B-‘IOH MAY 1964
 

Marketing Practices and Costs

Of Texas Egg Producer- Wholesalers

TEXAS A8<M UNIVERSITY
TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

R. E. PATTERSON. DIRECTOR, COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS

summary

Table egg production can be a profitable
enterprise on Texas farms. The growth of popu-
lation and purchasing power and the current
standing of Texas as a deficit state 1n egg pro-
duction all favor the Texas egg producer. To
take advantage of opportunities in the state
market, Texas egg producers will need to
be efficient in production and marketing.
Although a large volume of eggs per pro-
ducer is not the only condition necessary for
efficiency in production, processing and dis-
tribution, certain minimum levels of output are
desirable in order to take advantage of both labor
specialization in egg processing and market out-
lets which require large volumes. Producers
who processed their own eggs for sale to retail
outlets at wholesale prices and/or directly to
consumers at retail prices were examined as to
size of operation, labor used in processing and
delivery and the effect of route characteristics
on delivery labor efficiency. Estimated costs for
labor, packaging and truck use were utilized to
develop a cost per case for all marketing activi-
ties. Cost per case was compared with esti-
mated margins existing between wholesale and
retailer-consumer outlets.

The number of layers per producer among
the producer-wholesalers interviewed ranged
from 1,000 layers (the lower limit) to over 150,-
000 layers. The marketing activities of these
producers were examined in two phases: (1)
washing, grading and packing (processing) and
(2) delivery. Estimates of man-hours used in
each phase and the number of cases processed
and delivered during 1962 were obtained from
producers. Labor costs were obtained where
wages were paid. Wages of $1 an hour were
imputed where family labor was utilized.

The sample of producer-wholesalers was
selected to include a disproportionately large
number of large producer-wholesalers. It was not
a random sample of the producer-wholesaler
populationof Texas.

Labor efficiency in the processing phase
was directly associated with the weekly volume
of eggs handled. Man-hours per case declined
steadily until the weekly volume processed was
over 200 cases per week (about 17,000 layers at
a 60 percent rate of lay). There was consider-
able variation in labor efficiency among pro-
ducers in all size groups, although the volume-
efficiency relationship appeared to be fairly well
established.

The number of cases delivered per hour was
influenced by volume, number of outlets, miles

  
   
  
 
  
 
 
 
   
   
  
  
  
  
  
    
   
 
   
  
  
 
    
    
    
 
   
   
   
  

traveled and the percentage of eggs delivi
door-to-door consumer routes. Estimated i '
ing labor costs per case varied from $1.
cents between groups A and E; delive
costs varied from 77 cents to 15 cents per i
tween groups A and G, respectively. '

Total estimated costs per dozen for :~
keting activities ranged from 18 cents f0;
A to 7.2 cents fo-r group E. Groups D, E‘
G had estimated total marketing costs 5
of less than 10 cents, which was less t)
estimated margin between the ungrad
packed wholesale alternative and the
cartoned retailer-consumer alternative. .
A, B and C’s presence in the market g
explained in part by their accepting low A
for their labor and investment and / or the g
of higher prices than indicated by the 
The analysis involving the estimated 
per case and the margin comparison was 1,
Detailed examination of the market an ,
alternatives would be desirable before 
strong conclusions.

As weekly volume increased, the y
of workers paid also increased and labo ‘
ency improved. Large volume makes 
the specialization of labor and therefore i‘
labor efficiency. Direct wage expenses '
the owner’s motivation to use labor eff
Several levels of labor efficiency existed i‘
operations producing approximately th
volume of eggs. The greatest variation i:
efficiency was found among the small pr,

The small-volume operations bec 
their part-time nature usually cannot 
the degree of labor efficiency necessary _
pete on a cost per case basis with large- t
processing operations. Small producers 
able to hold markets such as door-to-doorc,
cafes and schools but they will not be ‘f
compete for the large retailer outlets. T 
producers generally have higher costs IL
and insufficient volume to adequately T
these outlets. 7

The maintenance of sufficient rec
both physical inputs and outputs and 5
necessary for good management and p T
egg production and marketing. Rate l
percentage grade-out and the amount y
sonal variation in egg production were
ently unknown to many of the produce i
viewed. Thus, optimum layer replacem
terns were not being used in many .1,
because the necessary decision-making 1
ation was not available. 1

