Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Proceedings of Conference. 43
SOME ASPECTS OF MEAT DISTRIBUTION AND CONSUMPTION.
BY ARTHUR JONES.
In these days of production for a market, the study of consumer demand is extremely important if the article produced is going to have a ready and extended sale. Its importance is being increasingly recognised in aresearch and advisory work, particularly as regards marketing problems in the field of industrial economics. Generally speaking, however, the attention devoted to this subject is insufficient, and there is a tendency to regard retail distribution, as affecting agricultural products, as being beyond the scope of the subject matter embraced by agricultural economics. This is obviously a dangerous limitation since many of the problems involved in the production and marketing only become apparent a t the retail stage in distribution. It is probably true to say that the widest gap in our modern economic data is in respect of con- sumer demand. Further, what little knowledge we have only percolates through to the producer after a long time lag and possibly having undergone some distortion or at least losing in accuracy. In other words, it might be said that the farmer is always trying to keep up in the race with the consumer. In these days of quick transport, mass advertisement and keen salesmanship, the changes in consumer demand are much more frequent and rapid than they used to be, even twenty years ago, with the result that it is far easier for economists to advise the farmer to adjust his production to meet changed conditions, than it is for the farmer to effect the adjustment, particularly when the consumer reactions to these changed conditions are only imperfectly known. The above statements are subject to the qualification that often the consumer does not know his exact requirements until some agency has supplied him with a certain article in a given form. Sardines in tins and cheese in small cartons are random examples.
It must be admitted at the outset that the consumer is not a dictator, and that his purchasing power can be deflected to a considerable extent by means of education in the principles of dietetics, suggestion by means of advertisement, and technological development in production. At the same time, it is equally true to say that changes in consumer demand create new problems in production and marketing, thereby directly influencing costs in these two fields of activity. For example, a decline in bread consumption is bound to affect, in the long run, the whole farm economy of the world wheat belts. Another illustration of this point is the present position of the wool trade. I read in the Manchester Guardian Commercial that an Australian Senator summed up the position of the wool-grower in these words : “ The 1930-31 Australian wool clip will cost at least 12d. per pound to produce and will realise 8d. per pound gross, so that we will soon perish unless we can reduce the production costs and encourage increased consumption and a higher level of value.” When it is remembered that woollen material for women’s garments is 125% above 1914 level, and hosiery 115% above, it is not a t all clear that an increase in consumption of wool will solve the problem of the grower, as it is quite obvious that artificial silk and other substitutes, active competitors in the manufacture of clothes, may neutralise and even diminish the increased demand for woollen material,
34 Agricultural Economics Society.
This could mean that an expected rise in the price of raw wool might not materialise, with the result that the Australian sheep farmers would be forced to enter other fields of agricultural activity.
I t appears to me that the consumer of the future will play a still larger part in determining what is produced, the channels through which it will be distributed, and the form it will take on reaching its final destination. Perhaps the most important point of all is the fact that these consumer influences will be ultimately reflected in price.
When one comes to analyse the reactions of the consumer to foodstuffs in general, certain peculiarities of that demand are of fundamental importance. In the first place, we are dealing with necessaries, and secondly the total quantities that can be consumed per capita are limited, that is, the path of the law of diminishing utility is much more rapid and easier. Further, the margin of utility is at a low level in the case of many foodstuffs. Lastly, there is a very wide scope for the application of the principles of substitution as between the various foodstuffs.
Some very interesting figures relating to the trend of the demand for meat are given in Volume 21, No. 3, of Foreiglz Crops and Markets, which serve well as an illustration of the trend of consumers’ requirements in fresh meat. Of general interest is the fact that meat consumption in the European countries is considerably lower than in the newer countries like Canada, U.S.A. and the Argentine. I t is quite obvious that the supply factor is mainly responsible for the high consumption of beef and veal, and mutton and lamb in the Argentine, New Zealand and Australia. With a few exceptions the amount of beef and veal consumed per capita in all countries is slightly lower, or about the same to-day as it was pre-war. The consumption of mutton and lamb, on the other hand, tends to decrease in all the countries listed with the exception of New Zealand. Pork and lard, however, which generally speaking are much cheaper products, are consumed to a considerably greater extent now than was the case pre-war. Examination of the United Kingdom figures of the per capita consumption of meat indicates that there is no significant change in the consumers’ preference for the kind of meat bought, but more attention will be given to this aspect of the question when dealing with the consumption of specific meat products in the Loughborough area. As Maxton implies in the Empire Marketing Board report on Agricultural Economics in the Empire*, per capita consumption of a commodity in a country is no test of the potential expansion of a market since some commodities are not consumed at all except by certain classes. Others are consumed in such different quantities and grades by different classes as to amount to almost a different commodity.
The greatest change that has taken place during the last few years is not in the kind of meat bought but in the size, class and origin. I t is estimated that in the post-war years approximately 60% of the country’s total meat supplies has been imported, and it is clear that the pre-war prejudice against “ foreign ” meat is now fast disappearing, owing no doubt to the influence of the war when the consumer was only too glad to buy any kind of meat and to the fact that the standard of quality is continually improving. I t is generally believed to-day that the consumer requires lean meat and small joints. That a change in the domestic demand for these classes of joints has taken place is undoubted, but as Bridges and I pointed out in our survey of the Midlands Grazing Industry+, the influence of this change on the whole
* Agricultural Economics in the Empire ; Empire Marketing Board, 1927. t h. Bridges and A. Jones, The Midlands Grazing Industry : Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1931.
Proceedings of Conference. 45
€&-stock market has been over-emphasised, and without further information on the relative proportions of meat which go into different channels of con- sumption such as domestic and institutional, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to advise the farmer as to the weight of animal he should produce.
In view of the many confusing and contradictory opinions held on the subject of consumer preferences it is essential that steps be taken to investigate more thoroughly this branch of economics.
