l £77517, gu/lelin 777 Y ' Factors Influencing the Prices ' Received for Texas Turkeys May I954 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION g2 R. D. LEWIS. DIRECTOR, COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS DIGEST A study was conducted during 1950-53 of the factors influencing the market quality and i. received for Texas turkeys at the farm and in terminal markets. ' In Texas, live turkeys usually are purchased as N0. 1 or No. 2 grade. No. 1 turkeys are i well-fleshed birds with some finish and the pinfeathers fanned out. They are free 0f serious defor such as cuts, tears 0r bruises. No. 2 turkeys are poorly fleshed, or badly bruised, or have bad defo i. or numerous pinfeathers. Very low quality or inedible turkeys may be rejected at the farm.- overall condition of the flock, sex, variety and age appear to be more important in quoting prices whether they are No. 1 or No. 2 grade. Y Ready-to-cook grades of the U. S. Department of Agriculture were used to compare the m quality of the processed carcasses. A U. S. Grade A carcass is well fleshed and free of tears,‘ bruises. deformities and pinfeathers. Minor defects such as tears, bruises, deformities and a few scat pinfeathers are permitted in the U. S. Grade B classification. The carcass also must be fairly well fl‘ The only requirement for Grade C carcasses is that they be edible and no major part of the Q be removed. When a major part of the carcass, such as a wing or leg, is removed the turkey is cla as “No Grade.” For every 100 Texas dressed turkeys marketed, 79 qualified as U. S. Grade A, 17 as U. S. t‘ B and 4 as U. S. Grade C. The greatest single cause of low quality turkeys is poor fleShing 0r of finish. Many carcasses also are undergraded because of “blue back,” or blue pigment on the i breast or thighs. The producer can correct these defects by better feeding and management pra i Bruises cause the greatest loss of quality during marketing. Tears occur most frequently durin processing operation. ‘ During this study, young No. 2 toms brought 8 cents less than young No. 1 toms, and i_ hens about 6 cents less than No. 1 hens. l Producers marketing large lots of turkeys received a higher price per pound and sold h' turkeys than those marketing small groups. Competition is keenest for the large flocks, most of which are purchased early in the season; the season advances the size of the lots marketed decreases. * Most Texas turkeys move to market 14 to 21 days before Thanksgiving, with a second but i. movement about 14 days before Christmas. Marketings during these two peak periods are gra diminishing because more turkeys are being marketed earlier in the season. Price fluctuations are greater at the beginning of the season when prices are being establf, and at the end of the season when the last of the year’s turkey crop is being marketed. a Some shipments of A, B and C quality turkeys packed in the same boxes are still ship 3 terminal markets. Such shipments do not receive top market prices and help perpetuate the belie Texas does not produce high quality turkeys. ‘ This study shows that Texas turkeys, quality considered, now bring terminal market prices eq those paid for turkeys produced in other states. ' CONTENTS Digest ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................................................. ..i Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................................................................................. Present Methods of Marketing Live Texas Turkeys ..................................................................................................................... .. f Seasonal Variations in Marketing ...................................................................................................................................................... ..j Intraseas-onal Price Fluctuations .................................................................................................................................................... Relation of Price to Average Weight and Lot Size ...................................................................................................................... Market Quality of Dressed Texas Turkeys ....................................................................................................................................... .. Prices Received by Turkey Producers ............................................................................................................................................... .. Comments by Wholesalers about Texas Turkeys ......................................................................................................................... Acknowledgments .................................................... _. ............................................................................................................................ ..'