  
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
   
  
  
   
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
   
  

l NTIAL POPULATION GROWTH and below aver-
‘eage per capita production of table eggs in
= can help provide a favorable economic
i nment for Texas egg producers. This en-
3i ent also provides an attractive market for
f-state eggs. To compete with out-of-state
’, Texas producers will need to be efficient in
uction and marketing (1). Sufficient volume
ilize fully the labor and equipment avail-
and to permit labor specialization in the egg
‘sing phase appears to be o-ne of the neces-
 requirements for competing on a cost per
§basis in egg marketing.

The egg producer has various marketing
atives which may be divided into two
v categories: selling ungraded eggs to a
r-wholesaler and/or by-passmg the whole-
, and selling directly to retailers or con-
rs. This latter activity will be defined as
 of the producer-wholesaler. (Producers
 total egg sales consisted of more than half
eir own eggs which they had washed,
y: cartoned and sold to_ retailers _or con-
rs.) The specific objectives of this study
" : to describe the operations of producer-
alers; to estimate relative labor effici-
in both the processing and delivery phases

contents

Page

------------------------------------------------------------------------ " 2

f on --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- " 3
a n _____________________________________________________________________________________ _. 3
 ple selection ------------------------------------------------------------------ s- 3
jta ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -~ 3
V itations 0f study ------------------------------------------------------------ -- 4
z chqfqgfefigfks of Producer-Wholesalers ......................... __ 4
"hand Packing Phase ------------------------------------------------------- -- 5
gf U59 _____________________________________________________________________________ -- 5

i‘ muted labor productivity ............................................... -- 6
‘ - r costs -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 7

~ ipment costs ................................................................ -- 7

I Phase ............................................................................ -_ 7
for efficiency and costs .................................................. .. 8

‘livery equipment ...... .15“; .................................................. _- 9

ii thesized ................  .................................................. .. 9
__ essing costs .................................................................. _. 9

i ivory costs ...................................................................... _. 9
 iul costs: labor, packaging and truck use -------------------- -- 1°

~ d Costs .......................................................................... -- 11

i - g _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ 12

oi

Marketing Practices ancl Costs

Texas Egg Producer-Wholesalers

Carl E. Shafer, Assistant Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology

among producer-wholesalers with differing num-
bers of layers; and to estimate costs per case
for (a) labor in processing and delivery, (b)
packaging and (c) truck use in delivery. The
cost estimation involved synthesizing some costs.

PROCEDURE

Sample Selection

In order to have a representative group of
egg producer-wholesalers fo-r the survey, Texas
co-unty agricultural agents were asked to list all
known egg producers (and approximate number
of layers on hand) in their respective counties
who were grading, packing and selling their own
eggs directly to consumers and/or retail food
stores. The study was limited to those producers
having 1,000 or more layers. This procedure was
carried out during the summer of 1962. Data
were available for 251 counties and 178 counties
reported producers with 1,000 layers or more on
hand in 1962; 684 producers met this require-
ment.

The final sample was selected on a basis of
size stratification in order to include a greater
number of those producers with large numbers
of layers. A disproportionately large number of
large producers were selected because of the
trend toward larger egg producing units.

Table 1 contains both the total number of
producer-wholesalers reported by county agents
and the selected sample separated into the seven
size groups used throughout the study. The size
groups reflect the number of layers on hand
during the summer of 1962 and the summer of
1963 for the total and sample producers, respec-
tively. Although 69 producers were interviewed,
the information necessary for some analyses was
available on fewer than 69.

Data

The same interviewer obtained the required
information from each of the selected producer-
wholesalers. In many cases, complete records
were either not available or not in a form usable
for this type survey. In most cases, specific
production records were not available.

