatiog,gg thg United Stgtes which is published
‘by the Bureau of the Census.

Egggg_ggflggpgga is also released monthly and thus
monthly data on egg shipments to the United States was
available through Octbber, 1950, before similar United
States figures were available. For consistency then,

Trgde g; gaggga was used entirely in both monthly and

annual data.

15
III. PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION AND PRICE RELATIONSHIP IN
THE UNITED STATES EGG INDUSTRI

To adequately comprehend the scape of the problem
and to lessen the possibility of reJecting a true
hypothesis or accepting a false hypothesis, it is nec-
essary to conduct an analysis of egg production and
consumption trends as related to egg prices. Although
this study is particularly interested in the post-war
period, it is necessary to use a longer period in this
case to show more clearly the changes in the United
States egg industry. So far as possible, the period
1957 to 1950 will be used.

Egg Prices

In the period under consideration in Table 1, farm
egg prices have ranged from a low of 17.4 cents per
dozen in 1959 to a high of 47.2 cents per dozen in 1948.
This shows considerable range in the prices received by
farmers for eggs. However, it is not sufficient to
consider egg price in isolation to the movements of other
farm prices. Thus the following data compares the price
index of prices received by farmers for eggs with the

index of the that farmers received for all products:

14

.canmaam>m no: I: .m.:
.hamqaaaaoam n

.soaposvoan

sash no pcmonma 0a pm umpmaapmm .cOaposuoan samuucoc ecsaoca no: moon m

 

 

 

 

.Amav coapmspam.mmm.dmd:flmwdmmm song coaamsoo ”monsom a
.m.c m.mm .m.e .m.e nomm.e omma

nmo.m a.m¢ men nmmm.e mmm.e mema
mam. m.m¢ mmn eoe.m mmm.e mama
ome.a n.me men mnm.e oom.m mama
mse.a m.sm wen mnn.e amm.e mama
oom.a e.en bmn mmm.¢ mmm.e mama
mmn.a m.mn omn mms.n mem.m eema
mme.a a.en men mas.» mmm.e mama
mao.a o.on man mmm.m meo.e mmma
mom m.mm aan mme.n mme.n aema
mom o.ma pan mom.n mon.m oema
ems e.aa aan mae.n enm.» mmma
mme n.om mom emn.n naa.m mama
eam m.am mom son.» ona.n emma
Amamaaoo Ampcmov Amwmmv Amcouoc

coaaaaav Acmuop mpammo hem coaaaaav Amcmuoc

smooch Emmy Hmpoa coaaaaav anew
mmflwm OOdhm NCOflpO§UOHm
name such :oapmasmcoo same

 

 

HmmHmmonB¢Amm wwm mmemem QHBHZD
H mummy

14

.0HDQHHG>N 90G II twos—

.aamcaaaamam n

 

 

 

 

.coaposconm
easy we assayed CA as ummeapmm .coaposuonm ammuncoc ecsaoca no: mmoa N
.Amav coapmspam.mmm.dmdiHMMflmmM song mmaamsoo ”monsom H
.m.c m.ma .m.c .a.c momm.a omma
mmo.m a.ma mam mmmm.a mmm.a mama
mam.m m.ea mmm noe.a mma.a mama
ome.a m.ma mam mmm.a oom.a mama
maa.a m.sm aem mmm.a aam.a mama
oom.a e.em emm mmm.a amm.a mama
mmm.a m.mm omm mms.m mam.m aama
maa.a a.em mam mme.m mam.a mama
eao.a 0.0m mam ama.m mao.a mama
mmm m.mm aam mma.m mma.m aama
mma o.ma eam mom.m mom.m oama
mma a.ma aam maa.m amm.m mmma
mma m.om mom smm.m maa.m mmma
mam m.am mom nom.m oma.m mmma
Amamaaoo Ampcmov Ammmmv Amcmnop
coaaaaav Acmuom mpammo pmm coaaaaav Amcmuoc
maoomH away Hence coaaaaav use»
mmamm moaam Ncoaposmoam
ammo same coaPQBSmcoo same

 

 

HmmHmmonB4Amm 66m mmemam QHBHZD
H mummy

 

nnnnnnnnnnnnnn

 

 

15

 

 

1910—1914 = 100

 

 

Year
Egg Prices All Farm Prices

1957 102 122
1958 98 97
1959 84 95
1940 87 100
1941 115 124
1942 144 159
1945 178 192
1944 156 195
1945 181 202
1946 . 181 255
1947 218 278
1948 220 287

 

From the above data it is evident that egg prices
have been depressed relative to all farm prices in the
period considered. The reasons for this depression are
not readily apparent. Certain questions, however,
naturally follow: Is this depression due to chronic
overproductions that indicates the need for reallocation
of agricultural resource? Is it only a temporary dis-

parity between production and consumption that will correct

itself? Is 1
nology of egg
increases out
to the pressu
this latter qw
this study.

The prodx
Siderably abo*
in the five y
dozens per ye

PPOduc tion of

Years, In 01

80099 or pro<

examinatlon ‘

16
itself? Is it due to widespread advances in the tech-
nology of egg production that has resulted in supply
increases outstripping demand increases? Or is it due
to the pressure of imports, especially Canadian? It is
this latter question which is the particular concern of

this study.
Production

The production of eggs in the United States is con-
siderably above prewar levels. The average production
in the five years preceding World War II was 5.25 billion
dozens per year. This compares with an average yearly
production of 4.5 billion dozens in the five postwar
years. In other words, egg production is more than 55
percent above prewar levels. Further indication of the
scope of production increases can be found on a closer
examination of the individual yearly figures in Table I.
This examination will show a range of from 5.1 billion
dozens in 1958, to a high of nearly five billion dozens
in 1950 (preliminary indications).

It might be well here to explain certain apparent
discrepancies in Table I. Column 2 shows farm produc-
tion. This is different from total production in that
farm production does not include the backyard and similar

non-farm egg production. The Bureau of Agricultural

17
Economics estimates non-farm production at 10 percent of
farm production. It is presumed that these non-farm

eggs are included in the total consumption figures.
Consumption

Total egg consumption in the postwar years is 50
percent above prewar consumption. The important feature
of consumption increases is the consistency of these
increases. In only two years since 1957 has total con-
sumption decreased -- these years being 1941 and 1949.
This steady overall increase in aggregate consumption is
due in part to a trend toward greater per capita con-
sumption. Part of the increase is also due to a fairly
steady growth in the United States pOpulation, part to
a lower price relative to substitutes. The fact that
consumer incomes have, generally, been increasing in
this period cannot be overlooked. The data on the fol-
lowing page shows the interaction of total consumption
with these factors.

Higher per capita consumption appears directly
associated with higher consumer income. Only two years
in the following data, 1941 and 1946, deviate from this
relationship. Some of the higher per capita egg con-
sumption in the past decade is also due to meat rationing

and high meat prices. At any rate, Americans are eating

18

 

L
‘

 

 

 

 

Index of
.. mar 52:21::
(mil. doz.) (1935-1939 : 100) (eggs)
1937 3,307 100 108 306
1938 3,357 101 98 308
1939 3,415 102 104 311
1940 3,508 103 113 317
1941 3,435 104 134 311
1942 3,384 106 169 316
1943 3,739 107 189 346
1944 3,768 108 208 350
1945 4,295' 110 211 397
1946 4,338 112 218 374
1947 4,558 114 233 379
1948 4,707 116 254 386
1949 4,678 117 251 376

 

eggs at a rate well above the depression advertising aim
of “an egg a day per person.“

It has been established then that both farm produc-
tion and aggregate consumption are now 50 percent above
their prewar levels. It seems quite natural then, to
question whether or not postwar imports of eggs might be

as high as 50 percent greater than prewar levels and

 

 

Year CO]
(mi
1957
1958
1959 .
1940 i
1941 5
1942 3
1945 ,3
1944 3.
1945 4,
1946 4’
1947 ' 4"
1943 4’.
1949 4,6
\
9.88 at a r t
or ”an 988 a d
It has b

18

 

 

 

 

Index of
assess. 14.42:... ' “$3232? 323.5222.
(mil. doz.) (1935—1939 : 100) (eggs)
1937 3,307 100 108 306
1938 3,357 101 98 308
1939 3,415 102 104 311
1940 3,508 103 113 317
1941 3,435 104 134 311
1942 3,384 106 169 316
1943 3,739 107 189 546
1944 3,768 108 208 350
1945 4,295 110 211 397
1946 4,338 112 218 374
1947 4,538 114 233 379
1948 4,707 116 254 386
1949 4,678 117 251 576

 

eggs at a rate well above the depression advertising aim
of ”an egg a day per person.“

It has been established then that both farm produc-
tion and aggregate consumption are now 50 percent above
their prewar levels. It seems quite natural then, to
question whether or not postwar imports of eggs might be

as high as 50 percent greater than prewar levels and

19
still have a normal relationship between domestic and .

foreign eggs in'the United States market?
Demand Elasticity for Eggs

An analysis of production changes in Table 1 does
not give a clear indication to the relationship between
domestic egg production and price. This is probably
due to effect on total supply of such things storage
carryovers, thus an indication of the demand elasticity
of eggs cannot be obtained from a comparison of the
relative changes in production with the relative changes
in price.

However, another indicator of the elasticity of
eggs is at our disposal. This indicator is the changes
in total sales income from eggs given in column five of
Table I. Here it will be noticed that increases in pro-
duction have often meant a lower total income from eggs
to farmers. Characteristic of this are the changes in
production and sales income from 1958 to 1959, 1945 to
1944, and 1948 to 1949. This indicates that the total
value supply curve for eggs has a negative slope, a

characteristic of commodities with inelastic demands.*

 

* Relationship of demand elasticity and the total
value supply curve is discussed fully in waite and Trelogan,

Ag Intrgduction.§g Agricultural Prigeg.

 

‘
‘ >-V‘Y~ .

 

 

20

If an accurate figure for the demand elasticity of
eggs was available, it would be possible to show fairly
accurately what effect the changes in the total quantity
of eggs available to consumers would have on price.
Likewise, it would also be possible to show what effect
the relative change in egg imports would have on the
domestic price structure.

However, the exact elasticity of demand for eggs is
not known, but it must be remembered that because of
the indicated inelastic demand, the relative change in
supply will bring about a relatively greater change in
price. Thus increases in egg imports, other things
being equal, could conceivably have a greater influence
on price than an increase in the imports of a commodity

with an elastic demand.
Price Program For Eggs

Any discussion of egg prices and related factors
would be incomplete without a discussion of the past and
present government price support program in eggs. In
this discussion the price program for eggs shall be con-
sidered in two periods -- Steagall and post-Steagall
periods.

Under the wartime Steagall amendment to the Agri-

cultural AdJustment Act, eggs were placed in a category,

 

 

If an ac¢
eggs was avaii
accurately whz
of eggs avail:
Likewise, it 1
the relative c
domestic price

However,
not known, bu1
the indicated
supply will ‘01
Price. Thus 1
being eqUal, c
on Price than

““1 an elast:

Any disc
would be 11100-
present Sover
this discus“.

61(18er in t1“

periods .

Under t}

 

20

If an accurate figure for the demand elasticity of
eggs was available, it would be possible to show fairly
accurately what effect the changes in the total quantity
of eggs available to consumers would have on price.
Likewise, it would also be possible to show what effect
the relative change in egg imports would have on the
domestic price structure.

However, the exact elasticity of demand for eggs is
not known, but it must be remembered that because of
the indicated inelastic demand, the relative change in
supply will bring about a relatively greater change in
price. Thus increases in egg imports, other things
being equal, could conceivably have a greater influence
on price than an increase in the imports of a commodity

with an elastic demand.
Price Program For Eggs

Any discussion of egg prices and related factors
would be incomplete without a discussion of the past and
present government price support program in eggs. In
this discussion the price program for eggs shall be con-
sidered in two periods -- Steagall and post-Steagall
periods.

Under the wartime Steagall amendment to the Agri-

cultural AdJustment Act, eggs were placed in a category,

 

 

 

 

 

with certain c
percent of pa:
this support 11
years from the
purposes of th
in 1947. Thus
parity were re

Egg price
in advance of
level for 1950

were riding t '

  
  
   
  

“pm” Price
"maul! hi
NoVember and
Dated Inch 10

Just how

between you“!

for egg Price

21
with certain other craps, for which price supports at 90
percent of parity were mandatory. The period for which
this support was mandatory was the war period and for two
years from the January 1 immediately following. For
purposes of the Steagall amendment, the war was terminated
in 1947. Thus, mandatory supports at 90 percent of
parity were required for eggs until January 1, 1950.