Consumer demand for meat as for all other products has two definite aspects :-
(a) The demand for the product itself as regards quantity and quality. (b) The demand for service in connection with the sale of the product,
that is the ability of the consumer to buy the product at the most convenient time and place, and in the most convenient unit.
In this country at least meat is regarded as an essential part of the diet by almost all sections of the community. The total quantity bought, however, will be, to a large extent, determined by the price of non-meat substitutes. Even when the consumer has decided on the purchase of meat, he has a wide range from which to choose. He may prefer beef to mutton, or lamb to pork, home-killed to chilled, a better quality joint to a poorer quality joint, or made-up meat goods to fresh meat and so on. The possiblity of substitution on the part of the consuming public is enormous. Not only do we find the different classes of meats actively competing against one another for the custom of consumers within approximately the same income group but again as between one income group and another. Further, it is clear that this substitution may take several forms. For example, those people whose income is such as not to call for a careful scrutiny of their food budget would be merely concerned with the cut and kind of meat as dictated by their tastes. Where the expenditure on meat must be more carefully budgeted, the housewife may prefer smaller quantities rather than sacrifice quality. In still lower income groups the tendency will be, as was illustrated in the Loughborough investigation, to maintain quantity and sacrifice quality, even though purchases may be confined to home-killed meat. In another group we shall find frozen meat substituted for chilled, and in the still lower income groups it will be a case of discontinuing meat and buying other forms of cheaper food, such as bread or potatoes. In the above examples has been indicated what is known in a general way of one of the chief determinants of consumer demand for meat, namely, the relation of income to price.
It is also generally admitted that climatic conditions and season of the year are other factors causing variability in demand. To what extent these factors are modified by habit, changes in dietetics, social customs and advertisements is less generally known. Realising this, it becomes more imperative to measure exactly the influences of these and other possible determinants affecting meat consumption.
It is clear that in contemplating the whole range of substitution mentioned earlier, the actions of individual consumers cannot be treated separately. That is, any information derived from consumers must be classified on some feasible basis, and where possible, must be strengthened by evidence obtained from the distributors, not only for corroborative purposes, but also to indicate how the requirements of the consumers are met and the influences of these requirements on methods and problems of distribution and ultimately production.
46 Agricultural Economics Society.
The survey on which the following remarks are based was carried out in Loughborough by my colleague Mr. Makings and myself, and is a first attempt at an examination of these related factors. It will be, perhaps, relevant at this point to explain briefly the approach made to this investigation. The period covered was from January 1st 1930 to December 31st of the same year. All the butchers and meat salesmen in the town were interviewed and the scheme explained. A schedule was left with each distributor asking for information as to the numbers of animals and weights of beef, mutton, lamb, veal and pork sold during the second week of each month, imported meat being distinguished from home-killed in the returns. In addition, further information was obtained on sources of supply, method of buying, transport, retail prices of the different cuts of meat, and general information on shop organisation and retail practices. The schedules were collected from the butchers during the third week in each month and, generally speaking, complete information was obtained from a large majority of the retailers. On analysis, the data collected provide a figure representing the average weekly sales of each class of meat during each month. In order to obtain a figure for per capita consumption an allowance was made for the amount of meat bought in Loughborough and consumed outside the municipal area, and also for meat bought outside Loughborough and consumed in the area.
The second method of obtaining information on consumption was to canvass the consumers direct. A survey of the householders was made twice, once during a winter month and once during a summer month. Visits were made to householders, the scheme explained and a questionnaire left, asking for information on the quantities of the different classes of meat bought during the previous week, the number of days on which butchers’ meat was served, what preference they had for the different classes and sizes of joints, and a great deal more information on the same lines. Approximately 1,500 house- holders were visited in March and over 500 complete replies to the questionnaire were obtained. A slightly greater number were visited in the summer, and approximately 600 completed forms were collected. Loughborough is the second largest town in the county, with an approximate population of 30,000, and is a market town serving an area that has agricultural, industrial and manufacturing interests. Table I, which has been circulated, will give you a fair idea of the distribution of the population according to the 1921 Census.
Proceedings of Conference. 47
TABLE 1.
Persons engaged in different Occupations in the town of Loughborough in 1921.*
- __
Occupation.
Textile workers, etc. . . . . . . . . . Metal workers . . . . . . . . . . . . Personal service, entertainment, food
and drink manufacturers, etc. 1..
Clerks and draughtsmen . . . . . . Commerce, finance, insurance (excluding
clerks) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public administration and professional
Transport and communication ... Builders, bricklayers, painters, etc. ... Electricians, electrical apparatus makers
Wood and furniture workers . . . . . . Workers not defined above . . . . . .
TOTAL WORKERS . . . . . . ~
Males.
706
2472
336
548
610
596
479
494
331
293
1918 __ 8783
Females.
1997
39
788
379
286
232
61
11
57
15
287
4152
Total.
2703
2511
1124
927
896
828
540
505
388
308
2205
12935
Per Cent. of Total Workers.
20.9
19.4
8.7
7.2
6.9
6.4
4.2
3.9
3.0
2.4
17.0
100.0
* Figures adapted from the Census return of the County of Leicester, 1921.
I propose dealing with my subject under three main heads :- I. The town’s meat supplies. 2. Distribution. 3. Consumption.
Meat Sufifilies.
Loughborough in two ways :- Under this heading one can say that the meat supplies are brought into
(a) (b) The distributors buying fat cattle for slaughter draw the majority
of their supplies from the auction market, and the same is true of home-killed mutton and lamb, but it is interesting to note that a small proportion is drawn from markets as far apart as Leamington and Kings Lynn. Direct purchase from the farmer is comparatively small. There is more diversity of supply in the case of pigs, and it is probable that not more than two-thirds of the pigs slaughtered are purchased in the Loughborough market. There is no municipal abattoir in Loughborough with the result that there are 14 slaughter-houses in the town, with as many as 9 butchers using the same one. The approximate average percentage of cattle slaughtered throughout the year to total home- killed carcasses sold retail was 86%, which indicates that there is a small
In the form of live stock. In the form of dressed carcasses.