. _ References ................................................................................................................................................................................................ .. I _ IS ONE of the oldest turkey-producing and is well suited for turkey production. t producers have many advantages in turkey ction over growers in other states. A dry Y te helps to control blackhead, warm winters i, little shelter necessary and large farms sufficient land for turkey ranges. These tages, however, are not as important as jonce were. improved methods of breeding, feeding, control and marketing which came into 1;: use between 1920 and 1940 made it *1 for other states to compete with older V, ished areas like Texas in the successful 1 tion of turkeys. alluring these 20 years, many Texas producers ->|-~ to raise turkeys as they always had I i- le other growers adopted improved ' _‘ ~ methods. The well-fed, broad breasted I n to compete with the old type “range” A. hose feed consisted largely of insects, Y d and gleanings from cultivated crops. range and well-fed turkeys were received < processing plant, the two types usually were fin the holding pens and slaughtered pen- " The carcasses were not always carefully j~ and frequently A, B and C quality dressed r would be boxed together for shipment to and retail outlets. uyers on the large produce markets were 'ng shipments of broad breasted turkeys f according to grades from other producing To protect themselves from loss on the turkeys which they expected to find, many _ purchased Texas turkeys at a discount. ost Texas range turkeys were lighter when “ d than full-fed turkeys. The demand for a turkeys was often good during these two a»: despite their low quality because they w the weight range desired by the housewife. 1W0rld War II, turkey producers went into jscale production of small turkeys such as é tsville Small White. Because these turkeys _ ut the same weights as range turkeys and of higher quality, the demand for range is declined. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 3 Texas turkey producers believe that w price differentials sometimes are unfavor- 3 Texas birds. A study was made during i 'vely, assistant professor, Department of Poultry dry and Agricultural Economics and Sociology; I» Department of Poultry Husbandry; and asso- rofessor, Department of Agricultural Economics oogy. p tors Influencing the Prices Received for T excl; T urkeys G. J. MOUNTNEY, E. D. PARNELL and R. B. HALPIN* 1950-53 to determine the factors influencing the market quality and price received for live Texas turkeys at the farm and for dressed turkeys on terminal markets. Information on live purchases was collected from a sample of six representative processing plants located in the turkey-producing areas of the State. Information on purchases of dressed turkeys was obtained from wholesalers and covered 30 carloads which were sold in 10 states. PRESENT METHODS OF MARKETING LIVE TEXAS TURKEYS Most Texas turkeys move from the producer to the processing plant on the processor’s truck. Some producers deliver their birds to the plant or sell to intermediate buyers such as the local feed store, general store, hatchery or a trucker- buyer who resells to the processor. Generally, the large flocks are picked up at the farm. Often a flock will be picked up over a period of a week or 10 days. When the processor needs additional turkeys, he picks up enough birds to fill the day’s processing quota. Producers who make their own deliveries to the processing plant usually receive a cent a pound more for their turkeys than is paid them by an intermediate buyer. In some areas, producers may deliver only two or three turkeys at a time. In a few cases, the local feed or general store may pick up turkeys at the farm when delivering feed, or purchase them at the store door. Each night the feed store delivers the day’s purchases to the processing plant. The trucker-buyer generally has a connection with a processing plant. He moves from farm MILLIONS OF HEAD so - ~ 4O _. ' _ 3O '- “ 2O " UNlTED STATES ' IO " " _~-I.