STATION BULLETIN 497 MAY, 1968 40 q — W E o w eg "en CD V - c H c _. re — X = s — . U C O rt O Ov °i O o I O — V O CO °i. s oT u Tj< 5C o «** o o o la © V F— 1 -c E 9 C o o o o CM* _ V MS 93 V la N QJ '"• CV S3 — © r~ vo ee •»# HNMHH T* ># ^ CM r^ r^ sc ^h tN eOlrt IrtM ~ ~ cc ■«# in — i M f-i CM V © o o © o o o o o o *■» *> •■» #• «* " "t 'tr-rt vO '- CO **• CO CO • 4) . C - "» M = •= *~ O 3J 3J vo co co - © in - © H _© — E re sj - — t/j S3 N tX — — H © So la © C — o o o o" o © in o — o X °i s o*" u Tt EC *f~oe a ^* C o ON en CM c la c H u"i CC vC VC m cm m m o\ cm r- — ■ cm — < : ■<*• 3 - £ *- 4) w re CJ - 5 55 89 -3 Jjt O - 5J Conn. 10 23 14 14 18 Maine 61 43 38 53 48 Mass. 12 17 26 17 16 N. H. 9 10 17 14 11 R. I. 1 4 1 Vt. 8 2 2 4 Outside New England t 4 1 2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Includes: assemblers, breaker and truckers. Less than Mo of 1 percent. 13 Source and Form in Which Eggs Were Procured, hy States The egg marketing firms were questioned concerning source and form in which they received the eggs marketed (Table 9). Twenty-seven percent of the eggs marketed by the firms in the five states came from flocks owned by the firms, sixty percent were pur- chased from producers, eight percent were inter-firm transfers, and five percent were obtained from a variety of other sources. The proportion of eggs received from flocks owned by the firm varied from eleven percent in Massachusetts and New Hampshire to seventy-four percent in Vermont where all firms were producers. In Maine, fifty-four percent were obtained from owned flocks and in Connecticut seventeen percent were obtained from tbis source. Table 9. Source and Form in Which Eggs Were Procured, by State, 1965. Source and State Form Conn. Ma ine Mass. N. H. ^ Tt. Total (percent of eggs hi mdled) Owned flocks Purchased from producers Sized, cleaned Unsized, cleaned Unsized, uncleaned Processed — cartoned Processed — loose 44 1 6 17 17 14 5 2 1 54 35t 4 23 9 9 11 5 12 50 6 5 11 6 11 7 74 27 27 7 18 4 4 Sub total 51 39 80 78 24 60 Purchased from other firms Other sources* 25 7 1 6 9 t 11 2 8 5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total volume handled (cases) 842,915 1,212,410 1,340,565 571,109 88,723 4,055,222 t Includes .7 percent that were sized but uncleaned. + About .15 percent. * Handled but not purchased, such as trucking, brokering and eggs received on consignment. Tbe proportions of eggs purchased from producers in Massachusetts and New Hampshire were 80 percent and 78 percent respectively. Tbe proportions purchased from producers in the other states were as follows: Connecticut 51 percent, Maine 39 percent, and Vermont 24 percent. Connecticut firms had the highest proportion of inter-firm transfers with one-quarter of their supplies obtained from tbis source. This con- trast with tbe other extreme represented by \ew Hampshire firms, which indicated virtually no eggs received from this source. 14 On the basis of these data, it appeared that nearly sixty percent of the eggs procured from producers were sized and cleaned before being received by the marketing firm. Only thirty percent of the eggs received from producers were unsized and uncleaned. The remaining 10 percent were unsized but cleaned. Source and Form in Which Eggs Were Procured, by Marketing Group Data concerning the source and form in which eggs were procured by marketing group are presented in Table 10. The differences among the groups indicated the distinguishing characteristics of the firms in- cluded within each category. Firms in the producer group procured 88 percent of their eses from flocks that they owned while the packer group firms purchased 88 per- cent of their eggs from producers. The wholesaler and miscellaneous group firms owned no flocks. The wholesaler group accounted for the largest percentage of inter-firm movement of eggs and purchased most of its eggs at least partially processed. Table 10. Source and Form in Which Eggs Were Procured, by Marketing Group, 1965. M£ irketing Group Misc.