A N A N A L Y S I S A N D E V A L U A T I O N OF Q U A L I T Y A N D PRICE OF EGG S IN SE LE CTE D RET AI L OU T L E T S By Russell Eu gen e Wi l l i a m s AN ABSTRACT Subm itt ed to the School for A d v a n c e d G ra du at e Studies of M i c h i g a n State Un iv e r s i t y of A g r i c u l t u r e and A p p l i e d Science in partial ful fillment of the requirements for the degree of D O CT OR OF P H I L O S O P H Y D e p a r t m e n t of Po ult ry H u s b an dr y Ye a r . Approved £ . UcMyVU/- 7-ll|> and 15~ 3 14 days, ively. Stadelman and Jensen, (1952) divulged fourths of the eggs purchased by retail stores respect­ that threein the state of Washington were held 7 days and ^ were held 8 -IJ4 days. Cray (1952) reported that chain stores in Cleveland pur­ chased eggs completely processed and for sale to the co n­ sumers. and Sixty-nine percent purchased them twice per week thirty-one percent received them four times per week. 14 Only forty-seven percent of the independent stores purchased eggs two or more times a week. Seventy-three percent of the independents received eggs completely processed and twentyfive percent secured toned them in bulk, in the stores. most consumers Taylor, Jasper and Cray, (1953) disclosed that in Columbus purchased eggs once per week. et al_. (1954) lies surveyed forcing them to be car­ reported that 8l percent of the fami­ in Rhode Island bought eggs once per week at the time of shopping for groceries or from peddlers and farmers. NyBroten, (1952) in West Virginia sold summer of 1949* These $100.00 gross sales. found that the average retail store less than 74 dozen eggs per week in the stores sold 5*1 dozen eggs for each Stores selling a large volume had higher quality eggs. Price Differentials and Margins Darrah and Henderson, differential (1953) disclosed that a price in quality of 4~& cents per dozen was preferred by consumers buying grade A A and A quality eggs in s upe r­ markets in N e w Yo rk state. tomers bought grade A Thirty-seven percent of all cus-s large eggs, and forty-five percent of egg customers bought the highest quality eggs available. Jasper and Cray (1953) of the consumers reported that seventy-five percent in Columbus, Ohio were willing to pay a premium for good eggs. Slocum and Swanson, that twenty-two percent of be willing (1954) revealed the egg consumers in Seattle would to pay a premium of five cents for good quality eggs . Savage, eggs (1951) disclosed that the gross margins for in Maine averaged 8.8 cents with a in retail stores range from 2 to 22 cents. The average margin for chain 8.2 cents for cooperative stores, and stores was 5*3 cents, 9.2 cents for independent stores. Kemp et^ al. (1952) revealed thatn the gross marg in in independent and voluntary chain stores in the northeast region of the United States varied from 0 to 25 cents a dozen. site of eggs for the per dozen. The margin increased with the The average margin was 9*5 cents independent stores and 9-6 cents for voluntary chains.n Becker, (1953) in a study of egg marketing in retail stores in Pennsylvania found the average margin in independent stores to be 9.1 cents per dozen. with the method of mark-up, The average margin varied type of package, point of pack­ aging, and size of eggs. Conlogue and Pritchard ( 1955 ) studied margins of independent and chain retailers D. C. for two years, the marketing in Washington, during which they found that the margins varied among grades and sizes of eggs but that a consistent pattern was maintained of the year. attempted in relation to egg prices and season It appeared that the independent retailers to maintain a margin of 12 cents throughout the 16 year regardless of price, stores size, volume or season. The chain in the Washington area had an average margin of 8.2 cents per dozen but there was considerable variation margins among the different chains. in the Some of the chains had margins of only 3 to [j. cents per dozen, while others had a gross margin of 10- cents. the stores appeared The difference in margins among to be the results of differences methods of handling eggs and differences in in store policies in regard to prices and margins. Conlogue and Mason (1956) and farm-retail reported spreads for the large and medium grade A eggs displayed were remarkably similar The variations in their variation. in price spreads seemed to be due to "lags” in the movement of retail prices. hot weather that retail prices Losses in egg quality during greatly increased marketing cost. Conlogue and Gray (1956) traced l5>000 dozens of eggs from a western farm through the channels of distribution to ascertain detailed and practices information on prices and operating costs from all marketing agencies handling these eggs. The retail margin averaged and large stores 12.5 cents per dozen for small independent stores. Conlogue and Kaiser a large per dozen the 10 cents per dozen for 1953 and be due increase 1954 margins. to a change (1958) discovered in margins that there was for eggs in 1957 over Most of the increase appeared in pricing policy for eggs to rather than to 17 a rise in cost of handling. retailers Gross margins in W a s h i n g t o n averaged dozen as compared wi t h 8.3 cents Gray (1957) to retail we r e This downward mar g in s reported lower in cents per for 12.5 cents in any year been gradual per 1953-54* that egg margins in 1953 than trend has about of cha in- st ore and dozen have not been from the since the changes large. farm 1949. in RESULTS A N D DISCUSSION D e s c r i p t i o n of Eggs Obtai ne d and B r o k e n Eggs lets all obtained this study from the six retail in the Lansin g area were shoppers and we re color, were and brand, grade A, A wer e sold as shown in Table as grade B; sold as checks in store 3 for the ye a r and as well extra 2. large, sizes m en ti on ed size, as grade in only one store were there eggs Grade B eggs were sold sold through­ sizes of eggs were offered large, medium, eggs were 5 brands w h i c h are O, designated while checks were Four to Q u a l i t y design ati on s Eggs as- grade A. four months, in store of quality, in only one store were w h i t e eggs were both offered in the four 1. and checks. out­ to those avai lab le in terms in only four stores and sold consumers: similar identified grade B, eggs out for and small. B r o w n and in store 2 throughout above. the year A s s o c i a t e d wit h identified as brands to grade A L, M, N, and P. Exterior Qu al ity S h e l 1 C le an l i n e s s A. Analysis N e a r l y three eno ug h to s ati sfy fourths of all requirements is, 4.688 of the 6323 eggs fifth on an Individual Egg Basis (21.4 percent) for eggs examined were c l e an the stated quality; examined were clean. were classified that A b o u t one as B qua l it y for cleanliness, TABLE 1 Store number Eggs Offered by Six Retail Outlets Store de si gn at io n Local chain Independent 1| National chain Regional chain Grades 6 chain Independent Brands Colors w h ite A Extra large Large M e d I urn A C.hex Extra large Large M e d i um Sma 1 1 Wh i te Brow n Large Me d i um Whi te Large Extra large Large Med i um Small(one month) Whi te A Large M e d i um Whi te A Extra large Large Me d ium Sma 1 1 A A Regional Sizes L M N O P Whi te Whi te 20 .9 p er ce nt as C, serious stains and est eggs w er e and and i|.5 per c en t as dirty sold 1 respectively. q ua li ty is shown A Chi (3.7 p e r c e n t had .8 percent had adheri ng dirt). in store 1| followed b y stores The c l e a n ­ 6, 3, 2, The perc ent ag e of eggs b e l o w the stated in Table 2 and Figure 1. square analysis showed that eggs sold by stores [(.. and 6 were not s igni f icant ly different in cleanliness; however, Chi square values showed that eggs from these two stores (Jq and 6) were significantly cleaner (1 % level) eggs from all other stores. than (Table 3). B. Analysis on a Dozen Basis In candling and sorting procedures, classified individually and are then placed carton or case. error, eggs are all in appropriate Because of human variability and possible certain tolerances are allowed For each dozen of eggs, in grades of eggs sold. this tolerance amounts allowable in the next lower quality, to two eggs hence any one dozen of grade A eggs may contain two eggs with B cleanliness. Only 33 percent of the dozens qualified for grade A on a cleanliness basis, whereas 32.8 percent would have been classified as grade B, 3.2 percent as C and 31.0 percent as dirty. Only one dozen in three met the grade A standard for cleanliness, one hundred one in three met the grade B standard, grade C standard, ified as dirty. (Table i|) . three in and three in ten were class­ ai o o -rT .—i . —1 cd +-> o 4—1 r--— 'O . .