___-’-£:E xix-i, _ 0 "u l |_| 1 l l | | | | I 1 1 | 1 I 1 1 l’ l i930 |935 l94O |945 I950 Figure 1. Annual turkey production, Texas and United States, 1929-51. Source: USDA. 3 Figure 2. Some small turkey producers deliver their turkeys directly to the processing plant. t0 farm and when he has bought a load he delivers it to the plant. Under this arrangement, the trucker-buyer usually takes a prearranged mark- up 0f about 2 percent, or he depends on the difference between the purchase price and his selling price for his profit. In Texas, most live turkeys are purchased as No. 1’s or No. 2’s, hens or toms, young or old. Less than 2 percent of the turkeys included in this study were bought as No. 2’s (Table 1) and less than 1 percent were purchased as old turkeys. No. 1 turkeys are fairly well-fleshed birds with some finish and the pinfeathers fanned out. They are free of serious deformities, such as cuts, tears or bruises. No. 2 turkeys are poorly fleshed, badly bruised, have bad deformities or numerous pinfeathers. A few very low grade or inedible birds may be rejected at the farm. Aside from sorting out all No. 2 turkeys, separating the sexes and the old and young toms, little live grading is done on an individual bird basis. » Usually a selling price is based on the general condition of the flock. In large flocks, especially Beltsville Small Whites, and in small flocks at the beginning or end of the season, purchases sometimes are made on an ungraded basis, and one price is quoted for the entire flock. Less than 9 percent of the Table 1. Total Turkey marketings by number. weight and price. six plants. Texas. 1951-52 . Average Price per Grade Marketmgs weight pound Number Percent Pounds Cents No. 1 toms 290.647 50.8 22.4 31.1 No. 2 toms 7.536 1.3 17.1 23.1 No. 2 hens 886 1 10.6 29.4 No. 1 hens 220.891 38.6 13.4 35.8 Old toms 934 1 26.5 25.7 Old hens 132 1 13.0 35.6 Turkeys” 51.551 9.0 18.9 32.0 Total 572.577 100.0 18.5 32.4 1 Less than 1 percent. » _ '-’ Not classified as to sex. age or live grade. 4 season’s total was purchased in this manner. ‘ sales form only a very small part of the marketings. SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN MARKETING . At the beginning of the processing se, buyers purchase turkeys mainly from ear hatched large flocks. These flocks are purch, and processed as the birds become ready market. Range turkeys do not finish early generally are purchased only when other tur are not available. The average size of lots keted declines from early in the season f Thanksgiving, then the lot size increases slig as late-hatched commercial flocks come on l, market, Figure 3. After early orders are filled, processors estimate the quality and size of the year’s tu crop and organize their plant operations acc ingly. Turkey buying usually stops at this except for the few birds brought in by .2 producers. This is reflected by the declin the quality of dressed carcasses during w October, Figure 4. » The main part of the turkey crop begin, l move to market about November 1. Tur slaughtered at this time can be packed, shit NUNBER OF HEAD I '50‘ FALL MARKETING SEASON 1951 < uzs- . THANKSGIVIN IOO 75 5O 25 O l l I I l l l l 22296 B20273 IO 17214 I 8 SEPT OCT NOV DEC NUMBER OF HEAD b 35o _ 0% FALL MARKETING $EA$ON Q‘ i952 - \ 3OO “ lVlNG 25o _ ‘ HENS y THANKSG ZOO" |5O " IOO " 5O " Q1‘ __q 4 2027411182518152229613 SEPT. OCT. NOV. D E G; Figure 3. Average number of No. l live turkeys; ' chased per transaction by sex by weeks, six plants, 1951-52. i MARKETED I * FALL MARKETING SEASON THANKSGIVING ' | l l 1 I | l I | l 22 29 6 I3 2O 27 3 IO l? 24 l 8 l5 22 SEPT OCT NOV O EC ‘MARKETED | " FALL MARKETING SEASON I 9 5 2 THANKSGIVING Figure 4. Percent of live No. l turkeys purchased by sex A eeks, six plants, Texas, 1951-52. ékrminal markets and be in retail stores several before Thanksgiving. Most of the range turkeys move to market to 21 days before Thanksgiving. This move- it is reflected in a drop in quality of the ted carcasses during this period, Figure 5, an increase in the number of turkeys market- Figure 4. ivement in the quality of turkeys moving to ket the week after Thanksgiving because late- hed large flocks and range flocks have had to improve in flesh and finish. Cooler ther especially helps to improve the quality of x range turkeys. Since hens mature earlier than toms, slightly like hens than toms move to market early in the y» but by Thanksgiving, more toms than hens gdelivered to the. plrocessing plants. 