* Group Source and Form Producer Group Packer Group Wholesaler Group Total (percent of eggs handled) Owned flocks Purchased from producers Sized, cleaned Unsized, cleaned Unsized, uncleaned Processed — cartoned Processed — loose 2 § 6 § 1 88 39 12 27 5 5 3 30 11 11 17$ 1 3 27 27$ 7 18 4 4 Sub total 9 88 52 21 60 Purchased from other firms Other sourcest 1 2 6 3 48 10 69 8 5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 (cases) Total volume handled 1,125,042 2,393,710 364.250 172.220 4,055,222 * Includes: assemblers, breaker, truckers. t Includes 5.8 percent that were sized but uncleaned in the Misc. group — 0.2 percent of total. § Less than V& of one percent. t Handled but not purchased, such as trucking, brokering and eggs received on consignment. 15 Pricing Practices The egg marketing firms were asked how they determined prices to be paid to producers. Nearly all of the firms surveyed (62 of the 65 answering) stated that they used the Boston Herald quotations as the base price for producer payments. Other sources mentioned were Urner Barry and the U.S.D.A. Market News. These firms reported that the price they paid to producers was usually at the top or middle of the base price quotation and in a few cases a premium of 1 to 5 cents over the base quotation was paid. In most cases the premium was justified by the amount of processing pro- vided by the producer such as cleaning, sizing and grading. When these services were provided by the marketing firms, a discount of % to 1 cent per dozen was applied to the price. When firms procured farm cartoned eggs from producers, the premium over the base quotation was somewhat larger, ranging from the top of the quotation to 3*4 cents over the top. Two-thirds of those replying indicated that they furnished cartons and cases to these pro- ducers. In the New England area most firms exchanged cases with pro- ducers. Almost half of the firms indicated that an allowance was given to producers for delivery to the plant. This allowance ranged from Y2 cent to 2 cents over the base price (plus any premium). One firm paid as much as 6 cents over the base quotation for eggs cartoned and delivered by the producer to the marketing firm. The marketing firms interviewed indicated considerable interest in keeping informed of price changes. Most firms relied on the Boston Herald quote for their primary source of information. A majority of firms indicated that they made a number of telephone calls to keep abreast of developments in the market. Included in the other sources used were: the radio, U.S.D.A. Market News, Urner Barry, and North American Poultry Cooperative Association. Procurement Agreements Slightly more than one-third of the firms interviewed had some sort of marketing contract with producers. The majority of the agreements were verbal. Provisions of these agreements included the ba>e price to be used, the premium or discount on the base price, quality demand- ed, and proportion of total production the buyer will take or the pro- ducer must sell. Many contracts asked for 90-95 percent grade \ or better and some required refrigeration at the farm. The contracts also covered the number of shipments or pick-ups per week, penalties covering rejects and whether payment was on the market of the day of pick-up or -nine future market. Mori" than two-thirds of the eggs obtained from producers were picked up lt> the marketing firms" own trucks. Phis varied from a high of 94 percenl In Vermont to a low of 45 percent in Massachusetts. Con- tracl haulers picked up 17 percent of all eggs purchased from producers and varied from none in Vermont to 32 percent in Massachusetts. 