(a)
48 Agricultural Economics Society..
external trade in wholesale home-killed beef. An interesting feature of the home-killed trade was the marked falling off of the Percentage of slaughtered throughout the summer period, indicating clearly that butchers prefer to purchase dressed carcasses rather than slaughter during the warmer months.
The ratio of sheep slaughterings to total home-killed sheep carcass sales is appreciably lower than the cattle ratio. The average percentage of total slaughtered to the number sold retail being 76%, and in the case of pigs, 63%.
I( has been stated earlier that approximately 86% of the home-killed beef carcasses retailed in the town during 1930 were bought on the hoof and slaughtered by Loughborough butchers. Further it has been computed from the distributors’ returns that of these rather more than 10% did not pass through the general cattle market. This means that slightly more than 75% of the home-killed beef distributed in the town was purchased in the market. Based on this figure and on the assumption that an average of 36 home-killed beast carcasses were sold weekly in the town, it will appear that approximately 14,000 fat cattle were bought in Loughborough market by Loughborough butchers, or roughly 61% of the fat cattle sold during the year.
The remainder were purchased either by country butchers operating within a six-mile radius of Loughborough, by dealers, or by butchers from the neighbouring towns.
Lack of separate records of numbers of fat and store sheep make a similar analysis of sheep figures impossible, whilst the involved nature of the trade in fat pigs does not allow of any reliable estimate of the extent of the town supply passing through the market. In general, however, it may be stated that Loughborough butchers draw over two-thirds of their live cattle and live sheep supplies from the cattle market, but it is improbable that they rely on the market to anything like the same extent for their pig supply.
(b) Dressed Carcass Su$plies :-About 12% of the home-killed beef supplies enters the town as dressed carcasses, and this may be regarded as an auxiliary means of augmenting short supplies amongst butchers regularly slaughtering. Imported beef carcasses were purchased in the main from Leicester wholesalers. Two shops handling only imported meat were branches of large multiple shop firms and received their supplies through the distributive channels controlled by their firms.
Dressed home-killed mutton carcasses were, in general, purchased from Leicester wholesalers. I t has been estimated that on the average, about 20 dressed home-killed mutton carcasses were purchased weekly by the Lough- borough distributors. Imported mutton carcasses were purchased in the same way, or supplied by headquarters to the branch shops of the multiple shop firms, or bought from the Loughborough Cold Store which is supplied with consignments of mutton and lamb by one supply firm. Approximately 25% of the imported mutton and over one-third of the imported lamb entering the town passes through the Loughborough Cold Store. On the other hand, over 50% of the imported mutton sold retail in Loughborough comes direct from the wholesaler to the distributor.
Supplies of dressed pig carcasses brought into Loughborough accounted for over 35% of the pork handled and consisted of about 30 pig carcasses weekly. Only a small trade was carried on in frozen pork and this by three distributors handling only imported meat.
Reference to Table I1 gives an indication of the quantity and class of meat sold in Loughborough during one week.
Of these, country butchers took the greatest share.
6P
,I 1521 I I 00 I
Number of Animals.
Number of Animals.
__ __ Number of Carcasses.
___-_ ~___ Number of
Animals.
~- ~ ~
Number of Animals.
50 Agriczcltwral Economics Society.
Retail Distribution. In the course of this investigation information was collected from a
number of towns relating to population and numbers of retail meat shops. Without going into any further detail on this problem, it was interesting and surprising to note the wide differences between towns with regard to the complement of butchers’ shops in relation to population. In January, 1930, there were 42 retail meat shops in Loughborough and, with a town population of approximately 30,000, the average number of families served was 179. The approximate average of families served per shop in all the towns from which information was obtained was 171. A similar figure for individual towns ranged from IOO in the case of Boston to 267 in the case of Mansfield.
The distribution of retail shops within Loughborough can be seen from the map*. The shops were mainly concentrated in the most central parts of the town and, generally speaking, no provision was made for the establish- ment of retail shops in what one might call the suburban areas. Zoning out did not occur and as a rule each distributor with a normal trade had customers all over the town.
Retail meat distributors may be classified into two main groups :- butchers and meat salesmen. The latter, as the name implies, are those who purchase dressed carcasses and work entirely on the margin between wholesale and retail prices. Their work is more specialised than that of butchers who slaughter, and their profit is more closely related to skill in cutting and effective salesmanship. There tends to be a bigger proportion of meat salesmen to total distributors in larger towns than in smaller towns, and it is also probable that more imported than home-killed meat is handled by this class of distributor.
During the year under review there was an average of 10 meat salesmen operating in Loughborough. Of these, four were selling only imported meat, two handled imported beef and mutton and home-killed pork, and one sold only home-killed pork. Two of the establishments selling only imported meat were branches of large multiple shop firms. Approximately half of the imported meat and between one-quarter and one-fifth of the total meat distributed in the town was handled by meat salesmen.
Throughout 1930 there was an average of 42 meat distributors in Loughborough and in Table I11 these distributors have been classified into groups based on their volume of trade. As indicated in the Table, most of the distributors are included in groups falling between a minimum of 500 lbs. and a maximum of 3,000 lbs. dressed carcass weight trade. A weekly turn- over of half a beast, three sheep and half a pig in season would average about 500 Ibs. dressed carcass weight trade. I t is probably true to say that smaller distributive units are uneconomic. There is a strong concentration of dis- tributors in the two groups handling between 750 and 1,500 lbs., in fact, these two classes include over 40% of the total distributors over the year. They are composed mainly of distributors handling one beast carcass weekly, the varying weights of other types of meat sold deciding the group into which each falls. A typical distributor with about 1,000 lbs. dressed carcass weight trade would handle one beast, about four sheep and a pig. Most of the distributors selling no imported beef or very small quantities would fall between the 750 and I, joo lbs. grouping as larger scale businesses almost invariably handle an appreciable amount of imported.