7 Most flocks are marketed by the end of the week in December, and only small flocks, rgrades and birds culled from breeding flocks fa to be sold. The quality of dressed sses and the price paid remain 10W during ilperiod. Farmers market undergrades turkeys were previously rejected or those which .er in the season would not have brought top et prices. Most of the undergrades held back There is an increase in volume and an im- a for a better price still sell as No. 2 turkeys. The market closes the week before Christmas to allow time to ship turkeys to terminal markets. Occa- sionally some large flocks will be marketed after Christmas, but usually the grower has made an arrangement with the buyer to deliver them at this time. Processing operations begin as early as Au- gust and dressed turkeys are moved to cold storage warehouses to be held for holiday sales. During the past few years, nearly 100 percent of Texas turkeys are fully drawn in the process- ing plant a.nd the carcasses wrapped in plastic bags. INTRASEASONAL PRICE FLUCTUATIONS Turkey prices fluctuate most widely at the beginning of the marketing season when prices are being established, Figure 6. The period of heaviest marketing and greatest price stability occurs during the 4 weeks before Thanksgiving. Few turkeys are purchased the week after Thanksgiving. The market opens again early in December for late-hatched commercial flocks, and the remainder of the range flocks are marketed at this time. Wide price fluctuations usually pre- vail from Thanksgiving to the end of the season. Certain long-range trends as well as seasonal factors cause variations in the intraseasonal price % U.S.GRADE A I '°° ‘ FALL MARKETING SEASON * so y so |fl’_-_——\ 7O 6O 5O 4O 3O Qt,‘ v. us. GRADE A I lOO F FALL MARKETING SEASON ~ 9O _ nssz r -~ ’*~ ¢“""*~ HENS so - , ' “f 70- eo- 50 _ THANKSGIVING _ 4o ~ - so 22 27 4 n 1s 25 | s I5 22 29 e l3 2o SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. Figure 5. Percent turkey carcasses yielding U. S. Grade A by sex, by weeks, six plants, Texas, 1951-52. 5 PRICE PER POUND I '_' FALL MARKETING SEASON 1 - 19s: l H" a . "1 40 '_ 3, I‘ V " ' 5 k HAE Nsh ¢~'Q'-"\§"~|'. ‘"1’... v $5‘ ".‘~:i I In, v ~I " “.2; ‘ s’ ' i _ n , - 35 h_' i J TOMS ; 3o _ : THANKSGIVING I 2s T. A; 29 s n3 2o 27 3 l0 u? 24 | a n5 22 SEPT. ocr. NOV. DEC. PRICE PER POUND I ; FALL MARKETING SEASON j - I952 - 4° ; THANKSGIVING '__‘ " HENS n _ In: 35 :- g g -' ’~' ‘\"d.vl~o\0sq~“"~l.¢\'| ”¢ I‘ ‘"1591 Vi; I‘ QQO-I ‘ J ' ‘I .. 3' ‘I’ 3 3o l .2 l - TOMS - 25 ;-L-.-L. Av- ,-,-_-a4TJ.,-v d 21 4 u |e 25 | a as 22 2s s 13 2o SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. Figure 6. Average price per pound paid for No. l live turkeys, by sex, by days, six plants, Texas, 1951-52. behavior. Increasing numbers of turkeys are processed early in the season and held in storage until Thanksgiving and more turkeys are con- sumed at times other than Thanksgiving and Christmas. In some years, government supports and purchases have helped to equalize price fluc- tuations. Figure 6 shows the effect of government purchases during 1952. Prices fluctuate slightly more on toms than on hens, probably because quality is more variable in toms than in hens. RELATION OF PRICE TO AVERAGE WEIGHT AND LOT SIZE According to the 1950 U. S. Census, the average flock size was 66 turkeys in Texas, 899 in California and 1,167 in Iowa, Table 2. The large number of small turkey flocks in Texas also is reflected in the many small lots of Table 3. Turkeys marketed by size of lot, six plants. Texas. 1951-52 Table 2. Average size of turkey flock per farm Ap ‘- selected states by 10-year periods ‘ § 1949 a 1929 1939 - | state Farms Average Farms Average Farms A _ report- flock report- flock report- ing size mg size ing — — — — — ——Number————— Texas 125.204 30 71.694 48 32.225 1 California 19.776 63 8.148 318 7.792 f Iowa 6.702 17 5.274 272 1.973 1a Minnesota 35.274 37 16.847 149 3.176 Q Virginia 30.331 17 12.071 58 5.995 Source: United States Census of Agriculture. 1930. 