16 The producer or supplier delivered 15 percent of all the eggs. In Massachusetts they delivered 23 percent and in Maine 15 percent. In Connecticut and Vermont they delivered 9 and 6 percent while only one percent was delivered in New Hampshire. Transport Operations Supply Area For all firms in all states nearly one-half or 46 percent of all eggs handled were produced or procured either on the home farm or within 30 miles of the marketing firm (Table 11) . Nearly 60 percent were pro- duced and procured within 60 miles of the marketing firms. Of the eggs procured from sources outside the home state of the marketing firms, about 20 percent came from Maine. Nearly half of the eggs received by New Hampshire firms originated in Maine, and Mass- achusetts firms obtained 31 percent of their supplies from Maine. Table 11. Proportion of Eggs Procured According to Distance from Marketing Firm, 1965. Firm Location Distance from Firm Conn. Maine Mass. N.H. Vt. Average all Firms (percent of egg s handled) Home State i 10 miles or less 11 to 30 miles 31 to 60 miles More than 60 miles 14 33 20 4 32 29 18 20 10 23 5 5 22 20 7 5 76 1 6 3 20 26 13 9 Sub-total 71 99 43 54 86 68 Out-of-State Connecticut Maine Massachusetts Nc.v Hampshire Vermont Rhode Island Not specified Outside New England * 6 6 6 11 * 1 10 31 * 12 4 1 t 45 1 * t 3 11 f 3 19 1 4 1 t 2 2 Sub-total 29 1 57 46 14 32 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 * Home State. t Fractional percent Connecticut firms obtained 11 percent of their supplies from out- side New England. The practice was unique among the firms surveyed since firms in none of the other states obtained significant quantities of eggs from sources outside the six state area. 17 Assembly Operations The egg marketing firms surveyed were questioned concerning their egg assembly operations. Information received is presented in Table 12. Table 12. Egg Assembly Data, by State, 1965. Ave. No. Ave. No. Ave. Size Ave. Route Ave. No. of Farms State of Trucks of Farm Distance of Routes Served in on Pickup Pickup in Miles Operated Total Pickup in Cases Round Trip Operation Conn. 2 71 54 4.5 22.5 Maine 2 196 105 2.5 22. Mass. 2 70 84 3.6 15. N. H. 3 34 91 5.9 15. Vt. 1 29 27 * 4.75 *Not available. From these data it may be seen that most firms conducted their assem- bly operations with a small number of trucks. However, individual firms, depending on the size of the operation, might use considerably more. For example, one firm had twelve trucks involved in the egg assembly operation. Many firms used the same equipment for both pickup and delivery, sometimes on the same routes. About one-third of the total number of trucks reported in the survey were refrigerated and two-thirds had insulated bodies. The average size of farm pickup varied widely both within states and between states. The largest average farm pickups were found in Maine and the smallest in Vermont. The largest individual farm pickup reported in the survey was 150 cases and the smallest was 2 cases. Average route distances, round trip, also varied widely within states and between states. The longest average route distances were found in Maine (105 miles) and the shortest in Vermont (27 miles). Route dis- tances ranged from a low of 5 miles to a high of 400 miles. On the average the largest number of pickup routes were found in New Hampshire and the smallest number in Maine. Again this varied with the size of individual firms. The range in number of routes was from one to twenty-four. Many firms ran the same routes two or three times each week. The number of farms per route ranged from only one to as many as sixty. The average number of farm pickups per route was greatest in Connecticut with 22.5 and the smallest average number was found in Vermont with 4.75. Delivery Area The average delivery route distance, round trip, in Maine was 113 miles while Vermont firms reported an average distance of 27 miles. New Hampshire firms reported 60 miles for the average route distance and Connecticut firms reported 36 miles. 