X This map, which was exhibited a t the meeting, is not included here. - ~~~ -~~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~- -~ _-
50 Agriczcltwral Economics Society.
Retail Distribution. In the course of this investigation information was collected from a
number of towns relating to population and numbers of retail meat shops. Without going into any further detail on this problem, it was interesting and surprising to note the wide differences between towns with regard to the complement of butchers’ shops in relation to population. In January, 1930, there were 42 retail meat shops in Loughborough and, with a town population of approximately 30,000, the average number of families served was 179. The approximate average of families served per shop in all the towns from which information was obtained was 171. A similar figure for individual towns ranged from IOO in the case of Boston to 267 in the case of Mansfield.
The distribution of retail shops within Loughborough can be seen from the map*. The shops were mainly concentrated in the most central parts of the town and, generally speaking, no provision was made for the establish- ment of retail shops in what one might call the suburban areas. Zoning out did not occur and as a rule each distributor with a normal trade had customers all over the town.
Retail meat distributors may be classified into two main groups :- butchers and meat salesmen. The latter, as the name implies, are those who purchase dressed carcasses and work entirely on the margin between wholesale and retail prices. Their work is more specialised than that of butchers who slaughter, and their profit is more closely related to skill in cutting and effective salesmanship. There tends to be a bigger proportion of meat salesmen to total distributors in larger towns than in smaller towns, and it is also probable that more imported than home-killed meat is handled by this class of distributor.
During the year under review there was an average of 10 meat salesmen operating in Loughborough. Of these, four were selling only imported meat, two handled imported beef and mutton and home-killed pork, and one sold only home-killed pork. Two of the establishments selling only imported meat were branches of large multiple shop firms. Approximately half of the imported meat and between one-quarter and one-fifth of the total meat distributed in the town was handled by meat salesmen.
Throughout 1930 there was an average of 42 meat distributors in Loughborough and in Table I11 these distributors have been classified into groups based on their volume of trade. As indicated in the Table, most of the distributors are included in groups falling between a minimum of 500 lbs. and a maximum of 3,000 lbs. dressed carcass weight trade. A weekly turn- over of half a beast, three sheep and half a pig in season would average about 500 Ibs. dressed carcass weight trade. I t is probably true to say that smaller distributive units are uneconomic. There is a strong concentration of dis- tributors in the two groups handling between 750 and 1,500 lbs., in fact, these two classes include over 40% of the total distributors over the year. They are composed mainly of distributors handling one beast carcass weekly, the varying weights of other types of meat sold deciding the group into which each falls. A typical distributor with about 1,000 lbs. dressed carcass weight trade would handle one beast, about four sheep and a pig. Most of the distributors selling no imported beef or very small quantities would fall between the 750 and I, joo lbs. grouping as larger scale businesses almost invariably handle an appreciable amount of imported.
X This map, which was exhibited a t the meeting, is not included here. - ~~~ -~~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~- -~ _-
TAB
LE 1
11.
Dis
trib
utor
s w
ith r
etai
l es
tabl
ishm
ents
gro
uped
acc
ordi
ng t
o dr
esse
d ca
rcas
s w
eigh
t of
mea
t ha
ndle
d du
ring
the
sec
ond
wee
k in
eac
h m
onth
of 1930.
(2
1 2 3
Mon
th.
~-
Janu
ary
..
..
..
..
.
Feb
ruar
y .
..
..
..
..
Mar
ch
..
..
..
..
.
Apr
il .
..
..
..
..
..
.
May
.
..
..
..
..
..
.
June
.
..
..
..
..
Ju
ly .
..
..
..
..
..
.
Aug
ust
..
..
..
..
.
Sept
embe
r .
..
..
..
..
Oct
ober
.
..
..
..
..
Nov
embe
r .
..
..
..
..
D
ecem
ber
..
..
..
..
.
0 to
500
(lbs
.)
1 1 3 1 2 4 3 4 -
1 1 2
500
to
750
(Zbs
.)
2
-3
6 6 5 7 7 5 8 7 B 3
750
to
1.00
0 (Z
bs.)
10
10 9 10
11
8 8 8 0 9 9 12
1,00
0 to
1,
500
(lbs
.)
10
10 8 8 6 9 I1
11 9 8 11
I
1,50
0 to
2,
000
(lbs
.)
10 9 5 4 7 5 4 5 6 7 6 6
2,00
0 '
3,00
0
3,00
0 4,
000
(Jbs
.)
, (Z
bs.)
lo
~ to
6 6 9 10 7 6 5 5 7 6 6 7
4,00
0 to
5,
000
(Zbs
.)
5,00
0 to
6,
000
(Zbs
.)
6,00
0 to
7,
000
(Zbs
.)
TA
BL
E
IIIA
.
App
roxi
mat
e dr
esse
d ca
rcas
s tu
rn-o
ver
by t
he d
iffe
rent
cla
sses
of
dist
ribu
tors
and
num
bers
of
dist
ribu
tors
in
eac
h cl
ass
thro
ugho
ut 1930.
.4pp
roxi
mut
e w
eigh
t of
mea
t ha
ndle
d (t
ons)
Bee
f.
Mut
ton.
LO
I~cn
l
1 0 6 -
2 5
-- 23
IWlp
.
4 30
91
170
-
H.K
. __
_-
156 24
11
2 -
H.K
. Im
p.
-
-
17
65
-
82
H.K
.
380 84
66
-
-
(a)
Dis
trib
utor
s w
hose
sa
les
of
/ imD
orte
d w
ere
less
tha
n on
e-au
arte
r GR
OUP
I,
of '
thei
r to
tal
dres
sed
carc
asi
sale
s (b
y w
eigh
t)
..
..
..
..
..
..
D
istri
buto
rs
i 9 14
39
52
-
.?I 2 10
13
4
158
(b)
Dis
trib
utor
s w
hose
sa
les
of
impo
rted
wer
e m
ore
than
one
-qua
rter
an
d le
ss t
han
one
-hal
f of
th
eir
tota
l m
eat.
hand
ling
mai
nly
hom
e-ki
lled
I dressed c
arca
ss s
ales
(by
wei
ght)
...