Egg prices entered the post-Steagall period slightly
in advance of the designated date. When the support
level for 1950 was announced in late 1949, egg prices
were riding the seasonal crest. The announced average
support price for 1950 was far lower than the current
seasonally high prices and, therefore, prices began in
November and December of 1949 to adJust to the antici-
pated much lower levels of 1950.

Just how big an adJustment occurred in egg prices
between November, 1949, and January, 1950? It is normal
for egg prices to fall during this period. However,
farm prices in this period fell from near 45 cents to 25
cents per dozen. This is considerably more than a
seasonal decline. It was due in part to an abnormally
high December production due to favorable weather con-
ditions. The maJor reason, however, was the reduction
in the declared support price.

This price was to be only 75 percent of parity as
compared to the 90 percent of parity price for 1949.

 

The 1950 811]
because of
tional parif
higher prodt
in the parit
alias to red
less than th
It is n
criticize thi
tions for ch;
author that 1
the program.
Higher p

a ”9.6 Market

large propOrt

 

22
The 1950 support price was further reduced by five percent
because of the mandatory shift from the old to the transi-
tional parity f0rmula.* Thus the combination of factors --
higher production, reduced level of support and changes
in the parity formula —- teamed up with a seasonal de-
cline to reduce egg prices around 20 cents per dozen in
less than three months.

It is not the function of this discussion to
criticize the domestic egg program or to offer sugges-
tions for changes. However, it is the Opinion of the
author that the following conditions were the result of
the program.

Higher prices than would have normally resulted in
a free market have priced United States eggs out of a
large pr0portion of the export market. This is illus-
trated by following figures compiled from Poultry ggd
Egg Situation (15):

1945 429,642,000 dozen
1946 564,294,000 dozen
1947 220,042,000 dozen
1948 152,625,000 dozen
1949 67,570,000 dozen

The most critical loss is in shell eggs to Latin
America and United States territories. United States

* The types of parity calculations -- old, new and
transitional -- are discussed fully in Prige Prggrggg
Q§_the Depgrtment gt Agrigulture (16).

25
egg exports to Latin America, especially to Venezuela
and Colombia have been replaced to large extent by
Canadian eggs. Reductions in exports have the same
effect on the domestic supply as increases in produc-
tion and imports have.

The method of support used by the Department of
Agriculture also deserves some mention. Most government
purchases in the past three years have been dried eggs.
These do not permit as flexible a plan of disposal as is
permitted in the case of shell eggs being placed in
storage. Shell eggs can be sold as shell eggs, or cracked
and frozen, or cracked and separated into yolk and
albumen, or dried if the demand arises. Dried eggs are
good only as dried eggs and hence, a lot of diversion
or export dumping under Section 52 must be used to dis-
pose of them.

The purchase of dried eggs also favors certain
farmers because of the geographical location of drying
mills. There are no drying plants with government
contracts in Michigan. Hence, Michigan farmers benefit
only indirectly. Also, by purchasing dried eggs the
government supports consumer grades of eggs only indir-
ectly. This writer questions as to whether the government
is providing a market for certain trade eggs that might

normally be destroyed.

24

The government rules, established by legislation,
prohibit the sale of government held surplus into the
domestic market below a certain price. In general,
this is at parity or the price which reflects the cost
to the government plus handling charges. Perhaps this
explains why foreign dried eggs continued to flow into
this country despite the huge domestic surpluses of this
product.

The following data provided much food for specula-
.tion on this point:

 

 

 

Dried Eggs 1948 1949 1950
Domestic 56 mil. lbs. 69.5 mil. lbs. 85.7 mil. lbs.
Produc.*

USDA

Purchases* 28.4 mil. lbs. 68.8 mil. lbs. 85.4 mil. lbs.

 

From the above data it is evident that the govern—
ment, who is virtually the sole buyer, sets the price
of dried eggs produced in this country. In 1950, this
price was well over 90 cents per pound. This placed
foreign dried eggs in a more favorable price position
to the commercial and industrial user despite a tariff
of 27 cents per pound. (The duty on dried eggs was set

 

* Compiled from Poultry and Egg Situgtion (15).

25
at 17 cents per pound under the Geneva trade agreement.
This was raised by Presidential proclamation to 27 cents
per pound in 1950, under an escape clause.) Foreign
shipments of dried egg products came mainly from China.

Imports of dried egg products are another inter-
esting phenomena. Despite the fact that domestic driers
produced over 85 million pounds of whole dried eggs for
the government in 1950, over 90 percent of the 8 million
pounds of dried yolk and dried albumen used in the pro-
duction of candy, baked goods and certain adhesives in
the United States were imported. Practically all of this
came from China. This was probably due to an abnormal
price structure in dried egg products resulting from
such huge government purchases of whole dried eggs.

In other words, the government established price of

dried whole eggs was not sufficiently different from

the price for dried egg products to encourage the separa-
tion of eggs. Thus, the market for dried yolk and albumen
went largely to foreign eggs.

Many of the above observations will be subJected
to considerable test of validity in 1951. This year
the government will, if necessary, support the price
by purchasing shell eggs of consumer grades. 'This will
provide the government with a flexible plan of disposal.

She can, if the price warrants, move these eggs back

Ind 51 .

l C‘..'\l 4|.»

... .\

H -. ..., 0 1.. II. '0 ~ o
Hamisxwwamlhfli... .4»... ....3... ...) . .

... I

 

26
into normal channels for consumption by our citizens in
the peak months of September to December.

Also, domestic driers will have every chance to
demonstrate whether or not they can cater to the demands
of domestic dried egg users. There will be abnormali-
ties in the dried egg price structure due to huge
government contracts, and the domestic drier will be
favored by the 27 cent per pound tariff and by the fact
that Chinese eggs will not compete in the United States
market, barring a surprising end to the cold war.

(Trade relations with communist China were severed in
1950 when Chinese dollar holdings in the United States

were frozen).

IV. SOME FACTORS AFFECTING CANADIAN SHIPMENTS 0F EGGS
TO THE UNITED STATES
The production of eggs in Canada is considerably
above prewar levels. The following figures, compiled
from Pouttry ggg_§gg Situatiog (15), show this quite
clearly:

1954-58 (average) 220 million dozens produced

1945 575 " ' "
1946 525 " " "
1947 575 ' ” "
1948 555 “ ” "
1949 515 ” " "
1950 525 ' " "

It can be seen that this increase in production
is quite similar to that in the United States. However,
this study is only interested in Canadian production as
it affects shipments to the United States market.

For the same time period used above Canadian ship-
ments of eggs* to the United States were as follows:

1954-58 14,400 dozen

1945 1,557,000 '

 

* Compiled from Trgde gt ggggqa (5).

28

1946 59,000 dozen
1947 126,000 "
1948 570,000 ”
1949 2,150,000 "

1950 (to Oct. 31) 3,350,000 "

Although both Canadian egg production and exports
of eggs to the United States are both well above prewar
levels, there is no indication that the level of Canadian
production is associated with higher egg exports to
the United States. This can be observed in the foregoing
figures. Production has had a downward trend after 1947,
while egg exports have followed a definite upward trend.
The effect of this upward trend of Canadian egg ship—
ments to the United States will be analyzed in later
chapters. However, it is important first to pause and
look at some of the factors governing the flow of Cana-

dian eggs into the United States.
Prices, Tariffs, and Exchange Rates

Perhaps the greatest single controlling factor is
that of price, which in this case is intertwined with
the tariff and a variable exchange rate between the

Canadian and the United States dollar.

29

The effect of price on egg flows is not clearly

discernable when the index of United States egg prices

is compared with the volume of Canadian shipments.

 

 

United States Price

Canadian Shipment

 

Year cents per dozen dozens

1945 57.7 1,557,000
1946 37.5 59,000
1947 45.3 125,000
1948 47.2 370,000
1949 45.1 2,150,000

 

However, a more clear relationship between United
States prices and the level of Canadian shipments is
bound by examining monthly data. Table IV of Chapter V
has complete monthly data to show this relationship for
the postwar years. It suffices here to say that when
egg prices are seasonally low, Canadian shipments are
also at a minimum. As prices rise seasonal imports
also rise.

The operation of the tariff is likewise responsible
in part for the increase in egg imports when egg prices
are high. First it is a specific duty which is relatively
large when prices are low or become smaller as prices

rise. For instance, the tariff of 1950-was 10 cents per

5O
dozen which was 50 percent of an egg price of 20 cents
per dozen, but only 20 percent of an egg price of 50
cents per dozen. Secondly, the reductions of the duty
since 1950 have further reduced the effectiveness of
the tariff. The duty was lowered in 1945 to five cents
per dozen and under GATT (Geneva Agreement) of 1948 the
duty was further reduced to the current level of 5.5
cents.

The devaluation of the Canadian dollar in 1949
resulted in a practical nullification of the tariff,
and in some cases, it meant a relative rise in price
of eggs to the Canadian producer. This was possible
because of the profit the Canadian producer would re-
ceive from exchanging his American dollars for Canadian
currency.

Table II shows the effective duty for various ex-
change rates, prices of eggs, and for the various tariff
schedules. For example, under the tariff of 1948, and
at a price of 50 cents per dozen, the effective tariff
is one cent per dozen at the current exchange rate of
approximately 95 cents.

(1) At 50 cents per dozen the Canadian producer
will receive one American dollar for every two dozen
eggs delivered to the United States Market.

(2) The total duty on two dozen is seven cents.

i 141 4‘
V4..‘. ‘

Fil 1‘

.9 .....i...

..4

Pill... . ,
$.41. ..a.. ....«r. ..4...1 14.44... 314...“...99 a».-. u.....&.

.OWR“.

..‘1‘0..\-\.....

 

51
TABLE II
EFFECTIVE TARIFF ON EGGS, CENTS PER DOZEN

—_v
——

 

 

 

Egg Tariff Law of
Price 1950 31345 1948
Cents per Value of Canadian Dollar

dOZ- .90 .95 1.00 .90 .95 1.00 .90 .95 1.00
.20 8.0 9.0 10.0 5 4 5.0 1.8 5.5 5.5
.25 7.5 8.8 10.0 2.5 5.8 5.0 1.0 2.8 5.5
.50 7.0 8.5 10.0 2.0 5.5 5.0 .5 2.0 5.5
.55 6.6 8.5 10.0 1.6 5.5 5.0 O 1.8 5.5
.40 6.0 8.0 10.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 - 1.5 5.5
.45 5.5 7.7 10.0 .5 2.7 5.0 - 1.2 5.5
.50 5.0 7.5 10.0 0 2.5 5.0 - 1.0 5.5
.55 4.4 7.2 10.0 - 2.2 5.0 - .6 5.5
.60 4.0 7.0 10.0 - 2.0 5.0 - .5 5.5

 

(5) But the Canadian producer will receive 1.05
Canadian dollars for the American dollar.

(4) Hence, the export of two dozen eggs to the
United States has actually been subJect to a duty of
two cents, or one cent per dozen. The remainder of the
actual duty has been offset by the exchange transaction
profit.

The above is extremely simplified, but it does
show the interrelationship of price, the tariff, and

’4

52
exchange rates. The effect of all three in governing
Canadian shipments cannot be taken lightly.

Until the fall of 1949, the Canadian dollar was
fixed at par with the United States dollar. At that
time, in accord with general devaluation of world our-
rencies, it was fixed at 90.91 cents. A year later,
in the fall of 1950, the Canadian dollar was freed and
since then has climbed to a fairly stable rate Just
slightly above 95 cents.

Attention is directed to the rise of egg imports
after devaluation. In the twelve month period from
October 1, 1949, to October 1, 1950, egg imports were
5,777,952 dozens (shell egg equivalents). In the twelve
months immediately preceding this period, egg imports
were 1,382,173 dozens (shell egg equivalents), or ap-
proximately half.

