630.7

I£6b
no. 691
cop. 8

r

UNIVERSITY OF

ILLINOIS LIBRARY

AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

AGRICULTURE

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATKJ

The Relationship Between

CENTRAL MARKET EGG REPORTS
and

PRODUCER PRICES

in Selected North Central States

<*fcJS-

NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132

_ '{cultural Experiment Stations ol
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,
South Dakota, and Wisconsin, and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture cooperating.

This publication is a summary report of the research work in egg
pricing. Some individual states involved in the research as well as the
Agricultural Marketing Service of the United States Department of
Agriculture have published additional reports on egg pricing which
should be of interest to the reader:

1. Ruttan, V. W. and Laird, W. F., The Pricing of Indiana Eggs at
Country and Terminal Markets, Indiana Station Bulletin 648, Pur-
due University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Lafayette, Indi-
ana, 1957.

2. Luckham, W. R., Cray, R. E. and Clayton, P. C, The Adequacy of
Price Quotations at Ohio Terminal Markets in Reflecting True Mar-
ket Conditions, Ohio Research Circular 63, Ohio Agricultural Ex-
periment Station, Wooster, Ohio, 1959.

3. Pritchard, N. T. and Hester, O. C., Pricing Eggs at Wholesale in
Chicago and St. Louis, USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service,
Marketing Research Report No. 173.

4. Gerald, J. O. and Pritchard, N. T., Pricing Eggs at Wholesale in
New York City, USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, Marketing
Research Report No. 210.

The research on which this report is based was undertaken as part
of the North Central Regional Poultry Marketing Project NCM-14.
Funds for this project were made available through the Research and
Marketing Act of 1946.

Representatives from the following states and federal agencies par-
ticipated in this study.

State Agricultural Experiment Station Representatives

J. R. Roush Illinois

R. L. Kohls Indiana

G. D. Ladd Iowa

J. W. Koudele Kansas

H. E. Larzelere Michigan

Darrell F. Fienup Minnesota

J. D. Miller, L. D. Bender, L. A. Voss Missouri

Ernest Feder Nebraska

F. R. Taylor North Dakota

R. E. Cray, P. C. Clayton Ohio

William Kohlmeyer South Dakota

W. P. Mortenson Wisconsin

U. S. Department of Agriculture Representative
John J. Scanlan Farmer Cooperative Service

Administrative Adviser
H. J. Sloan Minnesota

CONTENTS

SCOPE AND METHOD OF STUDY 7

RECEIPT AND USE OF CENTRAL MARKET PRICE REPORTS 10

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRODUCER PRICES AND CHICAGO

QUOTATIONS 13

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRODUCER EGG PRICES AND PRICES

REPORTED FROM SEVEN CENTRAL MARKETS 23

SHORT-TIME PRICE MOVEMENTS AT COUNTRY POINTS

AND CENTRAL MARKETS 40

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 46

APPENDIX TABLES . .50

Urbana, Illinois, February, 1963

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CENTRAL MARKET

EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES IN

SELECTED NORTH CENTRAL STATES1

THE NORTH CENTRAL REGION IS THE MAJOR SURPLUS EGG-PRODUCING
area in the United States. It produces an annual surplus of about
10.5 billion eggs. Except for those areas incorporating or adjacent to
large population centers such as Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and St.
Louis, most parts of the region are dependent upon outside consuming
markets for a large portion of their egg production.

Prior to 1940, the typical movement of surplus eggs was through
the larger central markets. Eggs not consumed by the local population
were assembled at country points and shipped to wholesale dealers in
these markets. Jobbers, dealers, chain stores, and dairies, bargaining
with the wholesalers, procured a sufficient quantity of these eggs to
supply the needs of the population center associated with the market.
The remainder of the eggs were moved into market channels in the
east, south, and west.

Prices established through the supply-and-demand forces at work
within the central market provided a basis for establishing paying prices
at country points servicing the market. Since most country dealers were
selling to wholesalers in the central markets, the prices which they paid
for eggs could not vary widely from the wholesale buying price at the
market. If the country buyers' paying prices were too high relative to
the central market price, they chanced a loss when they sold the eggs.
If their paying prices were too low, local competitors would buy the
producers' eggs and ship them to the central market. Dealers at
country points reportedly paid producers the wholesale buying price at
the central market less a charge to cover transportation to the market
and a margin to cover their costs and services.

Since 1940 major changes have occurred in the marketing system
for eggs produced in the North Central Region. Because of an in-
creased demand for higher quality eggs, coupled with increased process-
ing costs at the central markets, many large chain stores and dairies
have bypassed the central wholesale markets and established their
own country buying stations. They purchase eggs directly from pro-

1 J. R. Roush, of the University of Illinois, was primarily responsible for
analyzing the data and preparing this report. R. L. Kohls and V, W. Ruttan of
Purdue University; R. E. Cray and P. C. Clayton of Ohio State University; and
J. D. Miller and L. A. Voss of the University of Missouri were responsible for
collecting the data in their respective states and provided many helpful suggestions
which greatly improved the manuscript.

ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957

Shell egg receipts in Chicago that originated in the North Central Region,
compared with egg production in the region, during the years 1940-1957. The
data on the Chicago egg receipts were compiled by the Dairy and Poultry
Market News Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the data on egg
production in the North Central Region by the Bureau of Agricultural Eco-
nomics and Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

(Fig. 1)

ducers in the surrounding area and obtain supplementary supplies from
country assemblers. After processing, these eggs bypass the central
wholesale markets and move directly into retail channels. Many
smaller retail organizations have also bypassed the central wholesale
markets and buy eggs that have been processed by dealers at country
points.

Market integration has occurred at more than the state or regional
level. Improved transportation facilities, especially improved highways
and modern refrigerated trucks, have allowed distant firms to buy
eggs directly from surplus production areas. Many eastern egg buyers
who previously supplemented their local supply of eggs with pur-
chases from midwestern central markets now bypass these markets to
obtain supplementary supplies directly from country points in the
major surplus areas. This has decreased the volume of eggs that move
from the surplus production areas, through the central markets, to
destinations in the deficit areas of the country.

Some indication of the effect of market integration on the volume
of central market egg receipts is presented in Fig. 1. Chicago is the
major central market for eggs produced in the North Central Region.
From the period 1940-44 to the period 1953-57, egg production in the
region increased 19 percent, while reported Chicago receipts from the
region decreased 29 percent. These data do not give the complete

1963] CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES 7

picture of the decline of the Chicago wholesale egg market. Many
of the eggs reported as receipts in Chicago have moved through inte-
grated marketing systems. They have bypassed the Chicago wholesale
market and have not entered directly into the wholesale price-making
forces operating in Chicago.

The recognition of the decline of the central wholesale egg mar-
kets has created concern regarding the existing pricing system for
eggs. Egg prices established in the central markets are widely dis-
seminated throughout the egg industry. The industry is disturbed
because the use of these price reports in pricing eggs at various levels
in the marketing channels may be altering prices from those which
should prevail under existing supply-and-demand conditions. Par-
ticular concern has been raised regarding prices paid producers. The
anxiety stems from the idea that a limited number of traders dealing
in a small volume of eggs in our major central markets "set" the
prices which producers receive for eggs.

The concern of the industry regarding the pricing of eggs is based
on two assumptions:

1. Egg prices reported from central markets do not accurately
reflect existing supply and demand conditions for eggs at country
points.

2. Prices at which eggs are bought and sold at country points are
closely tied to prices reported from the central markets.

If prices paid for eggs at country points are not closely tied to
prices reported from the central markets, the concern about the effect
of reduced egg volume on prices established and reported from central
markets can be alleviated. This report deals with the relationship be-
tween prices reported in central markets and prices paid producers for
eggs in selected North Central states.

SCOPE AND METHOD OF STUDY

Sixty-nine country dealers cooperated in providing information
on pricing eggs at country points in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and
Ohio. Data were obtained from 22 dealers in three sections of Illinois.
One group of eight dealers was located in the southwest quarter of the
state, within 55 miles of the St. Louis market. For purposes of dis-
cussion, this area will be referred to as southern Illinois (Fig. 2). A
second group of five dealers was located in the southeast quarter of
the state, within 40 miles of Effingham. This area will be referred to
as central Illinois. The third group of nine dealers was located in the

ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691 ; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

The location of dealers who supplied information for this study. (Fig. 2)

northeast quarter of the state, within 60 miles of Pontiac. This area
will be referred to as northern Illinois.

Enumerators in Indiana selected a total of 20 dealers located in
three scattered counties in the state. Eight of these dealers were
located in a county in northern Indiana, six in a county in central
Indiana, and six in a county in southern Indiana (Fig. 2).

Enumerators in Missouri chose a total of 23 dealers widely scat-
tered throughout the state. After the data were collected, the dealers
were divided into three groups primarily on the basis of the markets
which they said they looked to for pricing information. Seven of them
were located in northern Missouri, north of a line extending from
Platte City on the west, to Monticello on the east. The dealers south
of this line were divided into two groups; seven were located east of
Columbia, while nine were located west of Columbia (Fig. 2).

Enumerators in Ohio obtained data from four market agencies
scattered throughout the state. These were large cooperative organi-
zations whose pricing practices were believed to have a strong influ-
ence on prices paid in their area. Each market was located in a
different quarter of the state. Use of Columbus as a dividing point
made it possible to compare the two firms in the east with the two
firms in the west. It was also possible to compare the two firms south
of Columbus with the two firms north of this city.

The volume of eggs handled by the cooperating dealers varied

1963] CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES 9

Table 1. — Distribution of Cooperating Dealers According to Average
Weekly Egg Purchases During the Period of Study, by States, 1955

Weekly cases
of eggs

Number of dealers*

Illinois

Indiana

Missouri

Ohio

Total

0- 99..

4

6
6
0
1

1
1
1
1
17

115

14
5
1
1
1
1
0
0
23

73

0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
4

1,431

24
14
3
7
4
5
6
2
65

147

100- 199

3

200- 299

2

300- 399

5

400- 499

2

500- 999

3

1000-1999

2

2000 and over. . . .

0

Total

21

Median volume. . .

347

* Volume data were

not obtained from 4

dealers.

within the states as well as between states (Table 1). The largest
dealers were located in Ohio where the median dealer purchased an
average weekly volume of 1,431 cases during the period of study. The
smallest dealers were located in Missouri where the median dealer pur-
chased 73 cases per week.

General information was obtained from the dealers about their
business and the services they offered. They were asked about their
sources of pricing information and how they used this information in
establishing prices paid to producers. In addition, data were collected
on the daily prices that the cooperating dealers paid to producers for
various grades of eggs for three two-week periods during 1955. These
periods were April 18 through 30, a period when egg production and
quality are normally high and prices are seasonally low; July 25
through August 6, a period of normally declining production, rising
prices, and relatively low quality; and October 24 through November
5, a period of normally increasing production, falling prices, and
relatively high quality.

To make the pricing data more comparable between dealers, the
daily prices paid for various grades of eggs were adjusted so that the
price represented mixed-colored eggs delivered to the buyer's place
of business in cases furnished by the buyer. For those dealers who
purchased Extra Large and Jumbo eggs in addition to Large, the
weighted average price for the three grades was used as the Large
price. This made these data more comparable with the data for those
firms that did not differentiate between Jumbo, Extra Large, and
Large eggs but bought them all as Large.

10 ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

Daily egg prices reported in central markets were obtained from
various secondary sources. Prices reported by private agencies were
used for the Chicago, New York, and St. Louis markets. Prices re-
ported by the Market News Service of the U. S. Department of Agri-
culture were used for the Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Pitts-
burgh markets. A detailed description of the reports that were used
is presented in Appendix Tables 1 and 2.

RECEIPT AND USE OF CENTRAL MARKET PRICE REPORTS

The prices at which various grades of eggs are bought and sold
in the important central markets are reported by various informa-
tion media. The federal Market News Service releases a daily
report of egg prices and related data for each of the markets where
its service is available. These mimeographed reports are mailed
free of charge to individuals or firms requesting them. Private re-
porting agencies located in some of the central markets mail daily
market reports to firms and individuals on a subscription basis. Many
newspapers and radio and television stations located in the central
markets and at country points serving the central markets present
egg market information obtained from federal or private reporting
agencies.

Many of the daily reports issued by the federal Market News
offices contain egg supply and pricing information not only for the
market in which the office is located, but for other important egg mar-
kets as well. For example, individuals or firms obtaining the Daily
Egg Report from the Chicago office of the federal Market News
Service receive a summary of egg prices and market conditions in
St. Louis, New York, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Columbus
as well as the Chicago market. Prices are also reported for several
country points. The Chicago office receives this information daily
by leased wire from its offices in other markets.

Information on egg price conditions in the major central markets
is readily available, and the majority of country egg buyers obtain
pricing information from one or more of the central markets. The
fact that these dealers take time to listen to radio market reports, pay
for private reports, or place their names on the mailing list to receive
the federal reports indicates that they find the reports of value in
establishing buying and selling prices for eggs.