(a)
Dis
trib
utor
s w
hose
sa
les
of
1 ho
me-
kille
d w
ere
mor
e th
an
one-
1
quar
ter
and
less
th
an
one-
half
of
th
eir
tota
l dr
esse
d ca
rcas
s sa
les
(by
wei
ght)
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
. i
(b)
Dis
trib
utor
s w
hose
sa
les
of
hom
e-ki
lled
wer
e le
ss th
an o
ne-q
uart
er
of
thei
r to
tal
dres
sed
carc
ass
sale
s , I
(by
wei
ght)
.
..
..
..
..
..
. 1
GROU
P 2.
D
istri
buto
rs
hand
ling
mai
nly
impo
rted
mea
t.
GH
oUP
3' }
Por
k D
istr
ibut
ors
...
Spec
ialis
ts.
1 "'
"'
I T
OT
AL
S ..
....
ir
44
530
/I 1,5
02
295
114
237
193
Proceedings of Con f erence. 53 In Table IIIA, the distributors have been grouped according to the class
and quantity of meat they sold in Loughborough during 1930. Group I contains distributors of home-killed meat, and, throughout the
year, more than half of the distributors were included in this class. Group 2 were mainly distributors of imported meat who operated on a
considerable scale. The large scale aspect of the imported trade, as far as retail distribution in Loughborough is concerned, becomes evident when it is realised that 66% of the shops selling mainly imported meat handled over 2,000 lbs. per week. Only 10% of the fresh killed meat shops sold over 2,000 lbs. per week. This tendency for division into two main groups may be due to technical difficulties in handling large quantities of home-killed and imported meat simultaneously, or it may be merely a reflection of the modern tendency towards specialisation. On the other hand, particularly in the case of chain shops, the large volume handled may be due to the fact that chilled beef must, I believe, be sold within the period of three weeks of landing in this country.
Group 3 contains the pork distributors and in this group only one distributor regularly handled more than 2,000 lbs. dressed carcass weight of pork.
Those with an entirely cash trade were mainly large distributing units such as the branches of the large multiple shop firms. The general run of family trade, however, involved a good deal of credit and distributors were almost unanimously agreed that this system was undesirable. Where an order and delivery service was performed as the normal routine, credit purchasing was a natural outcome. Since there were no price differences for " cash and carry" or " credit and delivery " customers, it was an anomaly of the trade that the consumers under the former system had to pay for the service rendered to another group of consumers taking advantage of the credit system.
Conmmption. In order to avoid confusion I had better state at the outset of this section
on consumption that statistics from both the distributors and the consumers will be used.
TABLE IV. Estimated quantities of different classes of meat sold to consumers resident
in Loughborough during 1930.
Generally speaking, distributors allowed credit.
Per Cent. of Total.
68
70
23
100
100
71
1 Home-killed. I 1 Imported.
1 Cwts. I
4240
1360
1710
- -
j 7310
I 1 Cwts.
Z ::: ::: i 320
I
... I Beef . . . Mutton ... ... , 3120
Lamb ... ... 510 ' 4790
Per Cent. of Total.
32
30
7 7
-
-
Total.
, Per Cent. Cwts. ~ of all meat.
13130 53
4480 ' 18
2220 I 9
4790 ' 19
320 1
24940 1 100
NOTE.-Cwt. figures are to nearest 10.
54 Agricultural Economics Society
I shall first of all deal with the analysis of the returns obtained from the distributors. Table IV gives the estimated quantities of the different classes of meat sold within Loughborough during 1930. From this Table it is clearly seen that beef was a staple article of diet and comprised over half of the total meat retailed. Combining mutton and lamb figures this class of meat came next with 25% of the total, whilst pork was below 20%. Generally speaking, the proportions of home-killed to imported meat sold were high. The low proportion of home-killed to imported lamb was very noticeable and illustrates the popularity of the latter. I t must be remembered, however, that home- killed lamb is a seasonal commodity, whilst imported lamb is on offer all the year round. If one combines mutton and lamb figures it will be found that sales of home-killed mutton and lamb predominated to the extent of 55% of total sales.
TABLE V.
Weekly meat Consumption in pounds per Adult Head for each month of 1930.
Figures derived from Distributors' Returns. ____
Mutton and Lamb.
H.K. 1 Imp. __-
January
February
March ...
=\pril .._
May ...
June . _ .
July ...
August ...
Septembei
October . . .
Xovember
December
Beef. _-__- H . K . 1 I m p
... 0.81 0.42
... 0.80 0.43 ~
... 0.80 i 0.39
... 0.79 ' 0.40
... 0.77 0.40
... 0.75 , 0.34
... 0.79 ' 0.33
. _ _ 0.73 1 0.34
.__ 0.75 , 0.37
... ~ 0-76 ' 0.35
... I 0.81 ~ 0.35 ~ ... i 0.80 ~ 0.35 ,
0.32 I 0.22
0.29 0.25
0.30 0.22
0.33 0.24
0.32 0.33
0.35 0.35
0.39 0.35
0.35 0.35
0.41 0.30
0.30 0.24
0.28 0.19
0.27 0.19
I
__
Pork.
--
0.28
0.26
0.23
0.23
0.16
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.19
0.25
0.29
0.28 .__
__
Veal.
~
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.01
0-01
0.02 ~
__
All Beef.
__
1.23
1.23
1.19
1.19
1.17
1.09
1.12
1.07
1.12
1.11
1.16
1.15
All Mutton
and Lamb.
0.54
0.54
0.52
0.57
0.65
0.70
0.74
0.70
0.61
0.54
0.47
0.46
All Meat.