Shipments to the United Kingdom

From an analysis of Canadian foreign trade in eggs,
it appears that exports of eggs to the United Kingdom
has some effect on the flow of eggs into the United
States. This has been especially true since 1946. The
figures on the following page,from gygdg gt Cangdg (5)
illustrate this fact.

o
u a a
a a o . . c
0
V l
a a . . a . a
a
0
0 n o m C
c
I J o I .
- n
I C n G I I I o
0
.
a v Q n a a m
a
n
. . o .
o I o a u n a u
. .
a u o . . . o u
I

.. .c. ...u......\..

I a 0. I... ‘V.|c ff. . . 0.4 .I .
.9...- ”scrum- .... an? 4a....- ...-ea...Eurasian-13.1%. \4-

Al‘0

 

52
exchange rates. The effect of all three in governing
Canadian shipments cannot be taken lightly.

Until the fall of 1949, the Canadian dollar was
fixed at par with the United States dollar. At that
time, in accord with general devaluation of world our-
rencies, it was fixed at 90.91 cents. A year later,
in the fall of 1950, the Canadian dollar was freed and
since then has climbed to a fairly stable rate Just
slightly above 95 cents.

Attention is directed to the rise of egg imports
after devaluation. In the twelve month period from
October 1, 1949, to October 1, 1950, egg imports were
5,777,952 dozens (shell egg equivalents). In the twelve
months immediately preceding this period, egg imports
were 1,582,175 dozens (shell egg equivalents), or ap-
proximately half.

Shipments to the United Kingdom

From an analysis of Canadian foreign trade in eggs,
it appears that exports of eggs to the United Kingdom
has some effect on the flow of eggs into the United
States. This has been especially true since 1946. The
figures on the following page,from Igggg g; angdg (5)
illustrate this fact.

.‘I'

In l'ga.‘

cut-.0304: . 1‘.-
¢ 40.

‘.:U.~. ...: K. hir?‘\fla’..‘5.fl....l.n01.a)w\.t...%.".rn my.“ n

...:N...»W..l’.\ ..I

“4544;. .

 

35

 

 

 

Year To United Kingdom To United States
1946 70,660,000 dozen 59,000 dozen
1947 ' 95,385,000 " 126,000 "
1948 84,612,000 " 570,000 “'
1949 57,641,000 " 2,150,000 "
1950 (to Oct. 3) - 5,550,000 "

 

It must not be assumed that Canada disposes of what
cannot be sold to the United Kingdom in the United
States. Although more eggs do flow into the United
States at times when the British demand is small, the
real change takes place in Canada's total egg export
figures. For instance, in the first nine months of 1950
when Britain purchased no eggs from Canada, United States
imports of Canadian eggs did rise about 1.5 million
dozen, but the real change was in total Canadian egg

exports which fell from 45 to 5 million dozen.*

 

* The United States price program certainly did
not aid Canada in maintaining her British market.
Britain ceased buying Canadian eggs in December, 1949,
and from January to May, 1950, she purchased 51.8 million
pounds of dried eggs from U. S. D. A. stocks at an
average cost of 22 cents per pound. This price included
Section 52 and ECA funds and represented around 10 cents
per pound in British funds. In terms of eggs, this was
a total cost of slightly over seven cents per dozen.

 

.4

54
Canadian Egg Storage Program

An important factor in controlling egg exports when
the British market folded, was the inauguration of a
price support program for eggs in Canada. After Britain's
purchases were out by more than half in 1949, it became
apparent to Canadian officials that the contract would
not be renewed in 1950.

Thus the Canadian government announced on January 26,
1950, that it would support the price of eggs. It agreed
to pay, at all storage points in Canada, 58 cents for
Grade A large eggs and 56 cents for Grade A medium eggs
plus from four to five cents per dozen for the various
processing and storage charges.

The eggs were to be oil treated and stored in govern-
ment approved storage. Strict temperature, humidity,
and ventilation requirements were laid down. The storage
of shell eggs permits very flexible disposal. They can
be released into trade channels and sold as shell eggs,
or cracked and sold as frozen or dried eggs if such a
demand arises.

The depression of Canadian egg prices following
the loss of the British market and the subsequent effect
of the Canadian price support can be illustrated by the
following data. These prices are for grade ”A” eggs at

s ”All-(Al: ... 11’ .u . .
. aha»; -t . \ vi“... .
. A. y .- .u. ..p

. A: . .
... 3} tax «4.1.5»... ......H

1

 

55
Montreal and are taken from The gggggnt fiezign of Agr_-

culturg; Conditiong ;Q,Canadg (2):

 

 

 

cents
month per

dozen
November, 1949 56.?
December, 1949 (British contract terminated) 44.0
January, 1950 56.6
February, 1950 (Price Program in effect) 41.9
March, 1950 44.8

 

The termination of the British contract early in
December of 1949, brought about a much greater than
seasonal decline which continued through January, 1950.
Whether attributable to the price program or not, the
price of eggs climbed eight cents per dozen in the two
months following its inauguration.

The changes in egg shipments to the United States

during the same period were Just as pronounced:

 

 

 

month dozens
November, 1949 242,900
December, 1949 (British contract terminated) 208,000
January, 1950 1,101,600
February, 1950 (Canadian Program) 268,500

March, 1950 540,600

 

n/. 1
.83... . . .
Ht...u ...«v
(D

.. .. .v...fl.r~a_. V.
.. at...

s

 

56

The resultant depression of Canadian prices made
United States-Canadian price spread wider. Exports to
the United States lagged somewhat behind prices. How-
ever, shipments in January, 1950, were five times as
great as in December, 1949. The return to 1949 levels
in February is also significant.

Further discussion of the Canadian price support
program is not practical in this investigation. Refer-
ence is made to the article of A. H. Turner (9) discussed

in Chapter II.
Summary

Despite the importance of the British market and
the Canadian price support program in governing the
flow of Canadian eggs into the United States, the greatest
single controlling factor is price differences. In this
case, it is the price difference as altered by the
tariff and exchange rates. The effect of price differ—
ences can be summarized by the data on the following page
which shows the movement of Canadian eggs into Detroit
at various price difference for Grade A, large, eggs at
Detroit and.Montrea1.

The exact limits of this price difference cannot be
ascertained from the limited data available. However,

in the eight months that Detroit prices were equal to or

‘
. SW?! 750: ...:r/ \ VH3...“ ova-hind ‘Vun fi..fl“¢ an “1.3.. rlflb“u‘_\.>.$ I.’
. a «it... 9......02 I. «shawl..- . .5... M. em»... _..? . ... ._....

u ”l- .’. .....anWWf’VV‘ \11

.4
v
1

 

57

 

 

Price Difference Number of Months Canadian Shipments

 

 

(-) Montreal Higher 1949-1950 atDetrggt?

cents per dozen Yes No
up to —4.5 4 4
-4.5 to -5.5 5 l 2
-5.5 to -2.5 4 2 2

-2.5 to -1.5 l 1
-l.5 to 0 l l
0 to 1.5 6 5 l

1.5 to 5.5 O

5.5 and up _2, '_g .__
21 ll 10

 

greater than those at Montreal, Canadian eggs were present
at Detroit seven of the eight months. In the 15 months
that Montreal prices were greater, Canadian eggs were
present at Detroit only four of the 15.

During the past three years the structure of United
States egg prices has been such that the prices differ-
ences between relevant Canadian and American markets
have encouraged an increasing flow of Canadian eggs into
this country. However, the determination of the volume
of imports is not sufficient to evaluate the need for
control measures. Legally, it must be shown that these

imports have sufficient impact on price to threaten the

58
domestic price program. The impact of Canadian eggs on
domestic egg prices has not yet been considered.

In the following chapters, an attempt will be made
to determine the impact of these increases in Canadian

shipments of eggs on domestic prices.

 

V. CANADIAN SHIPMENTS AS RELATED TO PRODUCTION,
CONSUMPTION AND UNITED STATES SURPLUS

In previous chapters, imports of eggs, production,
and consumption have all been considered more or less
in isolation with little effort being made to determine
their relationship to each other. The function of this
chapter is to consider imports, especially those of
Canadian origin, as they are related to United States
egg production, and surpluses. The relationship, once
established, will then be used to evaluate the impact
of Canadian egg shipments on domestic prices.

This relationship will be viewed first over the
period 1957 to 1950 in an attempt to ascertain trends.
Then, the postwar period, 1946 to 1950, will be more
closely scrutinized by the use of monthly data.

As tools to determine the interrelationship be-
tween supply, demand, and imports, with their resultant
effect upon egg prices, percentages that provide a
measure of the relative importance of each shall be
used. Specifically, Canadian shipments of eggs will
be compared percentage wise with domestic production
and consumption purchased by the Department of Agri-

culture under the price support program.

 

40

Imports as a Percentage of Production

The relative importance of egg imports, total and
Canadian, can be seen in Table III. It is extremely
important to keep in mind that all of the figures in
this Table that represent physical volumes of eggs are
in millions of dozens. This uniformity creates some
difficulty in the handling of small quantities, but
it is necessary to keep the larger figures, such as
production, manageable, Furthermore, this uniformity
permits a rough analysis at a glance without the neces-
sity of reorientation of thinking for each column under
consideration.

In considering a problem of this nature, where
Section 22, Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended,
is considered as a control measure, it is not sufficient
to consider only Canadian eggs. This is because quotas
would be applicable to all egg imports and not Just
Canadian. Thus Table III shows total imports of eggs
as well as Canadian.

At no time since World War II have egg imports
approached the 1957 high of 52 million dozens. The
reason for this seems not to be Canadian eggs, but
rather Chinese eggs, for Canadian shipments are well

above their prewar levels.

33...... . fine

.‘IM’Ar-s

’05...-MA‘14JHWL. _ (a. 3 ....)An

 

41

Prior to World war II, China was the principal
shipper of foreign eggs into the United States market.
These shipments were not only in the form of dried egg
products but also represented large quantities of shell
eggs. After 1940, this trade was largely terminated.
The large shipments in 1941 were not of Chinese origin.
The bulk of these shipments was a 10 million dozen
consignment from the Argentine which has not consigned
any since that time.

With the cessation of hostilities, foreign egg
shipments have not resumed their prewar pattern. Canada,
especially in the last two years, has become the principal
supplier of shell eggs and a substantial contributor of
frozen and dried eggs. In 1951 Canada will be the
largest foreign shipper of eggs into the United States.
Thus special consideration has been given in this study
to Canadian eggs.

The prediction that Canada will be the largest
foreign shipper of eggs to the United States in 1951
is based upon the assumption that trade relations with
Communist China will not be resumed in the foreseeable
future. Trade relations with China were, for all prac-
tical purposes, severed when the Peiping government's

dollar balances in this country were frozen in 1950.

~

 

   

       

  
  
  

{it}; _. .. i). ”Leavmrv. ..
Qkh UIWJ HARNJA a. . “3%“ h .v. .lv. - c
0.». \r .
... _.

tit!)
. ... ...; 0 . l
. 4 . .,1‘.‘ $ -. . _ ..u .l ’J . a
. ~s...w..owflu\. . 44.3%....5334 fknfimfizv Aflfiaffi...) . /._ ... .

   

.
m|.~a' r

42

.oHanHm>w no: I

.pcoonom H no Hoo. swap mama

 

0.“.

Q

 

 

 

 

 

*

.oooH .HmlaoQOpoo nwsoane o

. n mdmmao ho momma ”00h50m m

.Aoav coHp spHm mwm dqm_flaadsow "moasom m

.AOHV moHpmempm HmnapHsOHaw¢ "monsom H
o.m« w¢.H moo. .m.: o oo.n .w.c new osm.¢ H.0..wa
H.ov Ho.H moo. mm. o oH.m o nHm moo.w oeoH
n.s¢ no. moo. no. N on. m Ho oo¢.¢ mon
n.o¢ oo. moo. mo. o nH. H mom ooo.¢ svoH
m.so mo. Hoo. mo. s oo. H eon Hoo.w oon
b.5n . moo. mo. - oo.H w n moo.¢ ovoH
o.mo : moo. mo. n mo. H u woo.¢ eon
H.5n u ooo. mo. u mm. H u oeo.w oon
o.oo s moo. no. : Hm. n - owo.¢ «on
o.nm u Hoo. no. u no. oH : mow.o HeoH
o.mH u u Hm. u u o u mon.o oon
¢.eH u * oH. s mo. 0 . nnm.n onoH
o.om n * oH. 1 Ho. o u oHH.n mnoH
n.Hm - Hoo. mo.H a mo. on : ooH.o bnoH

couoo ”coupon pcooaom pcooamn ammonom . .