1963] CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES 11

Central markets from which dealers
obtained pricing information

Almost 60 percent of the cooperating dealers in the four states
reported obtaining egg pricing information from the Chicago market.
Except for Ohio, more firms in each state obtained pricing informa-
tion from Chicago than from any other single market (Table 2). The
Ohio firms were primarily interested in New York pricing information.
Only firms in Illinois and Missouri regularly obtained egg market
information frofn St. Louis. The lack of interest in St. Louis prices
in Indiana and Ohio undoubtedly is due to the small proportion of the
total receipts — less than one-tenth of one percent — that these two
states jointly supply to this market. Missouri and Illinois provide
more than three- fourths of the St. Louis egg supply.

Illinois firms that reported receiving St. Louis market information
were all located in the southern part of the state, while most of the
Missouri firms receiving St. Louis pricing information were located in
eastern Missouri. Many firms in western Missouri obtained price
reports from Kansas City and Springfield, Missouri.

In Table 2, the number of dealers reporting that they obtained
information from various markets is shown to be greater than the
number of cooperating firms. This difference indicates that some of
the firms were obtaining market information from more than one
central market. Some dealers said they studied conditions in several
markets in evaluating egg price trends.

Price information media

Approximately 57 percent of the cooperating dealers in the four
states obtained market information by radio. Except in Missouri,

Table 2. — Number of Dealers Obtaining Egg-Pricing Information
From Various Central Markets, by States, 1955

Number of dealers

Illinois

Indiana

Missouri

Ohio

Total

Chicago

. 17

14

9

1

41

New York

5

7

2

3

17

St. Louis

10

0

7

0

17

Detroit

0

1

0

0

1

Cleveland

0

0

0

1

1

Cincinnati

0

1

0

1

2

Pittsburgh

0

0

0

0

0

Other

0

1

10

0

11

Dealers reporting*

22

20

23

4

69

a Some dealers received information from more than one central market.

12 ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

Table 3. — Media by Which Dealers Obtained Egg-Pricing
Information, by States, 1955

State

Number of dealers using each

medium

Radio

Tele-
phone

News-
paper

Mailed
reports

Tele-
graph

Other
dealers

Dealers
reporting*

Illinois . .

. 15

7
13
6
3

29

3
6
16
1

26

5
5
7
3

20

0
1
1
0

2

2
11
1
0

14

22
20
23
4

69

Indiana

15

Missouri

6

Ohio

3

Total

39

• Some dealers received information from more than one medium.

no medium was used more than radio (Table 3). In Missouri news-
papers were by far the most important source of market information.
More than half of the Missouri firms that looked to newspapers as a
source of pricing information were located in the Kansas City area and
obtained Kansas City market prices from the Kansas City paper.

More than half of the Indiana dealers interviewed reported ob-
taining pricing information from other dealers. In some cases they
obtained information from their market outlets on prices existing in
the market. In others they determined what other buyers in their own
local area were paying producers for eggs.

Again in Table 3 the total of firms obtaining information through
various media exceeds the number of firms contacted. Many of the
firms were relying on more than one medium for pricing information.
For example, a dealer might rely on radio to obtain timely information
on existing prices in the central markets, but he might also obtain a
published report from the market. Although not as timely, the pub-
lished report provides more detailed information and can also be filed
for future reference. A dealer may also get market information over
the telephone while filling orders with a wholesaler at a central market.
Yet he may still rely on the radio or mail reports to obtain more exact
information on prices paid for various grades of eggs at the central
market.

Dealers' reported use of price reports

When egg pricing was discussed with the cooperating dealers, an
attempt was made to determine the importance of central market price
reports in establishing prices paid to producers. Only 16 percent of the
cooperating dealers in the four states reported that their prices paid
to producers were associated in a fixed manner with definite reports
originating in a central market (Table 4). However, some of these

1963] CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES 13

Table 4. — Dealers' Reported Use of Central Market Price Reports
in Establishing Prices Paid to Producers, by States, 1955

Number of dealers
Nature of use

Illinois Indiana Missouri Ohio Total

Applied fixed differential to market
report

6

1

4

0

11

Applied varying differential to
market report

16

0

6

0

22

Followed market report in only a
general way

0

11

6

1

18

Made little use of market report. . . .
Total

0

22

8
20

7
23

3
4

18
69

same dealers obtained price reports not only from the designated
central market but from other markets as well.

About one-fourth of the cooperating dealers in the four states
indicated that they followed central market prices in only a general
way in establishing prices paid to producers. Most of these firms
mentioned competition or prices paid by their outlets as factors altering
the relationship between the prices they paid producers and central
market price reports.

An additional 26 percent of the dealers contacted in the study
reported making very little use of central market price reports in
establishing producer prices. Most of these dealers said that the price
which they paid producers was a derived price, being based on the
price paid by another firm. The other firm was usually the outlet to
which they sold eggs. The country dealers deducted costs from selling
price in arriving at prices paid producers. Two Indiana dealers re-
ported that their prices paid to producers depended wholly on local
competition for eggs. Even though these firms reported little use of
central market price reports, the majority did receive price reports
from at least one central market.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRODUCER PRICES
AND CHICAGO QUOTATIONS

In analyzing the relationships between prices paid to producers and
prices reported in any central market, the author determined the aver-
age daily price paid by each dealer, during each two-week period, for
each of several grades of eggs. This price could be compared with
the average daily price reported in any central market for the com-
parable grade of eggs during the same period. Or, the average rela-

14 ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 \February,

tionship of the producer price to any central market price report
could be determined for a group of dealers.

Since more dealers in the study reported receiving Chicago price
reports than those from any other market, the relationship between
producer prices and Chicago prices was analyzed. The quotations of a
private reporter, which are based largely on spot trading on the Chi-
cago Mercantile Exchange, were used as the Chicago prices. These
prices are widely disseminated by radio and newspaper and are ac-
cepted and used by most egg dealers as the Chicago market prices.

This analysis was made for A Large, A Medium, and current
receipt eggs. Producer to Chicago price relationships were compared
between states, between periods, and between grades of eggs. On
more limited data, it was also possible to make some comparisons
between areas within a state.

Producer prices for eggs relative to the Chicago quotations varied
widely among dealers (Table 5). Except in Ohio, the majority of
dealers in each state paid producers less than the appropriate Chicago
quotations for all grades of eggs. Two-thirds of the observations in
Ohio for both A Large and A Medium eggs found the dealer price to
producers above the appropriate Chicago quotations. The next highest
proportion occurred for current receipt eggs in Indiana, where, on
about one-fourth of the observations, dealers were paying producers
more than the Chicago quotation for current receipt eggs.

Table 5 shows that the relationship between prices paid producers
and Chicago quotations varied between states as well as between
grades of eggs. A more complete analysis shows that the relationship
also varied between periods and between areas within a state.

A Large eggs

Several dealers contacted in the study were not buying eggs from
producers on a graded basis during each enumeration period. Some
were buying on a current receipt basis during the spring and shifting
to a graded basis during the summer or fall. In the analysis of rela-
tionships between the producer price of A Large eggs and the Chicago
quotation for the comparable grade, only those dealers were used who
bought A Large eggs from producers during each enumeration period.

Variation between states. Ohio was the only state in which
dealers' prices to producers for A Large eggs averaged above the
appropriate Chicago quotation during the six weeks studied (Table 6).
The Ohio firms paid producers the highest price for A Large eggs
during each enumeration period and averaged almost three cents
a dozen above Chicago during the six-week period. At the other

1963}

CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES

15

•a i

spH

OOOOOOOCS

-H «H rj< OCS ~+ O^O OOOOO C<l

1=

*

o

"O a;
0) ofi

.>< «3^ U

^— lOOO"— i es »- 1 «— i

OCSO "ifOOOOOOOOOO fS

^H *~^

+•> (fl

C -M

<U O.

f S

OOOOOOO-i

O'-'O O<*)OOOOONOOO^JIO'— iO «*5

3 "

rH t-l NO

.

U £

'H.

'C

2

s

1

(U 3

w

.* <3-S

oooooooo

T-I »-" O O O •<* «*5 cs O O OOO*-i «S

c

*5

s 4;

u

u

[^

(^1

M

3

c

u

rt

•a

a

N^ fcuO

c

rt

•**< rt

SJ oooooooo

^^ ^5 ^^ ^5 ^~* ^5 ^^ fO ^5 '"^ ^O ^"^ Tj* Tj* OO

X

s P-J

'Sb

"*<

o

^

o\

4-> tn

U}

O\

C i *

&

NO

5 Q.

.2

g

u'S

•H *— i CS ^-H ^— t o O O *"•*

O ^^ O CS CS CO *O fO *~< CS CS O O O ^

*•

3 0

l^

CN

0

u£i

L

NO

1

E

d

2

1 1

o

^

s "S

^ OOOOOO'— 'O

O»-'»-' CNf<?rr io»-Hr»3o*-i»-io JO

Jq

c

S

0)

•8

a

X

3

§

"O (U

a) Si

S5

X ^ *-i

oooooooo

t— ( ^^ ^H f^ IO NO C5 *" ' ^™* NO '^ '^ vO NO OO

^*"S

§ J

*I

— i c/3

s'1

G -M

0 &

(L) O*

~ a

u'S

oooooooo

O i

3 0

«s

NO 4-»

u £

u™

to

'o

•o 6

W .3

•"*

_c

,S^J*3

OOOOOOOIO

»- 1 CS O »H O »~ ITj<T}<»— IOONO«vJCS»-< ">

"Sj

~

S **

•d <u
<u to

i|

s \3

oooooooo

5<

1«

^5 ^^

3 ^

tf) w

^.^

Is

c
tu m

N u ON ON ON ON ON ON ON

ONONON ONONONONONONONONONONU

W5

sE

i

1

56l

3 2 0

\sM

•T3 2 ON OO t-~ NO i/> T^< r»5
u ^+ + + + + + +

S.OOOOOOOO

CN{ »-t o c>*J**i«o^<«'><5**odoC§
+++ 1 M M 1 1 1 1 1 *

OOO OOOOOOOOOOO --g

Sy
CO

32

I

(U «^

tn O

JS Oj

0

H C— i_

U.W

_- ^OOOOOOO

<O NO NO ^H NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ^J O

HW

§ *-cONo6*-~No'iO"*<r)

CS »— i O O*— <Olf5r)HtONOt^odON'— I H*

vii + + + + + + + +

++ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

16 ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

Table 6. — Average Prices Paid Producers for Mixed A Large Eggs as

a Differential From the Chicago Quotation for Mixed Large

(60 to 69.9% A) Eggs, by States and Periods, 1955

Period Illinois Indiana Missouri Ohio

(cents per dozen above or below Chicago)

April 18-30 -3.2 -4.4 -4.1 -.3

July 25-August 6 -3.5 -.5 -8.8 +6.6

October 24-November 5 -1.5 -2.6 -10.2 +1.9

Average -2.7 -2.5 -7.7 +2.7

extreme, the Missouri firms averaged almost eight cents below the
Chicago quotation.

Seasonal variation. Throughout the area studied, three patterns
existed in the seasonal relationship between prices paid to producers
for A Large eggs and the appropriate Chicago quotation (Table 6) :

1. In Illinois there was little difference in the relationship during
the spring and summer enumerations. But during the fall dealers paid
producers a considerably higher price relative to the Chicago quotation.

2. In Missouri the A Large price to producers relative to the
Chicago quotation was highest during the spring and lowest during the
fall.

3. In Indiana and Ohio dealers paid producers the highest prices
relative to Chicago during the summer and the lowest during the
spring.1

The seasonal pattern in Indiana and Ohio provides some indication
that producer prices in these states are more strongly influenced by
the eastern markets, especially New York nearby prices, than are
prices in Illinois and Missouri. During the spring and fall enumera-
tion periods, the New York Urner-Barry quotation for nearby Extra
Fancy Heavyweights was 6 to 7 cents above the Chicago quotation
for mixed Large (60 to 69.9% A) eggs. But during the summer
period, the same New York quotation was almost 15 cents above
Chicago.

The high summer price in New York relative to Chicago exerted
an upward pressure on Ohio and Indiana producer prices. The prices
in these two states rose relative to Chicago. The same effect was not
apparent in Illinois and Missouri. This upward pressure in summer
prices relative to Chicago prices was more pronounced in Ohio than
in Indiana (Table 6). Appendix Table 3 indicates that the influence
was also greater in eastern than in western Ohio.

1 The seasonal relationship of producer prices to the Chicago quotation for
individual areas in each state can be found in Appendix Table 3.

1963]

CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES

17

Average prices that were paid to producers for mixed A Large eggs as a
differential from the Chicago quotation for mixed Large (60 to 69.9% A)
eggs. The prices (cents per dozen above or below Chicago) are for combined
periods of 1955. (Fig. 3)

Variations within states. In each area of Illinois, dealers' prices
to producers for A Large eggs averaged below the Chicago quotation
during the six weeks studied (Fig. 3). During each of the three two-
week periods the spread between the dealer price to producers and
the Chicago price was narrowest in the southern section of the state
and widest in the central section (Appendix Table 3). This difference
indicates that prices averaged highest in southern and lowest in
central Illinois.

With one exception, the average price in each area was below the
Chicago price during each enumeration period. The A Large price to
producers in the southern section averaged almost one cent above
Chicago during the two-week fall period (Appendix Table 3).