2.07
2.06
1.97
2.03
2.02
1.94
2.01
1.92
1.95
1.91
1.93
1.91 ~-
Table V shows the weeklv meat consumption per adult head for each month of 1930 and illustrates fairly clearly the decline in beef and pork consumption over the summer months and the corresponding increase in mutton and lamb. This falling-off in beef consumption was not as heavy as is generally supposed, but was more in evidence in the case of imported beef than that of home-killed. I t appears from the Table that there is a great deal of support given to the popular prejudice against pork in the months without an " r." Judging from this Table there is not much justification for the common belief that meat consumption declines heavily in summer time.
Proceedings of Conference. 55
I ‘+ Im@orted.
B.
Beef.
--____ A. 1 B. A.
Winter ... 0.80 0.89 0.39 0.25
Summer ... 0.76 0.81 0.34 0.16
Annual Average 0.78 0.86 0.37 0.22
Analysis of consumer returns has been made on similar lines to those followed when dealing with distributors’ returns. These returns were collected h March, as representing a winter month, and August as representing a summer month. The spread of the collection of consumer figures over at least four weeks in each of these months allows a legitimate comparison of the results with those obtained by the seasonal division of the distributors’ returns. Consumption data from both these lines of approach, that is, both distributors and consumers, are presented in Table VI. In this Table “ A ” refers to the distributors’ returns and “ B ” to the consumers’.
Mutton and Lamb.
I H . K . Imported. 1 1 Pork.
_-___-___-___ A. B. A. B. A. B.
0.29 0.37 0.21 0.15 ~ 0.27 0.14
0.36 0.48 0.35 0.26 I
I 1 1 0.32 0.41 0.27
TABLE VI.
Consumption of different classes of butchers’ meat in Loughborough during 1930. Consumption is in pounds per Adult Head per week.
B.
1.14
0-97
Lamb. - ~ _ _ _
A. B. 1 0.50 0.52
~ 0.71 0.74
Winter ... ... Summer ... ... Annual Average ...
~ All Mutton All Beef. 1 and
A.
1.19
1.10
1.15
Veal.
A.
0.02
0.04
0.03
Non- classi- fied. __
B.
0.05
0.06
0.05 __
All Butchers’
Meat.
A.
1.98
1.96
1.98
B.
1.86
1.81
1.84
In view of the diversity of methods in collecting these consumption data the similarity between the two sets of figures is remarkable. It is rather interesting to note the difference between the consumption figures obtained from the consumers as compared with those obtained from the distributors in relation to the amount of imported beef and lamb consumed. This is probably explained by some misrepresentation on the part of the consumers with regard to the amount of imported meat they buy. Summing up the data presented in Table VI it may be said that the figures in the “ A ” columns give an approximate measure of the amounts of the different classes of meat consumed. The “ B ” columns tend to be overweighted by consumers’ misrepresentation in favour of home-killed meat, where home-killed and imported alternatives Occur.
56 Agricultural Economics Society.
In order to measure as far as possible the effect of income on meat consumption the consumers' returns were divided into five occupational groups together with a special class for miscellaneous :-
I. Well-to-do. 2. Tradesmen. 3. Artisan. 4. Clerical. 5. Labouring. 6. Miscellaneous.
This classification has been adopted in order to get an approximation to income groups, since it was impossible in the survey to obtain an exact statement of the household income. Table VII summarises the data collected on the consumption of meat during one winter week by occupational groups.
Iv 1 to It and
Lamb.
0.79
0.62
0.46
0.43
0.42
0.75
0.52
TABLE VII.
meat* All
__-
2.21
2.06
1.87
1.75
~ 1.66
2.16
__- 1-86
Consumption of the different classes of meat during one winter week by households classified into occupational groups.
Imp.
0.11
0.18
0.01
0.25
0.37
0.33
0.25
I Consumption in pounds per Adult Head.
-- H . K .
__-
0.64
0.44
0.32
0.33
0.24
0.52
-- 0.37
__ I -- -__- Mutton Group. Adults. 1 ' Beef. and )I Lamb. 11 Pork.
-I Imp.
0.15
0.18
0.14
0.10
I -!-
1 I 0.22
0.15
~ 0.18 I ' 0.12
N o yo _- ______.
Well-to-do ... 163 10.3
Tradesmen ... 175 11.1 ' Clerical ... 82 5.2
Artisan ... 603 38.1
Labouring ... 377 23.9 1
Miscellaneous , 180 11.4
~ _ _ _ ' I
H . K .
1.03
1.05
1.18
0.90
0.68
0.90
__
Non- Class- ified.
__
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.05
All Beef.
~
1.14
1.23
1.19
1.15
1.05
1.23
1.14
Taking these figures group by group, it is apparent that the well-to-do group were the heaviest winter consumers. I t is obvious that income, as far as it is evidenced by occupations, is a determining factor in consumption of meat. The lowest classified income group, the labouring class, shows the lowest per capita consumption of all, that is, 1.66 lb. of butchers' meat per adult head. An interesting feature of the Table is the class and quantity of the meat consumed by the clerical group, which, in this investigation at any rate, confounds the popular theory that this class of society eat less meat, and particularly less of the heavier meats. The labouring group was the lowest winter consumer of home-killed beef, but this was compensated to some extent by their high consumption of imported beef. If the above factors are coupled with their relatively low per capita consumption of mutton and lamb, the effect of income limitation as a factor influencing type as well as quantity of meat purchased becomes apparent. Table VIII illustrates this more clearly.
Proceedings of Conference. 57
TABLE VIIZ.
Comparison of the amounts of the different classes of meat consumed by the Well-to-do and Labouring classes.
Home-killed pork . . . . .
Home-killed mutton and lamb
Home-killed beef . . . . . Imported mutton and lamb .. Imported beef ... ... ..
Consumption per Adult Head i n pounds
weekly.
Well-to-do. 1 Labouring.
0.22
0.64
1.03
0.15
0.11
0.14
0.24
0.68
0.18
0.37
Percentage of total
consumption.
Well-to-do. Labouring.