1940 and turkeys marketed. Fifty-four percent of all ; transactions in six Texas processing plants i of less than 50 turkeys. In the same year, r ever, almost 74 percent of all the turkeys mark were sold in lots of 200 or more, Table 3. lfigllulxfin-l There is a definite relationship amongi number of turkeys marketed, average weight price paid per pound and the total value per g Table 4. The average weight of all toms mar I in groups of 10 or less in 1952 was 19.7 p0 i as compared with an average weight of pounds for those marketed in groups of 20. over. Most turkeys raised in Texas are of Broad Breasted Bronze variety. Bronze tut, toms generally are not finished at a weight t. pounds; therefore, this weight is assumed an indication of low quality. This assum also is partially reflected in the fact that ducers marketing in lots of less than 10 received an average price of only 29.1 cents pound, as compared with 31.4 cents per p for lots of over 200 toms. The same trends ap more pronounced when the average value is i pared—$5.74 per head when less than 10 were marketed and $7.32 per head when { than 200 head were marketed. Hen turkeys follow the same pattern, though the trends are not as marked because f fleshing is better than toms and they finish. g younger age and a lighter weight. Hens rec at the processing plant do not have as = weight range or as great a variation in qu_ as toms. a w. as...‘ 1H I C§ (5 ZT€ “lflgn-zmj The same relationships were found in 4 among size of lot marketed, average We’ average price per pound and average price , head, but the trends were more marked g in 1952. Even though turkeys marketed in small weighed less and did not bring as much per pl as turkeys marketed in large lots, there oi Si“ o‘ | Transactions Turkeys lot | 1951 1952 1951 1952 1951 1952 1951 No. No. Percent Percent No. Ne. Percent Percent 1 - 9 1.512 838 34.6 21.3 6.308 4.606 2.2 . ~ 10 - 24 848 676 19.4 17.2 13.455 11.455 4.7 2. 25 - 49 719 609 16.4 15.4 25.374 22.361 8.8 3. 50 - 99 584 550 13.4 14.0 40.970 40.248 14.3 7. 100 - 199 401 509 9.2 12.9 46.438 72.310 19.6 12. 200 6'. over 305 757 7.0 19.2 144.980 420.828 50.4 73. Total 4.369 3.939 100.0 100.0 287.525 571.808 100.0 100. 6 4. Relation among size o1 transaction and weight. price and total value oi turkeys, six plants. Texas. 1951-52. I Turkeys Average weight I Average price Value per head "Y I 1951 1952 I 1951 1952 I 1951 1952 I 1951 1952 No. No. Pounds Pounds Cents Cents Dollars Dollars No. 1 toms 6.146 4.966 17.6 19.7 32.6 29.1 $5.73 $5.74 14.440 13.007 18.2 19.7 32.7 29.8 5.95 5.86 16.866 19.356 18.3 20.0 33.7 30.1 6.16 6.03 27.562 30.538 18.8 20.9 34.2 30.6 6.44 6.39 21.451 37.939 20.8 21.8 34.5 30.9 7.17 6.74 46.636 184.353 23.2 23.3 35.2 31.4 8.19 7.32 No.1 hens 6.105 4.937 12.8 12.7 36.9 34.5 $4.69 $4.39 13.677 12.459 12.1 12.7 39.1 34.8 4.73 4.42 19.678 20.906 12.3 12.9 38.6 35.2 4.75 4.54 25.193 31.120 12.7 13.1 39.4 35.9 5.02 4.69 22.121 35.721 12.9 13.6 39.6 35.5 5.11 4.83 35.680 113.310 13.7 14.1 39.5 35.5 5.39 5.00 All turkeys1 6.308 4.606 15.4 16.4 33.5 30.3 $5.17 $4.98 13.455 11.455 14.7 15.9 35.2 30.9 5.18 4.91 25.374 22.361 14.9 16.3 35.7 31.4 5.34 5.12 40.970 40.248 16.1 16.5 35.5 32.1 5.72 5.32 56.438 72.310 16.1 17.3 36.1 32.3 5.82 5.52 144.980 420.828 17.2 19.3 37.1 32.4 6.39 6.25 le relation between average weight and [ pound received, Table 5. This may be ‘of year-to-year changes in demand for Iiweights. During 1952, government pur- turkeys for the school lunch program {a demand for heavy toms and caused the ‘I'd for these birds to increase. '1 MARKET QUALITY or DRESSED I TEXAS TURKEYS ,.>~: grades of the U. S. Department of pure were used to compare the market ,f the processed carcasses. A U. S. Grade i s is one which is Well fleshed and free , large bruises, deformities and pinfeath- . jinor defects such as tears, bruises, de- and a few scattered pinfeathers are “>0 in the U. S. Grade B classification. I rcass also must be fairly Well fleshed. 5 requirement for the Grade C carcass is edible and no major part of the carcass ved. When a leg or wing is removed, the jis classified as “No Grade.” rmation collected from a sample of six ' over three-quarters of a million dressed icarcasses during 1950-52 indicated that I9 percent of Texas turkeys qualify as ade A, 17 percent as U. S. Grade B and S. Grade C, Table 6. Information was . ellecks purchased ungraded. No. 1 and No. 2. old and young. toms and hens. collected from plants having Agricultural Market- ing Service (formerly Production Marketing Administration) grading and those not using this service. These figures compare favorably with yields from other turkey-producing areas. Ap- proximately 7 percent more hens than toms qualified as U. S. Grade A. Poor fleshing, lack of finish, bruises and blue back, breasts or thighs were the main causes of Grade B carcasses, Table 7. Figure 7. Producers marketing small lots of turkeys do’ not generally receive as high a price per pound as those marketing large lots. Table 5. Live turkeys marketed by weight classes. sex and price, six plants. Texas. 