18 More than 50 percent of the eggs delivered by egg marketing firms went to retail stores within 100 miles of the firm's location (Table 13). Nearly 30 percent more of the eggs went to other types of buyers with- in 100 miles of the marketing firm. Of the eggs delivered to all types of buyers, 79 percent went to locations within 100 miles of the firm's location. In Connecticut and Massachusetts more than one-fourth of the sales went to retail stores within 25 miles of the firm while in Maine this was true of only nine percent of the eggs. Maine and New Hamp- shire had the largest percentage of eggs going to retail stores over 100 miles from the firm, reflecting to some degree their remoteness from the large centers of population. On the other hand, sales to outlets other than retail stores within 25 miles of the firm were highest in Vermont where 57 percent of sales fell in this category. In Maine forty- three percent of egg sales were to other than retail buyers located more than 100 miles from the firm. Table 13. Proportion of Eggs Delivered to Outlets at Different Distances from Firm Location, 1965. Firm Location Outlet and Distances Conn. Maine Mass. N.H. Vt. All Firms Retail stores (percent of egs handled) 0- 25 miles 26- 50 miles 51-100 miles 101-500 miles 27 17 5 9 11 12 8 28 38 7 1 13 31 8 9 13 14 2 19 24 8 4 Sub-total 49 40 74 61 29 55 All others: 0- 25 miles 26- 50 miles 51-100 miles 101-500 miles 12 15 8 16 4 3 10 43 21 1 4 * 12 13 12 2 57 9 5 13 7 8 17 Sub-total 51 60 26 39 71 45 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Less than % of one percent. Delivery Practices Of the 105 firms interviewed, 90 indicated that they carried on delivery operations. Thirty-eight firms delivered twice a week, 20 de- livered 3 times a week and 19 delivered once a week. One firm delivered 4 times a week, 6 firms delivered 5 times and one firm 6 times a week. Six firms delivered on demand. Most firms indicated that they made special deliveries to regular customers. One firm stipulated a minimum number of cases for a special delivery. 19 The average volume per delivery according to type of customer by states was examined (Table 14) . These data indicated that chain food stores took the largest deliveries per stop and restaurants the smallest among those reported. It was of some interest to note that dairies were relatively large volume stops. Table 14. Volume of Eggs Delivered per Stop to Different Types of Outlets, 1965. Firm Location Type of Outlet Conn. Maine Mass. N. H. Vt. Average All States Chain food stores Independent food stores Restaurants Dairies 37 10 6 10 (number of cases) 15 19 20 3.3 12 4 3 3.5 2 13 * 15 14 10 3 10 21 8 3.5 12 * Not available. Sales Operations Types of Outlets by State The marketing firms surveyed were questioned concerning the volume of sales to different types of outlets (Table 15) . In Maine. 5 per- cent of total sales were made to wholesalers while the proportion going to this type of outlet in New Hampshire was only 10 percent. Chain stores were the most important outlet in terms of volume in New Hamp- Table 15. Percent of Eggs Sold to Different Tvpes of Outlets, by State, 1965. State Type of \\ erage Outlet Conn. Maine Mass. N.H. Vt. Ml State- (percent of eggs handled) Wholesalers & jobbers 34 51 13 10 12 29 Chain food stores 43 30 39 52 7 38 Independent food stores 8 8 18 10 22 12 Consumers on route * * t 1 3 * Consumers at plant 1 2 1 3 1 Restaurants & hotels 1 4 5 7 36 5 Institutions 4 1 4 2 5 3 Military * * * * Dairies 2 3 2 12 11 4 Breaker- 2 * 1 2 * 1 Parkers 1 2 2 1 Bakere 2 * 1 1 1 Unidentified 16 ■i Tot;:l 100 100 100 100 100 imi than V2 of one percent. 