10.0 8.4
28.8 14.5
46.4 41.0
6.8 10.8
5.0 22.3
This Table is based on the fact that a t the time the winter census was taken, meat could be graded according to expense per lb. of average cut and quality as follows :-
(Progressing from the dearer to the cheaper cuts)-
I. Home-killed pork. 2. Home-killed mutton and lamb. 3. Home-killed beef. 4. Imported mutton and lamb. 5. Imported beef.
The heavy rate of consumption of the more expensive meats by the well-to-do class, and the high consumption of lower priced meats by the labouring class, is well marked in the Table. Whilst home-killed beef was recorded as the staple meat of each class it was conspicuously followed by home-killed mutton and lamb in the case of the well-to-do class, and by imported beef in the labouring class. The former indicates the expression of consumer preference, whilst the latter points to a definite demand for cheaper meat on the part of a large class of consumers.
For comparative purposes I have included Table IX which shows the consumption of the different classes of meat during a summer week by the various occupational groups. The first point that becomes apparent in comparing Tables VII and IX is the drop in total consumption per head by the well-to-do group. It is clear that the total consumption by the labouring class shows practically no change from winter to summer, which strengthens the opinion formed that income and not season determines the amount of meat bought. Where economies in meat buying are necessarily stringent a t all times, little change in the seasonal amounts taken is expected. If conditions yere such that all classes could with economy consume as much of any type gf meat as they required, it would probably be true to say that vocation would have a marked effect on the class and quantity of meat consumed. Under present-day conditions, however, income limitation is the factor that outweighs all others.
58 Agricultural Economics Society.
u B L E IX.
Consumption of the different classes of meat during one summer week by households classified into occupational groups.
Consumption i n pounds per Adult Head ~
Pork.
__
Non- ;lass- ified.
__
All I l l ifor and
Lamb. - 0.97
0.72
0.87
0.70
0.58
0.9 1 __
0.74 __
Mutton and
Lamb. All
Beef. All
Weat.
-
1.82
2-01
1.99
1.76
1-65
2.00
Group. Adults Beef.
-
0 /0 --
1 1 . 1
12.2
8.4
32.8
26.6
8.9 _-
__
No. Y.K. Imp. Y.K. imp . __ 0.27
0.22
0.33
0.28
0.16
0.42
0.75
1.14
0.95
0.98
0.96
0.99
208
228
157
612
497
167
0.66
1.00
0.86
0.82
0.75
0.81 -
0.81 -
0.09
0.14
0.09
0.16
0.21
0.18
0.70
0.50
0.54
0.42
0.42
0.49
0.04
0.08
0.11
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.08
Well-to-do
Tradesmen
Clerical
Artisan
Labouring
Miscellanec
AVERAGI 1.81 -
0.16 -
0.48 -
0.26 -
0.05 0.06 0.97
The need for better organised production and marketing of fat stock is justly looked on as of paramount importance to the farmer. Its significance to the consumer as well must not be overlooked. From the data collected in the Loughborough investigation it was computed that an average working class family consisting of two adults and two children between the ages of five and fifteen consumed approximately 5 lbs. of butchers’ meat weekly. At the low price of Iod. per lb. this would account for over 10% of an income of 401- weekly, apart from expenditure on bacon and other non-butchers’ meat. Further it was estimated that butchers’ meat was consumed by the average household on eighty days out of a hundred. From both budgeting and dietary considerations the need for more efficient production and marketing with the object of supplying the consumer with a more satisfactory supply of home- killed meat is therefore of immediate importance.
There is no time at my disposal to discuss consumer preferences and demand and price relationship which were the last two aspects of the problemdealt with in the Loughborough survey. I would, however, sum up by saying that the elasticity of demand for meat was made very apparent in a close analysis of the consumers’ returns based on income, and there is no doubt that consumption among the low income groups would be appreciably increased if retail prices were lower or the general level of wages higher. The modern demand for lean meat and small joints had a marked influence on the price per live cwt. realised by different classes of fat stock sold on the Loughborough market-heifers of 8-9 cwts. fetching, over a period of two years, an average of 2/6 more than 10-11 cwts. animals of the same class. At the same time a steady demand was maintained for heavier animals to meet the requirements of hotels, restaurants, etc., and in part, the requirements of country districts.
My greatest difficulty in writing this paper was in deciding what to include and what not to include, with the result that I have an uneasy feeling of having
Proceedings of Conference. 59
inadequately treated the many approaches that could be made to this subject. If, however, you are interested in this work, a detailed report on the investiga- tion already mentioned will be published in the course of the next few weeks and explanations will be offered there of the way in which we have arrived at certain statistical conclusions and the methods of approach to the whole problem. NoTE.-since this paper was read the 1931 Census figures have been published. This
fact necessitated certain minor changes in some of the statistical material used. The alterations have not been made in the tables in this paper but have been embodied in the report on the Loughborough Survey issued by the Economics Department of the Midland Agricultural College.
DISCUSSION ON MR. JONES’ PAPER.
NoTE.-Mr. Jones’ paper was not circulated in advance of the meeting, and was presented in abbreviated form; the discussion turns only on the points raised in the course of Mr. Jones’ briefer statement. J. S. King :-Have you included made-up meats, in the form of pies, sausages, etc.,
Reply :-Yes, but bacon is not included. R . McG. Carslaw :-May I ask why you selected August as a month for this work ?
Reply :-August was taken as being most representative of the summer period. R . J . Thompson :-I should like more information on the subject of misrepresentation
Reply :-We found that the consumers eat more imported meat than the butchers
J. P . Maxton :-Is i t not the case that the big butchers would give correct information I Reply :-Most probably. C . Y. Dame :-I should like to know if butchers serving a well-to-do neighbourhood
would exchange inferior joints for the better joints with a butcher in a poorer class neighbourhood ?
Reply :-Generally speaking-no ; the different butchers keep to their own districts. R . R. Enfield :--Can you tell me who are represented by your “ Miscellaneous ”
Reply :-These are various classes, such as retired people, widows, spinsters and unemployed. No figures were kept separately for unemployed as this was impossible. Although the head of the family might have been unemployed it is probable that sons or daughters would be in work.