—1 OJ co CO . OJ O— . CO OJ CG '■G o o CO . . no OJ o o 0) '---1 cd 4-J o H — 1 CD cd U O S—t 4-> o (/) vO OJ Co OJ n j" ' CO CO •-0 no n \ OJ o rr OJ 1 O' OJ 1 O) n r co v6 r—| OJ .—i co IS— o - CO OJ <—i n r V) OJ .—i CO CO CO no vD GO ■ 1 no vO OD nr VO ’— 1 GO oj OJ co o co CO no .—4 .---1 ■-H >---1 CO DO o —4 Individual Eggs, By Stores cn LO CD u . o n r 4-1 Od OJ _zT CO no o «—1 O o n OJ •O * 1—1 '—1 o CO O no CO , —i OJ noj O', no OJ o no r—* of '-1 o o vO Cleanliness 3 OJ r—1 o r— CO o n r -c r v£) ,—1 CO o- t—l OJ -G —i- CO o -c r cn ----1 o r no r1■I JO O »r-4 1---1 cd n >D 4—1 —I .—1 cd n cr 2 Shell fo >, 4—1 TABLE ,_i c (0 cd CD Z5 cr u 4—1 .-4 ,---1 cd o cr < cr CQ n r cn nO o -o r -T T T—H (') f■ CD cd co OJ n r oc no -TT cn u CO 0 •H cd 4-J _o >0 +-> u •' * a o Cd 7d CD CD CD £ • —t ,—i O cd cd 4—1 O o o H cd CD C d< CD >, 4-1 —4 O cd — > cd - o cd n o so cr < ^ >c O —4 t .---1 cd cd n n cr to FIGURE I SHELL CLEANLINESS OF GRADE A EGGS FROM SIX RETAIL OUTLETS 22 23 TABLE Square -Ja 1 u e s for Cleanliness; Dozens of Eggs, B e t w e e n Stores 3 Chi square v a 1ues Chi it *t ft 2 7 . 29-- tt ft it 3 [|. 32- ft it tt h 3 . 31|-::- T1 ft *t versu s store it 1 g o 6 Cn. Store o c o m p a r 1s ons i—• Store 5- 15- Significant at 5% Significant at level 1% level Sign. v a 1ues in tab 1e x 205 3 .81| x 2 .oi 6 .6I4 2k cd A -+-> ^5.0 0 4—> o co OJ ca CO CO OJ CO co a- co a O O O By Stores I-— 1 to > —!> —I CO cd cd u o O a -P H O td a - co vO a - CO 1A O - OJ -O' o CO SO AOJ 1A 1A CO CO vO co CO CA OJ OJ OJ CO vO CA 00 CO vO SO CA Ad CO Cm V) Cd U O -A CO -A- 0 OJ OJ IA vO CO CO A- 1A O 1A 1A A OJ A- 1A CA CO C Cd tN) o Q co Shell OJ CO -O' 1A A- at o -O v£5 -O' Ol CO CO OJ CO ia OJ LO 1 Cd — t I4 CO to 0) TABLE CA to O) CD Cleanliness of Dozens of Eggs, OJ cd a •M - M {Ij 1— 1 0 < CQ Cd »—< cd -H O O O O cd 0 Cd O cd 0 O O O C cd to w cd - 0 O Cd vO to o C Cd N Td O Cd TJ O C to C >> A TJ cd u ■M cd A u •—* O O Ul Q H Cd O Cd cd N U o cn o > —■ o cd cd cd <--» X +-> cd Cd oo < E—1 25 She 11 C o n d 1ti on A. A n a l y s i s on Individual Egg Basis A m a j o r i t y of all sound shells, and only from store 6 had eggs eggs purchased (88,9 percent) 11.1 percent were unsound. the hi ghe st percent age of sound fro m stores 5> 2 , 3, 1 , and Ij. ranked had Eggs shells w it h in order b e l o w 6 . (Table 5). The unsound eggs were classified as blind cracks, smashed, and leakers. eggs had blind wer-e leakers, These Se ven ty nine perce nt of cracks, and the unsound 17.6 percent had cracks, .1| percent were smashed. three percent (Figure 2). results a g r ee -w it h data reported by Hauver ( 1955 ) in w hi ch they reported mo s t co m m o n and cracks, that "blind checks and Ha ma nn are the fre que nt ly the most difficult to detect rapid candling. Such eggs will not ke ep well in or stand even m o d e r a t e l y rough handling." 6 shows the ranking of the stores on the basis of Table soundness of eggs dif fe re nc es J4. based sold and Ta bl e in shell soundness square analysis. B. A n a l y s i s on a Do ze n Basis of the eggs were sound shelled (38.6 p e rc e nt of the dozens purchased. taining unsound cent; cracks, (Table 8 ). shells, blind the significant of eggs b e t w e e n stores on Chi Al l 7 shows Of in ne ar ly and two fifths those dozens c o n ­ cracks acc ounted for 31.9 percent, 3 and leakers, for 60.8 p e r ­ 6.7 percent. 26 ^ o cr • CO CO '—1 cd Uh +-> o o +-> cn us . co co o . OJ ■—i o . -T t O O o O i—H . i-- 1 rH o o 1—1 1 Stores '—i CO '—i ’—i co cd cd n o O X X f-H O CO r -r t —|- no CO CO UT\ n \ CM --- 1 CO CO OJ .—1 -d T 1—1 x£) -d r co vO OJ r- -I ( 1 1 1 OJ <—I xO xC r OJ CO r— -o r O -d T r - n\ . cr Condition of A Quality Eggs, By vO cn ■—i IX CO O r\ co CD CD UJ CD CO O o -i-> m Ch o -d T O) u CO X £ d CO -T t t—i l 1 .—i ry-V O CO O IT \ CO 1 1 no c— no co CO <—1 >—i -X r cO T-T\ m —r r—1 i-- 1 OJ xQ * o -—1 xD xD O O US to C\) Shell •—i 5 t <—i Cr O OJ UD uo o r— •—i f—t OJ no CO CO 1 1 GO C o •rH +J •'—1 h 73 ' —1 d CO O X u Of cr e'­ er OJ r — 1 U) X O cd u o 73 C. d O ■Jf TO c •«—1 11 m OJ no r ' 1 .—i TABLE xO r~ | CO CD u cd u U *—1 73 CO X CO cd £ ■jf _d - CO o CO X cd <0 X o -dT i—i >—i £ o .—i co X !■--1 CO >—1 o r--1 —< xO i—H o r <—1 >, -o —< -H cd ’i o< —i d cd cr cd 4-> +-> O o H -H < < . >, X O ,t—1 ■—i —i co cd < O d cr 27 00 cn o o OJ ( /) ___ til cc; :=> O d-. FOR ° = ! 0- < ^ O l “ £ GRADC .f! - ACCI P IABI f O CD o co o O CD O uo S003 J_ o JO o rn % o c\j 26 TABLE 6 Retail Stores Ranked According to Percentage Of Sound Shells for Individual Eggs Store Rank 6 1 68.7 I-:;-;;-, 2-::--;;-:;-, 3-::--:;--;;- and 6 5 2 UU.o 1 and Ig 2 3 Ig3 .2 1 3 b Jg2.0 it* 1 5 25-3 2 4 6 29.0 None ■vKr TABLE 7 % wi th sound she 11 s Stores significantly below ranked store each) and Significant at 5 % 1eve 1. ,f T? 1 % " . Significant at.l % " . Observed and Expected F requency Of Shell Condition of Eggs F rom Two Store Store 3 Storeig Condition Observed Expected Diff. Observed Expected Diff. Total Sound Unsound Total 600 586.8 13.2 911 926. 2 13.2 151 1 66 79.2 -13.2 138 126.8 13.2 206 666 X 2 = li.08-x significant at 1059 level. 1715 29 0 Stores 0) X) CD X C h CD V) 0 co u cd 0 x a a u IA ■LA CO CO cn A- r--1 CO M3 CO cO . cn A AIA • CA ■—) cn CO • ACO CA <— 1 >— 1 -4 O O «—1 CM M3 O O O O 1— H O O T—1 . -X T 1—1 CM O O .— --- 1 .-- 1 IA CO Eggs, CO ACO vO CO A] <—1 r -I MS CM --r— 1 l 1 1 M3 A- cn CO — 1 IA 1— 1 CO CO CO M3 O O Condition CO Shell C\l r1H 00 O CM CM X CD N O Q —1 CM CO 03 -A CM aO CM O CM CO T-'—H I M3 1 M3 A- XX IA -* A- • X) X X O <-4 CO IA nco A1—1 0 t— 1 1 1 1—1 -x r co CO co • ao IA 0 cn CM m 3 x t <—1 CO CO ao • M3 "LA X CD O O X) IA cn r 1 A- A• _j A- -= t r- -4 co O IA CO X X Xd X x O t/) < < a ; 0 cd u 8 (0 O +-> -1 — 1 X? Cl) X A O 00 O *-- 1 TABLE X) 0 0 X) x 0 O m> 0 x —< --C cq A O cd u D A U) cd £ n in X 0 A cd 0 A w x Cl) in) xd O CD X) O *i-4 ^ £ cd cd 4-> X O CD H CO X CD M O X) -4 cd 4-5 O t-4 CD xd cd A O) CD Xd cd x O) X CD co O X) omitted. -X T M3 IA O) O) CD O) X *■'—1 ik) 0 — £ —1 ^ > 0 >—< cd Acn ■—1 0 -H CD a A ^ - I checks C/3 CD (O 4-5 CO r 1 dozen ia U) 0 )0 O ) CO W 16 of O of Dozens 1 1—) By .—i cd 4-> O f~4 CO . O M3 30 No Chi A sig ni fi ca nt square analysis* eggs; difference in shell cond iti on was f o u n d * among the stores w h e n analyzed th ere for e the differences were m o s t for grade likely due to chance. She 11 T h i c k n e s s The m e a n shell thickness for all eggs fro m each store was e s s e n t i a l l y the same. v a ri ed f r o m .007 thickness m e nd ed standard is In Table 9 the m e a n shell f r o m each store fr o m dozens of eggs was .011 .013 stan da rd error The thickness .012 inch. The re co m­ (Brant and Shrader, thickness The m e a n shell 1952). for dozens thickness of eggs ranged 6 ) to .12 inch, all other stores. of the thickness w e r e computed becaus e means. inch, is given. inch (store egg shell .015 inch; however the m e a n shell inch to of all Individual The 1 and 6 scores for stores they had the greatest di fference be tw ee n difference was not significant. S h e l 1 Color In m o s t stores visited, w e r e sold and the color was us ua l ly not stated. store 2, w hi te eggs were very f ew b r o w n shelled Ho wev er and b r o w n eggs were offered every week. offered in Brown in store 6 occ as ion al ly and the color was stated on the carton. Thi rt y eight percent of all con t ai ne d b o t h br ow n and white eggs. color va rie d eggs from 1 to 4 > that cartons In some carton s the is, whi te to dark brown. 31 A o NO IA • vO a• CO A CO A t _or • o >—i CO <—1 CO cd '—1 f-n -P Cm i O O O cd -o> to H vQ LA , i—i -o r GO o . Ai—i A- cn A A . j- A- A■—i o o -O f o o . »—1 ACO -o r A<—i la ca "LA i—i AJ O o A -o r IA A- A A AA LA r-t 1-- 1 A) -o r By Stores ^ <—I cd -p o -p 1 i CO AJ i—i CO CO vO no cn A vO A- Eggs, vO 1 "I OJ CO I of Dozens of la —i CO A± AAJ A .—i vO A «—{ A CO A) 1—1 »—1 A A- vO • t—1 P’—1 00 CD CD W to C0 o A o -p 00 -a t o A] <—1 A] AJ IO cO "LA -—i A _^r r— 1 I Thickness to d CO co CO LA < o Q cO 1 t—^ I A- o A O .—i A- IA I O LA >—I <—1 A- Shell CVJ <—i _ GO A AJ IA IA o A A r— f -or CO A A vO >—i *—i Mean GO A p-H 1 t f- 1 0O A AT nO «-- 1 f--1 A A- T—1 1-- 1 o -or LA r----1 <—1 la .