Where recorded information was available,
it was copied. Most data were related verbally
by the operator based on his experience and
observations. Information regarding the time
spent in grading and packing, delivery and ad-

3

TABLE I. DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL PRODUCERS REPORTED AND
SAMPLE PRODUCERS BY NUMBER OF LAYERS ON HAND,
SUMMER, I962

Size Layers on hand pr°ducers
group summer I962 Tofup 50mph?
---——-—Number-————-—
A I,000- 2,249 302 I5
B 2,250- 3,749 123 7
C 3,750- 7,499 I36 I4
D 7,500-I4,999 67 I2
E I 5,000-29,999 31 I0
F 30,000-49,999 I2 6
G 50,000 and over I3 5

‘Reported for 25I counties.
zLayers on hand, summer I963 for sample.

ministration were “best estimates” of the opera-
tor and should not be considered as actual mea-
sured times; miles traveled and the number and
types of outlets were also based on producer esti-
mates. Since most production records for 1962
(monthly) were not available in a usable form,
estimates were utilized.

Limitations of Study

Cost analyses for production and marketing
firms have been accomplished by various methods:
(1) examining a_ fairly large number of sample
of firms, (2) using a few selected representa-
tive” firms or (3) developing model firms Where
selected variables can be held constant. Method
1 is generally the most expensive and method 3
the most inexpensive f-or obtaining data to ex-
amine selected variables. This study incorpor-
ates both a survey of a large number of firms and
some synthetic techniques in estimating selected
costs associated with egg processing and delivery.
Thus, this study has the advantages of having
examined actual egg producer-wholesaler opera-
tions while being limited in that some of the costs
were estimated by a standardized method and
do not necessarily represent actual costs incurred
by the producers surveyed.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
PRODUCER-WHOLESALERS

Egg production was only one of two or more
sources of income reported by most of the pro-
ducer-wholesalers surveyed. Fifty-three of 69 pro-
ducers (75 percent) had sources of income other
than eggs; 33 had other farm activities, 26 had
non-farm incomes and seven had both other farm
and non-farm sources of income, Table 2. A
higher proportion of the producers in the smaller
groups had other sources of income, indicating
the part-time nature of their egg enterprise.
Small scale egg production and marketing is a
complicating factor in terms of attaining an ef-
ficient egg rnarketingsystem for Texas. _The
small operations are either unable or unwilling
to expand their size to permit a more economical
use of labor and equipment as well as making

4

  
 
   
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
   
  
    
 
   
 
   
   
 

them ineligible for volume discounts on pac

and processing supplies. The level of overall, I
ficiency attained in Texas egg marketing ~
depend to some extent on the size of the i;
duction and marketing units. Eggs are a a
tional product and move in commerce from if,
to coast. Texas markets are and will be f
creasingly more subject to out-of-state com
ition from areas where egg production is s,
ialized and, therefore, genierally efficient. '
though lacking large volume, many smaller n;
ducers will be able to operate profitably on s‘
ialty markets. J

Producers were questioned as to contra?
arrangements with feed companies or others 
might supply feed and birds while the prod
supplied labor and buildings. Only 2 of the‘
producers reported arrangements of this 

Based on the average “layers on hand” 
by size groups, the large producers had incre .
the scale of their operations significantly
tween 1960 and estimated 1964, Table 3. ,
percent change in the average number of lay
on hand by size groups between January 1
and estimated 1964 was as follows: .

Percent change in layers‘,
hand, January 1960—esti ’ _

Size group January 1964
A — 1.7
B + 9.7
C +18.8
D +54.9
E +50.1
F +72.6
G +43.1
Texas — 7.3
United States — 3.6

The percentage rate of change varies dir
with number of layers, the smaller produ,
tended to remain small while the large produ ;
had increased their laying flocks significa’
over this period. In comparison, the overall ,
of drop in the number of layers on hand Janu
1 over the 5-year period was greater in 

TABLE 2. SOURCES OF INCOME IN ADDITION TO EGG
BY SIZE GROUPS, I962

Number of producers by in

Producers v
Size, with other sources in addition to egg 
Total . 
group income Farm Non-farm p
_ — — — —- — Number —- — — - h
A I5 I5 II 6 _
B 7 6 3 5
C I4 9 4 6 i‘
D I2 I0 7 3 
E IO 8 4 4 .
F 6 3 2 I 
G 5 2 2 I .
Total s9 s3 3a 26 
Percent I00.0 75.4 34.8 36.2
‘See Table I.

    
  
   
   
   
 
  
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
   
   
 
   
  
   
   

A in the U. S. mainly because of the decline
e_ number of small flocks.