«moo .oosm .oosm .oonm quo m gonna H osoopm

oommm was one was ocw mocmo Hampoa ¢me spam goo»
.>¢ mwmm mmmm mpaomaH .nonsm .MpaomaH
.pz .cao .cmo mwm «moo econom!mo mcoHHHHz

 

 

 

 

HUHmm 924 emomzh

HHH mnmdy

.mDAmMDm .onBoDnomm wwm

r41.

1 1

a...

.M .

.0

gawk},

05.... .iw \. .
...,t
“am...“ \ Id}...

 

45
China retaliated by embargoing all shipments to the United
States. Thus, barring a sudden end to the East - West
struggle, Canada will be in the most favorable position
to ship eggs into the United States, price relationships
permitting.

From a glance at the physical quantities of eggs in
Table III, imports appear small in relation to produc-
tion. When imports are considered as a percentage of
production, this impression is substantiated. Attention
is drawn to the fact that decimals in columns seven,
eight and nine of Table III are fractions of one percent --
.0005 of domestic production. Likewise, in 1949 imports
were .22 of one percent -— .0022 of domestic production.

Prior to 1949 Canadian egg shipments were generally
less than .01 of one percent -- .0001 of our own farm
production. In 1949 and 1950, Canadian shipments have
increased, but are still below one tenth of one percent.
In other words, United States farm production is well
over a thousand times greater than Canadian shipments.

A knowledge of the various components of the total
supply and their relative importance is essential in
an analysis of this type. However, of more importance
are the changes that occur in these components.

It is difficult to see how changes in a component

of supply that is as small a prOportion of the total as

 

 

 

44
are imports of eggs can exert any serious influence on
the price determining power of the total supply of eggs.
However, in Chapter III the several elasticity indicators
considered, pointed to an inelastic demand for eggs.
This means that the relative change in the quantity of
eggs will bring about larger relative change in price.
Since the exact elasticity of eggs is not known, it is
therefore necessary to make a comparison between changes
in imports and changes in the other components of the
total supply of eggs.

Imports of eggs have increased from two million
dozens in 1948 to an estimated 20 million dozens in
1950. Canadian shipments in the same period have in-
creased from a negligible quantity to around four million
dozens. Most of the difference between Canadian ship-
ments and total imports in 1950 is in the form of dried
yolk and albumen for industrial and commercial uses.

The bulk or this egg product came from China prior to
the severing of relations and will not be present in
1951.

Production on the other hand has increased from
approximately 4.5 billion dozens to five billion dozens
in the same period 1948-1950. This 500 million dozen
increase is 25 times as great as the increase in total

.1mports and 100 times greater than increases in Canadian

 

 

 

45
egg shipments. Thus the effect on price of Canadian ship-
ments of eggs in the past two years is only one percent
of the effect of domestic production increases.

Total domestic supply has also been increased by
a reduction in United States egg exports. Although
1950 egg export figures are not as yet available, the
decrease in the period 1948-1949 was 65 million dozens
or 50 times greater than the increase in Canadian ship-
- ments and ten times greater than total egg imports for the
same period. It must also be kept in mind that much of
the export trade in eggs has been possible only by
bargain counter prices and subsidies under Section 52.
Shipments to Britain and French Indo China are char-
acteristic of this dumping program.

It appears then that Canadian egg shipments would
have to increase many fold before they can approach
the price influencing magnitude of changes in farm

production and decreases in exports.
Canadian Eggs and Domestic Surpluses

A further indication of the lack of price influencing
ability of Canadian eggs is found in comparing Canadian
eggs to the amount of the surplus purchased by the
United States Department of Agriculture. These purchases

have averaged nearly six percent of production in the

46
past five years, whereas Canadian shipments of eggs
have never been greater than one tenth of one percent.
In 1950 government purchases of eggs were over 50 times
greater than Canadian shipments. In 1949 these pur-
chases were 100 times greater than Canadian shipments.

However, in view of the cost of administering a
price program for agriculture, some questions might
arise as to the validity of allowing imports of price
supported commodities to continue to flow into this
country. Eggs have been, in terms of losses to the
government, the third most costly commodity under price
support, exceeded only by potatoes and flaxseed. Does
the continued flow of imports of eggs then constitute
a subsidy by the United States to the Canadian pro-
ducer? How much would be saved by eliminating imports
of eggs?

If it is assumed that all Canadian eggs are sur-
plus, and that the government would have to buy Just
that many fewer dozens if these eggs were not present,
then this would have meant a savings of 1.5 percent in
the cost of the egg support program. In terms of
dollars a savings of under two million dollars would
have resulted. Such an amount is not only small in
relation to the total cost of the egg program, but it
is also small in terms of the total expenditure for

47
price support. It is more than likely then that any sav-
ings on eggs would be more than made up for by additional
supports that would be necessary in citrus and deciduous
gruits which Canada would be forced to embargo if her dollar
balances obtained by egg sales were curtailed. Sales of
these commodities are amounting to around 50 million dol-
lars per year.

There is also a question as to the validity of consider-
ing imports which are not substantially greater than pre-
program years. As surplus domestic supply. This study has
not sought to justify this assumption, but has merely used it
to determine the limit of savings possible to the current
price program.

Monthly Analysis

Averages can easily deceive. This is especially true
in the case of averages over a period of time that represents
many individual items. Also, averages give no indication as
to range or variability of data. Thus it is wise to recon-
sider the foregoing relationships in the light of monthly
figures.

The major differences between the monthly data in Table
IV-a, b, c, d, e, and the annual data in Table III is due to
the fact that Canadian shipments are counter-seasonal. Thus
these shipments become greater during certain months as do-

mestic production is lower. In spite of this, Canadian

48

 

 

 

 

* . s «on mooo. «we Hence aHnsmH
o.s¢ . * n o booo. oHo smnsooon
m.mv * t n m @000. How hmnamboz
o.Ho pH. . N « oooo. pom nonopoo
o.«e . . m Hm oooo. ohm nonsopamm
H.oo . . NH on oHoo. oon Snooze
H.eo mo. * oH on oooo. son aHso
o.no . . HH no mHoo. no. ooze
m.mo oo. . a on oooo. own as:
n.Hn I u o Ho u boo HHea<
H.mo . s o no Hooo. poo none:
o.mo * t n «H mooo. ome massaged
H.H¢ . . u . oHHo. eon massage
a.“ as. am. ....am. Sam. ....W..M...
snag .m Hm. .m to «om: msouopnwo mooHHHH: Spec:

 

 

©¢oa

mszmzmHmm z¢HQ<z<o 92¢ .mDAmmDm .ZOHBUDQOmm .m .D
mI>H Humda

 

 

.4

49

 

 

 

 

 

oo. 0 o ohm oomH. oooe Hopes aHamsm
s.oo I Ho. . . oHno. moo nonsmoso
e.no u t u : eoHo. Hum sonsoeoz
o.oo . * u u oooo. mom nonopoo
o.oo : Ho. u u mono. osm sonsmpaom
o.s¢ n t u u oooo. mHo poems<
u.ow oH.H Ho. oH on «Hoo. men aHso
o.Hw * * oH no ooooo. one muse
s.oe . w NH oo wooo. OHo as:
m.ow . g n nH Hooo. omo HHno«
H.O¢ * t m Nw @000. mam mend:
o.on . w m on «moo. moo announce
o.H¢ Ho. . o «m mooo. Hon amassed
mm”. mm... mm an... exam“... mama“. Ema“...
in. .m .o .m .o «.an - 2309 no 34E? I sumo:

 

H!

 

swan

nan wands

 

50

 

 

 

 

no. Ho. m Hm moon. ooew Hayes aHnwm»
m.mo om.¢ «o. H o wooH. non nonsmomo
o.oo u Ho. u - womo. mom nonampoz
s.so vo. . m o omoo. How empopoo
¢.Ho mo. * o o Hmoo. «om nmnsmpoom
m.o¢ * . o oH oooo. «mo pmsmsq
m.o¢ * w s om eooo. moo aHso
w.n¢ Ho. . a mH oHoo. sHe mesa
m.Ho no. w H n wooo. mm. as:
o.s¢ a . a a oomo. mun HHnoe
o.m¢ . Ho. u - some. roe cons:
o.o¢ . Ho. 1 s mono. non anmsnnmm
e.m¢ n no. u u seHH. ooo awesome
a... a... am... ....am. ammo”. .53.... _
snag .m .o .m .o «no: .nmmmmmmwwmnmqmmHHHz in. .npco:

 

\IH

 

m¢md
0I>H Hum<a

5O

 

 

 

 

 

 

no. Ho. m Ho moon. move Hspoa aHnwmw
m.mo om.¢ so. H o vooH. non nonsmomo
n.oo u Ho. u . «moo. mom nopampoz
s.¢o «o. . m o omoo. How nmnopoo
¢.Ho mo. . o o Hmoo. «om nonampomm
m.o« * . o oH oooo. «mo poems<
m.oe * * s so wooo. moo aHso
¢.n¢ Ho. . « mH ”Hoo. sHo ooze
m.Ho no. t H o mooo. am. has
o.s¢ a . u . momo. moo HHso«
o.m¢ I Ho. u . eooo. ooe nous:
o.o¢ . Ho. 1 u mono. non anasnnoa
b.m¢ u no. u : seHH. oon awesome
a.“ mm ......m. ....mma exam. in... .
spam .m .o .m .m. «on: .Illllllulmeouoo so scoHHHHz .npeoz

oon

0I>H Hum¢s

51

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ho.H oo. o on moeH.m moow Hence hsto»
o.o« be. no. a pm omom. men nonsmooo
H.ne oo.o mo. H n omem. own sonam>oz
¢.Ho n¢.o oo. H n omom. oHn smnopoo
¢.mo oo.H no. N o oooo. oon nopsmpamm
m.m¢ Ho. no. 0 NH oooo. Hmn pmsws<
n.ow we. no. o Hm mooo. ooo aHse
H.¢s oo.H mo. 0 Hm omen. moo one»
«.ne Ho.H oo. o «N memo. om. as:
n.m¢ em. mo. o no msoH. oHn HHsae
m.He mH. Ho. o oo mono. nHo nouns
m.Hw oo.H mo. o oH mono. moo mewsnnma
H.o¢ mm.m no. N o awed. awn mnmsmmh
am mm ME 2.... mam. gnaw... ...m.

m .o m.mm. «om: season so acoHHHHz

oeoH

wle HAm¢B

 

 

-4

 

52

.pcoonon one no Ho. can» mmoqt

 

 

 

 

 

“www.00nmuu_wm momma "monsonm
.HnHV coHpnspHn mmm:wmn Hmmwmmm ”monsonH
0+.H 00. 0 new some.n one .poo nmsonny
m.n¢ on.H no. N 0 nHoH. nnn nonopoo
0.0. 0s.n no. N n man. emn nmnaopamn
0.0n no.0 0H. n mH anon. Hnn pmswsn
m.¢n n0.H 0H. 0H on 0000. son ann
H.0n no. no. NH Hn nonH. mnv mean
0.00 an. .0. 0H Hn mooH. an awn
0.0n no. no. 0 nn soHn. Hnn HHnon
n.Hn mn.H no. . Hm nonn. snn zones
0.00 ow.H no. 0 nHH noon. nne ammunnoa
n.Hn nn.oH mm. H n nHoH.H one nunscwn
u.noo\ mama .ooam H.00am Hnommnonsm mnpcoaQHnm Hcompowoonm oan
thMM..mo.m .mo.m «mom mmmn mcosmmHmwcmmmHHHHnH n 0 annex

 

 

 

onma
mI>H mam4s

 

 

 

 

 

53

shipments have never constituted more than .25 of one percent
of production, and this only in January, 1950, while Canada
was adjusting to loss of the British market.

Likewise, under monthly analysis Canadian shipments
become a greater percentage of government purchases in many
months because of the Opposing relationships of these two
factors to price -- Canadian shipments vary directly with

price and government purchases inversely.

Attention is drawn to the fact that when prices are high
(seasonally) imports are high, and.when prices are lower, im-
ports are also lower. This results not from Canadian ship-
ments, but rather from the fact that prices must be high rel—
ative to Canadian and world prices to draw these imports.
This point was presented in considerable detail in Chapter
IV under the discussion of price and the tariff.

