Prepared by the Divisions of Aqricultural Economics and Aqrlcultural Extension
Paul E. Miller. Director Aqrlcultural Extension
NO. 304
UNNERSITY FARM, ST. PAUL
MAY 31, 1948
Sale of Eggs by Retail Stores in Minneapolis
WARREN
c.
1
WAITE
In response to complaints from
both large and medium eggs, the
producers about high margins in
University Farm Radio Programs large eggs averaged 60.1 cents per
marketing eggs and complaints from
dozen and the medium eggs 55.7
consumers about egg quality, a surcents
per dozen-a difference of 4.4
HI-LIGHTS IN HOMEMAKING
vey was made of the method of
cents.
10:45 a.m.
marketing eggs in Minneapolis.
Despite the large range in price
Eggs were purchased during the
among the individual stores, the
UNNERSITY FARM HOUR-12:30 p.m.
week of August 7, 1947, from a
averages of the prices for each type
Station KUOM-770 on the dial
representative sample of 210 retail
of store and for areas of the city
stores in Minneapolis. A dozen of
representing different levels of coneach kind of eggs sold by the store
sumer income were about the same.
was secured, and each of that total of 287 dozen purchased
A consumer picking a store at random in any part of the
were examined by State-Federal inspectors for quality.
city was thus just as likely to pay a high as a low price for
Stores were selling eggs at a great variety of prices at
eggs, and on the average it made no difference what type
the time of the survey. Table 1 shows the retail price for
of store it was. Carton eggs averaged somewhat higher in
eggs designated by retailers as Large A or their equivalent.
price than eggs sold in paper sacks--60.3 cents compared
These are the eggs indicated as of the best quality and
with 59.4 cents. This difference is somewhat less than the
large size. They constituted 71 per cent of all the sales by
cost of the carton. The larger stores all sold their eggs in
the retailers, the remainder consisting of 22 per cent sold
cartons. A great many of the smaller stores in the lower
as Medium A eggs and 7 per cent as Unclassified. The
income areas sold eggs in paper sacks. Many of the cusmost common price for large eggs was 59 cents per dozen,
tomers in these areas buy eggs in less than dozen lots.
but there were substantial numbers of stores selling at
More than half of the sales in the small stores in the low
prices ranging from 55 to 65 cents.
income area were in paper sacks and a quarter of the sales
.Medium sized eggs sold at a lower price than large
in the medium-sized independent stores. Many consumers
eggs, but there was a similar variety in the prices at which
in the low income areas reduce the price which they pay
they were offered to consumers. In the 28 stores selling
per dozen for eggs by buying in paper sacks and by buying
medium rather than large eggs. For eggs of similar kind,
Tcrble 1. Retail Prices of 208 Dozen Larqe A or Equivalent Eqqs
however, they pay on the average as much as consumers
Sold by Retailers in Minneapolis. 1947
in other parts of the city.
Price per Dozen (Cents)
Number of Dozen•
Retail margins averaged about 7.5 cents on the eggs
Below 55
3
which the retailers were selling as Large A or equivalent.
55 to 57
37
Average margins are shown by types of stores in table 2
58 to 60 ......................... .
85
for the 194 dozen eggs for which both the retail selling
61 to 62 ......................................... ..
65
63 to 65 ............................................... .
16
and purchase prices were reported by the stores.
66 and over ...........................................................................................
2
' Some stores sold more than one kind of this class of eggs and some
:l~es. sold none of this designation so that the number of dozen in the
0 le 1s not the same as the number of stores in the survey.
1 This report was written by Warren C. Waite of the Division of Agribulturol Economics. The study was planned and carried through, however,
Y the combined efforts of the County Agricultural Agent of Hennepin
~ounty, the Agricultural Extension Service (R.M.A. Project), and the Poultry
D~chon of the Division of Animal and Poultry Husbandry, as well as the
E"' 151 0n of A"ricultural Economics. William Dankers of the Agricultural
l!xtcnswn Servtce; H. J, Sloan of the Division of Animal Husbandry; and
P ~rold Peterson, Agricultural Agent of Hennepin County, should receive the
nnclpal "''edit for the study.
Table 2. Retail Margins per Dozen for 194 Dozen Larqe Eqqs Sold
in Minneapolis Stores. 1947
Retail selling price
Type of Store
Small independents
Medium independents ........