20 shire where 52 percent were sold to this outlet. Chain stores were also the most important buyers in Connecticut where they purchased 43 percent and in Massachusetts where they purchased 38 percent of the eggs. In Vermont, however, only 7 percent of sales were to chain stores hut independent food stores accounted for 22 percent of sales. Restau- rants and hotels represented the most important sales outlet for Vermont firms with 36 percent sold to this type of buyer. In general, Connecticut and Maine firms sold more than 85 percent of their volume to three types of outlets : wholesalers and jobbers, chain food stores and independent food stores. These three types of outlets accounted for 72 percent of sales in New Hamphire, 69 percent in Mass- achusetts and 41 percent in Vermont. The average for all states was 79 percent. Types of Outlets by Marketing Group Data relating to the various market outlets for eggs by marketing groups may be found in Table 16. Again, wholesalers and jobbers, chain food stores and independent food stores were the principal outlets for all of the groups, taking from 69 to 83 percent of the volume marketed. The market orientation of the various groups varied more widely than between states. The most interesting difference was the 51 percent of the packer group output and the 17 percent of wholesaler group sales that went to chain food stores. Also of interest was the 23 percent of the output of the wholesaler group sold to restaurants, hotels and institutions. Table 16. Percent of Eggs Sold to Different Outlets, by Marketing Group, 1965. Market ing Group Type of Producer Packer Wholesaler Mi iscellaneous Outlet Group Group Group Group* Total (percent of eggs handled) Wholesalers & jobbers 49 16 42 71 29 Chain food stores 20 51 17 38 Independent food stores 14 11 10 7 12 Consumers on route 1 t 1 t Consumers at plant 2 1 1 Restaurants & hotels 6 5 13 t 5 Institutions 2 2 10 t 3 Military t t t Dairies 3 4 t 4 Breakers 2 1 1 Packers t 2 1 Bakers t t 16 1 Unidentified t 7 8 5 5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 * Assemblers, breaker, truckers. * Less than V2 OI one percent. 21 Form in Which Eggs Were Sold, hy Marketing Group Eggs are usually trader! on the market in one of three forms: loo*e graded, loose ungraded or cartoned. Loose eggs are packed in flats and fillers in 24 to 30 dozen eases. Cartoned eggs are packed in one dozen cartons and then packed in cases. Data concerning the form in which eggs were sold is presented in Tahle 17 hy marketing group and in Tahle 18 by type of outlet. Most of the firms in the survey performed some processing of the eggs they handled (Table 17). The packer group sold only 3 percent of the eggs they handled in ungraded form and the producer groups sold 18 percent ungraded but the wholesaler group sold over half ungraded. By definition a firm in the wholesaler group would have been in the packer group had it processed over half of the eggs it handled. Eighty- seven percent of all eggs marketed by these firms were graded. It was assumed that all cartoned eggs have been graded and candled. The miscellaneous group largely performed a transfer function. Table 17. For in Which Eggs were Sold, by Marketing Group. 1965. Marketing Group Form Producer Group Packer Wholesaler Misc. Group Group Group* All Groups Loose eggs — graded Loose eggs - — ungraded Cartoned eggs 39.7 17.3 43.0 (percent of eggs handled) 23.8 22.7 4.4 2.9 53.3 65.7 73.3 24.0 29.9 27.7 13.2 59.