The price paid producers for A Large eggs in each Indiana area
averaged below the Chicago price during the six weeks studied (Fig.
3). The price averaged highest in the northern section and lowest
in the south, but this pattern did not exist during each of the two-
week periods (Appendix Table 3). Indiana producer prices were more
uniform from area to area than those in Illinois.

In northern Indiana during the summer period, dealers paid pro-
ducers an average of 1.6 cents above the Chicago price. With this
exception, the producer price in each area during each period averaged
below Chicago (Appendix Table 3).

18 ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

The procurement of eggs from producers on a graded basis was
not a well-established practice in Missouri during the period of study.
Of the dealers contacted in Missouri, only three purchased A Large
eggs from producers during each of the periods of enumeration. One
of these dealers was located in each of the three sections of the state.
These limited data indicated that the A Large price to producers was
well below Chicago in each area of the state (Fig. 3). The producer
price did not exceed the Chicago price in any area during any of the
two-week periods (Appendix Table 3).

Prices paid producers for A Large eggs by dealers in both eastern
and western Ohio exceeded the Chicago price during the six-week
period (Fig. 3). The eastern firms paid more than the western
firms during each of the two-week periods (Appendix Table 3).

The average price paid by the firms in western Ohio was 1.6
cents below the Chicago price during the spring period. With this one
exception, the average price paid in both areas exceeded the Chicago
price during each period of enumeration (Appendix Table 3).

A Medium eggs

The prices paid producers for mixed A Medium eggs were com-
pared with the Chicago quotation for mixed Medium (60 to 69.9% A)
eggs. Too few Missouri dealers reported purchase of A Medium eggs
for these data to be included in the analysis.

Variation between states. Illinois and Indiana dealers paid pro-
ducers less than the Chicago quotation for A Medium eggs during
the six-week period studied, while Ohio prices averaged slightly
above (Table 7). Illinois dealers paid a lower average price than
Indiana dealers.

If dealers were using the Chicago quotations as a price base, they
were applying greater average discounts or smaller average premiums

Table 7. — Average Prices Paid to Producers for Mixed A Medium Eggs

as a Differential From the Chicago Quotation for Mixed Medium

(60 to 69.9% A) Eggs, by States and Periods, 1955

Period Illinois Indiana Ohio

(cents per dozen above or below Chicago)

April 18-30 -5.3 -5.6 -1.7

July 25-August 6 -6.6 -5.1 +1.4

October 24-November 5 -3.3 -2.1 +1.2

Average —5.1 -4.3 +.3

1963] CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES 19

in pricing the Medium than the Large eggs. In each state the pro-
ducer price was lower for A Medium than for A Large eggs relative
to the appropriate Chicago quotations (compare Tables 7 and 6).
Illinois and Indiana discounts on appropriate Chicago quotations aver-
aged, respectively, 2.4 and 1.8 cents a dozen greater for A Medium
than for A Large eggs during the six weeks studied. Ohio dealers
paid 2.4 cents more (above appropriate Chicago quotations) for A
Large than for A Medium eggs.

Applying larger discounts or smaller premiums to central market
quotations in pricing Medium than in pricing Large eggs is difficult
to justify from the standpoint of marketing costs. It does not cost
more to process, pack, and transport Medium eggs. The smaller vol-
ume of Medium eggs combined with the seasonal variation in volume
may make it more difficult to find markets for these eggs. The break-
ing industry also discriminates against smaller eggs. These problems
may tend to increase marketing costs. However, it appears that these
increased costs should be reflected in the prices of A Medium eggs
at central markets as well as at country points.

On an annual basis, Large eggs make up a much higher propor-
tion of producer deliveries than Medium eggs. And producers norm-
ally look at the top price offered when comparing prices paid for
eggs by various dealers. For these reasons, dealers may feel that they
can maintain producer patronage by pricing Large eggs high relative
to central market reports while applying greater discounts (or smaller
premiums) on the Medium eggs.

Seasonal variation. Illinois and Indiana producer prices of A
Medium eggs were 2 to 3 cents closer to Chicago quotations during
the fall than during the other two periods of analysis (Table 7). Ohio
producers received about the same amount above Chicago quotations
during the fall and summer, but their spring price averaged below
Chicago.1

Comparison of Tables 7 and 6 indicates that the spread between
Chicago prices and producer prices for Large and Medium eggs was
more nearly equal during the fall than during the other two periods.
This was true in each of the three states. In Indiana during the fall,
the A Large price was farther below the Chicago quotation than the
A Medium price.

Medium eggs are in seasonally heavy supply during the fall, while
Large eggs are in light supply. This difference is reflected in the rela-

1 The seasonal relationship of producer prices to the Chicago quotation for
individual areas in each state is shown in Appendix Table 3.

20

ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

tive prices of the two grades of eggs in the central markets. During
both the spring and summer periods of study, for example, the Chicago
quotation for Large eggs averaged less than 4 cents a dozen above the
Medium quotation. During the fall period, however, the Chicago Large
quotation averaged more than 14 cents above the Medium quotation.
Because of heavier marketings and much lower prices for Medium
than for Large eggs during the fall, producers may look more critically
at prices offered for Medium eggs. Dealers may respond by more
nearly equalizing discounts (or premiums) for A Large and A Medium
eggs during this period.

Variation within states. In each area of Illinois, dealers' prices
to producers for A Medium eggs averaged below the Chicago quotation
during the six weeks studied (Fig. 4). With one exception, the pro-
ducer price was below Chicago in all the areas during each period of
study. The A Medium price to producers in the southern area aver-
aged about 2 cents above Chicago during the fall period (Appendix
Table 3).

The spread between the producer price of A Medium eggs and the
Chicago quotation was narrowest in the southern section of Illinois
and widest in the central part. This difference indicates that A Me-
dium prices were highest in southern and lowest in central Illinois.

The price paid producers for A Medium eggs in each area of
Indiana averaged below the Chicago price during the six weeks

Average prices that were paid to producers for mixed A Medium eggs as
a differential from the Chicago quotation for mixed Medium (60 to 69.9% A)
eggs. The prices (cents per dozen above or below Chicago) are for com-
bined periods of 1955. (Fig. 4)

1963] CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES 21

studied (Fig. 4). In fact, the price in each area during each period
was below Chicago (Appendix Table 3). The relationship between
the producer price and the Chicago quotation was quite uniform
from area to area within the state.

Prices paid to producers for A Medium eggs by dealers in eastern
Ohio exceeded the Chicago price during the six-week period, while
the prices in western Ohio averaged below Chicago (Fig. 4). Eastern
Ohio firms paid producers more than the Chicago quotation during
each period of study. The price in western Ohio averaged above
Chicago during the summer but fell below during the spring and fall
periods (Appendix Table 3).

The analysis indicates that, in relation to Chicago prices, dealers
in all states paid producers smaller discounts or larger premiums for
A Large than for A Medium eggs. Appendix Table 3 shows that the
only exceptions occurred in the southern areas of Illinois and Indiana
during the fall period. When Ohio dealers were divided into northern
and southern firms, the same pattern occurred there. The southern
Ohio dealers paid 1.3 cents above Chicago for A Large eggs and 2.4
cents above Chicago for A Medium eggs during the fall period.

A 1955 study showed that a greater proportion of southern than
northern United States households used the smaller sized eggs during
the April to June period.1 It is reasonable to believe that the demand
for smaller eggs would be even greater during the fall when the price
spread between large and smaller sized eggs is greatest. Some eggs
from the southern sections of the North Central Region move into
southern United States markets, and prices are influenced by southern
demands. The greater demand for Medium eggs in the southern part
of the region during the fall could bolster Medium prices more than
Large prices relative to Chicago quotations. The result may be the
noted smaller discounts or greater premiums for A Medium than A
Large eggs relative to Chicago prices.

Current receipt eggs

Some dealers were still using the current receipt or nest-run
method of procuring eggs from producers during the period of study.
This procedure was especially evident in Missouri, where 17 of the 23
firms in the study were buying current receipt eggs from producers

1 United States Department of Agriculture; Food Consumption of Households
in the North-Central Region and Food Consumption of Households in the South,
Reports Number 3 and 4 of the Household Food Consumption Survey of 1955,
Table 12, page 91. It was found that 48.4 percent of all southern households re-
ported using Medium, Small, or Peewee eggs compared with 30.8 percent of the
households in the North Central Region.

22 ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

Table 8. — Average Prices Paid Producers for Current Receipt Eggs as

a Differential From the Chicago Quotation for Current

Receipt Eggs, by States and Periods, 1955

Period Illinois Indiana Missouri

(cents per dozen above or below Chicago)

April 18-30 -4.3 -5.6 -4.2

July 25-August 6 -3.1 -5.7 -5.3

October 24-November 5 -1.8 +2.3 -4.1

Average -3.1 -3.0 -4.5

during each of the three periods. The cooperating Ohio firms did not
buy current receipt eggs. The prices paid producers for current
receipt eggs by cooperating dealers were compared with the Chicago
quotation for current receipt eggs.

Variation between states. In each state the dealers' prices to
producers for current receipt eggs averaged below the Chicago quo-
tation for the six- week period studied (Table 8). There was little
variation from state to state. The price extremes occurred in Indiana
and Missouri.

For the complete period of study, Illinois and Indiana producer
prices for current receipt eggs averaged about 3 cents below the Chi-
cago quotation. This discount was slightly larger than that taken for
A Large eggs but smaller than that for A Medium eggs (compare
Tables 6, 7, and 8). Missouri dealers averaged a considerably smaller
discount on current receipt than on A Large eggs.

Seasonal variation. For current receipt eggs, dealers in each
state paid producers a higher price relative to the Chicago quotation
during the fall than during the spring and summer (Table 8). The
seasonal variation in the relationship between producer prices and the
Chicago quotation was greater in Indiana and Illinois than in Missouri.1

The greatest positive or smallest negative spread between country
prices and Chicago quotations during the fall period was not confined
to current receipt eggs only. The same situation occurred for A Large
eggs in Illinois2 and for A Medium eggs in Illinois and Indiana
(Tables 6 and 7). The relative scarcity of eggs during the fall months

1 The seasonal relationship of producer prices to the Chicago quotation for
individual areas in each state is shown in Appendix Table 3.

1 Grade A Large prices in Ohio and Indiana were at their highest point rela-
tive to Chicago during the summer period. It was previously indicated that this
might be due to the influence of the greater increase in the New York nearby than
in the Chicago price from the spring to summer period. Prices of A Large eggs in
both Indiana and Ohio were higher relative to Chicago quotations during the fall
than during the spring.

1963]

CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES

23

increases the competition for producers' eggs. Apparently this com-
petition at country points was not accurately reflected in the Chicago
wholesale market. The result was that country prices were at their
highest point relative to Chicago quotations during the fall period.

Variation within states. The producer price of current receipt
eggs in each area of each state averaged below the Chicago quotation
during the six- week period of study (Fig. 5). Except in southern
Indiana during the fall, the price in each area of each state during all
periods averaged below Chicago (Appendix Table 3). The price paid to
producers in southern Indiana averaged almost 4 cents above Chicago
during the fall period.

The average price of current receipt eggs was quite uniform from
area to area within the states during the six weeks of the study. The
greatest variation occurred in Indiana (1.6 cents), while the least
occurred in Missouri (0.7 cent).

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRODUCER EGG PRICES AND PRICES
REPORTED FROM SEVEN CENTRAL MARKETS

The relationships between producer prices and reported prices in
seven important North Central Region markets are presented in Ap-
pendix Table 4. The data are presented by states and by enumeration
periods for A Large, A Medium, and current receipt eggs. In a study

o-NO PRICES
REPORTED

Average prices that were paid to producers for current receipt eggs as a
differential from the Chicago quotation for current receipt eggs. The prices
(cents per dozen above or below Chicago) are for combined periods of 1955.

(Fig. 5)

24 ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691 ; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

of these relationships, it is important to understand the quality of the
eggs on which prices are reported in the central markets and the
services involved in the transactions. This material is presented in
Appendix Tables 1 and 2.

The discounts and premiums paid to producers relative to various
central market prices do not indicate the market reports with which
producer prices are most closely related. For example, if a dealer's
price to producers averages 8 cents a dozen under the New York
quotation and only 3 cents under the Chicago quotation, it does not
necessarily follow that the producer price is more closely related to
the Chicago than the New York quotation. The dealer may be pricing
his eggs more in line with the New York than the Chicago market,
although applying a greater discount to the New York price. The
additional discount may merely represent the additional costs involved
if the eggs were marketed in New York rather than Chicago.

A better indication of the market reports with which the dealer
price to producers is more closely related would seem to be the uni-
formity of premiums or discounts from period to period throughout
the year. The following analysis is based on the assumption that the
more uniform the spread between the price paid by a dealer and a
central market report from period to period, the more closely the
central market price report reflects producer prices.

It is possible that prices paid by a dealer may be closely tied to
central market price reports and yet not show a uniform seasonal
price spread with respect to any given central market report. This
situation might occur if the dealer changed his pricing base from one
market to another during the year. Such a change might result from
a seasonal change in the importance of various market destinations for
the dealer's eggs. However, such a pricing change would still indicate
that prices reported from any given central market did not "set" the
prices which producers received for their eggs.