—i CA CO TABLE 9 CO -p to TJ to) c cd JX CO h u •—<‘r-4 O o d co od a : d Al -P +-> *’—1 LO A- GO cn O i 1 t-- 1 A i--1 >—t ■—i cd -p o H d cd CO S 32 E i g h t y two p er c e n t of all elled as to color; the eggs purchased were n o t yet. their me an shell color was lab­ 1 .5 , or a tint. Interior Q ua l i t y Q u a l i t y of Eggs as Indicated by C a n d 1 ing A. A n a l y s i s T h re e cl ass if ie d fourths (73.5) percent) of all 13.2 percent were B quality and (Table 10). A 11. Eggs Of the r e ­ 12.8 wer e C ranking of the stores ac cording the pe r c e n t a g e of A qu al it y eggs purchased , Table eggs pu rchased w e r e as A q ua li ty or be tter by candling. m a i n i n g eggs, quality on an Individual Egg Bas is is shown in from store 6 ranked first w i t h 87.6 percent of all eggs b ei ng A q u al it y or better, wh er e as store 3 w er e to lowest eggs from in percentage of A qu al it y or be tte r (60.5 p e r c e n t ) . B. A n a l y s i s on a D o z e n Basis The pe rc en ta ge of dozens qual ify in g for grade A was m u c h less than the percent age of individual A q u a l i t y or better. A p p r o x i m a t e l y one fo ur th eggs of (26.9 percent) of the dozens of eggs were cl assified as grade A, cent w e r e cla ss i fi ed as grade B, and lj.,2 per c en t were ranked first (Table 1 2 ) .Candled in T a bl e 13. loss and in percen tag e grades 21.8 percent wer e Inedibles. of dozens of eggs Store I4.7 . 1 p e r ­ grade C, 6 a g ai n of the top grade from each store are sho wn in CD o -H O ’ * -P cd A A CO co A FO i—l AJ «—H A A A A CO GO o —i GO A co A A O o o CO to - CD cd -p O O C A CD H ____ -Of A OJ O Store a <0 * co O CD Each A O CO o A A lo­ A o C\J A IA A CO A AJ *—i A o AJ From to CD S-H o Candled O AJ AJ co IA co —i A CA A A CO O (A *-- f co co CM A A O CO A CO O A A AJ A A A A A A A AJ A -—i OO A o o o -p oo CO * CD O CD S CD Quality of Eggs A O O O A CD ■ CD O CD s : cd A CM A A CO • O CO CD CD A CO • CD O CD .t f . A A A -A O O O A GO CM o o A A A O O A aj A A O O AJ *—1 1 O AJ A] A A C »rH A CO to AJ CO CO CO AJ i-- 1 GO A A CD CO to P CD O O O A OO < < O A -e 0 cd 2 a o A A C >> -P *— A T —I B CO • CD O CD A A TABLE 10 S. •—i cd -p o H 36 TABLE 11 Rank Rank of Stores According to Percentage of A Quality Eggs Found by Candling Stores Percentage of A Quality eggs 1 6 87.6 2 2 77-7 3 1 71.7 68.9 5 5 65.0 6 3 60.5 TABLE Ran k 12 Rank of Stores A c c o r d i n g to Percentage Of Dozens Q ua li fy in g for Grade A S to r e s Percentage of Dozens Grade A 1 6 1|2. 1 2 2 31.5 3 1 26.3 5 3 25.0 5 k 19.8 6 5 10.3 35 t— 1 CO OJ o vO OJ A-z t •— i -z j- o o ,_, OJ -z T <—1 aO -z t OJ IA «— i OJ OJ aai IA ■—1 • OJ -Z f IA . CO CO J • CO <—i 1 1 I 1 o o OJ CO o CO -z T <—i I 1 vQ A- CO . CO CO • o- 1 O OJ 1 O o 1— 1 CO r1 1 1 CO -zt co . CO • vO vO vO co vO CO co CO OJ CO OJ IA o o o O OJ CO -z t OJ .—I -Z t OJ OJ .—1 OJ o IA IA Co OJ -z f O co II '— 1 ^ . cd 4-J - N o o o H s Q (Dozens) vO I • CsJ o o a ; Q o f1 Store cni • to o o from of Eggs r— * CO -zH • CN) O O 10 Cl) u, o S P a • -zr cn co 1 • N o o S Q C\J 1 v VJ 1 « » Cj O O S Q Candled Grades A- Q Each s _ , ^ i 1 • t-H vO OJ - OJ " -1 • -zt~ • • -Z f ■ ■ co co CO .—1 IA vO CO • v£> OJ OJ • -z T sD ■ vO IA OJ <—i vO "v O OJ OJ 13 TABLE to o XJ cd u, O o • o o 1—1 a - * o o vO CO C\1 ■—1 OJ vO <—1 A — rvj- o" • • CO o o <—1 CO w S-H CO A o o a CQ . o o *— t »—H < < O • . • N> o o S Q -JD vO A- OJ . >—1 co 1 1 o >— 1 o O IA CO ■—i cd A O H 36 Many of the dozens .grade A w h e n candled sold as grade A In the laboratory. candling in the egg pro ce s si ng plants, j ud gme nt in c la ss i f y i n g c a n d l i n g resu lte d eggs, in these and The rapid it y of the element of human the elapsed lower qualities. sis of the eggs b y other methods st ud y eggs we re not time since Further a n a l y ­ of m e a s u r in g qua lit y in this is warranted. H a u g h Scores A. A n a l y s i s on Individual Egg Basis A Ha ug h score was this basis, determined 88. 5 percent wer e A or A A quality, p e r c e n t w e r e be low A quality, 55.0. for each egg broken. (Table of C quality. II4.) . that and 11.5 is, be low a H au gh score of The eggs purchased as grade B had 7lj. eggs Thus, o f .the 168 eggs purchased as grade B, a larger p r o p o r t i o n of the eggs were A quali ty than were the stated quality. score of 8 3 .9 , or B. A n a l y s i s Because the Eggs from store 6 and had a m e a n Haugh on a Doz en Basis' of the wide range of 2l\. H a u g h units b et we en lowest and hi gh e s t qualities wit hi n each grade, to div i de low. of 12.8 higher than any other stores. score d i s t r i b u t i o n table w i t h class used On each grade into three limits of 8 units was levels; high, The m e a n score for each dozen indicated p e r c e n t wer e A A quality; cent were B quality. 71.91 were A quality; Table 15- a H a u gh average, that 22.58 and 5-50 p e r ­ 37 co A • a C\J A A CM • . - CO A O r— H i -4 T— 1 o o o o —1 < i cd +-> o E-* --- 1 .— "LA ao ao ■— i CM i— i A A A A A A '— CM A H A A C O tO CO A . d o A +-» O A A A co CM A A A A A O i .— CO CM r“— 1 A ao A 00 >> CQ A A to CD O) f jj <— ^ 03 d A to CO *rH i-H i co r-- 1 A <—1 <— i OO i <— A «— - A A A A i— <— i i A A i i— co i— i ,— i o > *i— 1 +o X 3 al ■— i ■— i A A A A £ 1— A A • 1 A A o i>r~ -t i-- 1 CO co CM A GO O o A A A CO to CO d A • o u oo 0\J A CM A A co T-1 i O t-- 1 CM A CM O A T— t *-- 1 & CD d A A A cd ■— i PC » *“— -4 <— i A CM A A 1 CO CM .— 1 A *-- J r o A A A i— i -- 1 A • A CD d cd X to CO d. o u oo CO o <— 1 1 A A A A • CO A I A A A I O • >—< CO < CQ A • ' O A 1 O • o A >> + j W A ■i 1 m < H «— 1 cd d a «-- 1 AA >— i o cd -d O A IX 38 +-> a 0 0 S-H CO EU Stores By «— 1 in * nT r— * -o r vO OJ • O O m O O T—| co cn m . O O . OJ OJ co O m cn • t— 1 CO > CO r 1 r— cn cn r— • * • n- 0 ■— 1 CO in OJ m m co m i— n r r— • n r • —i • • O O 1 1— 1 0 ■— 1 TO cd S- cd 0 0 1— 1 4™ ) of Eggs, CO in 00 TO cd u O CO > CO f—1 CO cn cn cn .— 1 r 1 r— CO OJ UTs 1-- 1 -— 1 Ol cn vO n r— H nCO *-- 1 ’--f ao r— OJ m m OJ CO r—( r— OJ m Dozens vQ for if) m c CO N — 1 OJ C\1 0 n r OJ r 1 —4 vO r— ■ 0 Q nT Cd CO J-. OJ .— 1 in a] OJ cn OJ n r t—( in r— nT Cd r—( vQ <— 1 vO >—1 OJ 3 S in vO vD r— 0 +-> 00 CO 1 CO nT CO .— 1 m CO 1 * • cn nT r—t CO >— 1 OJ cn cn • cn • cn * cn • nr cn vD CO 1 cn • 01 _zT 03 r— vO 1 1—1 1 1 CO 1 r— UD 1— 1 Ui o £ u ”~t m —i rC W) D) TABLE ao OJ OJ n r 0 Haugh Score Distribution Uh . 1 n- co n r OJ cn e'­ en • CO n- 0 OJ vO OJ m m c— nr 1 m cn m 1 1 T— cn * co CO 1 1 cn CO <— 1 CO cd + -> < CQ o H 39 The distribution of Haugh scores per dozen of eggs AA, A, and B grades according to stores Appendix, Tables I through v i . Table in is shown in the 16 shows a ranking of the stores according to the quality of eggs sold as measured by Haugh scores. Eggs from store 6 ranks first age of A A eggs and eggs from store 5 ranked Table 16 in percent­ last. Stores Ranked According to the Percentage of Dozens Qualifying for Each Grade Based on Haugh Scores Percentage of eggs Rank m grade AA Store 1 Perc entage 82.89 2 6 2 3 3 1[|.00 h 1 12.63 5 k 6.58 6 5 5.88 1 5 86.76 2 k 85-52 3 82.10 u 1 2 78. 39 s 3 75-00 6 17.10 .00 2 6 2 5.32 3 1 5.27 k 5 7.36 5 k 3 7.89 Percentage of eggs in grade A 6 Percentage of eggs 17.28 in grade B 1 6 Of this number, 12.00-* 10 percent of the dozens were purchased as grade B, thus of the eggs purchased as grade A, store 3 would rank second for percentage of dozens qualify­ ing for grade A on Haugh score basis. The monthly mean Haugh score for dozens of eggs from the six retail outlets was highest units) and lowest in July, in January (77*2 Haugh (62.2 Haugh units). The mean Haugh score for dozens of eggs for the duration of the study was 70.9. (Figure III). An analysis of variance was made for Haugh scores dozens of eggs by seasons, color of shell, for grade, brands, and size. 1. beasons Haugh scores by seasons were as follows: Haugh score Season 1 (January, February, M a r c h ) ----75.8 Season 2 (April, May, June) Season 3 (July, August, Season TABLE 17 -------- 70.9 September)------ 65. 2 (October, November, December) -- Analysis of Variance for Mean Dozen Haugh Scores for Four Seasons Source SS d .f Tota 1 52807.6 526 7562.4 3 252c. 8 45245-2 523 86.5 trades Error 72.5 MS Significant at the 1 percent According to Table F 29.14-::- F.01 4.65 level. 17 above quality of eggs in these M -AON I— O D _J onv LJ QC O 5 MONTHLY HAUGH SCORE OF DOZENS OF LJ <5 U~, iO U2 stores was significantly lower in the summer months than in the winter months. 2. She 11 c o 1or The mean Haugh score for white shelled eggs was 70.3 and for brown shelled eggs, 70.7. This difference was not s igni f ic a n t . 5. Grade The mean Haugh score for grade A eggs was, grade B, 59.1; 65-5* The quality of grade large and checks was signif1cantly higher ity of grade B large eggs. TABLE S o u rce Total Grades Error 18 than the qu al ­ (Table 18). Analysis of Variance for Distribution Of Haugh Scores Among Three Grades of Eggs d.f SS MS 53 5151.1 2 725.8 362.9 51 5525.3 86.8 * Si gni f i cant at the 5 percent r Ur* 1 -• CO A and for checks, 68.3; F.05 F.01 3.18 5.06 1eve 1. 5 . Brands The mean Haugh score for the brands of extra grade A eggs were 66.5 (brand L) and 65-3 (brand M ) . large The difference between the mean Haugh scores of each brand was not si gni ficant. 