Chains and large
Purchase price
Dozens
(number)
Price
(cents)
Price
(cents)
Margin
(cents)
135
46
13-
59.9
60.2
60.4
52.5
52.7
52.8
7.4
7.5
7.6
Page Two
FARM BUSINESS NOTES
Table 3. Average Margin per Dozen for 194 Dozen Large Egqs Sold
ln Minneapolis. 1947
Margin per dozen in cents
40
96
49
9
Table 4. Retail Marqins on 194 Dozen Eggs by Retailer's Purchase
Price, 1947
Purchase
price to retailer
Number
of dozen
Margin in
cents per dozen
20.
74
79
21
8.7
7.6
7.2
6.9
Less than 50 cents
50 to 52 cents
53 to 55 cents ................................ ..
56 cents and over .....................- ..............
. There was no uniformity in the margin taken by individual stores on these eggs. Three-fourths of the margins
reported :vere between 5 and 9 cents per dozen, but the
range vaned from 3 cents on four different dozens of eggs
to 13 cents on three separate dozens of eggs. The margins
on medium eggs were somewhat smaller than those on
lar~e eggs. The_ mar~in for the 69 dozen medium eggs for
whtch both retail sellmg and purchase price were available
was 6.6 cents, which was slightly less than a cent smaller
than that taken for the large eggs.
Retailers purchased their eggs from their suppliers at a
variety of prices. While the average was about 52.5 cents,
some eggs were purchased as low as 47 cents per dozen
and some as high as 58 cents. There was a decided tendency for the eggs purchased at the higher prices to be
handled at a narrower margin than those purchased at
lower prices.
Each dozen eggs purchased by the interviewers was
candled and graded by State-Federal graders and the internal quality of six eggs rated as A, B, C, and Inedible,
according to the "United States Standards for Quality of
Individual Shell Eggs." These ratings are given in table 5.
The quality of eggs sold in August is generally low. The
particular week of the survey was especially hot, and this
also probably had a material influence.
There was little difference in quality between the eggs
which retailers designated as Large A or equivalent or
Medium A or equivalent. About 22 per cent of the eggs in
each classification graded A individually and 55 per cent
B. The difference in the two classifications was in size.
The unclassified eggs were, however, definitely lower in
quality as a group.
It was apparent that no marked relationship existed
between quality and price. This is shown in table 6. People
who bought eggs at low prices were just as likely to get
good eggs or poor eggs as those buying at high prices.
Table 5. Quality of Eggs Sold by Minneapolis Retailers Under
Different Designations of Grade. 1947
Proportion of eqqs in different quality qroups
Larqe A or equiv ............
Medium A or equiv ......
Unclassified
Table 6. Quality of Eqgs Sold at Designated Prices in MinneapoUa
Retail Stores, 1947
Proportion of eqqs qradinq
Number of dozen
3 to 5 ·········--···--······-·-·-·- ................- .................................................... ..
6 to 8 ----·-·--·------------------------------------------------------------- _________________..........
9 to 11 ................................ -.........
.. .................... - .... - ...... .
12 and over ............................... . ...... - .................... .
Retail desiqnation
May 31, 1948
A(per
cent)
B (per
cent)
C(per
cent)
Inedible
(per
cent)
Total
(per
cent)
21.7
21.8
18.9
55.7
55.0
41.6
18.9
20.7
33.3
3.7
2.5
6.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
Price (cents)
Below 55 .......
55 ......
...............................
56
57
58
59
60
...................................
61
62
..............................
63
..........................
64 ...............................
65 and over.
All prices ................"······--···--
A(per
cent)
B (per
cent)
C(per
cent)
Inedible
(per
cent)
Total
(per
cent)
19.0
22.8
29.5
19.5
32.4
20.6
31.1
16.1
26.0
27.5
25.0
12.5
22.6
39.1
51.8
56.5
54.6
43.0
60.6
47.8
56.9
61.5
55.9
58.4
48.6
53.1
34.4
24.6
11.5
20.7
19.3
18.5
16.6
22.4
9.4
13.7
11.3
30.6
20.7
7.5
0.8
2.5
5.2
5.3
0.3
4.5
4.6
3.1
2.9
5.5
8.3
3.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Table 7. Proportion of Stained, Dirty. and Checked Eggs Sold by
Minneapolis Retail Stores, 1947
Retailer's desiqnation
Larqe A or equiv ..