It was originally hypothesized that producer-
salers would attempt to keep a fairly stable
qhly production pattern in order to more
i utilize their grading and packing operation
_ pghout the year; however, sufficient data
_ not available to answer this question. (The
, “grading and packing” and “processing”
sed interchangeably in this study.) Most
e records were kept on a cash basis; that
“e cash value of sales was known but the
,,=- of dozens or cases associated with the
grecords was not readily available. The main

here is that most of the producers’ record
ng systems were far from adequate. Rate
y, grade-out percentage and the amount
ksonal variation in egg production, all items
ich the producer should be aware, were ap-
tly unknown to many producers.

ach producer processed practically all of
" n egg production. There were a few in-
y where producer-wholesalers sold ungrad-
1 gs to other producers and/or wholesalers.
qrly, the total supply of eggs graded and
y. by the producer-wholesalers surveyed
almost entirely from their own flocks. In
‘qfcases outside sources such as other pro-
‘, or dealer-wholesalers supplied a small
e of eggs.

‘ADING AND PACKING PHASE

ests incurred in the grading and packing
l included labor, equipment, packaging sup-
‘utilities, building, inspection, taxes, in-
 and interest on investment. In this
 the use of labor and the resulting labor
 case were of primary importance. Labor
ition is one of the major areas in which

AND SUMMER, 1963

efficiencies may be obtained. Labor costs and
packaging costs accounted for 73 percent of the
average costs per case of cartoned eggs (distri-
bution costs excluded) for five Georgia farm
grading plants; labor, 23.2 percent and pack-
aging supplies, 49.7 percent (2).

The labor cost per case is influenced by the
wage rate, skill of labor, amount of automatic
egg processing equipment, volume handled, egg
quality, percent requiring cleaning and the skill
of the supervisor. The survey of producer-whole-
salers did not attempt to hold constant any of
these items in order to examine the effect of the
others. Volume was the main causal variable
under investigation. Generally, large volumes
permit a higher degree of labor productivity and
reduce labor costs per case. The economic ques-
tion was, how did labor costs per case vary among
the small, medium and large producer-whole-
salers? Other studies have suggested that once
sufficient volumes are attained, increases in
labor productivity are slight, although total costs
per case would continue to decrease with added
volume because of the decline in fixed and over-
head costs per unit. The only processing costs
examined directly in this study were those as-
sociated with labor and packaging.

Labor Use

Producer-wholesaler labor use in marketing
activities was separated into three general cate-
gories: (1) administration or supervisory, (2)
washing, grading and packing and (3) delivery.
The amount of time allotted to each activity was
estimated by the manager of the producer-whole-
saler operation. Administration time is treated
as a residual since several functions were often
performed by one individual. Among the small-
er producers in particular, one man may have

y been keeping the books, making sales, grading and

AVERAGE NUMBER AND RANGE IN NUMBER OF LAYERS ON HAND PER PRODUCER, BY SIZE GROUPS, JANUARY 1, 1960-64

  

g cers Measure

Average number and range in number of layers on hand per producer by time period

  

 

1960 1962 1963 1964‘
‘V’ Number January 1 Summer
——-—-—-——-——--—Number-—-—----_..__.__._
15 Average 1,373 1,570 1,463 1,317 1,364
Range 200-3,000 800-2,800 750-2,800 400-2,200 495-2,500
7 Average 2,886 2,986 2,986 2,984 3,167
Range 1,500-4,000 2,200-4,000 1,500-4,000 2,590-3,500 2,500-3,500
14 Average 4,864 5,674 5,803 5,642 5,777
Range 2,500-10,000 3,700-14,000 4,000-12,000 5,000-7,500 3,000-9,000
12 Average 10,100 12,091 12,650 10,500 15,642
Range 5,000-22,000 5,000-22,000 9,000-22,000 7,800-14,600 10,000-29,000
10 Avegage 15,812 19,500 20,689 21,370 23,730
Rangje 6,000-33,000 15,000-25,000 15,000-25,000 15,600-26,000 15,500-30,000
6 Average 24,666 33,417 38,750 39,283 42,583
Range 1 5,000-40,000 24,000-40,000 28,000-46,000 33,000-46,000 38,500-55,000
5 Average 69,200 86,000 81,400 93,300 99,000
Range 25,000-140,000 35,000-150,000 45,000-150,000 63,000-160,000 60,000-160,000

   

, by producers.

nouns PER CASE
6.5
b

4.o'- '

3.0 "

‘f?