69.0, eggs and 66.1 The m e a n H a u g h scores were 72.$, for brands re spectively. Haugh (Table 19). and 0 of grade A Br an d s L, M, scores of 7i|.6 (brand L) , and 74*2 (brand P) TAB LE L, M, N, 19 Source and P had m e a n (brand M) and 68.$ A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e for H au gh Scores For Four Bra nds of. Grade A Large Eggs SS MS 8lp u.891.2 3 529.5 176.5 81 14.361.7 53.8 Brands Error large for m e d i u m eggs. d.f Total 66.$, Si g ni fi ca nt F at the $ percent for each brand, brands M and 0 grade A large eggs. 2.72 F.01 level. it was large eggs of br and s L and N were F.01 3.28* From the calculated F value of 3.28 and H a u g h scores F.05 concluded the me an that grade A s ign if ica ntl y superior All other to differences wer e not significant. $. Sizes Th e m e a n Ha ug h scores from eac h store large eggs among The for in Table 20. in Hau gh scores for grade A 1 through $ was store Ha ug h scores for extra stores were not si gn ifi ca ntl y different. diff ere nc e among stores score is shown for each size of eggs purchased 6 was 2.1+ H a u g h units. lip -1 units higher large eggs The m e a n H a u g h than the lowest of 1—1 CO cd cd u o CO A S £ CO . "LA Ad V) Ad C\) 1A ■ _X A AJ * O CO Ad AO t—i ao -d OO CO * -XT CO o A • _Xj“ • IA AO >—i • o X \ CO O' • O A 1A . to CO • -XT CO c cd CO S 1A CL. X C H cd X) CO C ccd O u a CQ A) LA "> X CO u co cd •■-* Q Q go S x o X u t/> Cd (/) Cd Cd W Cd W X O —< 1—) CO < c. O X u O Od CO AO C O CO u o A xr c/d '—i . AO Ad o s CO u o o od o A AO o — 1 W) CM o o o o ■— 1 cd o (A o s n- o in CO o in m M3 cu co M3 CM CM CM CM i>- o r— CM in vO by Stores CO cd Dozens of Eggs m m to CD for U, O X _nr U ~i CM to C CD M o Q Oh o O to OD M3 m r— co i n CM i-H Ml CM CM r— M3 CM n- CM m in Distribution CD CO X e is r- cm O in M3 t o m CM CM xr *—i USDA Score C\J CO to o co in CO m nj m cm co < 0 X Cd ,H * X3 CD X X CM M3 o m M3 r— co m CQ X > TO CD CO CM o x r— m O' -=t m o m nCO cn r TABLE 26 Oh *’-1 d CO o Q to —< cd -+-> < cd to O o X o> •i- 1 X . T3 CD < CQ > Cd —H X X O £ O X •—1 cd 4-> O H iX Jj-9 The doz ens scores Meat of eggs of 3.7? from other 5*0? 5*5? Meat 1,290 eggs, had m e a n respectively. on Individual Egg Basis spots of va rio us an averag e fo urth of these m e a t inch in size), shows The num be r (store 3) Chi of m e a t tained spots found 1 (less than l/32 1/ 8 " in diameter. in extra Eggs spots (store and the Table 27 found per dozen eggs ranged from 1 ). on a Dozen Basis for differences in number in eggs of different sizes and among found in number large eggs among stores. found 1, 2, and ? contained than those eggs from store -3. significant large sized s ig ni fic an tly The number of spots from stores I4 and 6 wer e s ign ifi ca ntl y mo r e in eggs from store 3 (? percent M e d i u m sized eggs fewer spots (? p erc en t sized eggs fr om store stores. of spots c o n ­ However, in number of spots among from stores in eggs found of spots dif ferences were di f fe re nc es we re wer e size in A b o u t one- size 2 (from 1/32 to 1/8") square analyses were made sig ni f ic an t found (33?) were larger than to 2.9 B. A n a l y s i s more spots in each 5 eggs. found the di s t r i b u t i o n of spots among sizes of eggs from each store. eggs. sizes and colors wer e of 1 spot ?2? were re ma in in g Ip30 were No and (1 through 5) Spots A. A n a l y s i s 1.7 stores than level). from stores 1| and ? had sig ni fi ca nt ly level) than eggs from store 2. Small 6 had si gn ifi ca ntl y fewer spots than did co co cd- G - p i —I Q X CO X X X X --1 X < — i » CO X o cd p X o «— f A A X A X X ---J X *---f A X xb X CO -or X A r— A 1 —1 A X ) •— 1 OJ __G~ CVJ l<—i o o CO CO J O CO X X X O A X --- X X A A p O C\] O CO O Jo -—' Ko c\l —t CO ro bo A _X X C\| [LA c\j O |cO x [a X X I—I X fP I cd c 0 CO X X co­ G X CD'—i II co Stores o. O A *— t *— r C\J[Lf\ co co CVJI*—i A xb 0 X X Td x b A ’-H ’—i O o A O O OJ CXI A A CO X X X By Eggs, Individual G O) I O —' X X >—i CO >— > A A A TO c G co X X CO cd xb X b '— t 03 TO so co X A |—t X IX X X CO X IX X X X IX o X X X X X A X d A cd p a to to cd A X A |X ’— I ’— I IC O a at «—) X o '—1 03 o o o X X CO co co co 0 A X X g O in cd 01 X A p < t/d X 0 Meat Spots A g co 03 X a CO X a x o bo x b |x ix —f xb x O COJo A X CO X A r-H * 1 OJ [ X i—i A IX CO X |A ’ * v o Ila oj } x o ■— i A|_rb CO 1JA O _zb|X X — tjA o x o |o a «—i I x - x X •—i x b |X (co CO O —' x |x b r— 1 A Lrb |X X a CO X CO X CO X a G Cd to X A CO co o A t i l l cd X X X 1—I X O d A a cd A _X X x ^ lx X [LA +0 Cl) 27 x —i co r1 X x t—* |-h X Jx o o x X O —i x x x |x —'t o ­ X cd i —1 cd x O X x co X X o CO x TABLE p cd G p X X 0 Cd G cd .—i 0 cd G cd X X A to O ) A 0 S 0 '— i <— 1 •'—1 cd cd p (7) P to to t/) P O Td . Cl) 1M ft D) 6 G xb 0 IX to A to Cd CO ■.-* cd 0 r—1 3s O X co xb x cd P O o O O O O O, o A (O.T) U E_ od 5i eggs f ro m stores Chi 6 and 2 . square tests for m e a t spots b e t w e e n brands that brand L had si gn if ic an tl y fewer spots p e rc en t level) and fewer that as 18.60 percen t loss; than bra nd M than brand P (1 perce nt Th e r e l a t i v e l y hi g h me at spot incidence of the dozens ma y showed (5 level). indicated have be e n classified 30.93 pe rce nt iapy have been classified as C;' and only 50.1+7 p erc en t would, have qualified as grade A. (Table 28). Bloo d Spots A Analysis Blood observed, on Individual Egg Basis spots were rangi ng of major co ns id er at io n in size from 1/32 inch to I5 x 5 inches. T a b l e 29 shows the stores, and grades of eggs. sizes, B. A n a l y s i s di str ibu ti on o-f blood ,31, .81+ from stores incidence spot bloo d spots per from each of the six stores was and of blo od 1 through spots per in every two dozen eggs. Spots on the spots found by on a Doze n Basis Th e me a n num be r of blood eggs in the eggs dozen found .1+6, .1+9, .[+.8 or (Table 29)• grade of eggs ,1|1+, .30, 6 respectively. dozen was in The m e a n less than 1 The effect of is shown in Tabl e 30. On l y 15 p e r c e n t of the dozens m a y have bee n penalized becau se of blo od spots, Chi square tests for blood spots in eggs among stores, 52 TABLE 2 8 Meat Spot Incidence in Eggs Broken, By Stores Stores Grade 1 2 3' k 5 6 Total % of Total Absence of meat spots 53 70 33 hi 36 53 266 50.57 Grade C 30 '65 10 21 19 19 163 30 .93 Loss 22 28 7 ih 13 Ik 98 18 .60 Total 95 162 50 76 68 76 527 100.03 No. b e 1ow grade A 52 17 35 32 33 252 % b e 1ow grade A 55.2 56.7 35.0 56.0 57.0 53.3 57.8 92 53 co —( cd Clj ' 1t-H O Cj4-> h-> — iO —i to to (O A O to A A~fto — CO CD A Q A O —i aj to CO O A A A A [A- a H— < o to O- —*{AJ OJ aj _m-|a OJ At A At O CO _-± Al id CO CM CO CD I-, A d n-H A CO A O A AJ CM) A |X) A AJ IA AJ — AJ m a 0|A (M 0J AJ [ A A AJ AJ <—i CO A O- AJ AJ O o |oj CQ CM < TJ O o AJ CO CO to ft AJ ,C i—i CQ A Or CM A o - l — O - r 1 A t io Q CO CL*'—c CO <0 1 - — -d-|o- AJ [l a A >— i o -to < to A a; o CD CO — cd Cl) •—i ^ u CJ cd CD C, A a rd X <—i A A O A O to A A AJ A AJ |A A CM [LA A [A 1 cd cd A o A £— cd A o A H O A to — AJ —i ■ CD A U cd A £ d »r—1 A o A CO AJ AJ CO o AJ — l ■—i .—i cd £ A A ■— i cd A o A H A O- to AJ A AJ |LA A co c\j w -i cq O- «---- 1 A AJ CM .— 1 r CD CO|AJ AJ 1 A A A t CO O- O d. A CO Al A A] d cd o Q CO A OAJ CD CD A to |to O- LA U) CM A OJ [l a X cu d Oj A s- A T O CQ if) A to A I CO A) A) CQ •V CO O- A o- CO CO A O AJ .— 1 «---- 1 t o A A • CO to to AJ to CO d A CO A Ci) CD Ci) t s ) O Cd CD co o CO Cl) Oj T j •C t -t —i U — cd cd t- cd A A d A O O CX Q to to CO to C Ci) Li o A 070 -o ,d CD O L d CUD O COO, jj i - IX TABLE 30 Distribution of Egg Quality As Affected By Blood Spot Incidence Within Dozens Of Eggs Store Q Grade 1 2 3 5 6 5 Tota 1 % of all eggs A 814 11+1 31 69 62 62 UU9 8 5.2 C h 15 15 k 3 9 51 9.7 Loss 6 6 3 3 5 27 5-1 95 162 76 68 76 Total 50 527 100.0 55' sizes, and bra n ds showed the fol lowing results: store 5 Jiad s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer blood spots store 6 (5 p e r c e n t level); ica nt ly fewer blood percent level. different No eggs fr om than eggs fr o m and eggs from store I4. had spots than eggs from store si g n i f ­ 6 at the 1 Eggs f r o m other stores were not s ign if ica ntl y in number of blood spots. sign if ica nt incidence a mo ng extra differences were found large eggs. di f f e r e n c e s w er e not ed as follows: in^blood spot Howev er in all other size, Among large eggs, those 1 had si gni fi can tl y more spots than eggs from store f r o m store 2 , store 2 had sig ni fi ca nt ly mo re spots than eggs fr o m store 5 , and store 5 had s ig ni fi can tly more spots than eggs from store 6 (five percent level). had s i g n i fi ca nt ly mo r e blood level), and A m o n g m e d i u m eggs, store 5 spots than store 6 (5 percent store l\. had signi fic an tly mo re spots than store 6 (1 p er c e n t level). icantl y mo r e spots than eggs f ro m store A m o n g small eggs, store 2 had sig ni f­ 6 (1 percent level). Brands No si gn ifi ca nt difference in incidence of blood in eggs w a s found among brands, spots a l th ou gh differences were found a m o n g stores. Inedible E g g s in Gr ad e A E £ £ Purchases V e r y f e w Inedible eggs wer e found in this study. Only 56 fourteen sour eggs 'were found, all within te,n dozen eggs,= and one seeping yolk was found in each of two dozen grade A eggs during the summer months of 1957. (Table 31). All of the stores sold some eggs which were inedible except store 6. One sour egg was detected by candling and when broken out had a very pungent odor. Pseudomonas flu or escen s. On a basis A eggs, of the U. it was found as grade A; Sour eggs may be caused by S. standards for dozens of grade that 85-2 percent would be classified i* 9-7 percent would be classified as grade C; and 5.1 percent would be classified as loss. Size of Eggs Retai Ted in Lansing Stores A. Analysis on Individual Egg Basis A m a j o r i t y of the eggs purchased qualified for the stated weight. O n l y . 