1951-52 Toms Hens 1951 I 1952 _i 1951 I 1952 Head I Av_ price I Head I Av_ price Head I Av_ price I Head I Av price Number Cents Numlber Cents Number Cents Number Cents 20 36.2 1 1311 32.3 5157 39.9 2677 34.3 1 1506 29.5 38180 39. 26451 35.2 1290 34.8 3002 29.2 53268 39.4 96922 35.3 11248 33.2 7986 29.7 26119 39.1 85623 35.7 27172 33.6 16480 27.9 2396 38.5 5876 35.8 23474 33.6 28405 30.3 1172 37.4 716 34.1 20629 34.3 51541 31.0 1 22543 34.9 101154 31.1 1 1 18670 34.2 57251 31.3 1 1 9803 35.7 29642 31.8 1 1 _j _ 700 head. % 1930-52 BIRDS O 5 IO l5 2O 25 3O noon rcesnnue mmsn anuuszs rsans ewe BACK onscoroaarnou aeronautics PIN FEATHERS msscr auras ecesomo OTHERS m Figure 8. Proportion of turkey carcasses down graded by defect, six plants, Texas, 1950-52. Thirty-six percent of the toms and 22 percent of the hen carcasses marked Grade B were put in this classification because of poor fleshing or lack of finish when marketed. One cause of poorly-fleshed, unfinished turkeys is the practice used by many small producers of rearing turkeys on a restricted feeding plan. Such turkeys are almost entirely dependent on the feed picked up on the range. This feed does not supply a bal- anced ration. These range turkeys arrive at processing plants poorly fleshed, blue in color over the thighs and back and with an undesirable brownish-yellow skin. Hens from range flocks barely qualify as Grade A carcasses, and the toms are generally of B or C quality. Table 6. Market ‘quality of turkey carcasses by sex. six plants, Texas, 1950-52 Grade I Hens I Toms I Total No. % No. % No. "/, U. S Grade A 260.179 82.8 298.982 75.6 559.161 78.8 U. S. Grade B 42.760 13.6 75.682 19.2 118.442 16.7 U S Grade C 11.191 3.6 20.690 5.2 31.881 4.5 Bruises cause the greatest loss of quality during the marketing operation. Inthe market- ing system, turkeys may be handled several times before they are slaughtered. Hens are more tender and bruise easier than toms. About 8 percent more hens than toms are down-graded because of bruises. Blue back is caused by broken pinfeathers or exposure to sunlight. Some years only a few “blue back” turkeys are found. The blue pigment occurs mainly on dark-feathered varieties and is Table 7. Number and proportions of turkey carcasses down graded by detect. by sex and by grade. six plants. more prevalent during hot, dry weather blue pigment from the feather follicles blue patches or blotches under the s I detracts from the appearance of the carc cannot be removed by scalding. Skin tears may start before or duri processing operation. Partially-healed tea Q are enlarged by picking machinery. Ve inspectors frequently cut out bad bruises 0 damaged parts of a carcass, leaving lar tears, and Grade C or “no grade” carcas “Discoloration” is the term used to carcasses with an undesirable color. It f caused by poor finish, brownish-yellow skirt}; poor bleeding or by a combination of these f Improper feeding and poor health probabl about such conditions. , , The importance of pinfeathers has i, ished because most turkeys are now subsca; 138-140° F. instead of being semiscalded 130° F. The feathers are easier to remov‘ higher temperatures. Most undesirable I are in the outer layer of the skin, which removed when higher temperatures are scalding. The subscalding method can i’ the appearance of the carcass but somet has disadvantages such as only the pa ~ moval of the outer layer of skin. I ‘ Insect bites are an important quality? in some individual flocks. During this? one large flock was rejected after a few. turkeys had been processed. Lice had, numerous blemishes on the skin. Thes red spots detracted from the appearance carcass and the birds had to be sold as G’ or C carcasses. Blue bugs, other tic f chiggers also cause red welts on turkey ca Poor bleeding is caused by process’ quality turkeys which may not bleed WT’ improper severing of the jugular veins the slaughtering operation or by failure w, sufficient time for proper bleeding. Less than 1 percent of all turkeys were rejected as being unfit for human c0‘ tion because of bad odors. Sour crops main cause of rejection from this sourceé with sour and pendulous crops are usually at the farm. Q . l. I .1’ I u. s. Grade {E I I u. s. Grade 3L . Defects ,. I Toms I Hens I Toms I Hens ; Number % Number ‘Y, Number % Number Poor fleshing 6. finish 26.971 35.6 9.375 21.9 3. 