Medium A or equiv .......
Unclassified ..
All egqs
Stains
(per cent)
Dirties
(per cent)
Checked
(per cent)
16.5
17.0
28.0
17.5
1.5
2.6
12.9
2.7
6.7
4.9
9.9
6.9
In _addition to poor internal quality, eggs may be unattractive to consumers because of their external appearance. As shown in table 7, one-fifth of the eggs examined
by the graders were classified as stained or dirties and
about 7 per cent as checked. Checked eggs are those which
have cracks in the shell, most of which are small and become readily noticeable only upon candling.
It is apparent that much needs to be done in improving
the_ marketing of eggs through retail stores in Minneapolis.
This was undoubtedly a difficult period in which to market
good quality eggs. The general quality of eggs, however,
was low, and prices had no apparent relationship to
quality. The difficulties are probably a joint problem for
farm producers, wholesale handlers, and retailers.
Egg Buying by Consumers
in Minneapolis 1
wARREN
c.
WAITE AND GAYNOLD CARROLL
A survey of 174 housewives in Minneapolis was conducted in August, 1947, to learn their methods of buying
eggs and the difficulties they encountered in doing so.
About 70 per cent when asked to name their major problem in buying eggs reported difficulty in buying the kind of
eggs they wanted. Thirty per cent reported no difficulty.
The two problems most frequently mentioned were price
and freshness. Other problems of many kinds were reported but none as frequently as these two. Price was
mentioned alone by 48 housewives and in connection with
freshness by 15 more. Freshness was mentioned alone by
20 housewives.
When asked the best method of determining whether
or not an egg is of high quality, twenty per cent of the
1 .The in~erviews in .this survey were made by the Consun;er I~tcrest5
of Mmneapohs. We are mdebted to Mrs. A. N. Satterlee for tbrs assrstance.
May 31. 1948
FARM BUSINESS NOTES
housewives said they did not know how to tell an egg of
high quality. Twenty-six per cent agreed that "appearance
after broken" was the best test. They said, "Yolks that
stand up and whites that do not spread are signs of a good
fresh egg." Twenty-four per cent of the group depended on
their merchant or source of supply for a quality product.
Roughness of shell was the basis of judgment for nine per
cent, with taste or odor for another six per cent. A few
tested eggs in a glass of water. Uniform size of the dozen,
candling, brand name, labeling, absence of gloss on the
shell, and price were expressed by others as their method
of telling quality.
In this group of families, about half reported that they
were buying their eggs directly from farmers or securing
them from friends or relatives who live in the country. The
other half of the group were buying their eggs from stores
or peddlers. Some who believed they were buying from
farmers may have been buying from peddlers.
When the families are grouped according to their
source of egg supply, notable differences appear in the
problems which they encounter. Three times as many
housewives reported no buying problems when buying
from farmers or relatives as those who bought from stores
or other sources. Six times as many mentioned freshness
as a problem when buying from stores as those buying
from farms and relatives. Nearly twice as many mentioned
high price as a difficulty when buying from stores. Other
miscellaneous problems were mentioned by 11 families in
each group. Difficulty in getting to the source of supply
was mentioned by the farmer-relative group, while the store
group mentioned such things as a lack of large sized eggs,
incorrect grading, and instability of supplies.
It seems clear from these answers that those who
secure eggs from friends and relatives in the country or
from farmers believe that they are getting better eggs than
those who purchase them through the stores.
When the families are divided into these two groups,
the average size of the family is about the same-3.00 persons in those buying from stores and 3.08 persons in those
buying from other sources. The average number of eggs
used weekly per person, however, is one more in the
families not buying from stores than in the families in the
other group-7.8 eggs per person per week as compared
with 6.8 eggs per person per week. This indicates that if
Minneapolis consumers were able to secure eggs of higher
quality, their demand for eggs would be increased.
Quality of Eggs as a Market Factor
H. J.
1
SLOAN
Sufficient information is available to demonstrate quite
clearly that egg consumption would be increased appreciably if consumers could be given the assurance that they
could purchase eggs of uniform and satisfactory quality at
all times.