28 percent or ob se rv ed wer e b e l o w the weight and were all found in eggs b e l o w the tolerance and 6 eggs were 17 out of 6107 eggs tolerance for individual from stores 5 and 6 . (65 percent) from m e d i u m sized were found eggs, E l e v e n eggs in large eggs, eggs. B. Analysis on a Dozen Basis Sixteen dozen eggs out of 511 were below theminimum net weight per dozen. Dozens of eggs below the weight 1, and stand­ ards were from stores 1, 2, Jj., and 6 with 1, 3, 11 dozens respectively. Table £2 shows the distribution of dozens of eggs found to be underweight among sizes of eggs TABLE 31 Distribution of Number of Sour Eggs Per Dozen Per Store Stores Total sour eggs all stores N umb e r of eggs 1 2 3 it b 1 1 2 1 - 1 - 2 1 1 - 1 1 - 3 - 1 - - - - Total dozens wi th sour eggs 3 7 1 2 3 10 d o z To ta 1 sour eggs 3 7 1 2 3 16 egg TABLE 32 6 b h i Dozens of Eggs Below Minimum Weight By Stores Stores 1 Sizes Extra Large 2 - 3 5 6 1 large 1 i 1 3 8 10 3 ^ 1 1 Sma 1 1 Total 1 1 Me d iurn Total h 1 16 53 and s t o r e s . Yolk col or A. Analysis on Individual Egg Basis Each egg yolk was scored for color by comparison with to 2l\ a yolk color rotor having colors 1 (white) Nearly two-fifths (39.8 percent) of the 6323 eggs observed score of 11. Twenty-three percent were were given a color lighter than 11, while 36.9 percent were darker. The yolk color between stores. shown (red). for individual eggs varied considerably The range in yolk color for each store is In Table 33. B . Analysis on a Dozen Basis Considerable variation in color among eggs within indi vidual dozens was found. of eggs was The mean yolk color for all dozens 11 .Lj.9 or a medium yellow color. (Table Tip) 59 - co oo ' -h —< o j acoca —* O J c o C T ' I A O O . —I —to la o H CO OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ _d~ o CT" O 1 I c O v O 0 0 ' ( \ - t- r—i LA C \ J _ z t v O v D O OJ sO eo CO _d~ j 0 CO la 0 CO o OJ O AJ CO A - U \ OJ _( Aco Yolk 0 0 \ LA co 0 *—11 CO CO OJ O _cj- o j co OJ I co o j o - o CO O -3 " OJ CO OJ 100.000 I -H >—i O o O ao o CO OJ 1 A O - - Z J - V O L 0 - H ' —• A— OJ OJ ’— t CA Aco O a- od vO co OJ I >—i a- LA Ao '—i «— I O ■—i 'L A I co * 1A a- OJ OJ 1 -0 OJ vO I 1 A- 1 A co 03 L A • LA CO OJ C D v O O - O - v O ' L O ’- i -—i ■—i GO O UD OJ i—t lO »—i «—\ vO GO co CO OJ .O J I ( O O vO I > - O n vD vO la co O Individual of Color O'' co >— i —< o j r - O r-| ^-,|0'-H CO CA CO I ■— < OJ OJ I I- 'I i vO OJ o c *=! OJ o o o GO - o CV -rt r o oj j o j j OJ -H OJ l a —h OJ CO _dh -p O i '-----1 i ’ 33 TABLE c o o o o o m - ’- ' ' - o c \ j l o o c o m - O J C Y I r 912 c O J - v O Q O t- T \ P O .—i o O OJ OJ OJ P_ o —I co vO -1 LA ’—1 911 vO ( —) OJ '—1 6323 a 0 s CO 600 Outlets vO LA —I r— oj ia o co ACO OJ CO (0 s CO —i C O O J - o T C O O O cd AJ co _ct 1A U 3 A - C O O O "----1 1 1 I 816 C\J cd -p Six Retail vO '—i OJ CO C O O CO On _ c t —i IA —f - —' O j c O l O l A J - v O m - C O Eggs From o- o r-- GN o 19J4 U h cd CD O -P CD O Cd ^ -P io--Hr-iAC\ivO_ztcoT-iojco "LA vQ T —"T*-------1 11I4O < —i (n Ar—I CO CA r-—I r-----| o (\J £ j t— TABLE 3[| Mean Yolk Color of Dozens of Eggs From Retail Outlets M ea n Colors Stores 2 1 3 1 6 1 8 8 % .38 1 - 19 2 1 3 -57 2 6 16 2.66 10 21 7 1 6 16 57 10.82 11 i|2 60 22 39 26 61 230 63.65 12 23 38 8 18 21 12 120 22. 77 13 10 17 9 8 7 6 57 10 .83 17 3 6 6 3 61 7.80 1 1 2 .38 50 76 68 76 527 100.00 11 .66 11.25 11.53 1 1. 25 1 —‘ 10 1 —» O 9 Tota 1 2 1 7 15 Total dozens 95 X 6 5 6 11.66 162 11.51 11-69 61 Egg Prices The retail size, and price for all grade varie d received for eggs of each brand, consid er abl y among stores. eggs purchased was 52.0 cents per two stores priced nor w e r e prices their eggs of eggs. Table 3 £ shows per d o ze n eggs purchased dozen. No the same during any one week, the prices w it hi n stores similar and b r a n d s The m e a n for different sizes the mean prices from each store by brand, received grade and size. The m e a n price per dozen for extra from £\\.I4. cents (store £ l .I4. cents v a ri ed (store from l\. £ .0 Figure m e a n price the year IV shows re l at io n s h i p from and m e d i u m sized eggs cents (store 1 ). the relationship b etw een the m on t h l y It appears rather that there is a direct r e l a t i o n ­ This is pr obably a chance= than a cause and effect in the fall and winter w h e n the and no r m a l l y Price data d i f fe re nc e was large eggs varied (store 6 ) to £ l \ . 0 ship b e t w e e n qua li ty and price. younger Mean per dozen for ail eggs purchased and average H a u g h score. w e r e high for 6 ) to 56.6 (store £) cents (store l\.) , l) to 60.9 cents pri c es per dozen during large eggs varied five cents; laying flocks are lay eggs w i t h higher albumen quality. for all stores revealed in price be tw ee n extra four cents; since Hau gh scores b e tw ee n that the average large eggs and large eggs large eggs and m e d i u m sized eggs was and b e t w e e n m e d i u m sized eggs and small eggs was 62 TABLE 35 M e a n A nnual B y Sizes Store & b rand A extra br an d la r 9 e Store & Price Received for Eggs, and Brand in 6 Stores Size and Q u antity A A A Large Medium Small Check Mean Price 1 - L 54.11 53.3 51. 1 -- -- 1 1 - M 55.6 55.8 54.0 -- 51*.l* 2 60. 1* u+u 1*9.7 1*0. u 50.8 3 -- 51). 1*5.2 51.8 k 60.9 55.7 1*9.9 55.6 -- 52.5 1 5 N 56,6 5 0 D i 55-3 _ 5 6 _ -- 51 .4 38. 7 .2 1*7.1 55-0 -- -- — 38. 5 — -— 55.0 63 HAUGH 00 o SC O R E o CO >n CD o CD in m a: < I -■3Nnr --AVIAI -niddv o* HO dVlAi -Nvr > H-t w o I —I 4— >n O CD CD in in m MS1N30 o in co o 614 eight cents. The checks averaged two cents above the small eggs and four cents below large grade B eggs. The total number of dozens purchased is shown in Table 36 and the mean price per dozen and the cost of eggs for each season, are given in Table 37- 38 shows the mean price by size and brand Seasonal The differences from each store Table from each store. in egg prices are shown in Figure V. seasonal variations of prices was significant at the 1 pe rcent 1eve 1. Store 65 « I > W OA r—t cd 4 -1 o H lA to oo 1—1 CM A <—i «—t -o f O CM —■ ACM CM -o r A O O o o O O o o r—1 CM O i-- 1 A>-4 CM A f -O f >—i CO -O f vD ■—i ACM IA CM 1A CM M3 CM M3 A- lA CM Each M3 -o f CM from CL _ot" CM O CM Purchased lA to o to OJ CM CM CM CM co M3 CM CO CM or M3 r— CM CM CM — • CM Number X . —1 3 cd . CD cm to GO to OJ '—1 CM M3 M3 >—i A CO M, cd 3 cr to O CM CM CM A O CM * 03 lA 1A ■—i CM CM to £ CO CM O 33 to c> tNj »H tn A i X CO CO scd A £ 3 •.-4 33 CO S <— i i---- 1 cd £ j i X CD A CJ CCS 4-1 O H *c\ A (J 3 •«—t A 36 TABLE to cd lA of Dozens o CM ■ -A A- by Size CO to A to •*-4 eggs m large CM with in -o f 33 CO CO co co a CO o3 CO A CO CO U CO +H I—( o o O =5 Mi4—i dfl to 33 CO 4-1 4-> M—I £ 0 1 i -included u o 4-> m of Eggs co 66 TABLE 37 Total Cost and Mean Price of All Eggs Purchased by Seasons Mean cents per dozen Seasons Dozens Purchased 1 120 61.27 51 . 1 2 11|1 6U .33 U5.6 3 137 67.61 1*9.3 129 78.09 60. 7 527 271.30 To ta 1 TABLE 38 Cost Mean Price of Eggs by Size and Brand From Each Store S1 0 r e s 2 1 3 5 Sizes L' ' ' '~M X-L 5h-k 55.6 60 5 L 53. 3 55.8 5b U 54-1 55.7 M 5 i .1 55.0 45 7 5i.2 1*9.9 S 38 7 Check f+o 1+ B N" ' 5 U" ' ■ 56.6 55.3 / p G 60.9 51.5 1*7. 1 55.o 38 . 