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 * Assemblers, breaker, truckers. Form in Which Eggs Were Sold, hy Type of Outlet Different customers required different degrees of processing in the eggs they purchased (Table 18). All of the eggs sold to consumers on retail routes were graded and cartoned while only 15 percent of the eggs sold to wholesalers were cartoned by the seller. Sales to chain stores were 96 percent graded and cartoned eggs. However, independent food stores apparently carried on some cartoning activities or sell loose eggs as 15 percent of the eggs sold to this type of buyer were graded but uncartoned. The bulk of purchases by restaurants, hotel and institutions were graded but not cartoned. About 11 percent of sales to restaurants and hotels were ungraded eggs. This did not appear to be consistent as it would seem that these outlets would be particularly conscious of quality since much of their business depends on direct consumer satisfaction. Fifty-nine percent of the egg sold by all firms in all states were graded and cartoned. Twenty-eight percent were graded but uncartoned. The balanee or 13 percent were ungraded. The sales of the ungraded and uncartoned eggs were largely interfirm transfers to wholesalers and packers who graded and cartoned the eggs for resale. Very few eggs 22 today reach the consumer uncartoned. These figures would indicate that some cartoning was done by stores and dairies. Table 18. Form in Which Eggs were Sold to Different Types of Outlets, 1965. Loose Eggs Cartoned Type of Outlet Graded U] tigraded Eggs Total (percent of eggs handled) Wholesalers & jobbers 48.3 36.5 15.2 100 Chain food stores 4.0 .2 95.8 100 Independent food stores 12.0 1.6 86.4 100 Consumers on route 100.0 100 Consumers at plant 14.2 85.8 100 Restaurants & hotels 87.4 11.6 1.0 100 Breakers 78.1 21.9 100 Institutions 98.5 .8 .7 100 Military 61.5 38.5 100 Dairies 19.4 1.0 79.6 100 Breakers 78.1 21.9 100 Packers 100. 100 Bakers 100. 100 Unidentified 11.8 11.7 76.5 100 Average all eggs 27.7 13.2 59.1 100 Cartoning and Type of Label The percentages of all eggs handled that were cartoned and the type of label used on the carton by states are presented in Table 19. In Massachusetts 71 percent of all sale were of cartoned eggs. This was closely followed by New Hampshire with 69 percent, Connecticut with 49 percent, Maine 44 percent and Vermont 33 percent. Sixty-five percent of the cartoned eggs carried a private label, 23 percent carried the cartoner's label and 12 percent carried a standard label. Connecticut and Vermont firms reported no eggs packed in standard cartons. Table 19. Sales of Cartoned Eggs and Type of Label, by State, 1965. Conn. State Maine Mass. N.H. Vt. Totals Sales of cartoned eggs Type of label Private label Own label Standard label Total (percent of all eggs handled) 49 44 71 69 33 (percent of cartoned egg sales) 18 23 41 17 57 72 52 66 58 39 65 28 16 27 6 61 23 32 7 37 12 100 23 Table 20 presents the same information as above for cartoned eggs but by marketing groups. The miscellaneous group did no grading or cartoning while the packer group cartoned 74 percent of all eggs they sold. Table 20. Sales of Cartoned Eggs and Type of Label, by Marketing Group, 196S. Marketing Group Producer Group Packer Wholesaler Misc. Group Group Group* Total (percent of all eggs handled) Sales of cartoned eggs 43 74 22 57 Type of label (percent of cartoned egg sales) Private label Own label Standard label 28 45 28 73 18 63 9 37 65 23 12 Total 21 76 3 100 * Assemblers, breaker, truckers. Form in Which Eggs Were Sold to Different Types of Outlets, by State Table 21 shows the percentages of three types of packaging