J. S. King :-Was the consumption arrived a t by taking the amount purchased or the amount actually consumed during the period ?
Reply :-The amount purchased. R. B. Forrestev :-Did you compare your figures with the Board of Trade returns ? Reply :-We are now doing this. Professor Black :-It would be helpful to know what kind of action follows an
investigation of this nature. Reply :-I do not think that much of this work can be called research in the sense
that it might be followed up by farm management extension work. But we have found that butchers want 8 to 9 cwt. animals, while the farmers think that 10 to 11 cwt. animals are wanted.
J . Orr :-A low price will make a difference to the amount consumed by poor people. It is up to the farmers to find out the quality required and reduce the amount of imported meat.
Reply :-This is stressed in the paper, but it is not within the scope of this paper to say how a farmer must alter his system. Perhaps Professor Black could give us the benefit of his experience of research in the United States.
Professor Black :-The’thing we try to do is to go and collect facts and present them in such a way that people can turn them over and get definite objectives to go after. American research is carried on for such objectives; for example, here it would be to help the butchers with their problems. As an example, we have had some research on
in your totals ?
Would not the fact that this is a holiday month affect the survey ?
of the amount of home-killed meat sold.
record as being sold.
group ?
60 Agricultural Economics Society.
asparagus marketing. a big difference to the price. to produce that one inch more stalk which appeared desirable. grading system. studying the actual consumption based on consumers’ preferences. whether to go to consumers or distributors for information. consumers is not always accurate. sources. for meat as between the different classes ?
We have some information for what it is worth.
pound in a labouring class family ?
We found that the length of stalk, method of packing, etc., made We then had to find out whether the growers could afford
This was the basis of a At the present time we are
We have t o decide Information obtained from
Only in a few cases is information obtained from both Have you any data to indicate whether there were any differences in price paid
Reply :-Yes ; but it is a very difficult thing to ask people what joint is preferred.
A . Bridges :-But is the pound of meat in a well-to-do family dearer than the same
Reply :-Most decidedly. We asked for this information. J . S. King :-The selection of joints comes out clearly in marketing studies in
Scotland, e.g., in the important trade in beef conducted from Aberdeen, the sides are often cut, the fore-ends being retained for local sale and hindquarters being railed to London. You imply a want of economy due to the absence of a public slaughter-house ; how does this affect the costs of slaughter ?
There was opposition from the trade.
Reply :-I think that public abbatoirs are desirable. J . S . King :-I asked this because it may be an open question whether there would
The killings are often done in the If there were a public abattoir certain additional charges might
W . H . Long :-Was the figure for consumption per head arrived a t by dividing the
Reply :-Children were allowed for. R. McG. Carslaw :-In my experience children eat more than adults. Professor Black :-In America it has been calculated that children require 40,000
C. S. Orwin :-Has Loughborough an export market ? Reply :-There is a surplus for export during certain months. R. McG. Carslaw :-Have you any information on by-products ? Reply :-Only general information. L. K . Elmhirst :-Did the investigation give you any idea of the return to the butcher
Reply :-We could work this out. .4. Bridges :-\Vere animals of between 8 and 9 cwt. common ? Reply :-No : the largest number were between 10 and 11 cwt. but bullocks of 8
to 9 cwt. fetched a slightly better price than those of 10 to 11 cwt. J., Orr :-Suppose you were taking a broad view of your district and had as your
objective beating out imported meat, have you any scheme on which you would work ? Reply :-That is a difficult question. We drew up a scheme for a committee I was
on. I have definite views, but we were not so ambitious as to try to keep out the foreigner altogether.
J . Orr :-We have the same difficulty in Lancashire. We are reducing costs of production. I think that, in view of the discussion on Professor Macgregor’s paper, if we can reduce costs, we put the farmer in a stronger position. That involves taking a survey of every operation. You have a great opportunity for work of this nature, and 1 should like to co-operate with you.
T . Lewis :-One of the biggest difficulties I had in an investigation into the marketing of animals in Wales was that of finding the consumers’ requirements. Through an investigation of this kind I might be able to secure information for which there is an urgent need. We have one county in Wales with a special type of lamb which supplies one market, and another special type supplying a second market. I tried to make a complete list of such requirements in North Wales, for when it came to trying to tell the farmer what to produce there was no information available. The important thing to emphasise is not so much consumers’ demand, but the variations in consumers’ tastes and demands. I think Anglesey consumes meat at about Mr. Jones’ figures, but Cardigan consumes more mutton than beef. In Cardigan it has been found impossible to produce
be an economy from combining slaughtering facilities. butcher’s spare time. be incurred.
total purchased by the number of adult heads ? Do children make any difference ?
calories compared with 20,000 for an adult.
as agent between the farmer and the consumer ?
Proceedings qf Conferencc. 61
sufficient beef to meet the local demand, whereas Anglesey produces a large export surplus. Seasonal demand is also important. One town on the North Wales coast, during the year consumes more meat than a neighbouring county, owing to the presence of summer visitors. These points are of great importance to those who are concerned with advisory work.
I gather that you think it is a result of the survey that this animal is more remunerative. Is it not possible that you may squeeze out the premium by increasing the supply ?
Professov Black :-The price may not be depressed in spite of an increased supply. Reply :-I do not think that a reasonable increase would upset prices. Some of
the butchers said that some of their meat obtained from outside was of this class. L. K . Elmhirst :-I should like to know something about summer killings. Reply :-hughborough had a cold storage establishment which has now closed.
T . Lewis :-Do you find any decrease in consumption of mutton and an increase in
Reply :-Yes ; definitely from May to December. However, imported lamb was in
R . B. Forrester :-I take it that the 8 to 9 cwt. heifer commands a premium.
I do not know what will happen now.
that of lamb when this is in season ?
steady demand.