5 55.2 FIGURE V MEAN MONTHLY PRICE OF ALL EGGS -AON 1DO ±d3S onv TlbldV 93 J o o SIN)') o 68 Stores 1, 2, and l\. offered extra large grade A eggs. The mean prices per dozen for extra large eggs were 55* I t 59.7* and 60.9 cents in stores 1 , 2 , and i| respectively. The analysis of variance of price per dozen among the three stores is shown in Table 39. at the 5 percent ■TABLE 39 Differences are significant level. Analysis of Variance of Prices For Extra Large Grade Eggs In Stores 1 , 2 , and 5 Source d .f SS Total 101 7951-5 2' Stores Error 99 606.2 303. 1 7335.2 75.3 * Significant at the 5 percent All eggs. of the stores F .05 F.01 5 . 08* 3.09 5.82 level. in the study offered large grade A The mean p ric© per dozen for large grade A eggs pur­ chased from stores 55.7* F MS 55-5, 1 through 6 were 55-7 cents, and 51-5 cents respectively. 59.8, 55•1* The analysis of variance of price of eggs among the six stores indicated that price differentials were not significant. (Table 5°)• 69 TABLE i|0 Analysis of Variance of Price of Large Grade A Eggs in Six Stores d.f Source Total SS 203 Stores Error A F F.05 65-8 85 NS 2.26 15627.5 5 328.8 198 15298.7 total of the six stores, MS 77.3 155 grade A medium eggs were purchased however as much as seven cents. their mean price per dozen differed An analysis of variance showed that the variance in prices was five percent level. TABLE !|1 Analysis of Variance of Price of Grade A Medium Eggs from 6 Stores Source d.f To ta 1 Stores Error from significantly different at the (Table [41). SS MS ll|3 721+2 .9 5 .783.0 156.6 138 6Lj.59 •9 56.8 -x- Significant at the 5 percent F F.05 F.01 3.35* 2.1+L+ 3 .I46 level. Forty-six dozens of small eggs were purchased during 1957 from stores 2 and 6 which offered grade A small eggs every week. An analysis of variance showed prices of small eggs purchased d if f e r e n t . from those stores were not significantly 70 Differences eggs and in prices paid for extra large grade A large grade A eggs for the different brands were not significant; however differences in prices paid for three brands of grade A med i um eggs were significant at the 1 p e r ­ cent level. (Table 1+2). Price differentia Is between eggs of different brands were not consistent. were In store 1 to 3 cents higher M for 8 months. 1, price of eggs for brand L than the prices for eggs of brand Price for eggs of brand M were then increased to eq u a 1 those of brand L and for a period of four week s ur­ passed the prices of brand L eggs by 2 cents per dozen each week. In store 5, N and' O brands were both grade A large. The price of eggs of N brand was always priced above that of O brand. The greatest difference in the price between these two brands was 6 cents when brand N eggs reached a peak price of 69 cents was in December. The peak price for brand P (medium) reached four weeks earlier; 2 cents per week. then its price decreased by This may have been due to a decrease in demand for brand O. TABLE 1+2 Analysis of Variance of Prices for Three Brands Of Medium Eggs SS MS Source d .f Total 1+3 1572.9 2 350.7 170.5 ill 1232.2 30. 1 Brands Error Significant at the 1 percent level. F F.01 5. 6 5. 17 71 The eggs from store 2 were the only eggs purchased where the correlation between prices and Haugh scores were significant. As the quality of these eggs price decreased. As shown in Figure VI. increased, the an apparent pos ­ itive correlation existed between price and Haugh score of all eggs in the study. Correlation of the Price of Eggs with Haugh Scores (Store 2 Only) In the correlation Of price with the Haugh score, the price was used as the dependent variable and the Haugh score as the independent variable. price and Haugh score for The F.0 5 . level was Haugh score of eggs .15, The correlation coefficient of 162 dozens of eggs was -.183. therefore the correlation of price and in store 2 is significant. Further analysis of the association of price with Haugh score was done by an analysis of variance of X and Y values This analysis shows in Table i|3 aroumd the regression line. that the variance was significant at the five percent TABLE J4.3 A n Analysis of Variance of the Deviations of Prices from the Regression Line Source d.f SS Total 161 19501.10 1 160 SS Regression Error level; MS F F .05 6 5 k '77 654-8 5.56* 3.91 18846.33 117.8 * S ig ni f i c a n t at the 5 pe rc e nt level. 72 The the standard er ro r of the estimate regression s qu ar e line is equal (117.8) or 10.8, to the square therefore we would of the b e s t fit of root of the m e a n expect to find 95 p e r c e n t of the ob s e rv at io ns for price as a dependent v ar ia ble and the H a u g h score as the Independent v a r i a b l e to be wit hin + two s tan dar d errors of the esti mat e of the best fit of the re g r e s s i o n line. Y — a + bx where Y is the price and X is Haugh score. A is the variable, in tercept of b on the vertical w he re b is the slope of the re gre ssi on slope of the r e g r es si on -.221791 as that line was found is, a negat ive the H a u g h score - . 22 17 9 units. increases (Figure VI). good quality. axis or the dependent line. to be equal slope or coefficient, The to therefore 1 unit the price decreases A high H a u g h score indicated The pr act ic e of lowering the price w h e n the q u a l i t y is h i g h does not seem to be a good m er ch a n d i s i n g procedure. Retailers Margins for Eggs The m e a n m o n t h l y D e t r o i t w h ol es a le price large eggs plus the cost of cartons during the ye ar of the study wa s Ip6.12 cents, wh il e at the retail for grade A level the m e a n m o n t h l y selling price for the six stores was 5 4 * 8 5 cents. The difference between the mean buying price and mean sell­ ing price was 8 .$0 cents per dozen, or 18 .Ip percent markup. 7& C> 2- < u Ism o> >- - 030 •AON _LOO ld3S v onv > Ainr h~ LO o> 3NDP AVAi nmdv 0 z HDdVAJ o _J >LJ => if) CD 1 l l l > n v t C'-1 cc: D O n ft. 7CH MEAN MONTHLY DETROIT WHOLESALE PRICES AND MEAN SELLING PRICES FOR GRADE A LARGE EGGS 76 o to o to S A N 30 o 77 TABLE I4.I4 M e a n Margins for Sizes and Grades Of Eggs Purchased Sizes and Grades Cents Extra large 11.^8 Lar ge 8.50 Med ium 9.01 Sma 11 Large grade B 6.36 Checks 9.15 A n analysis of variance of the margin for all sizes of eggs secured during the study revealed a significant difference at the 1 percent level. (Table I|5) ■ An analysis of variance between mean margins for pairs of sizes, F value and or, grades of eggs revealed that the calculated for margins for extra large grade A versus checks was 6.91 which was significant at the five percent level; and an analysis of the variance of extra large margins versus medium margins was significant at the one percent favor of extra large eggs. A versus checks, B versus small, ent; however, gins were The mean margins for large grade A versus medium, and level the in large grade large grade grade A margins were not significantly d i ff er­ large grade A margins versus large grade B m a r ­ significantly different at the five percent level in favor of large grade A. 78 TABLE Analys i s of Variance of Margins For Six Weights and Grades of Eggs Source d .f Total 187 1881.08 Sizes 5 577.53 115.51 Error 182 i3ii.55 7.21 SS MS Significant at the F.01 F 9.07 1 percent 16.02-** level. MERCHANDISING PRACTICES OF EGGS Various egg merchandising practices lets considered ation of eggs, in the retail ou t­ in this study are source of supply, refriger­ types of egg cartons, volume of eggs displayed, volume of sales per week, and promotion and advertising of eggs . Sources of supply Table iy6 shows dised TABLE Store the source of supply of eggs m e rc han­ in the stores from which the eggs were obtained. 