As one approach to the study of quality at the retail
level, a survey was made in Minneapolis in August, 1947,
Ec
1
This study was made in co-operation with the Division of Agricultural
P-r~~:~nues and the Agricultural Extension Service. The grading service was
VIocd
through the courtesy of
Vv.
\Vheeler, Federal-State Supervisor.
Page Three
in which eggs were purchased from a representative number of stores and a careful study made of their various
quality factors. The eggs were officially graded according
to Federal Standards for Consumer grades, weighed, and
samples from each dozen were broken out.
As might be expected in August, the general quality of
eggs was quite low. For example, of the eggs that were
being sold as Large A or equivalent, only 21.7 per cent
were actually of A quality, 55.7 per cent B quality, and
18.9 per cent were grade C. There were 3.7 per cent Inedibles. The situation for those sold as Medium A was
almost exactly the same.
The group of eggs sold as grade B were apparently of
somewhat better quality relatively, and of the few dozens
that were sold as grade C, three-fourths of them were
actually grade B. The eggs sold as unclassified graded
18.9 per cent A's, 41.6 per cent B's, 33.3 per cent C's,
and 6.1 per cent Inedibles. There were only a few dozen
eggs in which heat damage or germ development was not
obvious in the broken out samples of eggs.
Cleanliness was also at fault since the grade A large
and medium eggs contained nearly 17 per cent stains, over
2 per cent dirties, and approximately 6 per cent checks. A
great many eggs of so-called higher grades graded C because of an excessive number of stained, dirty, or checked
eggs. Forty-one per cent of the unclassified eggs were
stained and dirty.
There were very few of the so-called Large eggs that
did not average well over the minimum of 24 ounces per
dozen and many of the Mediums actually could have qualified as Large.
Relatively few eggs graded B or less because of shell
texture or shape. As far as color is concerned, well over
half of the dozens of eggs were white and in many of the
dozens the majority of eggs were white with only one or two
creams or browns. The appearance could have been improved by not putting one or two browns in a dozen of
otherwise white eggs. A mixture of colors was more common in the lower grade eggs and in the unclassified group.
The broken out eggs, in most cases, were found to
have a high proportion of thin white and a relatively low
proportion of thick white, and the thick white was of poor
quality. The average yolk color was found to be somewhat
darker than medium yellow, and there was considerable
variation within various dozens.
The two important factors that seemed to be chiefly
responsible for this generally low interior quality were
excessive temperature and time. These findings emphasize
the importance of speedy delivery and refrigeration
throughout the marketing channel especially during the
extremely warm summer months if high quality eggs are
to be delivered to the consumer.
Not all of the blame for this generally low quality can
be placed on any one group involved in handling the eggs.
It is clear, however, that a great deal of improvement could
be made in handling eggs by the retail outlets, especially
by more refrigeration and more frequent ordering. Producers and suppliers could help by reducing the number of
stained, dirty, and checked eggs, and also by better care
while the eggs are still in their hands.
Page Four
FARM BUSINESS NOTES
Minnesota Farm Prices
For Aprit 1948
Prepared by
W.
C.
WAITE
Marketing Margins on Eggs
K. E. OGREN
and K. E. OGREN
The index number of Minnesota farm prices for April,
~948, is 273.8. This index expresses the average of the
mcreases and decreases in farm product prices in April,
1948, over the average of April, 1935-39, weighted according to their relative importance.
Average Farm Prices Used in Computing the Minnesota Farm Price
Index. April 1948. with Comparisons*
:i
..:co
l:l""
:;;~
Wheat ···-···-·-·-··-·-·
Com ·---······-·-··-·
Oats -··---····--··--·Barley ···-·····-····-·--·
Rye ---····--··-·Flax ·-·-··----·--·Potatoes ·--··----Hay ··-··-·---·-···-··-
:i
:i
~~
..:-
}i~
$2.39 $2.34 $2.44
2.00
1.48
2.09
.81
1.15
1.16
1.65
2.16
2.19
2.22
2.87
2.26
5.89 7.40
5.85
1.25
1.60
1.60
15.50 15.80 13.00
May 31, 1948
:i
~*
:;;~
..:-
:i
~~
..:-
Hogs -··--·----..$20.00 $21.40 $24.60:1:
Cattle ·---·····- 20.50 20.30 17.40:j:
Calves -·---- 23.00 23.70 19.60:1:
Lambs-Sheep ... 19.33 19.29 19.6l:j:
Chickens -··-·.185
.184
.210
Eggs ·····-·--··-·.396
.373
.384
Butterfat ·-·--··-···.91
.87
.74
Milk --··-------- 3.85
3.95:j: 3.05:j:
Woolt ·····---·-·····-.43
.41
.45:j:
* These are the average prices for Minnesota as reported by the
United States Department of Agriculture.
t Not included in the price of index number.