Between periods of analysis, the range of fluctuation of each
dealer's price around each central market price was determined. For
example, if a dealer's price to producers for A Large eggs averaged
2 cents below Chicago during the two-week spring period, 3 cents
below during the summer period, and 1 cent above during the fall,
the seasonal range of price fluctuation around the Chicago price
would be 4 cents (3 cents below to 1 cent above). The market report
with which the dealer's price had the smallest range of fluctuation
was assumed to be the best reflector of the dealer's paying price.

To determine the seasonal fluctuation of prices around a central
market price report for a group of dealers in a state or an area of a

1963]

CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES

25

CLEVELAND
CONSUMER

"7"

NEW YORK NEARBY

DETROIT
CONSUMER

\

NEW YORK
MIDWESTERN

CINCINNATI
CONSUMER

ST. LOUIS CONSUMER

APRIL 18-30

JULY25-AUG.6

OCT.24-NOV.5

Price movements for Large eggs in selected central markets during 1955.
Lines indicate the changes between periods of enumeration. (Fig- 6)

state, the average range was used. For example, if the fluctuation
ranges of two dealers were 5 cents and 3 cents, the average for the
two would be 4 cents.

Egg price movements from period to period throughout the year
in one central market were often similar to those in one or more
other markets (Fig. 6). As a result, dealers' seasonal price fluctua-
tions with respect to several price reports were often quite similar.
This similarity, combined with the small sample of dealers in some
cases, often made it impossible to point to one market report as being
significantly better than all other reports as a reflector of dealers'
paying prices in a state or an area of a state. It was often possible,
however, to isolate a group of market reports that was significantly
better than another group in reflecting dealers' paying prices.

In the analysis of relationships between prices paid to producers
and the central market price reports, it was possible to obtain some

26 ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

idea of the limitations of the various central market price reports
in accurately reflecting producer prices in each state. The period of
year was determined in which each dealer paid his highest and his
lowest price relative to each central market price report. If a ma-
jority of the dealers in a state paid their highest price relative to a
certain central market price report during the same period, it would
seem to indicate that the price on that market report was not high
enough during that period to accurately reflect prices paid to producers.
Conversely, if the majority of dealers paid their lowest price relative
to a certain central market price during the same period, it would
appear that the price in that market was too high to accurately reflect
prices paid to producers.

Central market prices most closely related
to producer prices of A Large eggs

Illinois. Most Illinois dealers reported receiving Chicago or St.
Louis price reports. These two markets provided the major outlets
for eggs sold by Illinois dealers. They were also among the better
reflectors of the Illinois dealers' prices to producers for A Large eggs.
The prices paid to producers by 12 of the 14 dealers showed the least
seasonal fluctuation with respect to a St. Louis or Chicago price
report (Table 9). The St. Louis report for the consumer grade of
A Large eggs was better than all other reports in reflecting Illinois
producer prices. The New York nearby quotation was by far the
poorest.1

Prices reported in the St. Louis market not only were good re-
flectors of producer prices of A Large eggs for the state as a whole,
but were also among the better reflectors of northern Illinois prices.
Prices paid by three dealers in the northern area fluctuated least with
respect to a St. Louis report, two dealers with respect to Chicago, and
one dealer with respect to a Cleveland report (Appendix Table 5).
Although the smallest average seasonal fluctuation occurred with re-
spect to the St. Louis consumer grade price report, this report was
not significantly better than the Cleveland wholesale, Pittsburgh whole-
sale, and Chicago reports in reflecting northern Illinois producer
prices of A Large eggs. The New York nearby quotation was the
poorest.

Prices paid by two of the three central Illinois dealers showed the
smallest seasonal fluctuation with respect to the Chicago report. The

1 The difference between the average fluctuation with respect to a given report
and each other report was tested for significance. All statements will use the 10
percent level as the criterion for significance.

1963]

CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES

27

Table 9. — Seasonal Fluctuation of Dealers' Prices to Producers Around

Selected Central Market Price Reports, and Number of Dealers

Having Smallest Fluctuation With Respect to Each Report,

A Large Eggs, by States, 1955"

Market report1"

Average
fluctua-
tion
range

Dealers
having
smallest
fluctua-
tion

Market report1"

Average
fluctua-
tion
range

Dealers
having
smallest
fluctua-
tion

(cents (number)
per dozen)
Illinois

St. Louis consumer 1 .85 4

Cleveland wholesale 2.37 1

Chicago 2.65 4

Pittsburgh wholesale 2 .94

St. Louis wholesale 3 .33 4

Detroit consumer 3.78

New York midwestern 3 . 88 1

Pittsburgh consumer 5 .09

Cleveland consumer 5 .29

Cincinnati wholesale 5.64

Cincinnati consumer 5 .65

Detroit wholesale 5.76

New York nearby 10.41

Missouri

New York midwestern 5 . 44 2

Chicago 6.43 1

Detroit consumer 6.66

Pittsburgh consumer 6. 75

Detroit wholesale 7 . 40

St. Louis consumer 8.09

Cleveland wholesale 8.25

Pittsburgh wholesale 8 .44

Cincinnati wholesale 9.29

Cleveland consumer 9.47

St. Louis wholesale 1 1 . 04

Cincinnati consumer 1 1 .42

New York nearby 13 . 58

(cents (number)
per dozen)
Indiana

Pittsburgh wholesale 3 . 99 1

Cleveland wholesale 4.07 ...

Chicago 4.16 2

Detroit consumer 4.16 1

New York midwestern .... 4 .60

Cleveland consumer 4.62 ...

Cincinnati wholesale 4 . 62

Pittsburgh consumer 4.88 ...

St. Louis consumer 4.92

Detroit wholesale 5.04

Cincinnati consumer 5.32 1

St. Louis wholesale 6.69 ...

New York nearby 6.71 1

Ohio

Cincinnati wholesale 2 .62 ...

Cleveland consumer 2.72 2

New York nearby 3 .22 2

Cincinnati consumer 4.11

Detroit wholesale 4 .36 ...

Pittsburgh consumer 5.01 ...

Pittsburgh wholesale 5.12

Detroit consumer 5.62

Cleveland wholesale 5 . 79

New York midwestern 6.17 ...

Chicago 6.86

St. Louis consumer 7 . 19 ...

St. Louis wholesale 8 .91

• For method of computation, see pages 24 and 25.

b For a more detailed description of central market prices with which producer prices were
compared, see Appendix Table 1.

smallest average fluctuation occurred with respect to this report (Ap-
pendix Table 5). However, the Chicago report was not significantly
better than the New York midwestern, St. Louis consumer, and
Cleveland wholesale price reports in reflecting the central Illinois
producer prices of A Large eggs. The New York nearby quotation
was the poorest.

The influence of the St. Louis market on producer prices of A
Large eggs was evident in the southern area of Illinois. Prices paid
by all dealers in this area showed the smallest seasonal fluctuation
with respect to a St. Louis report (Appendix Table 5). The St. Louis
consumer grade price report was not significantly better than the St.
Louis wholesale grade report in reflecting producer prices in this area.
However, it was significantly better than the remainder of the reports
studied. The New York nearby quotation again was the poorest.

Indiana. No single report or group of reports was better than
any others in reflecting the Indiana producer prices of A Large eggs.

28 ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691 ; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

Prices paid by the six firms that purchased A Large eggs from
producers during each period of analysis showed the least seasonal
fluctuation with respect to five different central market price reports
(Table 9). The average fluctuation was quite uniform with respect
to the various reports analyzed. Fluctuation with respect to the Pitts-
burgh wholesale price report was not even significantly smaller than
that with respect to the New York nearby report.

The Indiana dealers were shipping eggs to several different markets
in several different states. They reported receiving price reports
from Chicago, New York, and other markets located between these
two. Their prices to producers appeared to be influenced by prices
reported in several of the central markets. Prices reported in no
individual market were significantly better than those reported in most
other markets in reflecting prices paid to producers for A Large eggs.

The situation was similar in individual areas of the state (Appendix
Table 6). Wide differences in producer to central market price rela-
tionships between dealers in an area, combined with the small sample
of dealers, made it impossible to point to any report as being signifi-
cantly better than most others in reflecting producer prices. Only in
central Indiana was the indicated best reflector (Chicago) significantly
better than the indicated poorest reflector (New York nearby).

Missouri. Only three of the cooperating Missouri dealers pur-
chased A Large eggs from producers during each period of analysis.
Prices paid to producers by these dealers showed little uniformity
in seasonal relationship with any of the price reports studied. The
prices paid by two of the dealers fluctuated least with respect to the
New York midwestern report, while prices paid by the other dealer
fluctuated least with respect to Chicago (Table 9). Average seasonal
fluctuation was not significantly less with respect to the New York
midwestern report than to the Chicago, Detroit consumer, St. Louis
consumer, and Cleveland wholesale price reports. The New York
nearby price report was not significantly poorer than the Cincinnati
consumer and St. Louis wholesale reports in reflecting producer
prices of A Large eggs in Missouri.

Data were not sufficient to analyze area-to-area differences in the
reports most closely reflecting producer prices. Firms showing least
fluctuation with respect to the New York midwestern report were
located in northern and eastern Missouri, while the one showing the
least with respect to the Chicago report was located in the western area.
All firms showed the greatest fluctuation with respect to the New York
nearby quotation.

1963] CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES 29

Ohio. Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh supplied
the major outlets for eggs purchased by the Ohio dealers cooperating
in this study. Most dealers also indicated that they observed price
movements in the New York market in making pricing decisions. Only
one dealer reported interest in Chicago prices, while none reported
interest in those from St. Louis. With this background, it was not
surprising to find that prices reported in the eastern markets were
better than Chicago and St. Louis reports in reflecting producer prices
of A Large eggs in Ohio (Table 9).

The average seasonal fluctuation of Ohio dealers' prices with re-
spect to the Cincinnati wholesale and Cleveland consumer price reports
was not significantly less than that with respect to the New York
nearby report. However, these two reports were significantly better
than the remainder of the reports studied in reflecting Ohio producer
prices of A Large eggs. The St. Louis and Chicago reports were the
poorest.

There were only small differences between northern and southern
Ohio with respect to the reports most closely reflecting producer prices
(Appendix Table 8). In both areas the Cincinnati wholesale, Cleve-
land consumer, and New York nearby price reports were among the
four best indicators. However, the small sample of dealers in each
area limited the reliability that can be placed on the analysis. Even
with the small sample, the Cincinnati wholesale, New York nearby,
and Cleveland consumer price reports were significantly better than
the St. Louis and Chicago price reports in reflecting producer prices
in northern Ohio. In the southern area, the St. Louis, Chicago, and
New York midwestern reports were significantly poorer than the
others.

Limitations of various reports in reflecting
producer prices of A Large eggs

Illinois. The Chicago quotation was not high enough during
the fall to accurately reflect Illinois producer prices of A Large eggs.
In fact, 12 of the 14 Illinois dealers paid their highest prices relative
to Chicago during the fall period (Table 10). The fall season is the
period of shortest egg supplies. Country dealers bid strongly against
each other in attempting to obtain a sufficient quantity of eggs to fill
their orders. Apparently the Chicago quotation did not rise enough
during the fall to reflect existing supply-and-demand conditions at
country points in Illinois.

30

ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

reatest discount
mallest premium

Number
iodb of
dealers

U IN U. Uc U

4> O O O O

.S.EC— — .cpp-~pdcp

u

o>

bflboe bobobobflbobobobobo
CPg CPPCCPCCP

st discount G
2st premium or s

Number
of Per
dealers

1

1 MB><nfetOBltou)B)^"1M

i

H
X

1

V

-S.C .0
*~2 bo *O

c IS .2

C C bO bO bO bO bO
S ""SzPG CCC

EE EEEEEEEEEE

0,

<

B C

*!*«ssasissa

E= EEEEEEESES

33 "33333333333

V

I"

3*2 ^ o)

R E *S

rere compa

.2 cL 3 ^

4-1
U? 0)

p
|

h

lallest discount Create
lighest premium or smal!

Number
odb of Periodb
dealers

WEE ^EEEEEEEE
w gEE^gSEEEEEES

o XMMMM

bo bO
C 4) <U 0) C <U

0) o) o) o) o)
E E E E E

o fc d< to b b b co en fc co tt, fc co

CO

bObObObObObObObObObObObObo
CCBPPPCCCCCCC

la

V

g

•o
o
1-1

o.

1

1

.S

'?

in

V
0.

W * A*"

O OH

^^^c&cg-^^cg-

v .

JJOV
(Q v

6Sf

— o.

S V

S w

U-. o

G'*J

- u

§c

f- :::::::::::::

0.3

L

F

o
o,

0)

. c ..*....*'.

•8 =

«

3

la

rt
S

^* ^C^C^^SS*!)^

|

<a o^^i-Ji-J>>^3j2'G'Oj2^2

1

rt U U. tT; tfi "^ *^ j£ Q "M t^ ^ ^

"o lc <u <y • • ^j JH o <u.S.S "^ "*"*
£-H ^ ^ ^ (/) ^ Q^ ^ Q Q ^ ^) p^ o^

_u g

rt 41

is.