6 Source of Supply of Eggs chain rt Regional chain 1 Local chain 2 Independent retail store 6 Independent retail store 5 k Source Descr ipt ion National tt 3 for 6 Retail Outlets Chain st.ore warehouse tt tt n rt m tt Wholesale dealers and direct from farms tt tt tt Producer, plus egg cooperative when needed 79 The eggs in M i n n e s o t a dealers, from the chain store w a r e h o u s e s were and W i s c o ns i n, cooperatives and while produced those from the w h o l e s a l e farmers were pr oduced in Michigan. Refri ge r at i o n of Eggs Eg g s w er e re fri ger at ed ex c ep t store 2. in display cases H ow ev er ., on several cases w er e so full top of the d isp lay so that some te mpe ra tu re s. 5 di spl ay ed geration. eggs were di s pl ay ed in store Similarly, in the aisles p l ac ed In the cooler b eca us e of 1957* 1957* of the eggs some of the eggs Kantner ation (1953) in retail 6. who in store 5 were refrigerated in store 3 were not lack of space. the H a u g h scores from other large,, medium, from store eggs in store 2 were not refrigerated wh il e on display, large eggs ref ri ­ o n e half of the to display were eggs w e r e not s i g n i fi ca nt ly dif ferent of extra stores 4 and in front of the dairy case wi th out stores, A l t h o u g h eggs the and one half wer e un-re- on July 3, Eggs held prior however, eggs, the store witho ut on M a y 23, in all they were the display eggs wer e affected by room in the ais le s, of ref rig e ra te d re fr ig e ra ti on . stores that some of the eggs extended beyond Sp ecifically, frigerated. occasions In an effort to sell more eggs in all and These small are large from the H a u g h score and the al bu m en qu al it y eggs wer e findings reported stores stores, for the extra surpassed only by in a g r e e m e n t w i t h that eggs not held in re f r i g e r ­ in N e w Y o r k we r e sligh tly higher than 80 refrigerated eggs. The findings are not in agreement with Jensen and Stadelman (1951) of Washington, and NyBroten (1952) of West Virginia. Types of Egg Cartons Used Egg cartons used by the 6 stores were of two major types: the 3 x 5 the 2 x 6 cartons. The 2 x 6 ton was used by five of the stores and the 3 x 5 only one of the independents. were used by only store Divisible 2 x 6 type car­ type by type cartons 1, while non-divlsible cartons were used by' stores 3, 5* 5 j and 6. The 3 x 5 type cartons were of a non-gloss pulp with a very dull finish with no description of quality and size. These cartons were frequently torn and soiled from extensive use. The 2 x 6 type cartons were .of varying shades of colors with the quality, size, and brand printed in bold letters on the package. Bi-Weekly Volume of Eggs on Pi splay at Each O u t 1et The volume of eggs on display at each outlet varied from 560 dozen eggs to zero. The chain stores display a greater quantity of eggs than the which tended to independents, is in keeping with the number of consumers patronizing those stores. of eggs; The independents exhibited a smaller quantity in f a c t ,store 2 displayed weeks, while store 6 had a modal less than 20 dozens display of 35 dozens. for 23 81 O n several largest occasions d is p l a y store this 6 was w i t h o u t eggs; however, the store carried was 280 doz en eggs. (Table 1+7) • The v o l u m e of eggs- displayed varied w i d e l y f r o m week to w e e k .and m o n t h to month. in eggs d i s p la ye d four the w e e k fol lowing high prices. of the sm al les t 1,2, There was a no ti ce abl e displays were decline For example, during December in stores and 5. Volume of Egg Sales I n f o r m a t i o n on the vol um e ' s i x retail sonnel of w e e k was outlets was The largest vo lu m e of eggs sold per of 3,000 dozens at store 1+, followed by 1,000 do ze n at store d o z e n per week, in the obtained by interviews w it h the p e r ­ the stores. an average of eggs m e r ch an di se d whi le 3. Stores 1 and 5 each averaged 300 store 6 sold 700 dozens and store 2o$Qld 1,200 dozens. One of the chain stores sold n e ar ly as m a n y eggs as the other stores w e e k fro m all eggs combined. stores was sold Was 9 ^ 0 'dozens The me a n volume of eggs sold per 1,0^0 dozens. The m e a n volume of in independent stores. c ha in sold an ave ra ge of 300 dozens per week, chain, 3,000 dozens, y e a r l y sales w e r e co mputed the six retail local the regional the n ati ona l cha in 650 dozen eggs per week. If the m e a n sales-per w e e k were valid, for The from the mean, and if the then the total outlets would be 327,600 dozens or sales 10,920 cases. 82 TABLE 1|7. Biweekly Volume of Eggs on Display At Each of the Six Retail Outlets Stores Dozens 1 Under [|0 l|l-80 2 81-120 2 3 23 1 3 2 ~ 4 — — 5 — 6 — Total 10 34 1 9 17 11 1 4 3 19 121-160 3 11 2 7 2 24 161-200 8 1 8 10 1 28 201-240 4 8 3 1 16 241-280 3 4 1 Over 280 6 2 9 8 83 Promotion and Adverti s inq of Eggs The national stores that were members of local, chains advertised their eggs in the Lansing State Journal along with other food products, of handbills. For nine months regional and and by frequent use the store of the regional chain promoted egg sales by a contest for the best recipes containing eggs, while a ’’valuable cou po n” worth ten cents toward the purchase of specific national items was used by the chain for four months. Egg sales were not promoted during the duration of the study, in independent stores except by small posters in the stores, yet eggs had to be purchased by one of these stores from two sources because the usual the demand for eggs exceeded supply. All of the stores except an independent, store 2, used Easter egg prints as a means of promoting eggs during the Easter holiday season. The five types of promotion used by the retail out­ lets were advertising special coupons, in the daily paper, and Easter egg prints. handbills, recipes, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Five hundred and twenty seven dozens of eggs were purchased from six retail outlets and the quality of the eqqs e v a 1u a t e d . !• Only 33 percent of the-dozens qualified for grade A on a cleanliness basis, whereas 32.8 percent would have been classified as grade B, 3.2 percent grade C and 31.0 percent as dirty. shell 2. All Significant differences in cleanliness were found among i| stores. of the eggs were sound shelled of the dozens of eggs purchased. In 38.6 percent Of the dozens con­ taining unsound shells, blind cracks accounted for -60.8 percent; 6.7 percent. condition were 3 The mean shell cracks, for 31.9 percent; No significant differences and leakers, in shell found among the stores. thickness-of all eggs from each of the stores was .012 inch. mean shell thickness The differences between the for eggs from the six stores were not significant. 1|. Eighty-two percent of the dozens of eggs purchased were not color was 5. labeled as to color, yet their mean shell 1.5 or a tint. Based on candling observations, 26.9 percent of the dozens of eggs were classified as grade A, 57*1 p e r ­ cent were classified as grade B, 21.8 percent grade C, and I4 .2 percent were loss and inedibles according to candling results. The me an Haugh score per dozen of eggs was 71-0 units. The highest Haugh score per dozen of eggs was 77.2 in January and the lowest Haugh score was 62.2 in July. Haugh scores were s 1gnificantly higher in the summer. were superior eggs than Brands L and N of grade A large eggs to brands M and O. increased in winter As the size of the the Haugh scores decreased. Haugh scores of the eggs among stores were not significantlyh d if f e r e n t . According to USDA scores, eggs qualified cent were 91 percent of the dozens of for grade A or above while only 9 per­ low enough for grade B. The mean USDA score wa s I4.8 wh ich is medium grade A. The relatively high incidence of meat spots in dozens of eggs caused 30.93 percent fo be classified as grade C, i860 percent as have qualified'as loss and only 50.27 percent would grade A. Significant differences in meat spot incidence between brands and among stores were found. The mean number of meat spots per dozen of eggs was 2 .l\. Blood spots in the eggs ranged from pin point size to over an inch in length. en was .Jy8 . The mean number of blood spots per F if teen' percent of the dozens of eggs 86 purchased had spots large enough go result classification of grade C or loss. ferences were found in a Significant di f ­ in the number of blood spots among stores but not among brands. 10. Very few inedible eggs were found during the study. One or more sour eggs was found and one seeping yolk 11. in each of ten dozens in each of two additional dozens. Sixteen dozen eggs were below the weight standards as specified on the carton. 12. The mean yolk color for the dozens of eggs purchased was a me dium yellow. Considerable variation in color among eggs and within individual dozens was found. 13. Prices of eggs among stores varied widely on a weekly and monthly basis. The mean price for all eggs pur­ chased during the year was 52 cents per dozen. Prices of dozens of eggs were significantly different among stores, seasons, sizes, and grad es, atively correlated with Haugh score ll|. Retailers margins Price was n e g ­ in store 2. for eggs did not appear to be associated with-highest or lowest buying prices. mean monthly margins were eggs,* 8.