:j: Revised.
Minnesota farm prices, as a whole, again registered a
gain of less than one per cent over the preceding month.
The most important commodity price changes recorded
between March and April were 5 and <;> per cent increases
in butterfat and egg prices and a 7 per cent decline in hog
prices. The price of hogs and the hog-corn ratio were at
the lowest levels since the removal of price ceilings in
October, 1946.
All of the feed ratios continued to compare unfavorably
with those of the two preceding years and the base period.
Feed prices, from the index of prices paid by farmers, were
24 per cent higher than in mid-April of 1947. Farm stocks
of feed grains were down 30 per cent from a year ago, and
production of principal by-product feeds was off 5 per cent.
In 1947, the average price per dozen eggs bought by
Minneapolis housewives was 19.4 cents above the average
price received by Minnesota farmers. This marketing
margin was almost double the pre-war average of 10.3
cents. A large increase in the margin took place between
1942 and 1945, when the margin increased from 11.8 to
19.8 cents per dozen.
The 1947 marketing margin expressed as a per cent of
the retail price was slightly below the pre-war average.
The percentage margin has remained relatively constant
throughout the whole period, because a rise in egg prices
has been accompanied by a larger spread between retail
and farm prices .
The size of the marketing margin has a definite seasonal pattern, being larger during periods of low egg production than during high production. The marketing
margin during October, November, and December has
averaged about 4 cents more than during April, May, and
June.
Marketing Margins on Eggs, 1935-1947*
Margin
per dozen
(cents)
Year
1935-39
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944 ................................ ---···--·.................
1945 ..............________......... _.._........._ ..
1946
1947
U. S. farm price index ........................
Minnesota farm price index .........
Minn. crop price index
·············--··-Minn. livestock price index ··············-·--·-·--·
Minn. livestock product price index .....
U. S. purchasing power of farm products
Minn. purchasing power of farm products
Minn. farmers' share of consumers' food
dollar
U. S. hog-com ratio ............................. .
Minnesota hog-com ratio ........................................
Minnesota beef-com ratio .........................................
Minnesota egg-grain ratio ............ ·········-·-···--·······
Minnesota butterfat-farm-grain ratio ........... .
Apr.
15.
1948
Apr.
15,
1947
Apr. Average
15,
April,
1946 1935-39
266.0
273.8
304.3
272.0
265.1
134.2
138.1
252.3
253.5
251.1
282.7
227.0
137.8
138.4
193.8
177.9
185.5
177.9
175.3
129.5
118.8
63.9
14.9
16.8
12.5
12.0
26.6
65.3
12.2
12.2
13.1
13.9
31.7
64.3t
9.4
9.6
9.8
10.4
23.4
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
47.9
12.5
15.4
12.6
13.7
31.8
• Explanation of the computation of these data may be had upon
request.
t Figure for January, 1948.
36.2
40.1
34.4
30.8
28.8
34.3
36.1
34.6
32.5
10.3
10.5
11.1
11.8
14.5
16.3
19.8
18.2
19.4
* The margin is the difference between the average retail price per
dozen in Minneapolis as reported by the United States Department of Labor
and the average Minnesota farm price as reported by the United States
Department of Agriculture.
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
Indexes and Ratios for Minnesota Agriculture •
Margin as a proportion of retail cosl
(per cent)
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Extension
University Farm, St. Paul l, Minn.
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE
USE TO AVOID PAYMENT
OF POSTAGE, $300
PAUL E. MILLER, Director
Form 8-5-48--2750
Permit No. 1201
FREE-Cooperative Agricultural Extension
Work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914.
UNIVERSITY FARM, ST. PAULl, MINNESOTA
Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, University of Minnesota, Agricultural Extension Division and United States Depart·
men! of Agriculture Cooperating, Paul E. Miller, Director. Published in furtherance of Agricultural Extension Acta of May 8 and June 30, 1914.