T3^,

u^

o£

^
«£

u u

o o

fcCn

a A

1963] CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES 31

The St. Louis report on consumer Grade A Large eggs did not
have any obvious limitations in reflecting Illinois producer prices.
Dealers were fairly evenly divided with regard to the period of the
year in which they paid their highest and lowest price relative to this
report. The St. Louis wholesale grade price report appeared to be
too high in the fall and too low in the spring to accurately reflect
Illinois producer prices.

The New York nearby price rose well above Chicago and St. Louis
prices during the summer period (see Fig. 6). Prices in the smaller
eastern markets also rose relative to Chicago and St. Louis during this
period. Prices paid for A Large eggs by Illinois dealers did not
respond to the large summer price increases in the eastern markets.
As a result, egg prices in New York and other markets east of Chi-
cago were too high during the summer to accurately reflect Illinois
producer prices.

Indiana. Prices paid to Indiana producers for A Large eggs
tended to increase in response to increases in the eastern markets
during the summer period. As a result, prices reported in Chicago
and St. Louis were too low during the summer to accurately reflect
producer prices of A Large eggs in Indiana. Most of the dealers paid
their highest prices relative to these reports during the summer
(Table 10).

Even though Indiana prices rose relative to Chicago and St. Louis
prices during the summer months, the increase was not proportionate
to that in the New York nearby report as well as in the reports from
many of the other eastern markets. The majority of dealers paid their
lowest prices relative to those reported in many of the eastern markets
during the summer. The fact that the summer increase in Indiana
producer prices was greater than in Chicago but less than in most
eastern markets is additional evidence that Indiana producer prices
were a composite of prices reported in Chicago and the eastern
markets.

Missouri. Prices reported in each central market appeared to be
too low during the spring to accurately reflect producer prices of A
Large eggs in Missouri. All dealers paid their highest prices relative
to each report during the spring period (Table 10). The egg-breaking
industry may have helped to create this situation. Breakers provide
an important outlet for Missouri eggs, and the spring enumeration
occurred during the peak of the breaking season.

During the spring, egg breakers bid the price of current receipt
eggs in Missouri up near the Grade A Large price. Many producers

32 ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

tended to shift from graded to current receipt markets as the spread
between A Large and current receipt prices narrowed. This shift
tended to force graded buyers to increase prices of A Large eggs in
the attempt to maintain a sufficient quantity of eggs to supply their
established outlets. This competition for breaking and shell eggs
during the spring period could have raised prices to a seasonal peak
relative to prices reported in the central markets.

In addition to being too low in the spring, both St. Louis price
reports were too high in the fall to accurately reflect Missouri pro-
ducer prices of A Large eggs.

Ohio. Prices reported in most central markets were too low
during the summer to accurately reflect producer prices of A Large
eggs in Ohio. Most dealers paid their highest prices relative to most
central market price reports during the summer period (Table 10).
The only exception was the New York nearby quotation. New York
nearby prices rose to their peak above prices reported in other central
markets during the summer period. The relatively high nearby prices
apparently exerted an upward pressure on Ohio producer prices, forc-
ing them above their normal relationship to prices in other central
markets. Yet prices reported in these other central markets tempered
the effect of the nearby price increase on Ohio producer prices, since
all dealers paid their lowest prices relative to the nearby quotation
during the summer. It appears that Ohio producer prices were a
composite of New York nearby prices and those reported in other
eastern markets.

In addition to being too low during the summer, prices in the
majority of reports were too high during the spring to accurately
reflect Ohio producer prices of A Large eggs (Table 10).

Central market prices most closely related
to producer prices of A Medium eggs

Illinois. In pricing A Medium eggs, the 14 Illinois dealers
showed the smallest seasonal fluctuation with respect to five different
central market price reports. As was true for A Large eggs, Chicago
and St. Louis price reports were among the better reflectors. Prices
paid by 10 dealers showed the smallest seasonal fluctuation with re-
spect to Chicago or St. Louis reports (Table 11).

Because of the differences in producer to central market price rela-
tionships between dealers, it was not possible to select one report as
being significantly better than all others in reflecting Illinois producer
prices of A Medium eggs. The Chicago report was not significantly

1963} CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES 33

Table 11. — Seasonal Fluctuation of Dealers' Prices to Producers

Around Selected Central Market Price Reports, and Number

of Dealers Having Smallest Fluctuation With Respect to

Each Report, A Medium Eggs, by States, 1955*

Market report6

Average
fluctuation
range

Dealers
having smallest
fluctuation

(cents per dozen) (number)

Illinois

Chicago 4.03 6

Detroit consumer 4.17 2

Pittsburgh wholesale 4.58

New York midwestern 4 . 63 1

Pittsburgh consumer 4. 85 1

Cleveland consumer 5 . 13

St. Louis wholesale 5.17 4

St. Louis consumer 5.27

Cincinnati consumer 6.09 ...

Detroit wholesale 6. 26

New York nearby 6 . 49 ...

Indiana

Pittsburgh consumer 4.95 ...

Cleveland consumer 5 . 14 ...

St. Louis wholesale 5 . 19 2

St. Louis consumer 5 . 19

Detroit consumer 5 .36 1

Cincinnati consumer 5.45 1

Chicago 5.76 ...

Pittsburgh wholesale 5 . 97 ...

New York midwestern 6.51 ...

New York nearby 7 . 35 1

Detroit wholesale 7.40

Ohio

Cleveland consumer 2 . 97

Cincinnati consumer 3 . 26 1

Pittsburgh wholesale 3 . 39

Detroit consumer 3 . 47 ...

Pittsburgh consumer 3 . 59 ...

Chicago 3.90

New York nearby 3 . 92 1

Detroit wholesale 4.17 1

St. Louis consumer 4.46 1

New York midwestern 4.51 ...

St. Louis wholesale 4.96 ...

• For method of computation, see pages 24 and 25.

b For a more detailed description of central market prices with which producer prices were
compared, see Appendix Table 1.

34 ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

better than the Detroit consumer, Pittsburgh consumer, and both St.
Louis reports. The New York nearby report was not significantly
poorer than the Cincinnati consumer and St. Louis price reports. This
lack of conclusiveness can be traced to major differences in producer
to central market price relationships between areas of the state.

Unlike the situation for A Large eggs, the Chicago price report was
a good reflector of producer prices of A Medium eggs in the northern
area of Illinois, while the St. Louis reports were among the poorest.
Five of the six northern dealers showed the smallest fluctuation with
respect to the Chicago report (Appendix Table 5). This report was
not significantly better than the Detroit consumer report in reflecting
producer prices but was significantly better than the remainder of the
reports studied. The two St. Louis reports and the Cincinnati con-
sumer report were the poorest.

Prices paid for A Medium eggs by the three central Illinois dealers
showed the smallest fluctuation with respect to three different price
reports (Appendix Table 5). Although the smallest average seasonal
fluctuation occurred with respect to the Chicago report, this report was
not significantly better than the New York midwestern, Detroit con-
sumer, and Pittsburgh consumer reports in reflecting producer prices
in this area of the state. It was also impossible to pick out any indi-
vidual report as being significantly poorer than all others.

As was true for A Large eggs, the St. Louis reports were among
the better reflectors of producer prices of A Medium eggs in the south-
ern area of Illinois. Prices paid by four of the five dealers showed the
smallest seasonal fluctuation with respect to the St. Louis wholesale
price report (Appendix Table 5). This report was not significantly
better than the St. Louis consumer and Pittsburgh consumer reports in
reflecting producer prices. However, these three reports were signifi-
cantly better than all others analyzed. The New York nearby and
Detroit wholesale price reports were the poorest.

Indiana. As was true for A Large eggs, none of the market re-
ports studied was better than others in reflecting the Indiana producer
prices of A Medium eggs. Prices paid by the five cooperating firms
showed the least seasonal fluctuation with respect to four different
central market price reports (Table 11). Most reports were poorer
reflectors of the Indiana price of A Medium than A Large eggs. The
average fluctuation was quite uniform with respect to the various re-
ports studied. Fluctuation with respect to the Pittsburgh consumer
report, the indicated best reflector, was not significantly smaller than
the fluctuation with respect to any other report.

1963] CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES 35

A similar situation occurred in individual areas of the state (Ap-
pendix Table 6) . Wide differences in producer to central market price
relationships between dealers in an area, combined with the small
sample of dealers, make it impossible to pick out any report as being
significantly better than others in reflecting producer prices.

Ohio. In pricing A Medium eggs, each of the Ohio dealers
showed the smallest seasonal fluctuation with respect to a different
central market price report (Table 11). Average fluctuation was quite
uniform with respect to the various reports studied. This factor, com-
bined with large differences in producer to central market price rela-
tionships between dealers, made it impossible to select any report that
was significantly better than others in reflecting Ohio producer prices.
In fact, the Cleveland consumer report was not even significantly better
than the St. Louis wholesale report.

The inconclusiveness of the analysis for the state as a whole can be
traced partly to differences in producer and central market price rela-
tionships between the northern and southern areas of the state. Even
with a smaller sample of dealers, it was possible to make more definite
statements about price relationships in the individual areas than in the
state as a whole.

In northern Ohio, the New York nearby and most of the other re-
ports were significantly better than the St. Louis reports in reflecting
producer prices (Appendix Table 8). In southern Ohio, the average
seasonal fluctuation with respect to the Cincinnati consumer grade
price report was not significantly less than that with respect to the
Cleveland consumer, Pittsburgh consumer, and St. Louis reports.
However, the Cincinnati consumer report was significantly better than
the remainder of the reports studied in reflecting the producer price of
A Medium eggs in this area of the state.

Limitations of various reports in reflecting
producer prices of A Medium eggs

Illinois. The Chicago quotation appeared to have the fewest
limitations in accurately reflecting Illinois producer prices of A Me-
dium eggs. It would have been a more accurate reflector if it had been
higher in the fall. A majority of the dealers paid their highest prices
relative to the Chicago quotation during the fall (Table 12).

The St. Louis reports were too low in the spring and too high in
the fall to accurately reflect producer prices. Both New York reports
were too low in the fall and too high in the summer.

36

ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

Table 12. — Enumeration Period During Which More Than Half the

Cooperating Dealers Paid Their Highest and Lowest Prices

to Producers, Relative to Selected Central Market Price

Reports, A Medium Eggs, by States, 1955

Market report*

Smallest discount
or highest premium

Number
Periodb of

dealers

Greatest discount
or smallest premium

Number
Periodb of

dealers

Illinois

Total dealers 14 14

Chicago Fall 8 None

New York midwestern Fall 13 Summer 9

New York nearby Fall 13 Summer 14

St. Louis wholesale Spring 9 Fall 10

St. Louis consumer Spring 10 Fall 11

Cleveland consumer Spring 9 Summer 8

Detroit wholesale Fall 13 Summer 13

Detroit consumer None . . . Summer 8

Cincinnati consumer Spring 10 Summer 8

Pittsburgh wholesale Fall 8 Summer 13

Pittsburgh consumer Spring 9 Fall 10

Indiana

Total dealers 5 5

Chicago Fall 4 Summer 3

New York midwestern Fall 4 Summer 3

New York nearby Fall 4 Summer 3

St. Louis wholesale None . . . None

St. Louis consumer None . . . None

Cleveland consumer None . . . Summer 3

Detroit wholesale Fall 4 Summer 3

Detroit consumer Fall 4 Summer 3

Cincinnati consumer Spring 3 Summer 3

Pittsburgh wholesale Fall 4 Summer 3

Pittsburgh consumer None . . . None

Ohio

Total dealers 4 4

Chicago None . . . Spring 3

New York midwestern None . . . Spring 4

New York nearby Fall 4 Spring 3

St. Louis wholesale Summer 4 None

St. Louis consumer Summer 4 None

Cleveland consumer None . . . None

Detroit wholesale Fall 4 Spring 4

Detroit consumer Summer 3 None

Cincinnati consumer None . . . None

Pittsburgh wholesale None . . . Spring 3

Pittsburgh consumer None . . . None

• For a more detailed description of central market prices with which producer prices were
compared, see Appendix Table 1.

b For the exact periods of enumeration, see page 9.

1963] CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES 37

Indiana. The St. Louis price reports and the Pittsburgh con-
sumer report had the fewest limitations in reflecting Indiana producer
prices of A Medium eggs (Table 12). The dealers were quite evenly
divided with respect to the season of the year in which they paid their
highest and lowest prices relative to these reports. For most other
reports, prices appeared to be too low in the fall or too high in the
summer to accurately reflect producer prices.

Ohio. Unlike the situation for A Large eggs, various central
market price reports differed in their limitations in reflecting Ohio
producer prices of A Medium eggs (Table 12). The St. Louis reports
were too low in the summer, while the New York nearby and Detroit
wholesale reports were too low in the fall. Several, including those
from Chicago and New York, appeared to be too high during the
spring.

Central market prices most closely related
to producer prices of current receipt eggs

Illinois. Only three of the seven central markets studied re-
ported a price for current receipt eggs (or a comparable grade) during
each period in which pricing data were collected. These three markets
were Chicago, St. Louis, and Cincinnati.

Five of the cooperating Illinois dealers purchased current receipt
eggs from producers during each period of analysis. Prices paid to
producers by three of these dealers fluctuated least with respect to the
Cincinnati price report (Table 13). However, the average seasonal
fluctuation with respect to the Cincinnati report was not significantly
less than the fluctuation with respect to each of the other two markets.