in which eggs were sold to various types of outlets in each state. Wholesalers and jobbers or chain food stores were the principal outlets in all of the states except Vermont where restaurants and hotels and independent food stores were the principal outlets. Form in Which Eggs Were Sold to Different Types of Outlets, by Marketing Group Each of the marketing groups except the packers was strongly oriented toward sales to wholesalers and jobbers (Table 22) . The packer group was oriented toward chain food stores and sold the largest per- centage of cartoned eggs. The miscellaneous group (transfer and break- ing) handled the largest percentage of ungraded eggs while the packer group handled the least. The large percentage of ungraded, loose packed eggs sold by the wholesaler group was due to interfirm transfers within the wholesaler trade rather than sales to retail outlets. Sales Orientation The marketing firms interviewed sold their eggs to more than one outlet. Tables 23, 24, and 25 contain data regarding the sales orientation of the firms according to three classifications: geographic location, marketing group and size group. Each table contains the percentage of firms in each classification that sold eggs to each of the twelve types of 24 CB •a s O v a H — s - o en v v cn SI tl w ^ S fa 0 — cN 3 re H o H — CO CD CD = 0 5 ti n h n m • • • • in co en h m co « o o ■"* i— j cn en on >— < # i— i Tj< vo o CO r- 1 CNI © in rp « * N CO H H ^ ^ °. in oo«^n o en O i—l O « N « rt m e© co en cm* \C CO Irt ON CN CO *<3 13 a CO en 60 bo V c fa V - CN CO en : CN "*? N i— ' en : ■■* "#' p— 1 i— i ■ en °! t-; in en © ci I— I in 00* i— i i— i : i-H in *^oj o CO >o VO* o o CN in NO eo n m vo cn" en ^J; in cn i— * © vo c<; cn in H N VO I— J m n in vo CO CN — CN ON © rH r- °. *R -J CN " f-. CN CN en rP CN en •*# © «N* O CN) O i— I © C-j en © i-H vO * l-H CN in CN vo i— 1 CN VO* I-H ON in* I-H in vo © in eq en : en i-H CN CN en l-H : -"- ON l-H : i-H t-^ CNI : : * i-H ON '■ *"■? t-- : ^ M w CN vo' ■— 1 : ■* en >- •v, © to 00 _ fa 'B « O " .5 1 1 - C3 to CJ CO Z S cu 15 C CD - 4) ns s = o fa = o CO fa O -C 13 S - . s s s s a CO fa S CO to CU « fa CO s es fa CU co V fa pq IS V « '5 fa to S V fa V « -^ '3 co co C PL, CQ U C/3 c v u fa - c o o o s co — 25 - s c o ca X) ■ 8. H u s & - 0 "c «, - 4) u - i* cN — o a a o u O a a o O 3 O u o a 3 o o o -a a a o O V u ca - & a o o u v u 3 T3 O O O o o u C3 4) - s _ o o - o o papejSuQ papcJQ pauoiJB^ papcjSuQ papBJ^ p3UOJJE3 papej8uQ papeJO pauoiJB[) papEJ^ufi papBJQ pauojjE;) papBJ^UQ p^psJO O t-; oc cot i— J ©\ r— i— i i— i CM CO r— I ITS i/5 co i-h cm co i— j in cq vo "5^ ' CO H 1ft g ■* rt M n C> H ■!- H * •^ \o # Tf H fH ^ CO H H * CO LC ■>* CO CO CN t^ CM CO - — - © ■«* , ON >0 "SN CO CM CO © so H3 4} C CB - O © CA t~- r— St f-H bt V S«— o o © 0J ■<# s 4J o '« t— in t— V a 1-1 CM VO © o « « -t~ * i-i ©' © © e4 CO a>- £ 3 £"0 in t- if! I- O; h o in i—i O CO CN MS vq i— _ m ci m co < u O **. Tf *i ^°. © CO •* cm' t-i ''■*"'■ u o —" c - s ~z ca — = — •^ 0) CA CA (A / 0J < J 26 outlets. The tables also contain the average number of eaeh type of out- let that a firm served. Analysis of the figures in Table 23 indicate that there were no significant differences between firms based on geographical location by state. There were more differences in outlets served among firms classi- fied by marketing group ( Table 24 ) . The wholesaler group serviced only five of the twelve identified types of outlets and the miscellaneous group serviced eight. When firms were classified by size, analysis indicated that the smaller firms were limited (possibly by size alone) in the number of different types of outlets serviced (Table 25). More of the smaller firms operated retail routes, all of the