^0 cents for 5.55 for smalls; cents 11 .U 8 cents for extra large large; 9.01 cents for-mediums; 9.15 cents for checks; for large grade B. The and 6.36 The margins by sizes and grades were significant at the 1 percent level. National and regional chain stores received eggs from chain store warehouses while and independents dealers, received chain store warehouses are produced but other Eggs from in Minnesota and eggs were produced Most of the eggs were displayed while local chains their eggs from wholesale cooperatives and/or farms. Wisconsin, their in Michigan. in refrigerated case in the stores. Eggs were merchandised in 2 x 6 cartons in all store except one, where the 3 x I4 type cartons were used. The volume of eggs displayed varied weekly. Volume of eggs displayed was usually reduced after a period of relatively high prices. The range dozen in the volume of sales per week was 300 in one the regional independent store to 3,000 dozens in chain. Eggs w e r e ■promo ted by advertisement in local papers, recipe contests and special coupons and posters. The rank of the stores according to a summation of quality factors of eggs purchased: Rank I 2 No. of Store 5 3 Type of Store Independent National Chain National Chain 3 Regional Chain 6 2 Farmers Market 1 Local Chain BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Be cke r, C. A. Egg M a r k e t i n g by Retail Stores in P e n n s y l ­ vania, Pe n n s y l v a n i a A g r . Exp. St a ti on B u l l e t i n 561: 1-1+9, 1953. 2. Brant, A. W. and H. L. Shrader, H o w to M e as u r e Egg I. Q. (Interior Quality); Animal H u s ba nd ry Division, B u r e a u of A n i m a l Industry, A gr ic u l t u r a l Res e ar ch A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , USDA., Washington, D. C., P. A. 202, May, 1952. 3. Co nl og ue , R. M. and L. R. Gray, W h o Gets the M o n e y for Eggs2 A g r i c u l t u r a l Marketing, November, 1956, pp. 10- 1 1 . I4 . Co nlo gue , R. M. and W. K. Kaiser, Price Spreads for Eggs in W a sh in gt on , D. C., The Ma r k e t i n g and T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Situation, January, 194®> P P ■ 28-32. 5. Con log ue, R. M. and. F. R. Mason, M a r k et in g M arg ins for P o u l t r y and Eggs, The M ar k e t i n g and T ra n s p o r t a t i o n Situation, January, 1956, pp. 18—21+. 6 . Conl ogu e, R. M. and N. T. Pritchard, M ar k e t i n g Ma rg in s for P o u l t r y and Eggs, The M a r k e t i n g and T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Situation, January, 19 55 ^ PP* 18-27. 7. C^ay, R. E. The Retail Dis tr ib ut io n of Eggs in Cleveland, Ohio, Ohio Engr. Exp, Station News, Vol. 2 I4 , No. 3: 2 6 - 2 8 , 1952. 8 . Darrah, L. B. and P. L. Henderson, Egg M e rc h a n d i s i n g Stu d ie s in Sup ermarkets, Part 1— Consumer Response to Egg Qu ality, Cornell. Uni ver si ty Agr. Exp. Station B u l l e t i n A. E. 923, 1-17, Spetember, 1953. 9. Dawson, L. E. The Effect of Farm R e f r i g er at io n on M a r k e t ­ able Q u a l i t y of Eggs, Poultry Science 35:586, 1956. 10. Fry, J. L. and G. W. Newell, M a n a g e m e n t and H old ing Con- di ti on s as The y A f f e c t the Interior Q u a l i t y of Eggs. P o u l t r y Sc ie nc e 35? 11 3, September, 1956. 11. Gray, L. R. M a r k e t i n g M a r g i n s for Poultry and Eggs in the Uni te d States and Selected Cities, The M a r k e t i n g and T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Situation, A g ri cu lt ur a l M a r k e t i n g 89 Service, USDA,. W ash ing to n, D. C., pp. 16-29. January, 1957, 12 . Hau gh, R. R. , The H a u g h Unit for M e a s u r i n g Egg Quality, United 1934. 13. States Poult ry Mag a zi ne Jasper, A. W. tices and Co lumbus, Bu ll eti n, 43:552-55, 572-73‘, and R. E, Cray, Co nsu me r Preferences, P r a c ­ Demand in Purc has in g Eggs and P ou lt ry in Ohio,, Oh io Agr. Exp. Station Re se arc h 736: 1-34, 1953., 1^. K a n t n e r , A. H. V o lu me of Busin ess and Source of Suppl y In f lue nc es E g g ' Q u a l i t y in Retail Food Stores. New Y o r k State College of A g r i c u l t u r e B u l l e t i n 1 9 4 ; 5 H 2 - 5 1 1 3 , 1954. 15. Kemp, W. B. (Project Advi se r), M a r k e t i n g Eggs in Retail Stores of the N°rtheast, W. Va. Agri Exp. Station B u l l e t i n 353, 1-39, June, 1952. 1 6 . Larzelere, H. E. and W. A. Nichols, What Consumers Think Ab o u t the Eggs They Buy, Mich. Agri. Exp. Station Bulletin vol. 32, No. 4:513-519, May, 1950. 17. Ne lso n, M i l e s A. M i c h i g a n Dep art me nt of Agri culture, D i v i s i o n of Foods and Standards, M o n t h l y Review, Vol. 1 1 3 ( 4 )1 21, October, 1956. 18 . Norris, T. B. and'C. F. Parrish, Consumers Choice in B u y i n g Eggs, 1-4, 1950. 19. N o r t h Ca ro li na Ext en s io n Circu lar 352: NyB ro te n, Norman, Re ta i li ng Eggs in W e s t Virg ini a Stores, W e s t V i r g i n i a U n i v e r s i t y Agr, Exp. Station B u l l e t i n 354: 1-16, 1952. ' 20 . Savage, W. E. Quality and Marketing of Eggs in Maine Ret ail Stores, 1- 14 , 1951. M a in e Agr. Exp. S tat io n B ul le ti n 492: 2 1 . Slocum, W. L. and H. S. Swanson, Egg C o n s um pt io n Habits, P u r c h a s i n g Pa tt er ns and Preferences of Seattle C o n ­ sumers, W a s h i n g t o n Agr. Exp. Station Bu l l e t i n 556: 1-29, 1954. 22. Smith, H. D. and R. C. Hawes, Retail Practices and Egg Qu ali ty in Baltimore, Maryland, Maryland Agr. Exp. Station Bulletin 456: 1-16, 1956. 90 23. Stadelman, W. J. and L. S. Jensen, Egg Quality From Farm to the Home, Washington Agr. Exp. Station Bulletin 561, 1952. 2l|. Taylor, F. R., A. L. Owens and A. W. Jasper, Consumer Egg Buying, Consumption and Preference Patterns, Rhode Island Agr. Exp, Station Bulletin 321: 1-56, 195U Books 1, Dixon, W. J. and F. ,J. Massey. Introduction to Statistical Analysis, Ne w York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1951* 2. Goulden, C. H. Methods of Statistical Analysis, Ne w York: John Wiley and Sons, Second Edition, 1952, pp. 102i5i, 559. 3. S n e d e c o r , G. W., Statistical Methods, The Iowa College Press, Ames, Fourth Edition, 1958. APPENDIX TABLE i Distribution of Dozens of Eggs by Sizes Among Haugh Score Class Limits Store 1 B rand L. Haugh score class limits X-L Gr ad e 95-102 M L Egg Size M X-L Total % AA 1 1 2 11 7 d 35 7 7 2 29 7 d 1U 2 3 2 h 3 5 7 5 6 63-70.9 d 6 2 55-62.9 1 1 79-86.9 h 7 - S h •9 M Dozens of Eggs 87-%.9 71-78.9 L A B 1 12. 63 82. 10 39 - U 6.9 1 1 31-38.9 1 1 5.27 95 100.00 Total 16 18 11 20 21 9 TABLE ii Haugh score class limits AA Distribution of Dozens of Eggs by Sizes Among Haugh Score Class Limits Store 2 XL W L B W M B W 95-101 W B 1 1 1 1 .23 1 2 1 .23 2 3 5 5 2 1 25 15 .82 6 L 6 8 11 5 6 5 5 56 35.57 63-70 8 6 6 11 3 i 5 5 53 26.55 55-62 5 6 5 2 5 5 3 28 B- 57-55 3 1 2 6 3.70 1 1 .62 39-50 -0 CD 5 ru 3 1 —• 1 > 79-86 -n i —* i -u CD Chex No. Level B 1 87-9U Total % S 17. 28 78. 39 5.52 31-38 Total Grade 22 21 21 23 22 15 16 6 16 162 100.00 100.00 914- TABLE iii Haugh score class 1 imi ts AA Distribution of Dozens of E g g s by Sizes Among Haugh Score Class Limits Store 3 Large Ear ge A B Med. To ta 1 A No. k 7 % Leve 1 Gr ad e 15 .00 - 15.00 95-102 87-914 A B 79-86 3 71-78 7 1 6 111 28.00 63-70 6 h 1 11 22.00 55- 6 2 8 k 12 25.00 1(7-514 1 5 6 12.00 75.00 39-56 12.00 31-38 Total 25 iU 11 50 100.00 100.00 95 TABLE iv Haugh score c 1as s limits Distribution of Dozens of Eggs by Sizes Among Haugh Score Class Limits Store I4 X-L Large Me d . Sma 1 1 Total % of Total Level Grade AA 95-102 87-95 L 79-86 6.58 A 71-78 6 6 10 22 28.98 63-70 12 15 2 29 38. 15 55-62 5 5 5 15 18.52 B 57-55 3 9 6.58 1 1 .32 1 2 1 39-56 85.52 7.89 3 1-38 Total 6.58 25 25 2 l| 2 76 100.00 100.00 96 TABLE v Haugh score class 1 imi ts Distribution of Dozens of Eggs by Sizes Among Haugh Score Class Limits Store 5 % of Total Large A N 1 O P Total Leve 1 Gr ade 5.88 AA 9 5 “ 102 87-96 79-86 1 1 3 8 65-88 A 71-78 8 6 8 22 32.35 63-70 10 8 7 25 36.76 55-62 3 6 3 12 17.66 2 3 5 7.3b b 67-58 86.76 39-66 31-38 Total 7.36 21 23 26 68 100.00 100.00 97 TABLE vi Haugh score class limits Distribution of Dozens of Eggs by Sizes Among Haugh Score Class Limits Store 6 Lar ge A Med. A Sma 11 A W W W AA-9 5-1 02 1 % of Total Total Leve 1 1 1 .32 Grade A - 87-914 9 9 8 22 28.95 79-86 19 12 18 L0 52. 63 A 71-7' L 5 3 12 19.78 1 1 .32 17.10 76 100.00 100.00 82 .89 63-70 55-62 1 B 57-55 1 1 CO CO CO —1 39-56 Total 25 26 22 98 S TA TIS TIC AL FORMULAS 1. Chi square -- K E (fj - F^ wh e re Is the observed 1 = 1 fr e qu en cy and Is the expected frequency. 2. St andard error of i d i ff er en ce b e t w e e n two means — i o p S« =5.\/ E X x \J - (EX) N N - I (S« - S« ) X1 2 difference 3, M e a n f r o m group data -X = EfX = m i d p o i n t of class X frequency "ET Ij., C o r r e l a t i o n — (a) Ef r = E X Y - EXE Y N” (EX - (EX) ) (EY N (b) y - y = b ( X - X) Y = y - bX / bX (c) a = y - bX - (E Y ) ) N then 99 5- R e g r e s s i o n analysis (a) Total — sum. of squares of regress ion = EY^ - (EY)^ N (b) R e g r e s s i o n sum of squares = b/ EX Y - L (c) E r r o r 6. A n a l y s i s Total (Residual) (EY) N sum of squares = Total SS - Re gr e s s i o n SS of V a r i a n c e siirn of squares = EX?j - C. T. 2 Stores s u m of squares = EX - C. T« ~N Error sum of squares = Total SS - Store SS E = summation See re ference boo ks D i xo n and Massey. Goulden. Snedecor. Pp. Pp. in Bib 1i o g r a p h y : Pp. 155-161;. 161;, I4.I4.9 16-30, j J 75-81;. 188-213, 211;-226.