From the consideration of monthly data, no serious dev-
iation from the annual data previously considered appear.
Although varying counter - seasonally, Canadian shipments have
always been a fraction of one percent of the total supply.

It appears then that little would be accomplished in the form
of price increases by limiting or embargoing egg imports at
this time. If something were done to control production,

the major cause of price deviations, then a proportional

control might be justified on egg imports.

 

 

-*

~
..1 ..fl/ . .. . . .....- .......?.

49‘s.). ...... .. . ..u. . .... ..- ,
. . .~ . . . 0 \ 9. 0..” k..- . t 5|.
....-. . . ,, .... ..
...... .. . .. .. ........h.. ..9. Ex}.

 

n A
II

......x.... .9.

VI. PRESSURES 0N PRICES AT THE DETROIT MARKET

Because of the conclusive results obtained in the
analysis of the previous chapter, some questions might
be raised as to the necessity of continuing this in-
vestigation. Further research would be unwarranted, if
we assumed that Canadian shipments of eggs are marketed
in all the individual egg markets in the United States
and are evenly distributed over these markets. How-
ever, such an assumption cannot be made with any degree

of validity.
Distribution of Canadian Shipments

0f the thirteen poultry and egg markets* that have
origin of receipts listed in Dairy gnd Poultry Mgrket
Statistics, 1949, (12), only four report shall eggs of

Canadian origin:

133g
Detroit 8,444 cases
Boston 5,744 "
New York 2,141 "
m 452 "

 

Total of four markets 14,761 cases

 

* Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland,
Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, Portland
(0re.), St. Louis, San Francisco, and Seattle.

From the origin of receipts summaries released by
the above markets, much the same pattern of shipments

is present in 1950, except in greater amounts:

lggg
Detroit 51,551 cases
Chicago 8,568 “
New York 7,685 "
Boston 5.525 '

 

Total of four markets 55,157 cases

From the above data it is apparent that eggs of
Canadian origin are not found in all United States
markets. Neither are they evenly distributed over the
markets in which they are found. Detroit always re-
ceives the largest shipment of Canadian eggs. This is
understandable due to the geographical localization of
the Canadian industry. .

Over 50 percent of Canadian eggs are produced in
interlake regions of Ontario. This means that many
United States cities are actually closer to the center
of production than Montreal and Quebec. This is par-
ticularly true of Detroit and Buffalo. Buffalo, with
the excellent rail and warehouse facilities of the
Niagara Frontier Food Terminal, probably receives as

large or larger a volume of Canadian shipments of eggs

55

w

 

 

 

 

         

.. ., .. ... -. 4...... . ..\. -.. n. . .
.0... .. . . . . .3: ll ..- -..
. -N . . . .. . .2. ”J... v5...

A .
u A... I ..u
a: . ..
. ' v
1 .5 .I .

 

56
as does Detroit. However, data for Buffalo is not avail-
able for comparison. 2

Freight rates give another indication as to the
relative distance of various markets. If we take
London, Ontario, as a starting point, because of its
central position in the producing region, we obtain the

following rates for eggs in minimum carload lots.*

per cwt. per doz.
Buffalo 0.87 cents 1.6 cents
Detroit 0.91 cents 1.8 cents

Montreal 0.91 cents 1.8 cents
Quebec 1.08 cents 2.0 cents
Chicago 1.51 cents 2.8 cents
New York 1.75 cents 3.2 cents
Boston 1.90 cents 5.5 cents

Atlanta 2.60 cents 4.8 cents

Thus it can be seen that Detroit and Buffalo prices
need not be very much greater than Canadian prices to
pay the cost of transport. This does not infer that
eggs move primarily by rail freight. In fact, most
eggs arriving from Canada on the Detroit market come
by truck. However, the above data does show something as

to the relative cost of transport to various markets.

bk

*To U. S. points 20,000 pounds or 557 cases -
To Canadian points 24,000 pounds or 429 cases -

 

. .f—‘g
, ...

 

 

57

Canadian Eggs at Detroit

The question as to whether or not this imbalance
of Canadian marketings creates a pressure on the Detroit
market that is not present in other United States markets
quite naturally follows. To explore this problem it is
necessary to look at Canadian eggs in relation to the
total supply on the Detroit market.

Some measure of the importance of Canadian shipments
in the total Detroit supply is found in Table V. Here
we find that shell eggs of Canadian origin have increased
from .16 of one percent to 2.25 percent in the past
three years. If frozen eggs are converted to shell egg
equivalents, Canadian eggs in 1950 become two percent
of the total receipts at Detroit.

In terms of actual number, eggs of Canadian origin
have increased from a negligible quantity in 1947, to
31,551 cases in 1950. On the other hand total receipts
increased 554,514 cases, or roughly ten times as much
in the same period.

In an inelastic commodity such as eggs, two percent
of the total might very well influence prices. In terms
of minimum carloads, 51,551 cases represent about 90
carloads of eggs. Thus it is well to consider both the

rank or position of Canadian contrubitions in relation

 

 

 

9+

 

 

58
to other contributors and the time or dispersion through-

out the year of Canadian arrivals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE v
CANADIAN EGGS AT DETROIT
SHELL 58051
Y Total Receipts Canadian Ship. 2 of
ear (cases) (cases) Total
1947 1,095,085 - 0
1948 1,284,554 2,115 .15
1949 1,255,554 8,444 .57
'19502 1,589,077 51,551 2.25
FROZEN 25851

Year Bounds Pounds
1947 5,828,779 - o
1948 5,910,518 - 0
1949 1,570,055 - o
19502 5,091,175 - 0

TOTAL SHALL EQUIVALENTS3
Year Cases Cases
1947 1,197,184 - o
1948 1,588,509 2,115 .15
1949 1,295,422 8,444 .55
1950 1,551,508 51,551 2.02

 

( 2) 1 Compiled from: Dairy and Poultry Market Statisticg
1 .
2 Compiled from: Origin 2; Receipts a; Detroit,
Michi 81 States (14).

57.5 pounds of frozen or liquid egg equals one
case.

’:.J Q<. ‘I‘ “'l
.....2... ...... .5... a- - m
. ....r? m... 5.1km-
”20».. TU‘. ctr...“ AU“: Clo .\I. '00.
.. ... ..v. .btf... .

‘1...

(I 4'

15,—..- J
o . ...;
. ...

 

59

In 1950 Canada ranked sixth as a supplier of eggs
for the Detroit market, preceded by Michigan, Ohio,
Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana and followed closely by
Wisconsin and Iowa. It is important to notice that
Canadian shipments are less than one tenth of shipments
from Michigan and Ohio and are roughly one third of those
from Minnesota, Illinois and Indiana. Thus it must be
realized that their effect on prices will be in the same
proportion as their proportion of total supply. In
other words, eggs from Ohio, Minnesota, and Illinois
have a much greater effect on prices at Detroit than do
eggs from Canada.

Data illustrating the position and importance of
the major suppliers of eggs for the Detroit market on
both an annual and monthly basis, in 1950, is given
in Table VI.

Canadian Shipments and Detroit Prices

One is impressed by the relative constancy of re—
ceipts from Michigan and Ohio when compared to those
from Canada. For instance, 29,799 cases of the total
51,551 received from Canada in 1950 were shipped in
January and December of that year. In 1948, most of
the 8,444 cases shipped were received in August, Septem—
ber and October. Why do these eggs come into Detroit in

 

 

 

 

A

w.
u .r V... .
...r 1...; 7...

 

.

 

I

 

Imp

.7

i . ... ..

1.. v. $1 - .

A..Jm\,.~_a.~.¢». ..
. ...

 

.n.

4...?

 

    

V'

 

 

 

 

6O

 

 

 

 

TABLE VI1
ORIGIN OF RECEIPTS AT DETROIT, 1950
Total Mich. Ohio Minn. Ill. Ind. Canada ==j:::f=====‘ . 2

Month Receipts Ship- % 0f Ship- % 0f Shlp- % of Ship- % of Ship- % 0f Ship- % of Ship- % of Price
1950 in ments To- ments To— ments To- ments To— ments To- ments TO- ments T0~

in tal in tal in tal in tal 1n tal in tal in tal

cases cases cases cases cases cases cases cases
Jan 133,153 62,663 47.0 44,198 33.2 1,530 1.1 1,218 0.9 8,615 6.5 13,149 9.9 729 0.5 32.0
Feb. 103,608 54,170 52.3 37,311 36.0 1,497 1.4 1,352 1.3 8,122 7.8 — - 984 0.9 32.6
March 142,729 56,740 39.8 37,482 26.3 14,037 9.8 12,807 9.0 7,374 5.2 140 * 2,625 1.8 38.1
April 127,123 52,666 41.9 36,501 28.7 7,173 5.6 6,474 5.1 3,895 3.1 — + 2,544 2.0 36.6
May 135,297 57,182 42.3 44,815 33.1 5,568 4.1 9,062 7.0 10,718 7.9 - - 3,253 2.4 32.6
June 110,619 50,537 45.7 37,404 33.8 6,540 5.9 3,309 3.0 8,506 7.7 340 0.3 1,298 1.2 34.1
July 96,396 35,930 37.3 30,367 31.5 10,017 10.4 6,734 7.0 5,503 5.7 263 0.3 5,266 5.5 42.3
Aug. 96,279 33,089 34.4 34,135 35.5 12,127 12.6 6,560 6.8 4,938 5.1 480 0.5 2,313 2.4 46.1
Sept. 95,530 34,905 36.5 34,721 36.3 11,692 12.2 5,900 6.2 4,893 5.1 — - 1,289 1.3 53.5
Oct. 117,234 39,825 34.0 38,426 32.8 15,172 12.9 14,083 12.0 4,885 4.2 - - 2,690 2.3 58.1
Nov. 113,981 41,572 36.5 42,776 37.5 10,318 9.1 7,029 6.2 5,681 5.0 529 0.5 3,549 3.1 58.1
Dec 117,128 45,338 38.7 38,314 32.7 5,907 5.0 1,839 1.6 5,796 4 9 16,650 14.2 2,855 2.4 59.5
Total 1,389,077 564,617 40.6 457,250 32.9 101,478 7.3 76,367 5.5 68,916 5 0 31,551 2.3 29,395 2.1
Source: Origin 3: Receipts §£_Detroit, Michigan.§y States (14).

 

2 Extras, Large, Whites.

 

* Less than one~tenth of one percent.

 

 

 

 

 

...—._—

 

 

 

 

 

 

6O

 

 

 

 

TABLE VI1
ORIGIN OF RECEIPTS AT DETROIT, 1950
Total Mich. Ohio Minn. Ill. Ind. Canada ==j:::f=====‘ . 2

Month Receipts Ship- % 0f Ship- % 0f Shlp- % of Ship- % of Ship- % 0f Ship- % of Ship- % of Price
1950 in ments To- ments To— ments To- ments To— ments To- ments TO- ments T0~

in tal in tal in tal in tal 1n tal in tal in tal

cases cases cases cases cases cases cases cases
Jan 133,153 62,663 47.0 44,198 33.2 1,530 1.1 1,218 0.9 8,615 6.5 13,149 9.9 729 0.5 32.0
Feb. 103,608 54,170 52.3 37,311 36.0 1,497 1.4 1,352 1.3 8,122 7.8 — - 984 0.9 32.6
March 142,729 56,740 39.8 37,482 26.3 14,037 9.8 12,807 9.0 7,374 5.2 140 * 2,625 1.8 38.1
April 127,123 52,666 41.9 36,501 28.7 7,173 5.6 6,474 5.1 3,895 3.1 — + 2,544 2.0 36.6
May 135,297 57,182 42.3 44,815 33.1 5,568 4.1 9,062 7.0 10,718 7.9 - - 3,253 2.4 32.6
June 110,619 50,537 45.7 37,404 33.8 6,540 5.9 3,309 3.0 8,506 7.7 340 0.3 1,298 1.2 34.1
July 96,396 35,930 37.3 30,367 31.5 10,017 10.4 6,734 7.0 5,503 5.7 263 0.3 5,266 5.5 42.3
Aug. 96,279 33,089 34.4 34,135 35.5 12,127 12.6 6,560 6.8 4,938 5.1 480 0.5 2,313 2.4 46.1
Sept. 95,530 34,905 36.5 34,721 36.3 11,692 12.2 5,900 6.2 4,893 5.1 — - 1,289 1.3 53.5
Oct. 117,234 39,825 34.0 38,426 32.8 15,172 12.9 14,083 12.0 4,885 4.2 - - 2,690 2.3 58.1
Nov. 113,981 41,572 36.5 42,776 37.5 10,318 9.1 7,029 6.2 5,681 5.0 529 0.5 3,549 3.1 58.1
Dec 117,128 45,338 38.7 38,314 32.7 5,907 5.0 1,839 1.6 5,796 4 9 16,650 14.2 2,855 2.4 59.5
Total 1,389,077 564,617 40.6 457,250 32.9 101,478 7.3 76,367 5.5 68,916 5 0 31,551 2.3 29,395 2.1
Source: Origin 3: Receipts §£_Detroit, Michigan.§y States (14).