sizes serviced independent food stores while more of the larger firms serviced the chain food stores. Table 23. Percent of Marketing Firms Selling to Different Types of Outlets and Average Number of Outlets Served, by State, 1965. State Conn. Maine M. ass. N .H. Vt. All States S £ E E E E s. u u u •- u <— y= «- y= <— -G •— c-S «- «C — <43 5 ° U U 05 p- V — - ° u U 05 J ° u - 05 05J5 U 05 05 05 — , 0 u — 05 Type of 1 = v o. £3 Q i = ! = 05 ft ,J3 £3 05 a _Q I- = 05 C. Outlet £ ° S 0) £ ° "2"° * ° — 05 * ° £ ° S 05 * ° — 05 05 o £ s > 05 O ^3 © J3 s ■- 05 05 -— .FN © .s 3 > C -« 0) 0 J3 3 > S t- 05 3 > S -■ 05 ^ *^ Qj 05 *-> 05 05 *j 05 OJ 05 05 05 05 05 0: - ':;. 6U a, C b£ Mi 05 S be M 05 S =1. MJ 05 — bJj M, cr. — tJJ M r. v a ■- -- j_ 05 i- 05 o C as *j - 05 8.5 CB *- - 05 £ c CB »- - 05 U p— 1 05 *— i 8- 1— 1 05 ^ La p— 1 05 p— i u J5 a) — - -3 S> - £a 05 — o> T-, ^ 3 o> T! ^ s o> T! > s 0) "T, >, 3 o> T, ^ 3 OJ T! > « ft. S < © ft- S < © ft- $ 10 20.0 5 * 17 1.7 7 3.0 5 5.6 Average number of outlet? per firm* 14.2 12.6 8.9 9.4 9.3 10.6 * Second figure each state is individual consumers. v The individual consumers are not included. * Not known. 27 Table 24. Percent of Marketing Firms Selling to Different Types of Outlets aiul Average Number of Outlets Served, by Marketing Group, 1965. Marketing Group Producer Packer Wholesaler Group Group Group Misc. Group* All Firms v Type of Outlet CD i as £ ° — • — o M S b£ v C - •- L. — flj ~-H E O u S •" 4) 4) " M m CH *- U CU < o Cfj ~M E 3 CO S bl S.B n *> — go © u - cu 3 > r- U - 4, 4, « to «, C3 «-> i- 0) 4) T3 < O M o 3 3 £° CD =— . art O J *■» C bl y c ■— cu Pi 03 — - 4) < o r © C bj. s.s u — ft « Cm x s M O u S a 3 4) S — - '- ©■a < o E 3 L. - =3 X *C IE S bt 4) 3 i_ 4> ~ a "= -3 3 1) 3 > — — - 4) to f_ ■l ~c v ~ > a < s Wholesalers & jobbers 71 2.5 54 8.6 13 6.5 80 § 50 4.2 Chain food stores 31 6.5 54 35.8 31 33.0 39 20.4 Indep. food stores 78 15.1 61 17.8 75 13.6 60 § 58 15.5 Consumers on routet 26 275. 7 § 20 § 11 274. Consumers at plantf 51 154. 18 600. 27 198. Restaurants & hotels 69 11.7 64 16.8 62 19.1 40 § 67 14.0 Institutions 36 4.9 50 4.0 31 6.5 40 § 30 5.1 Military 2 § 18 1.0 4 2.3 Dairies 36 1.9 46 4.0 20 § 28 3.0 Breakers 9 1.0 18 1.0 10 1.2 Packers 5 1.0 7 5.5 20 § 6 2.5 Bakers 5 1.7 11 3.0 20 § 5 5.6 Unidentified 22 § 54 § 50 § 60 § Average number of outlets per firmj 7.8 14.9 15.8 10.5 10.6 * Assemblers, breaker, truckers. t Second figure each group is individual consumers. % The individual consumers are not included. § Not known. Other Aspects of Sales Operations Many of the egg marketing firm provided services to buyers. Vltout one-third of those who responded said they stocked display cases at the retail store. Five out of six firms put the eggs in the cooler on the buyer's premises. Nearly all firms exchanged cases. A few firms in- dicated they performed other services such as setting up special dis- plays, checking for code dates, supplying carton inserts and price marking. The terms of sale were most commonly cash-on-delivery. cash-in- seven days or next delivery. Credit terms seemed to depend on the re- liability of the customer as determined from past experience. I In- exceptions to this general rule appeared to he chain stores, institutions 28 Table 25. Percent of Marketing Firms Selling to Different Types of Outlets and Average Number of Outlets Served, by Size Group, 1965. S ize G roup * Less than 2,500- 5,000- 10,000- 50,000- 100,000 2,500 4,999 9,999 49,999 99,999 and over £ S £ £ £ £ u u I* u. id |H «*?«: ■*?« «*?<« t!«B •*J«G «-y= o 0 0 0 0 *-* 0 1* u 4) u. 4) u 03 i* V u I_ c - 1) GO — ■ — O J3 2 > s - CO '— .p. O J= 3 > s - 0) CO "— .IH 3 > S - CO 3 > c - CO O JS £ > V co C S£ M CO G r( M) co ^ c C3 --- 1- 0) 4> g C3 — 1- CD