The analysis of current receipt eggs for individual areas of the state
is presented in Appendix Table 5. No report was significantly better
than the others in reflecting producer prices in any area.

Indiana. Only three of the cooperating Indiana dealers pur-
chased current receipt eggs from producers during each period of
analysis. Seasonally the prices paid producers by each of these dealers
fluctuated least with respect to the St. Louis price report (Table 13).
Although quite large, the average fluctuation with respect to the St.
Louis report was significantly smaller than with the other reports. The
Chicago report was the poorest reflector of Indiana producer prices.

Only in southern Indiana did more than one cooperating firm pur-
chase current receipt eggs from producers during each period of anal-

38 ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

Table 13. — Seasonal Fluctuation of Dealers' Prices to Producers Around

Selected Central Market Price Reports, and Number of Dealers

Having Smallest Fluctuation With Respect to Each Report,

Current Receipt Eggs, by States, 1955'

Average Dealers

Market reportb fluctuation having smallest

range fluctuation

(cents per dozen) (number)
Illinois

Cincinnati 2.86 3

Chicago 3.33 1

St. Louis 3.72 1

Indiana

St. Louis 4.43 3

Cincinnati 7.38 ...

Chicago 8.26

Missouri

Chicago 3 . 22 10

Cincinnati 3.58 1

St. Louis 4.39 6

• For method of computation, see pages 24 and 25.

b For a more detailed description of central market prices with which producer prices were
compared, see Appendix Table 2.

ysis. In this area the St. Louis price was significantly better than either
of the others in reflecting producer prices (Appendix Table 6). The
Chicago report was not significantly poorer than the Cincinnati report.

Missouri. Seventeen of the cooperating Missouri dealers pur-
chased current receipt eggs from producers during each period of
analysis. Prices paid by 16 of the dealers showed the smallest seasonal
fluctuation with respect to the Chicago or St. Louis price reports
(Table 13). The average fluctuation with respect to the Chicago report
was not significantly smaller than that with respect to the other two
markets. However, significant differences were found within individual
areas of the state.

In northern Missouri, prices paid for current receipt eggs by five
of the six cooperating dealers showed the least seasonal fluctuation
with respect to the Chicago report (Appendix Table 7). The Chicago
report was significantly better than each of the other reports in reflect-
ing producer prices in this area of the state. The St. Louis report was
the poorest.

Prices of five of the six cooperating dealers in western Missouri
fluctuated least with respect to the Chicago report (Appendix Table 7).
The average seasonal fluctuation with respect to Chicago was not sig-
nificantly different from that with respect to Cincinnati. However,

1963]

CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES

39

both reports were significantly better than the St. Louis report in
reflecting producer prices in this area of the state.

In eastern Missouri, the area nearest the St. Louis market, prices
paid by all cooperating dealers showed the smallest seasonal fluctuation
with respect to the St. Louis report (Appendix Table 7). This report
was significantly better than the others in reflecting the producer prices
of current receipt eggs in this area. The Chicago report was the
poorest.

Limitations of various reports in reflecting
producer prices of current receipt eggs

Illinois. The St. Louis price for current receipt eggs appeared
to be too low during the summer and too high during the fall to
accurately reflect Illinois producer prices. A majority of the dealers
paid their highest prices during the summer and lowest prices during
the fall relative to the St. Louis report (Table 14). There was some
indication that Chicago prices were too low in the fall and too high
in the summer to accurately reflect producer prices.

Table 14. — Enumeration Period During Which More Than Half the

Cooperating Dealers Paid Their Highest and Lowest Prices to

Producers Relative to Selected Central Market Price

Reports, Current Receipt Eggs, by States, 1955

Market report"

Smallest discount
or highest premium

Number
Period15 of

dealers

Greatest discount
or smallest premium

Number
Periodb of

dealers

Illinois

Total dealers

5

5

Chicago

Fall

3

Summer

3

St. Louis

Summer

4

Fall

4

Cincinnati

None

Summer

3

Indiana

Total dealers

3

3

Chicago

Fall

3

Spring

2

St. Louis

Fall

3

Spring

3

Cincinnati

Fall

3

Summer

3

Missouri

Total dealers

17

17

Chicago

Spring

9

Summer

9

St. Louis

Spring

9

Fall

15

Cincinnati

Spring

10

None

» For a more detailed description of central market prices with which producer prices were
compared, see Appendix Table 2.

bFor the exact periods of enumeration, see page 9.

40 ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

Indiana. Each of the three central market reports for current
receipt eggs was too low in the fall to accurately reflect Indiana pro-
ducer prices. All dealers paid their highest prices relative to each
report during the fall period (Table 14). Again this situation may
logically be traced to the seasonally short supply of eggs during the
fall period. Because of the cooler weather, a relatively high proportion
of current receipt eggs are of Grade A quality. These factors may
cause country dealers in Indiana to bid up the price of current receipt
eggs in the fall. Prices reported in the central markets did not rise
enough during this period to reflect existing supply-and-demand condi-
tions at country points in Indiana.

In addition to being too low during the fall, the St. Louis price
appeared to be too high in the spring and the Cincinnati price too high
in the summer to accurately reflect producer prices.

Missouri. All reports would have been better reflectors of pro-
ducer prices of current receipt eggs in Missouri if they had been higher
during the spring. More than half of the dealers paid their highest
prices relative to each report during this period (Table 14). Again,
this was probably at least partly due to the seasonally heavy demand
for eggs for breaking purposes, which bolstered producer prices rela-
tive to central market reports.

In addition, the St. Louis price report was too high during the fall
to accurately reflect Missouri producer prices. Fifteen of the 17 dealers
paid their lowest prices relative to this report during the fall period of
study. The Chicago report appeared to be too high during the summer.

SHORT-TIME PRICE MOVEMENTS AT COUNTRY POINTS
AND CENTRAL MARKETS

Price movements over two-week periods

During each of the two-week periods studied, prices reported in
most central markets moved in the same direction. A different move-
ment occurred during each period. During the spring, prices moved
downward. In the summer, they moved upward rather rapidly. Dur-
ing the fall they tended to increase slightly during the first week and
then drop during the second week. Prices at country points were com-
pared with those in central markets during each of these three periods
to determine whether they moved in the same direction and in equal
amounts.

For both A Large and A Medium eggs, price changes made by
country dealers during each two-week period were arranged into classes
with two-cent intervals. Changes reported in the central markets were

1963]

CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES

41

z

c

GRADE A LARGE

EGGS GRADE A MEDIUM EGGS

i

m

° 15

APRIL 18 TO APRIL 30

— |

^DEALERS

15

R 10
fi 5

' ^-F

A

..

=

p

.REPORTS

Q

10
5

i

° 15

-

JULY 25 TO AUGUST 6

-

15

3 10

-

-

10

> ^

-

f— 1

— -p*

"]_,

ppP--.p1 '

5

m 25

_

-

25

1 20

_

OCTOBER 24 TO NOVEMBER 5

_

20

T>

2 15

-

-

15

m 10

P n

-

-\

I ' l

r-J

H

/ \

^ -

10

in

i i i

1

i i i i i i i i i i i

I I I J^ Q 4- * + *• +

QD^-^.-Orsj^OQD

bbboo^^^i-u.

S33333333S
ii i i **«•* —
jNP1?*' — ro * <j) oo *

<5<o<o<o«>oopoo
£ m

i

po

g P N ^ 2 p»

PRICE CHANGE (CENTS PER DOZEN)

Price changes made by country dealers and central market price reports over
three two-week periods during 1955. Bars indicate the number of dealers in
combined states and lines the number of central market price reports.

(Fig. 7)

treated in the same manner. In most instances, a distinct modal (most
typical) price movement resulted for both country dealers and central
market price reports (Fig. 7). Furthermore, the modal price change
was the same at country points as in central markets. Over each of the
two-week periods, prices paid to producers tended to move in the
same direction and by approximately equal amounts as prices reported
in the central markets.

Also, the more uniform the price changes occurring among the
central market price reports over the two-week period, the more uni-
form the price changes occurring at country points. For example, for
A Medium eggs during the fall, 10 of the 13 central market price
reports (77 percent) showed a price movement of zero to minus 1.9
cents a dozen over the two-week period. During the same period, 26
of the 42 country dealers (62 percent) showed the same price move-

42 ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

ment. In contrast, price movements of A Large eggs were less uni-
form among central markets during the summer. Seven of the 13
reports (54 percent) showed the most typical price movement, an
increase of 4.1 to 6.0 cents a dozen. During the same period, 16 of the
32 country dealers (50 percent) showed the same price increase. Less
uniformity in price movements among central markets resulted in less
uniformity among country dealers.

What happens to egg price movements at country points when price
movements vary widely among central markets was evidenced in
A Medium eggs during the two-week summer period. There was no
one predominant movement in the central markets (Fig. 7). On indi-
vidual reports, changes ranged from an increase of one-half cent to
8 cents. These diverse movements in the central markets caused a
similarly diverse movement at country points (Fig. 7). Changes made
by individual country dealers ranged from a decrease of 4 cents to an
increase of 10 cents.

It was possible that the price change made by a country dealer
over a two-week period may have been influenced not only by price
changes in the central markets, but also by the price he paid at the
beginning of the period relative to prices paid by surrounding dealers.
To determine this effect, if any, the dealers were divided into two
groups according to whether they paid above or below the average of
all cooperating dealers in the state on the first day of the two-week
period. Average price changes made by the two groups over the two-
week periods were compared. The analysis was made for A Large
eggs for each two-week period (Table 15). On a declining market, the
average decrease was greater for dealers paying above-average prices
on the first day than for dealers paying below-average prices. On a
rising market, the average increase was less for dealers paying above-
average prices on the first day than for those paying below-average
prices. Some of the variation in price changes among dealers over the
two-week period can be traced to their relative price position at the
beginning of the period.

As indicated in Fig. 7, egg prices did not change by equal amounts
in all central markets during each two-week period. The changes were
so nearly equal on many reports that it was impossible to associate
those in any state with those in any individual central market report.
However, comparisons of average price changes for A Large eggs in
each state and on each central market price report indicate that certain
reports may have influenced country dealers in one state more than in
another.

During the two-week spring period, the decline in the Ohio price

1963]

CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES

43

Table 15. — Comparison of Price Changes Made Over Two- Week Periods

by Dealers Paying Above and Below State Average Prices on the First

Day of the Period, A Large Eggs for Combined States, 1955

Dealers paying above
state average

Dealers paying below
state average

Period

Number

Av. price
change
(cents
per dozen)

Number

Av. price
change
(cents
per dozen)

April 18-April 30

, 14

-3.1
+4.4
-1.4

12
16
18

-1.6
+5.9
0

July 25-August 6

16

October 24— November 5

27

Table 16. — Price Changes Made for A Large Eggs by Country Dealers

and Central Market Price Reports Over Three

Two-Week Periods, by States, 1955

April 18 to April 30

July 25 to August 6

October 24 to November 5

Central market
price report* and
country dealers
P

change.

Central market
price report* and
country dealers
[

change.

Central market
price report* and
country dealers

plrlEn

Cleveland consumer. . .
Cincinnati consumer. . .

0.0
-2.0
-2.1
-2.2
-2.5
-2.5
-2.8
-2.8
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
-3.8
-3.9
-4.0
-4.3
-6.0

New York nearby. .
Detroit consumer. . .
Ohio dealers

+8.5
+8.0
+ 7.3
+6.0
+ 5.3
+5.0
+5.0
+5.0
+ 4.9
+ 4.8
+4.8
+ 4.5
+4.5
+ 4.0
+ 3.5
+ 3.0
+ 2.5

St. Louis wholesale .
St. Louis consumer.
Cleveland consumer.
Cincinnati consumer
Pittsburgh consumer

+ 1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.1
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-1.0
-1.0
-1.5
-1.8
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
-3.8

Illinois dealers

Cleveland consumer .
Detroit wholesale. . .
St. Louis wholesale. .
Pittsburgh wholesale .
Pittsburgh consumer .
Illinois dealers
Indiana dealers

New York midwestern
St. Louis consumer ....
St. Louis wholesale ....
Cincinnati wholesale . . .
Missouri dealers

Ohio dealers

Indiana dealers

Cincinnati wholesale . . .
Cleveland wholesale . .
Pittsburgh wholesale .
Detroit wholesale ....
Illinois dealers

Chicago

Pittsburgh wholesale . .
Pittsburgh consumer. .
Detroit consumer
Ohio dealers
Detroit wholesale
Cleveland wholesale . . .
New York nearby

Cleveland wholesale. . .
Missouri dealers

Cincinnati wholesale . .
New York midwestern
Cincinnati consumer . .
St. Louis consumer . . .