 

2 Extras, Large, Whites.

 

* Less than one~tenth of one percent.

 

 

 

 

 

,,
.\

 

61
spurts? What is the effect on Detroit prices when those
shipments are made? What is the price pattern which
encourages the shipments?

The answer to the first question lies in Detroit
prices. When prices in Detroit are high relative to
Canadian markets, eggs will move from Canada to Detroit.
As Detroit prices increase, relative to Canadian prices,
eggs will move from greater distances in the Canadian
producing area to Detroit. Thus, as indicated in Chap-
ter V, Canadian shipments move in a "counter-seasonal"
fashion to Detroit (and other United States markets).

The answer to the question concerning the effect
of these spurts in Canadian shipments on Detroit prices
is not so easily ascertained. There have been times
when prices have fallen sharply as Canadian imports
increased, and there have been sharp declines in prices
when Canadian supplies have been completely absentfrom
the market. There have also been price increases of
considerable magnitude when Canadian were both present
and whsent.

The principal adjustments in egg prices, however,
took place in the latter half of 1949 and the first
half of 1950. Table VII shows the price movements and
Canadian shipments for 1947 to 1950. Attention is dir-

ected to the adjustment mentioned above.

 

62

From September to December, 1949, egg prices fell
roughly twenty-five cents. During the same period
Canadian shipments increased, declined, and were com-
pletely absent. Thus it is difficult to associate this
steady price decline with changes in Canadian shipments.
Yet, since prices had declined far greater than what
could be normally attributed to seasonal price varia-
tions, there must be some reason other than greater
seasonal marketings for this decline.

It will be recalled from Chapter III that the
government was no longer bound to support the price
of eggs at 90 percent of parity after 1949. Thus it
was in the last quarter of 1949 that the government
announced that the price of eggs in 1950 would be sup-
ported at around 75 percent of parity, plus or minus
seasonal adjustments. Thus a large portion of the
bearish effect, over and above seasonal adjustment,
was an attempt of the market to align itself in accord
with future price expectations.

Prices further declined in January, 1950. This
was to be expected seasonally. However, Canadian ship-
ments increased to a new high of 15,149 cases due to the
loss of the British market. It is granted that this

tremendous increase in Canadian offerings did not in the

 

63

.444v 000000 Hm..0 4:042 .04oApom_Md.0pq4momm Md :4M4ao “eonsom n
.ANHV 004pu4uwpm pomaux anaaom qu.Hn4mn “eonsom N

.000403 00004 .mwnpxm 4

 

 

 

400.40 4440 0440 1 040000
000.04 04.00 1 40.00 0440 04.40 1 00.00 00000000
000 04.00 0000 00.00 1 04.00 1 44.00 00000002
1 44.00 0440 00.00 1 04.00 1 00.00 0000000
1 00.00 4400 00.00 1 40.40 1 00.00 000000000
004 04.04 1 00.40 1 00.00 1 04.40 000004
000 00.04 1 00.00 1 04.00 1 40.40 0400
040. 44.40 1 04.40 1 00.04 04.44 0000
1 00.00 1 40.04 1 00.04 00.04 002
1 00.00 044 00.04 1 40.04 00.04 44004
044 04.00 00 00.04 1 00.04 00.04 00002
1 0.00 004 40.04 1 00.04 40.04 40000000
044.04 0.00 05 00.04 1 00.04 04.44 0000000
Ammmmov A.0oc Ammmwov A.uoc Ammmwov 4.000 Ammmmov A.uou
m.m4£m 000 eV m.m4£m 009 &v m.04£m 000 0v N.mdnm 40m xv
.200 meo4um .cmo N0040m .cwo N0040m .000 «0040m 30002
0004 0404 0404 0404

 

 

wwwm Aqmmm ho mBmHHomm z<Hadz<o 924 HmHUHmm BHomBmQ
HH> mqm¢a

 

 

 

 

 

 

64
least counteract the bearish psychology of the market during
this month.

It is doubtful, however, that without the bearish in-
fluences already present, this increase in Canadian eggs
would have noticeably affected prices. This statement
is made in light of price movements in the rest of 1950.
For instance, from Table VII it can be noticed that price
changes of considerable magnitude occurred in the ab-
sence or in the face of small Canadian consignments.
Attention is particularly directed to December, 1950,
when Canadian shipments reached a postwar high of 16,650
cases (greater than that of January, 1950,) yet the price
of eggs at Detroit averaged roughly one to two cents
higher than the previous month when Canadian receipts
were only 529 cases.

All of the above tends to minimize the effect of
Canadian shipments on domestic prices, yet amplifies the
effect of prices on the level of Canadian shipments.

Price Differences Between Detroit and Other United
States Markets

Considerable research has and is being done on the
differences between what the farmer gets for his produce
and what the consumer pays for the same produce. How-

ever, research on price differences between markets at

“fii " '

....\..

 

65
the same level but at different geographical locations,
and the factors causing changes in these spreads is con-
spicuous by its absence. Egg markets are no exception,
and the subject of price variation for the same grade,
at the same level, but for different geographical loca-
tions, should provide fertile ground for future research.

It is not the function of this thesis to undertake
an extensive study of this nature. Certain relation-
ships, however, between different geographical markets
appear obvious.

Those markets nearest the greatest producing areas
would have less favorable prices than those markets
near smaller sources of supply. This is assuming a
uniform distribution of consumers between the two areas.
If a greater prOportion of consumers live in the smaller
production area, a greater disparity in price would
occur. With the introduction of transportation into
the picture and freedom of movement between the two
areas, the price difference should approach, under
perfect competition, the cost of transportation.

' From the above analysis we should expect then that
the price of eggs should be higher in eastern metro-
politan centers than in Detroit. New York and Boston
then should be approximately the Detroit price plus the

cost of transport between Detroit and these cities. The

\

.\

 

 

66
Opposite should be true of the price relationships of
Detroit to Chicago and Cincinnati.

The modes of the price differences between Detroit
and the five other markets in Table VIII-a, b, c, d,
tends to substantiate this reasoning. It is not pos-
sible from the data in Table VIII to state what consti-
tutes a normal or average price spread between these
markets because of the limited time period (four years)
under consideration. However, it appears that if Detroit
prices are less than two cents per dozen lower than
prices at Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, Detroit
is in a favorable price position with respect to these
markets. Likewise, it appears that if Detroit prices
are more than 1.5 cents higher than Chicago, and more
than two cents above Cincinnati prices, a favorable
price spread exists for Detroit.

Thus, if Canadian shipments were a serious price
determining factor on the Detroit market, Detroit should
be in an unfavorable price position when Canadian eggs
arrive in large quantities and in a favorable price
position when Canadian eggs are absent. No evidence
is available in Table VIII to substantiate this point.
In fact the opposite is quite often true. In the.

early months of 1947, Detroit was in an unfavorable

 

in

 

67
price position with respect to other markets and at the
same time Canadian receipts were negligible. Likewise,
Detroit enjoyed a favorable price spread during some
months in 1949 and 1950 when Canadian receipts were
fairly large.

The lack of correlation between price spread is
further indicated by summarizing the data of price
spreads in Table VIII. Using the Detroit -- New York
spread the following is obtained:

 

 

 

_—Price Spread Iaanadian Receipts
Detroit-New York No. of months at Detroit?
(cents er 1947 — 1950
dozen * Yes No
-5.5 to -2.5 5 5
-2.5 to -l.5 l l
-l.5 to - .5 1 1
- .5 to .5 5 5 2
.5 to 1.5 15 5 8
1.5 to 2.5 10 4 6
2.5 to 5.5 5 2 l
5.5 to 4.5 6 6
4.5 and up _1_ __ _1
Total 45 14 51

 

* (—) Detroit prices are greater.

68

In the 25 months in which Detroit prices were the
most favorable with respect to New York prices (Detroit
price above, equal to or not less than 1.5 cents per
dozen lower than the New York price), Canadian eggs
were present at Detroit eight of the months and absent
17 months. In the 20 months in which Detroit prices
were the least favorable (more than 1.5 cents lower than
New York prices). Canadian eggs were present six months
and absent 14 months. Observe the central position of
the range. Here Canadian eggs are present about as
often as they are absent. Observe now the extremes.

Canadian eggs are absent at times of most and least
favorable price spreads for Detroit. Thus it is diffi-
cult to discern any relationship between Canadian eggs
at Detroit and a favorable or unfavorable price re-
lationship.

A summary of the differences between Detroit and
Chicago shows much the same lack of relationship on the
following page between Canadian receipts and price
variation.

Again note the lack of correlation between the price
spread distribution and the presence of Canadian eggs.
In this case, only negative price spreads are favorable
in Detroit. Note again the absences of Canadian receipts

when prices are least favorable at Detroit. This appears

 

 

69

 

 

 

Price Spread CanadianZReceipts
Detroit-Chicago No. of months at Detroit?
(cents er 1947 - 1950

dozen * Yes No
Up to -5.5 6 l 6
-5.5 to -2.5 4 1 2
—2.5 to -l.5 9 6 5
-l.5 to - .5 9 l 8
- .5 to .5 , 10 5 5
.5 to 1.5 6 l 5
1.5 to 2.5 2 2
- 2.5 and up _2 __ _2_
Total 48 15 55

 

* (-) Detroit prices are greater.

to be a natural phenomena in a market manifesting the
competitive qualities of the United States egg market.
If the price differences between United States markets
and Canadian markets are such that eggs will flow into
this country, then such eggs will flow toward those
markets with the most favorable price spread.

The cost of transport and such thing as local laws
and regulations will, of course, also govern the flow
of Canadian eggs to the United States markets. The

reason that Canadian eggs are not always present when

75

 

 

.00Qw4n 00400 0400009

.0490440>0 000 I .0 .c

A1v n

 

 

 

.000423 .00004 .000000 ”00000 N
.Amav 0040040000 000002.N004som cam Nufimm 8000 00440800 "000500 0
04.01 00. 1 40.4 00. 40.4 0000004
1 0004 0000 00004 00.41 00.41 00.0 1 1 04.00 00000000
1 1 1 000 00.01 00. 1 00. 1 1 00. 04.00 00000000
1 004 1 1 04.41 04. 1 00. 40.01 00.4 44.00 0000000
1 000 1 1 44.41 40.41 00.0 00.4 00.4 00.00 000000000
0004 0004 1 004 00.01 00.01 04. 1 00. 04. 04.04 000004
0000 1 1 000 00.01 00.41 00.4 40. 04.0 00.04 0400
1 1 1 040 00.41 04. 00.0 44.0 1 44.40 0000
1 1 1 1 00.01 04. 1 00.0 1 1 00.00 000
1 1 1 1 00. 1 00. 1 00.4 00. 00. 00.00 44004
1 1 1 044 00. 1 00.41 04.4 00. 00.4 04.00 00000
1 1 0044 1 00.01 00.0 04. 1 04.0 04. 40.00 00000000
1 0004 000 04404 04.0 00. 40. 1 00.0 00.40 0000000
04.000 nh.0oc 04.000 @4000 04.000 A.Noo
.. .. .4 .0 ...... .0 .0 .0.
00000 000. :0 000.1 00
04 A v 0 40 0 .0040 .0040 .0040 .0040 .0040 00400 .00 0

.040040 0000400 .04400 000000 .4 .0 .000

 

 

omma
UIHHHb mqm<a

74
prices at Detroit are the most favorable is due to the
fact that the overall Canadian-American price relation-
ship is not always conducive to the flow of eggs into
the United States at these times.