16.5 1.079 Bruises 17.894 23.6 14.094 33.0 2.240 10.8 1.117 Blue back or breast 9.231" 12.2 6.265 14.7 184 .9 66 Tears , 5.852.‘ .8 4.262 10.0 7.356 35.6 5.138 Discoloration 5.1551 6.8 3.645 8.5 2.492 12.0 1.071 Deformities 2.570“ 3.4 703 1.6 1.897 9.2 709 Pinieathers 2.431 3.2 1.361 a 3.2 277 1.3 120 Insect bites 1.962 2.6 1.073 2.5 149 .7 87 Poor bleeding 1.632 2.2 984 2.3 269 1.3 331 Other reasons 1.984 2.6 998 2.3 2.422 11.7 1.473 Total 75.682 100.0 42.760 100.0 20.690 100.0 11.191 8 aqwraa; ==¢=<=F> a-ee-éew 8 >y E7’ 5W5 E553‘ 7-1 ure 9. Poor fleshing (left), bruising (center) and skin tears (right) are major causes of quality loss in Texas turkeys. jars may start before or during processing. CES RECEIVED BY TEXAS PRODUCERS , exas, with 7 percent of the nation’s 1952 crop, was fourth in turkey production in nited States, but in 40 other states farmers ed a higher average price per pound. Figure 5 pares the prices received for Texas turkeys the prices received in the other four major 3' producing states. Most of the states in f farmers received higher-than-average i prices were areas where fewer turkeys ,roduced than were consumed. While Texas cers have received less per pound for their s than those in other large turkey producing IA \4e It .325- INSONDSONDSONDSONDSOND TEXAS PRICE IOWA Ila/Iv’ TEXAS 194? 194a I949 I950 I95! I952 TEXAS PRICE VIRGINIA ' _ MINNESOTA V! \,//\_j; TE xAsj ONDSONDSO NDSONDSON DSOND §I947 I948 I949 I I950 I95l I952 e l0. Live turkey prices for selected states, market- _ , 1947-52. Source: USDA. states, the price differentials have been diminish- ing. During the 1950 and 1952 turkey marketing seasons, for example, California turkey producers in some months received less for their turkeys than did Texas producers. This decline in price differential is probably caused in part by the increase in quality of Texas turkeys. COMMENTS BY WHOLESALERS ABOUT TEXAS TURKEYS Information collected on 3O carloads of Texas dressed turkeys sold in 10 states during 1951 and 1952 indicated that Texas turkeys do not always bring as high a price as those from other areas. Records of shipments of turkeys that received less than the regular market price, however, showed that the carcasses were of inferior quality. Specific complaints listed by some of the buyers were: 1. Breeder hens mixed in the same pack with young hens. 2. Small toms packed in the same box with hens. 3. Variations in weights of individual birds in the same box above accepted tolerances. Figure 11. Buyers demand carefully graded and sorted, attractively-packaged turkeys. I 9 4. Grade A and B carcasses mixed in the same pack. 5. Toms lacked finish and often were rangy and thin. 6. Birds had an undesirable yellow skin color. Most shipments of Texas turkeys that were checked received the market price as quoted by the USDA market news service at the terminal market to which the shipment was made. Some shipments of government-graded Texas turkeys received top market prices. All information collected in this study clearly indicates that, quality considered, Texas turkeys are sold in produce terminals for as high a price as are turkeys produced in other areas. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge the infor- mation and assistance provided by the various Texas turkey processing plants, and the Poultry 10 Division, Agricultural Marketing Servi merly Production and Marketing Ad H; tion), U. S. Department of Agriculture. ‘ Appreciation also is due F. Z. Bea and K. F. Schlamb of the Texas A _ Extension Service for their assistance preparation of this bulletin. REFERENCES Census of Agriculture, Texas, U. S. Depa of Agriculture. ». Crops and Markets, Bureau of Agricultural (now Agricultural Marketing Service), U. S. D‘ Commerce, 1930, 1940 and 1950. Summary of Standards of Quality for G Individual Dressed Turkeys, Production and. Administration (now Poultry Division A_ Marketing Service), U. S. Department of Agri ' Grading Dressed Turkeys, Farmers’ Bull’ U. S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics, U. S. Department culture, 1929-52. ‘E,