New York nearby. . . .
New York midwestern
Detroit consumer

• For a more detailed description of central market prices with which producer prices were com-
pared, see Appendix Table 1.

of A Large eggs averaged almost 4 cents a dozen, while declines in
the other states averaged 3 cents or less (Table 16). Ohio dealers may
have been more strongly influenced than others by the relatively large
declines on the New York nearby, Detroit, and one of the Cleveland
price reports. During the summer period, Ohio producer prices in-
creased more than 7 cents a dozen, while average increases in other
states were less than 5 cents (Table 16). Again, the Ohio price increase
was more comparable with increases in the New York nearby, Detroit,
and one of the Cleveland price reports than increases occurring in other
markets. However, during the fall period, Ohio, Indiana and Missouri
prices changed very little, while the New York nearby and Detroit
prices showed sizable declines.

44

ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

PRICE MOVEMENT (CENTS PER DOZEN)

APRIL 18 TO APRIL 30

0
-I
-2
-3

+5
+4
+3
+2

-I

+1

0

-I

-2

«*^ ._ 28 COUNTRY BUYERS

13 CENTRAL MARKET^
PRICE REPORTS

JULY 25 TO AUGUST 6

13 CENTRAL MARKET
PRICE REPORTS

29 COUNTRY BUYERS

13 CENTRAL MARKET
PRICE REPORTS

43 COUNTRY BUYERS

M

W

F S M T
DAY OF WEEK

W

A comparison of average daily price changes made by country dealers and
central market price reports over three two-week periods, for A Large eggs,
in combined states, during 1955. (Fig. 8)

1963] CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES 45

The greatest diversity in egg price movements between Chicago
and St. Louis occurred during the fall. Over this two-week period, the
St. Louis price of consumer grade A Large eggs did not change, while
the price of the wholesale grade increased 1.5 cents a dozen (Table 16).
During the same period, the Chicago price declined 2.0 cents. This
difference in the two markets was reflected in differences within Illi-
nois. Dealers in the southern area increased prices of A Large eggs
an average of 1 cent a dozen in apparent response to the increase in
St. Louis. Northern and central Illinois dealers reduced prices an
average of 3.2 cents in apparent response to the decline in Chicago.

Day-to-day price movements

The previous analysis indicated that short-time price changes were
not equal in all central market price reports. Also, price changes in
certain central markets may have a greater influence on country dealers
in one state than in another. However, to reduce space, average daily
price changes on the 13 central market price reports used in the study
were compared with average daily changes made by cooperating dealers
in the four states. The price on the first day of each two-week period
in the central markets and at country points was set equal to zero.
Average price changes from this day were determined on a daily basis
over the two-week period. The analysis for A Large eggs for each of
the three periods is presented in Fig. 8.

During each of the periods of analysis, average daily price move-
ments at country points were similar to average daily movements made
on the 13 central market price reports (Fig. 8). On only four days
during the six weeks did the spread exceed one-half cent. The greater
spread during the second week of the spring period can be traced to
rapid declines in the New York nearby, Detroit, and Cleveland con-
sumer price reports. As indicated in Table 16, the declines in these
reports had little effect on dealers in Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri.

During the fall period, average prices in the central markets rose
during the first week, while average prices paid by country dealers
showed little change (Fig. 8). However, only six of the central market
price reports showed price increases during this week. Six price re-
ports remained stable, while the Chicago price showed a slight decline.
Country dealers were apparently hesitant about increasing prices when
there appeared to be some confusion among central market price re-
ports regarding the direction and extent of movements. However,
during the second week of this period, 10 of the 13 central market
reports showed net price declines, and average prices paid by country
dealers also declined.

46 ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The decline of the central wholesale egg markets has created con-
cern over the existing pricing system for eggs. The egg industry is at
present disturbed because the use of price reports from wholesale
markets appears to be altering egg prices from those which should
prevail under existing supply-and-demand conditions. This concern is
not warranted unless prices paid for eggs at country points are tied to
prices reported from the central markets. This report therefore deals
with the relationship between prices reported in important central
markets and prices paid producers for eggs in selected North Central
states.

Pricing information was obtained from 69 country dealers in Illi-
nois, Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio. Prices paid producers were obtained
on a daily basis for three two-week periods during 1955. Central
market prices were obtained from governmental or private reports
issued from Chicago, New York, St. Louis, Cleveland, Detroit, Cincin-
nati, and Pittsburgh markets.

Central market price reports are readily available, and most country
buyers reported receipt of daily prices from at least one central market.
More firms in Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri received price reports
from Chicago than from any other single market, while New York
reports were of greater importance than any others in Ohio. Generally
speaking radio was the most important medium for obtaining pricing
information, although in Missouri dealers relied most heavily on news-
paper reports. The majority of dealers indicated that egg price reports
were influential in establishing prices to producers. However, many
indicated that the reports were used only as a guide, and there was
not a rigid relationship between their prices to producers and prices
reported in central markets.

Since more dealers indicated receiving reports from Chicago than
from any other market, an analysis was made of the relationship
between dealers' prices to producers and Chicago quotations. Prices
paid to producers by Ohio dealers averaged above the Chicago quota-
tions during the six weeks studied, while prices in each of the other
states averaged below Chicago. If dealers were using the Chicago
quotations as a price base, they were applying greater average discounts
or smaller average premiums in pricing the Medium than in pricing the
Large eggs. In each state, the producer price was lower for A Medium
than for A Large eggs relative to appropriate Chicago quotations.

The uniformity of the spread between producer prices and central
market prices from season to season was used as one measure of how
closely the various central market price reports reflected producer

1963] CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES 47

prices. The New York midwestern and Chicago reports were among
the better reflectors of the producer prices of A Large eggs in Missouri.
The New York nearby report was among the poorest reflectors. All
reports were too low during the spring period of analysis to accurately
reflect producer prices. For current receipt eggs in Missouri, reports
from Chicago and St. Louis most accurately reflected producer prices.
Chicago was better than St. Louis in the northern and western areas,
while St. Louis was the best reflector in the area of Missouri adjacent
to the St. Louis market.

In pricing A Large and A Medium eggs, most Illinois dealers fol-
lowed the St. Louis or Chicago price reports more closely than those
issued from any other market. For A Large eggs, the St. Louis reports
were better than the Chicago report in reflecting producer prices in the
area near the St. Louis market. The St. Louis report for the consumer
grade of eggs was equally as good as the Chicago report in northern
Illinois. The Chicago price was not high enough during the fall period
to accurately reflect producer prices. The New York nearby quotation
was the poorest reflector of producer prices of A Large eggs in all
areas of Illinois. For A Medium eggs in southern Illinois, the St. Louis
reports were better than Chicago. The New York nearby report was
again one of the poorest reflectors. In northern Illinois, the Chicago
report was one of the best, while the St. Louis reports were among
the poorest.

In Indiana, no single price report was better than others in reflect-
ing producer prices of either A Large or A Medium eggs. Indiana is
located between Chicago and the eastern markets. Indiana dealers
were shipping eggs to several markets in several states. These factors
created wide differences in the producer to central market price rela-
tionships between dealers in the state and even in individual areas of
the state. As a result, prices reported in no central market did a good
job of reflecting producer prices. For A Large eggs, prices reported
in Chicago and St. Louis were too low during the summer period to
accurately reflect producer prices. Prices reported in most eastern
markets were too high during the summer. This indicated that prices
paid Indiana producers were a composite of prices reported in Chicago,
St. Louis, and the eastern markets.

In Ohio, prices reported in the eastern markets played a more
dominant role in pricing eggs at country points, especially A Large
eggs. Cincinnati, Cleveland, and the New York nearby reports were
among the better reflectors of Ohio producer prices of A Large eggs,
and the St. Louis and Chicago reports were the poorest. Only minor
differences existed between areas of the state. The New York nearby
price was too high during the summer to accurately reflect producer

48 ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

prices of A Large eggs; yet all other reports were too low during the
summer. This indicated that prices paid Ohio producers were a com-
posite of New York nearby prices and prices reported in other eastern
markets. For A Medium eggs in Ohio, there were wide differences in
the producer to central market price relationships between dealers. This
could partially be traced to pricing differences between the northern
and southern areas of the state. In southern Ohio, the Cincinnati,
Cleveland, and St. Louis price reports were among the better reflectors
of producer prices, while the New York nearby and Detroit wholesale
reports were among the poorest. This situation was practically reversed
in the northern area.

Comparisons were also made of short-time price movements at
country points and central markets. Over each two-week period, prices
paid to producers moved in the same direction and by approximately
equal amounts as prices reported in the central markets. The more uni-
form the price changes occurring among the central market price
reports, the more uniform the price changes occurring at country
points. There was some evidence that short-time changes in New York
nearby prices and those from some of the other eastern markets exerted
a greater influence in Ohio than in the other three states.

Day-to-day price movements at country points also reflected the
average daily movements made in the central markets. This was true
when central market prices were moving up as well as when they were
moving down. Country dealers could not afford to ignore a price
change in the central markets, especially if the change was fairly
consistent among markets.

This study provides evidence that the prices dealers pay to pro-
ducers in the North Central Region are not as closely related to central
market price reports as many people have been led to believe. How-
ever, it appears that these reports do exert sufficient influence on the
pricing decisions of country dealers to encourage continued efforts to
evaluate and improve the price-reporting system for eggs in the North
Central Region.

In this study many country dealers indicated that they used central
market price reports in only a general way to establish the prices they
paid to producers. A seasonal analysis of the spread between dealers'
prices and those reported in central markets showed that dealers did
alter this spread from period to period during the year. For example,
although the Chicago market was an important source of pricing infor-
mation for Illinois dealers, 12 of 14 dealers paid their highest prices
for A Large eggs relative to the Chicago quotation during the fall
period of analysis. All Missouri dealers paid their highest prices for
A Large eggs relative to all central market price reports during the

1963] CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES 49

spring. In Ohio, the New York nearby price rose too much from spring
to summer to accurately reflect producer prices of A Large eggs. Yet
no other price reports rose enough.

These examples clearly indicate that central market price reports do
not "set" prices to which North Central egg buyers rigidly adhere.
Country dealers are not always guided by reported prices but alter
their paying prices from season to season during the year when local
supply-and-demand conditions dictate.

Although the spread between country prices and central market
price reports did vary from season to season, the analysis indicates
that day-to-day price changes made by country dealers were closely
related to changes occurring in the central markets. Country dealers
apparently have no better basis than the central market price reports
for determining short-run changes in supply-and-demand conditions.
A country dealer can hardly afford to ignore a change in central
market prices which is accepted by his competitors. Since dealers look
to market reports for day-to-day price changes, it is essential that these
reports accurately reflect day-to-day variations in supply and demand.
The small number of transactions on which some of the central market
price reports are based may hamper the ability of these reports to
detect short-run changes.

One of the major objections of producers and tradespeople to cen-
tral market price reports is that they fluctuate more than supply-and-
demand conditions warrant. This may be because prices established
one day are too high in relation to actual supply-and-demand conditions.
The next day they may be lowered to compensate for the error of the
previous day. This procedure may cause an excessive number of
changes around the equilibrium price. Since country dealers in the
North Central Region do follow these numerous price changes, they
will be faced with greater risks in buying and selling. They will need
a higher margin to cover these risks. This higher margin will mean
lower prices to producers.

The poultry industry has been alert to devise improvements in the
price-reporting system for eggs. A popular suggestion, and one that
has been adopted in several areas, has been to report prices paid by
country dealers at country points. But this practice will not solve the
major pricing problem facing the egg industry — the problem of
determining short-run changes in supply-and-demand. This study indi-
cates that country dealers depend on market price reports for day-to-
day price changes. So long as price reports originate in the central
markets, country dealers will probably continue to use them in this way.
If so, reporting prices paid by country dealers will only reflect the daily
price changes originally reported from the central market.

Appendix Table 1. — Description of Central Market Price Reports Used
in Analyzing Price Relationships for Mixed A Large and A Medium Eggs

Market report Description of reported price*

Chicago First receivers' buying prices for mixed Large and mixed

Medium (60% to 69.9% A) eggs as reported by the

Chicago Market News Survey
New York midwestern .... Prices of midwestern mixed Large and mixed Medium

eggs delivered f.o.b. New York as quoted by the Urner-

Barry Company

New York nearby Prices of nearby brown Extra Fancy Heavyweight eggs

and brown Medium eggs delivered f.o.b. New York as
quoted by the Urner-Barry Company

St. Louis wholesale Prices of mixed Large Extras and mixed Medium Extras

(minimum 70% A) eggs as reported by the O'Connor
Market Reporter Company

St. Louis consumer Prices of mixed Grade A Large and mixed Grade A

Medium eggs as reported by the O'Connor Market Re-
porter Company

Cleveland wholesale Prices paid for brown Large (minimum 60% A) eggs

delivered to Cleveland as reported by the Market News
Service of the USDA

Cleveland consumer Prices paid for brown Grade A Large and brown Grade

A Medium eggs delivered to Cleveland retailers as re-
ported by the Market News Service of the USDA

Detroit wholesale Prices paid for brown Large and brown Medium (mini-
mum 60% A) eggs delivered to Detroit as reported by the
Market News Service of the USDA

Detroit consumer Prices paid for brown Grade A Large and brown Grade

A Medium eggs delivered to Detroit as reported by the
Market News Service of the USDA

Cincinnati wholesale Prices paid for brown Large (minimum 60% A) eggs de-
livered to Cincinnati as reported by the Market News
Service of the USDA

Cincinnati consumer Prices paid for brown Grade A Large and brown Grade

A Medium eggs delivered to Cincinnati as reported by the
Market News Service of the USDA

Pittsburgh wholesale Prices paid f.o.b. Pittsburgh for brown and mixed Large

Extras and brown and mixed Medium Extras (minimum
60% A) eggs as reported by the Market News Service of
the USDA

Pittsburgh consumer Prices paid by Pittsburgh retailers for mixed and brown

Grade A Large and mixed and brown Grade A Medium
eggs as reported by the Market News Service of the USDA

Appendix Table 2. — Description of Central Market Price Reports Used
in Analyzing Price Relationships for Current Receipt Eggs

Market report Description of reported price"

Chicago First receivers' buying prices for current receipt eggs as

reported by the Chicago Market News Survey

St. Louis Prices of unclassified eggs as reported by the O'Connor

Market Reporter Company

Cincinnati Prices of farm run eggs delivered to Cincinnati as reported

by the Market News Service of the USDA

• Where price ranges were reported, midpoints were used. Mostly prices were used if reported.