Another indication as to the position of Detroit
in the national egg price structure is the volume in
which domestic eggs by-pass other midwestern markets
and shun Eastern markets to flow into Detroit. This
is particularly true of eggs from Ohio, Illinois, and
Minnesota. If Detroit prices were depressed relative
to other markets, these eggs would seek those markets
with the most favorable prices.

‘ Heavy shipments of Canadian eggs will affect
Detroit prices in the same way as shipments from domes-
tic sources. In view of the relative size of the
shipments from various suppliers it is difficult to
conceive of a prolonged price depression on the Detroit
market. A surge of Canadian eggs might conceivably de-
press prices slightly for a portion of any given market
day, but limited total amounts of Canadian supplies
limits the magnitude and the length of this depression.

Furthermore, in a market manifesting the competi—
tive qualities of the United States egg market, Detroit

cannot be divorced from the national price picture.

 

75
Eggs will flow from Detroit to other markets in cases of

prolonged depression. Thus, it appears valid to mini-
mize the existence of pressures on local egg markets
and allow the results of the aggregate or national
analysis of Chapter V to govern any decision regarding

the need advisability of involving control measures.

 

 

 

VII. PRICE PRESSURES IN RELATED PRODUCTS

While this study was primarily concerned with the
influences of egg imports, especially those of Canadian
origin, on domestic egg prices, it may be worthwhile to
consider briefly the relationship of imports to prices
of turkeys and chickens. These two products combine
to contribute 20 percent of the poultry and egg income
of United States farmers as compared to the 60 percent
contributed by eggs. However, these products, especially
chickens, are often supplementary to eggs as a source
of farm income. Thus it is difficult to divorce com-
pletely chickens and turkeys from a consideration of
egg prices.

Many limitations prevent a detailed analysis without
the design of further empirical models. Such design
could very well mean a shift from secondary to primary
data. This is due mainly to an inadequate breakdown
among types and grades of poultry. For instance, most
import figures list turkeys, live and dressed, and
poultry, live and dressed -- the latter including such
miscellaneous products as ducks, geese, and guinea
fowl. Furthermore, reports on the receipts at many local

markets even fail to classify turkeys in a separate category.

77
Despite the above limitations, it is possible to
gain some insight of the relationship between imports
and prices of turkeys and poultry meat from the existing
data. The discussion here is limited mainly to the

postwar years.
Turkeys

An analysis of the data in Table IX indicates much
the same relationships of domestic price to imports of
turkeys as was determined previously in the analysis
for eggs. These indications are that turkey imports
are very small in relation to domestic production, and
small in relation to domestic production changes, and
appear to have little impact on domestic prices.

In analyzing Table IX it is important to keep in
mind that all figures indicating physical quantities
of turkeys are in millions of pounds. This uniformity
of listing gives a more realistic comparison of the
relative sizes of the various items, although it does
cause some difficulty in handling the smaller items.

Turkey imports were never more than 1.5 percent
of domestic production and that figure was reached in
1948 when the domestic price was the highest. In all

other postwar years for which data is available, turkey

 

 

 

78
imports have never exceeded one-half of one percent of
domestic production. In light of the import - price
relationship as discussed previously in this study,
the this appears to be a natural relationship. In
other words, the higher the domestic price, other things
being equal, the larger the imports of turkeys. In 1949
when the price of turkeys returned to the 55 cent level,
imports roughly halved and were only .49 of one percent
of domestic production.

Turkey imports respond to United States price
changes, or more specifically, turkey imports respond
to changes in the difference between Canadian and United
States prices. However, these changes appear to have

little effect on domestic prices. Consider the following

 

 

 

data:
Production Change Import Change Price Change
millions of lbs. millions of lbs. ¢ per 1b.

1945
-42 -5.5 #2.6

1946
-94 #1.? -/ .2

1947
—50 /5.8 /1o.5

1948
/203 -4.1 —11.7

1949
#48 - -2.5

1950

 

79

.oanwadm>m no: t .m .c
.mmmonoca pcoouog Nam ompmsfipmm cm no woman 1 mnwcfiadaonm ¢
.3: 3 3 g 398 $238 ”meadow n
.33 mag mmw was a so: 2338 “8.26m m

.AOHV moapmfipmnu HstHASOHmmd “monsom a

 

 

 

 

 

.m.u .m.c m.mn .m .c .m .c .w .c I ¢bmm Coma
mw. mom H.mn mm¢.n 0mm. 00H.N ©.m mum mwma
me.a mom b.©¢ man.b #bm.m mnm.¢ I who mwma
hm. mam $.00 mmb.a m¢o. chm.a m.H 0mm bwma
Hoo. mom m.©n $00. #00. I i own o¢ma
bv. mvm ©.nn #mm.n mmm.w moo. a. mob mwma
gym? gamma fits imam: .mmmmma .Bmzfisfiwm ”swam” a.»
mmfimomaH Weapon? ”WWW“ 03.393 «938 imam. .D i!
mHmMmDB

NH me¢B

80
There appears to be inverse relationships between pro-
duction changes and price changes, whereas import changes
have largely been directly related to price changes.
Thus, despite the limited data, it is difficult to con-
ceive of any serious price depression coming from foreign

turkeys.

Chickens

The relationship of poultry imports to United States
chicken prices can be found in Table X. Despite the
fact that the import figures in this table include the
imports of ducks, geese, guinea fowl and squabs, these
imports have never been more than two percent of domestic
chicken production, which does not include these miscel-
laneous classes of poultry meat. This two percent
figure was reached in 1948, again, as in the case of
turkeys, when domestic chicken prices increased to a
postwar high. In the other postwar years for which
data is available, imports of poultry meat have not
exceeded .7 of one percent of domestic production.

Again production changes are far greater than
changes in poultry imports. The effect of production
changes on prices is evident in Table X. Likewise,

changes in poultry imports appear to have no effect on

 

 

 

 

 

81

 

.mnmsvm cam HSOH

mmcfisw .mmmmm .mxosc mousaocH .Anav manna AdHSpfisofipmfl cmfionoh "condom m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Amav mqummwww mwm can MHuasom Bonn cmafiaaoo ”meadow H
mm. m.mm : m.mH o.n m.mH moe.m mmmH
mo.m m.on . o.mm m.HH n.5m mmn.m mema
mm. m.mm - m.na m.H «.ma nos.m smma
: o.mm . m. m. m. mms.m mmma
no. H.mm H.H m.Hm m.am H. mam.n mmma
.osWopm Mmmauv .mna .Haa .mna .Haa .mna .aas .mna .Haa .mpa .Haa
Ho R moanm mommnonsm Hmuos ammmmnn o>aq m mzomnm new»
manomaH athy p.>ow mmpnoaaH m D
Hmzmaono

N Handy

 

 

82
United States prices, whereas, United States prices do
exert considerable effect on the level of poultry imports.

It is the Opinion of this writer that the depression
in turkey and chicken prices is psychological. It is a
relative depression -- relative to the price of beef.
Historically retail chicken prices have equaled or
exceeded the prices of certain cuts of beef, such as,
round and sirloin steak. The fact that chicken meat
was not rationed while most other meat was in World
War II brought about an adjustment in consumer eating
habits. The per capita consumption of chicken meat
greatly increased, and production increased also to
meet this demand without any major change in the re-
lationship of beef and chicken prices.

With the cessation of hostilities and the abandon-
ment of price ceilings, beef, veal and lamb prices sky-
rocketed. Chicken prices did not. If chicken prices
had risen to the level of beef prices, per capita con-
sumption would probably have fallen considerably, as
without rationing, Americans would have chosen to eat
more beef and less chicken under such a price relation-
ship. Thus chicken prices remained low, relative to
beef prices to keep per capita consumption high enough

to clear the market.

 

85
Poultry prices will, at current production levels,
increase as other meats become scarce once more, and
in the event of rationing system similar to that of the
last war, chicken prices will probably approach their
historic relationship to beef prices.* ,
At any rate, there is little evidence to support

the contention of poultrymen that chicken prices are

 

being depressed by imports, which are mainly of Canadian J

w

origin. There appears no reason to doubt that chicken g
imports are insignificant as a price determinant, even
with the limited data at hand. This conclusion is re-

stricted to the aggregate analysis.
Live Poultry

No consideration has been given to the problem of
foreign poultry on the Detroit market. Dressed poultry
prices at Detroit are undoubtedly not influenced by
Canadian poultry as the foreign product is insignificant
in relation to the total supply at Detroit.

However, live poultry creates a different problem
that cannot be investigated adequately with the data at
hand. Almost all of the live poultry coming into the

 

* For a complete listing of the comparative values
of chickens, beef, veal and lamb in the past three decades
see Poultry and Egg Situati n, March, 1949 (15).

84
United States is consigned to Detroit, Boston and prob-
ably Buffalo. Does this create on the Detroit market a
price spread between live and dressed poultry prices that
grants the processors a greater return than they would
get in other United States markets? Or does the price
of live chickens at Detroit respond to the price of the
dressed product? Here is a problem that needs further

research before any conclusions can be drawn. However,

 

this does not alter the previous conclusion that in the r
United States market as a whole, foreign turkeys and

chickens are not a significant price influence.

VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to ascertain the
impact of egg imports, especially those of Canadian
origin, on domestic egg prices. After the impact was
determined, it was legally necessary to evaluate the
magnitude of the impact to determine whether or not
the impact was of sufficient magnitude to constitute
a threat to the domestic price program for eggs. 0n
the basis of this evaluation the recommendation for or
against the imposition of control under Section 22,
Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended, shall be made.

It was determined in this investigation that the
volume of egg imports, especially Canadian egg ship-
ments, have greatly increased in the past three years.
However, egg imports are still below prewar levels,
whereas, domestic production and consumption are con-
siderably above these levels.

Some of the causes of this increase in egg imports
have been high domestic prices in relation to world
prices, lower tariffs, a devaluation of many world
currencies with respect to the United States dollar,
and shifts in the purchasing patterns of many large egg
importers, such as the United Kingdom. The greatest of

 

86
the above factors in controlling egg imports is high
(government supported) United States prices, although
lower tariffs, devalued currency, and shifts in other
nations‘ egg purchasing habits, have had considerable
influence on the flow of Canadian eggs into this country.

However, the impact of these increases on the
domestic egg price structure is believed to be negli-
gible. The techniques employed in arriving at this
conclusion were to consider total egg imports and Cana-
dian shipments as percentages of domestic production.

In this way a comparison between the two was possible.

It was found that egg imports were small in comparison

to production and that Canadian shipments were completely
dwarfed by production.

Imports were then compared to decreases in United
States egg exports, which have the effect of increasing
the domestic supply. Again changes in exports were far
more significant than were import changes.

Specifically, production increases have been 25
times greater than total imports and 100 times greater
than Canadian consignments. Decreases in egg exports
have been 10 times greater than increases in total egg
imports and 30 times greater than increases in Canadian
egg shipments. Thus the power of egg imports, and es-

pecially Canadian eggs, as a price determinant is

87

in ignificant when compared to changes in other com-
ponents of domestic supply.

World conditions remaining the same, Canadian eggs
will be the principal foreign eggs in United States
markets. In 1950, almost all of the shell egg imports
were of Canadian origin. Assuming that all foreign
.eggs are surplus domestic supply, the cost to the
government would have been less than two percent of
80 million dollars spent on egg price supports in 1950.
Government purchases were over 50 times greater than
Canadian shipments and 12 times as great as total egg
imports last year. Therefore, it can be seen that
Canadian shipments will have to increase several fold
before they can be considered a threat to the domestic
egg price program.

The annual data employed in arriving at the above
conclusion was checked by the use of monthly data for
the postwar years. No significant deviations were
found to repudiate any of the above conclusions.

Special consideration was given to the problem of
Canadian eggs on the Detroit market. Canada was found
to be sixth as a supplier of eggs on the Detroit market
in 1950, contributing only one-tenth as many eggs as
sent by Michigan and Ohio producers, and only one-third

as many as sent by Minnesota, Indiana and Illinois

j“_.

 

88
producers. An analysis of price differences between
Detroit and other markets found no evidence to indicate
price pressures on the Detroit market that were not
present in other United States markets. All indications
pointed to a highly competitive United States market in
which prolonged price depressions could not exist.
Therefore, it appears valid to base the conclusions of

this report on the aggregative analysis of Chapter V.

 

In summarizing the conclusions of this investiga-
tion the following appears evident:

1. Canadian shipments of eggs are insignificant
as a price determining factor in the United States market.

2. Canadian shipments of eggs are of little impor-
tance as a factor in the cost of the United States egg
price support program.