1963}

CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES

51

Appendix Table 3. — Average Prices Paid Producers for Mixed A Large,

Mixed A Medium, and Current Receipts Eggs as a Differential

From the Chicago Quotation for the Comparable Grades

of Eggs, in Periods of 1955, by States and Areas

State

April 18- July 25-

October 24-

and area

April 30 August 6

November 5

Average

Mixed A Large Eggs

Illinois

(cents per dozen above or below Chicago)

Northern

-3.6 -3.3

-1.6

-2.8

Central

-4.4 -5.4

-5.1

-5.0

Southern

-2.1 -2.6

+ .9

-1.3

State

-3.2 -3.5

-1.5

-2.7

Indiana

Northern

-4.4 +1-6

-2.5

-1.7

Central

-3.0 -2.5

-2.4

-2.6

Southern

-5.7 -.7

-2.8

-3.1

State

-4.4 -.5

-2.6

-2.5

Missouri

Northern

-4.3 -7.0

-8.8

-6.7

Eastern

-4.1 -9.1

-12.5

-8.6

Western

-4.0 -10.4

-9.3

-7.9

State

-4.1 -8.8

-10.2

-7.7

Ohio

Eastern

+1.1 +8.7

+3.4

+4.4

Western

-1.6 +4.6

+ .4

+ 1.1

State

-.3 +6.6

+ 1.9

+2.7

Mixed A Medium Eggs

Illinois

Northern

-5.9 -6.2

-5.7

-5.9

Central

-6.5 -7.9

-7.3

-7.2

Southern

-3.9 -6.4

+2.1

-2.7

State

-5.3 -6.6

-3.3

-5.1

Indiana

Northern

-5.2 -4.3

-3.6

-4.4

Central

-4.4 -4.8

-2.6

-3.9

Southern

-6.6 -6.1

-.3

-4.3

State

-5.6 -5.1

-2.1

-4.3

Ohio

Eastern

+.3 +2.3

+2.9

+ 1.8

Western

-3.6 +.5

-.6

-1.2

State

-1.7 +1.4

+ 1.2

+ .3

Current Receipt Eggs

Illinois

Northern

-4.4 -3.1

-2.8

-3.4

Central

-3.0 -3.9

-.2

-2.4

Southern

-4.9 -2.8

-1.6

-3.1

State

-4.3 -3.1

-1.8

-3.1

Indiana

Central

-5.3 -6.4

-.5

-4.1

Southern

-5.7 -5.4

+3.7

-2.5

State

-5.6 -5.7

+2.3

-3.0

Missouri

Northern

-4.2 -5.2

-5.4

-4.9

Eastern

-5.4 -5.9

-1.4

-4.2

Western

-3.3 -5.0

-5.1

-4.5

State

-4.2 -5.3

-4.1

-4.5

52

ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

4) C*

0 w~

O

1 "

v> —

03

(9 C

'O *->
V 0

X ^

u o

Sli

J-1 +J

w g

<u S

O O

<u ra
W)'*3
S C

« 2

> <u

<!S

I'Q

«•' «

JJ J§
g&

C* hn

Appendix
Receipt E

J.W)

ars W>OV*O<ON<N ooo>

t-t-t-Oat- ^ft-10

^

++77++7++++7T

717772^1+72

~ »>. w

0 -5 1

00°

++7+++7+++++7

+7T++T+++77

18

1 77+++7+7 ' +77

77T++7 ' 7+77

^ ^

^oo^-oaoooooaooa

-0-

*j O

777777 i ' 7777 i

1 1 1

i S"1

177111 7777777

7 '7

41

o

71 +

cs •

oaacv^-^^^o-^

*,««

J o
c •»*>

•2 1 1 1 1 1 17 ' 1 1 1 17

„ 1 1 1 1 1 7+ 1 1 1 7
1

a
«*««-

.5 ^M

hS "3<

is

sf '~7++T7T^777

*> ^
> <

| TT^TT^TTTS

e. 10 i cs
ill

1

II

rt £ •^'*COr^csf5|Of)vO^l* i^t^

g| "7,1,7, ,,',7

| TT7777777T7

|777

4.»

•o

*><N«<N.O«.t-VCO<NO

oomtN

*J o

2 7 i i i 7 i 7+ 11117

V

i i i i 1 7 ' i i 1 7

77+

C V. M

:= ^-3

1171117111117

1 171 171 1 177

t^Tt (N

11

i i 1 77 1 7 i i i + 1 7

11711711117

Market
report

d ; ; . .

I 1 J J.s fc : i-S |-S jj

MiQNulJl

jl|il!||IIII

Chicago
New York midwestern
New York nearby
St. Louis wholesale
St. Louis consumer
Cleveland consumer
Detroit wholesale
Detroit consumer
Cincinnati consumer
Pittsburgh wholesale
Pittsburgh consumer

Chicago
St. Louis
Cincinnati

1963]

CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES

53

Appendix Table 5. — Seasonal Fluctuation of Illinois Dealers' Prices to

Producers Around Selected Central Market Price Reports, and

Number of Dealers Having Smallest Fluctuation With

Respect to Each Report, A Large, A Medium, and

Current Receipt Eggs, by Areas of the State, 1955'

Average fluctuation range
(cents per dozen)

Number of dealers having
smallest fluctuation

Market report

North- Cen-
ern tral

South-
ern

State

North- Cen- South-
ern tral ern State

Chicago

2.28

A Large Eggs

1.68 3.73
2.65 5.16
9.86 11.46
5.69 2.15
2 . 74 1 . 73
2.86 2.88
5.42 5.98
4.62 7.11
2.76 5.05
5.42 6.51
6.44 5.91
3.20 3.57
3.91 6.46

A Medium Eggs

1.99 8.91
2.03 9.75
4.27 11.52
5.84 5.22
5.84 5.52
4.61 7.77
3.90 11.37
2.58 8.45
6.02 7.91
2.64 9.45
4.64 6.51

Current Receipt Eggs

3.74 3.65
1.00 4.31
3.05 2.84

2.65
3.88
10.41
3.33
1.85
2.37
5.29
5.76
3.78
5.64
5.65
2.94
5.09

4.03
4.63
6.49
5.17
5.27
5.13
6.26
4.17
6.09
4.58
4.85

3.33

3.72
2.86

22 4
1 ... 1

3 43

New York nearby

9.80

St. Louis wholesale

. . . . 3.14

1 3 4
2 ... 2 4
1 1

St. Louis consumer

1.51

Cleveland wholesale

1.70

Cleveland consumer

.... 4.65

Detroit wholesale

5.19

3.22

Cincinnati wholesale

5.02

Cincinnati consumer

.... 5.03

2.25

Pittsburgh consumer

. . . . 4.54

Chicago

.98

5 1 6
1 ... 1

New York midwestern

1.65

New York nearby

. . . . 3.42

4 80

4 4

St. Louis consumer

. . . . 4.77

Cleveland consumer

. . . . 3.20

Detroit wholesale

3.18

Detroit consumer

1 .40

1 1 ... 2

Cincinnati consumer

4.61

1 .49

Pittsburgh consumer

.. 3.57

1 1

1 1
1 ... 1
1 ... 2 3

Chicago

. 2.80

St. Louis

. 4.48

Cincinnati

2 . 80

» For method of computation, see pages 24 and 25.

54

ILLINOIS BULLETIN 691; REGIONAL PUBLICATION 132 [February,

Appendix Table 6. — Seasonal Fluctuation of Indiana Dealers' Prices to

Producers Around Selected Central Market Price Reports, and

Number of Dealers Having Smallest Fluctuation With

Respect to Each Report, A Large, A Medium, and

Current Receipt Eggs, by Areas of the State, 1955"

Average fluctuation range
(cents per dozen)

Number of dealers having
smallest fluctuation

Market report

North- Cen-
ern tral

South-
ern

State

North- Cen- South-
ern tral ern State

... 6.04

A Large Eggs

1.19 5.26
2.00 5.73
8.33 6.95
4.62 7.17
2.09 6.12
1.62 5.42
3.89 5.20
3.65 5.70
1.62 5.40
3.89 5.20
5.01 5.20
1.93 5.20
3.00 5.79

A Medium Eggs

2.25 9.03
3.02 9.96
5.22 11.02
3.23 6.24
3.23 6.24
2.98 7.10
4.98 11.08
1.93 8.34
4.32 6.38
2.97 9.29
2.03 6.84

Current Receipt Eggs

5.94 9.42
1.33 5.98
5.25 8.44

4.16
4.60
6.71
6.69
4.92
4.07
4.62
5.04
4.16
4.62
5.32
3.99
4.88

5.76
6.51
7.35
5.19
5.19
5.14
7.40
5.36
5.45
5.97
4.95

8.26
4.43
7.38

... 1 1 2

.... 6.08

New York nearby

.... 4 . 84

1 1

. 8.28

.... 6 . 54

5 19

4.76

. . . . 5.76

Detroit consumer

5.47

1 ... 1

4.76

. 5.76

1 1

1 1

4 84

5 84

Chicago

. . . . 4.24

4 79

4.74

1 1
1 ... 1 2

St. Louis wholesale

. . . . 5.12

5 12

4.26

... 4.93

Detroit consumer

. . . . 4.08

1 1
1 1

5 08

4.14

Pittsburgh consumer

. . 4.52

Chicago.

(b)

(b)
(») 1 2 3
(b)

St. Louis

(b)

Cincinnati

(b)

a For method of computation, see pages 24 and 25.

b None of the cooperating firms in Northern Indiana purchased current receipt eggs during
each period of study.

1963]

CENTRAL EGG REPORTS AND PRODUCER PRICES

55

Appendix Table 7. — Seasonal Fluctuation of Missouri Dealers' Prices

to Producers Around Selected Central Market Price Reports,

and Number of Dealers Having Smallest Fluctuation With

Respect to Each Report, Current Receipt Eggs,

by Areas of the State, 1955*

Average fluctuation ranga
(cents per dozen)

Market report

North-
ern

West-
ern

East-
ern

State

Number of dealers having
smallest fluctuation

North- West-
ern ern

East-
ern

State

Chicago 2.24 2.65 5.01 3.22

St. Louis 5.14 5.67 1.94 4.39

Cincinnati... . 3.24 3.43 4.16 3.58

10
6
1

11 For method of computation, see pages 24 and 25.

Appendix Table 8. — Seasonal Fluctuation of Ohio Dealers' Prices to

Producers Around Selected Central Market Price Reports, and

Number of Dealers Having Smallest Fluctuation With

Respect to Each Report, A Large Eggs, and A

Medium Eggs, by Areas of the State, 1955*

Average fluctuation range
(cents per dozen)

Market report

Northern Southern State

Number of dealers having
smallest fluctuation

Northern Southern State

A Large Eggs

Chicago 6.78 6.93 6.86

New York midwestern 6 . 09 6 . 24 6.17

New York nearby 2.68 3.75 3.22

St. Louis wholesale 9.46 8.34 8.91

St. Louis consumer 7.41 6.96 7.19

Cleveland wholesale 6.01 5.57 5.79

Cleveland consumer 2.93 2.50 2.72

Detroit wholesale 4.09 4.61 4.36

Detroit consumer 5 . 54 5 . 69 5 . 62

Cincinnati wholesale 2.65 2.57 2.62

Cincinnati consumer 4.66 3.54 4.11

Pittsburgh wholesale 5.33 4.91 5.12

Pittsburgh consumer 4.91 5.11 5.01

A Medium Eggs

Chcago 2.27 5.53 3.90

New York midwestern 2.40 6.63 4.51

New York nearby 1 .33 6.53 3 .92

St. Louis wholesale 6.50 3.43 4.96

St. Louis consumer 6.00 2.93 4.46

Cleveland consumer 3 .35 2 .60 2 .97

Detroit wholesale 1.43 6.91 4.17

Detroit consumer 2 .34 4 .60 3 .47

Cincinnati consumer 4.68 1.84 3.26

Pittsburgh wholesale 1.45 5.33 3.39

Pittsburgh consumer 4.36 2.83 3.59

For method of computation, see pages 24 and 25.

7M— 2-63—78779

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA

Q.630.7IL6B COOS

BULLETIN. URBANA
691 1963

30112019530523