On the basis of the above conclusions it appears
that there is little basis for the government to invoke
Section 22 for the control of imports at this time.
Section 22 would do little or nothing to improve the
price picture of eggs. The major influence of price
changes of eggs has been domestic production, and unless
something is done to control the major influence, there
seems little justification for controlling so insignifi-

cant an influence as imports of eggs.

89
Therefore, it appears valid to accept the null and
void hypothesis used to direct this research toward the
attainment of its objective. In the process of testing
this hypothesis, another became evident, namely, that
Canadian eggs move into Detroit and United States markets
only when price differences between relevant Canadian
and American markets are small or in favor of the United

States. At other times eggs remain in Canada.

 

APPENDIX

91
Limitation on Importg
Section 22 of Agricultural Adjustment Act of l955,

as Reenacted by Agricultural
Marketing Agreement Act ofpl957, as Amended

 

Sec. 22 (a) Whenever the President has reason tO
believe that any article or articles are being or are a
practically certain to be imported into the United
States under such conditions and in such quantities as
to render or tend to render ineffective, or materially
interfere with, any program or Operation undertaken under
this title or the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allot-
ment Act, as amended, or section 52, Public Law Numbered
520, Seventy-fourth Congress, approved August 24, 1935,
as amended, or any loan, purchase, or other program or
Operation undertaken by the Department of Agriculture,
or any agency Operating under its direction, with respect
to any agricultural commodity or product processed in the
United States from any agricultural commodity or product
thereof with respect to which any such program or Oper—
ation is being undertaken, he shall cause an immediate
investigation to be made by the United States Tariff
Commission, which shall give precedence to investiga-
tions under this section to determine such facts. Such
investigation shall be made after due notice and Oppor-
tunity for hearing to interested parties, and shall be
conducted subject to such regulations as the President
shall specify.

 

' “mi.“

(b) If, on the basis of such investigation and
report to him of findings and recommendations made in
connection therewith, the President finds the existence
Of such facts, he shall be proclamation impose such fees
not in excess of 50 per centum ad valorem or such
quantitative limitations on any article or articles
which may be entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption as he finds and declares shown by such inves-
tigation to be necessary in order that the entry of such
article or articles will not render or tend to render
ineffective, or materially interfere with any program
or operation referred to in subsection (as, of this
section, or reduce substantially the amount Of any product
processed in the United States from any such agricultural
commodity or product thereof with respect to which any
such program or Operation is being undertaken: Prgvided,
That no proclamation under this section shall impose any
limitation on the total quantity of any article or

92

articles which may be entered, or withdrawn from ware-
house, for consumption which reduces such permissible
total quantity to prOportionately less than 50 percentum
Of the total quantity of such article or articles which
was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consump—
tion during a representative period as determined by

the President: gag provided further, That in desig-
nating any article or articles, the President may
describe them by physical qualities, value, use or

upon such other bases as he shall determine.

(0) The fees and limitations imposed by the Presi-
dent by proclamation under this section and any revoca-
tion, suspension, or modification thereof, shall become
effective on such date as shall be therein specified,
and such fees shall be treated for administrative pur-
poses and for the purposes Of Section 62 Of Public Law
Numbered 520, Seventy-fourth Congress, approved August
24, 1955, as amended, as duties imposed by the Tariff
Act of 1950, but such fees shall not be considered as
duties for the purpose Of granting any preferential
concession under any international Obligation of the
United States.

(d) After investigation, report, finding, and-
declaration in the manner provided in the case Of a
proclamation issued pursuant to the subsection (b) Of
this section, any proclamation or provision of such
proclamation may be suspended or terminated by the
President whenever he finds and proclaims that the
circumstances requiring the proclamation or provision
thereof no longer exist or may be modified by the
President whenever he finds and proclaims that changed
circumstances require such modification to carry out
the purposes of this section.

(e) Any decision of the President as to facts
under this section shall be final.

(f) NO proclamation under this section shall be
enforced in contravention of any treaty or other inter-
national agreement to which the United States is or
hereafter becomes a party. (Aug. 24, 1955, P. L. 520,
74th Cong., 49 Stat. 750, 775; Feb. 29, 1956, P. L.
461, 74th Cong., 49 Stat. 1148, 1152; June 5, 1937,

P. L. 157, 75th Cong., 50 Stat. 246; Jan. 25, 1940,
P. L. 406, 76th Cong., 54 Stat. 17; 7 U. s. c. S 624;
July)5, 1948, P. L. 897, 80th Cong., 62 Stat. 1247,
1248 .

 

95
Executive Order NO. 7256

Regulations Governing Investigations Under Section 22 of
the Agricultural Adjustment Act, As Amended

By virtue Of and pursuant to the authority vested
in me by the Agricultural Adjustment Act Of May 12, 1933
(48 Stat. 51), as amended by section 61 Of the act of
August 24, 1955, Public NO. 520, 74th Congress, I hereby s
prescribe the following regulations governing investiga-
tions to be made under section 22 of the said act, as
amended:

I. The Secretary of Agriculture, proceeding upon
his own motion or upon a request from any interested
party, is hereby empowered to make such preliminary
investigations with reference to matters within the
scOpe Of Section 22 Of the said act as amended as he
may deem advisable.

 

 

armfl— ._—_
0

II. The Secretary Of Agriculture is hereby author-
ized to prescribe the manner in which requests for action
under the said section 22 shall be submitted by inter-
ested parties.

III. With reference to any preliminary investigation
provided for in paragraph I of this order, the Secretary
of Agriculture shall secure such information from inter-
ested parties as he may deem to be desirable and, on
the basis of the information so Obtained and such other
information as may be available, shall determine whether
the other information as may be available, shall deter-
mine whether the showing made or the facts disclosed
warrant further investigation. The Secretary of Agri-
culture shall thereupon make his recommendations tO the
President in order that, in the light Of such recom-
mendations, the President may direct that no further
action be taken, or may cause the United States Tariff
Commission to make an immediate investigation as pro-
vided for in the said section 22.

IV. When so directed by the President, the United
States Tariff Commission shall make an immediate investi-
gation and shall give precedence thereto. Such investiga—
tiais shall be governed by the following regulations:

(1) Public notice:

(a) Notice of the hearing in every such investiga-
tion shall be given by posting a cOpy of the notice or

94

announcement thereof at the principal Office Of the
Commission in Washington, D. C., and at its office in
New York City. A copy of the notice will also be sent
to press associations, to trade and similar organiza-
tions Of producers, and to importers known to the
Commission to have an interest in the subject matter
Of the investigation.

(2) Hearings: .

(a) Hearings shall be conducted by one or more
Commissioners or such member or members Of the staff
as the Commission shall designate. The Agricultural
Adjustment Administrator 1/ may have a representative
or representatives at each hearing, who shall have the
privilege of examining witnesses. k

 

(b) Any interested person may appear at the hearing,
either in person or by representative, and produce evi-
dence relevant and material to the matter or matters
involved in the investigation.

(c) Witnesses shall be sworn. No documentary
evidence, except such as is legally subject to judicial
notice, shall be accepted unless verified under oath
by the person Offering it as a true statement of the
facts contained herein.

(d) Evidence, oral or written, submitted in hear-
ings, shall, upon the order Of the Commission, be sub-
ject to verification from the books, papers, and records
Of the parties interested and from any other available
sources.

(6) All hearings shall be stenographically reported.
COpies of the transcript of the minutes Of such hearings
may be purchases from the Official reporter.

(f) The Commission may continue any hearings or
order such rehearing as it may deem necessary for a full
presentation of the facts involved in any investigation.
(5) Confidential information:

(a) If witnesses desire to submit confidential
information which the Commission considers to be of that

 

;/ Now the Administrator of the Production and Marketing
Administration.

95

character, the Commission shall accept such submission
and respect its confidential character.

(b) The Commission shall make such investigation
in addition to the hearing as it deems to be necessary
for a full disclosure and presentation of the facts. In
such investigation the Commission may invoke all the
powers granted to it under part 2, title III, of the
Tariff Act of 1950. r.

(4) Reports:

(a) After the completion of its investigation
the Tariff Commission shall make findings of fact,
which shall include a statement Of the steps taken in
the investigation, and it shall transmit to the Presi- L
dent a report of such findings and its recommendations h
based thereon, together with a transcript of the evi~ “
dence submitted at the hearing, and it shall also
transmit a OOpy of such report to the Secretary Of
Agriculture.

 

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT

THE WHITE HOUSE
November 25, 1955.

10.

11.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Brannan, C. A. Letter to the Honorable Charles B.
Hoeven, Department Of Agriculture, Washington,
Press Release 1901-50, August 2, 1950.

Canada, Dominion Department Of Agriculture. Th2
gprrent ggview 9; Agricultural Condition lg _
Canada, Economics Division, Marketing Service, 1
Ottawa, bimonthly, (1950). '

Canada, Dominion Bureau Of Statistics. Trade g; #
Canadg, Department of Trade and Commerce, 1
Ottawa, 1946-1949. F

 

. Trade pf Canada, Department Of Trade and
Commerce, Ottawa, monthly, (1946-1950).

Freedman, M. A. Chapter VI, Canadian Agricultural
Trade, in Gibson, J. D., Canada's Eggngmy i3,
g_Changing Wprld, Macmillan, Toronto, 1948,
pp. 167-185.

Gibson, J. D. Cgpada's Economy ip_g Chapging
World, Macmillan, Toronto, 1948, pp. 580.

Plumptre, W. C. Chapter VII. Canadian Exports
to the United States, in Gibson, J. D.,

anadg's Economy ;p_g,Cpgnging World, Mac-
millan, Toronto, 1949, pp. 186-214.

Thg Ppultrypap, Poultryman Publishing Company,
Vineland, N. J., XX, 15, November 17, 1950.

Turner, A. H. Price Support for Canadian Eggs.

American Egg and Poultry Rgviey, Canadian
issue, 1950. Reprint from author.

United States Department of Agriculture. Agri-

cultural Stapigticg, Government Printing
Office, Washington, annual (1946-1949).

United States Department of Agriculture. Eh;
Compilapion pf Corporate Charter By-Laflg and
p; Laup, Eyecutive Orders, gnd Rpgulations

Applicable pp Commodipy Credip Corporation,
Office of the Solicitor, Washington, 1950.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

97

United States Department Of Agriculture. Dairy ppp
Poultry Market Statistics, Production and
Marketing Administration, Washington, annual,
(1946-1949).

United States Department Of Agriculture. Foreign
Agriculture Trade, Office Of Foreign Agricul-
tural Relations, Washington, annual (1945-1949).

United States Department Of Agriculture. Origin p;
Receipts pp Detroit, Michigan, By States,
Production and Marketing Administration, Detroit,
annual and monthly, (1950).

United States Department Of Agriculture. Poultry
and Egg figtuation, Bureau Of Agricultural
Economics, Washington, monthly, (1946-1950).

United States Department of Agriculture. Price
Programs p§_ppp United ggates Department p:
A riculture, Government Printing Office,
Washington, Agricultural Information Bulletin
NO. 15, (195 .
. Price Programs pf_ppp United States 23:
pgrtmppt p; Agriculpure, Government Printing
Office, Washington, Miscellaneous Publication
685, (1949).

United States Department Of Commerce. World Trade

Egyglgnmenlp_ip,1948, Office of International
Trade, washington, 1949, pp. 12-17.

United States Tariff Commission. Reporp 3p phe

President, Imporp Qpp§p§_pp Whegt, Government
Printing Office, Washington, 1941.

 

United States Tariff Commission. Report pp the
President, Cotton gnd gotton Waste, Government
Printing Office, Washington, 1942.

. Reports pp the President, Import Qgptas
pp Lpng Spaple Cotton, Government Printing
Office, Washington, 1947.

. Reports pp the President, Import ontpp
pp Extra Long fitaple Cotton, Government Printing
Office, Washington, 1948.

 

w.-

98

25. . Reports to the President, Interim Report
on Tree Nuts, Press Release TC 26887, washing-
ton, November 50,1950.

24. Waite, W. C. and Telogan, H. D. Iptroduction pp_
Agriggltural Prices, Burgess, Minneapolis,
1949, p. 127.

 

 

 

ll
I'll
ll...
IIIII
I'll
||

1

3