2o 

:l°' .

l0 - .'.+°. I .
- _'-  . . .

- _' 1E. ' ‘F? . ' X5

l h l n I I n l_'l I An

o I00 zoo zoo 400 soo ooo 1oo Boo moo ‘ I500

CASES Pm wssx

Figure 1. Average hours per case handled in processing
by average number of cases processed per week, 53 pro-
ducer-wholesalers, 1962. (X = seven size group averages)

packing as Well as delivering the eggs, making it
difficult t0 allocate his time among specific work
tasks.

Significant differences in labor utilization
and payment existed among the seven size groups.
The 14 producers in group A had a total of 32
workers or roughly 2.28 workers per operation
compared to the largest group, G, where three
producers had 45 workers or an average of 15
Workers per operation. As weekly volume pro-
cessed increased, workers were more fully uti-
lized in the processing and delivery phases; in
group A the average weekly hours per worker
in processing was 20.4 while in group G the Work-
ers average 45.4 hours per week. In some cases,
particularly among the smaller producers, work-
ers did several jobs around the farm in addition
to Working in the processing and/or delivery
phases. Thus, the workers were not necessarily
specialized egg handlers in that this activity took
only part of their Work day.

The use of hired lab-or should motivate the
producer-Wholesaler to maintain a high level of

TABLE 4. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF MAN-HOURS REQUIRED PER
CASE IN PROCESSING AND DELIVERY PHASES BASED
ON WEEKLY WORK SCHEDULES, BY SIZE GROUPS, 1962

Estimated number of man-hours per
Avemge case required in processing and
weekly cases denvery

Producers

Size N
umber per producer _ _ 1
QWUP Processing Delivery
Cases Hours Hours
A 14 16.33 2.04 .79
B 7 29.10 1.29 .71
C 12 62.23 1.00 .35
D 8 122.72 .70 .24
E 6 219.00 .48 .18
F 3 408.10 .51 .23
G 3 1,009.80 .52 .10

lFor cases actually delivered.

Source: Interviews with producers. Total labor allotted to the
particular activity divided by the total weekly cases sold
by the size group.

' quired when eggs are packed loose in cases rat r

  
  
  
    
  
  
   
   
    
  
  
    
  
   
   
    
  
  
  
   
   
  
  
  
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
 
  

labor efficiency. The use of family labor {A ,
remove the labor cost motivation toward l
efficiency. For groups A, B, and C, only 29 I
cent of the workers were hired while 83 per
of the Workers in group D, E, F and G were
the payroll. 5

Estimated Labor Productivity

Labor productivity i111} terms of man-h__
per case handled was estimated for the pr 
ing and delivery phases. The hours per v
figure was derived by dividing the total ave 
weekly hours worked in processing and deli
by the total number of cases associated witfi?‘
particular phase, processing or delivery, by .3,
groups, Table 4. i

The number of man-hours per case proce;
showed a generally steady decrease as vol z,
increased, Table 4 and Figure 1. Compa
group A and E, respectively, the man-hours Q
case in processing dropped from 2.04 to .48.
by roughly 75 percent. Group E had the lo:
average man-hours per case figure among 1;
seven size groups. Groups F and G were slig
above the E group even though E group L
ducer’s average Weekly volume was only
cases compared with 408 cases and 1,009 I
for F and G, respectively. ‘

One partial explanation for the re1ativ_
high labor efficiency found in group E K 1
be the low percentage of eggs cartoned by 
group, Table 5. Fewer hours of labor are 1

than in cartons (3). The average percentage
the weekly egg output cartoned for the set
groups was 79, while group E cartoned only a A
54 percent. Groups F and G cartoned 97 and
percent, respectively.

The number of cases processed per r
ho-ur would be expected to remain relatively I;
stant once a certain volume per hour was attain ‘
Peeler and King’s model plant analysis assu l.
a cases-processed-per-man-hour figure of af
3.2 which was used in each of their or
plants (4). In their study, the model pl
capacities were multiples of 20 case-per-ho
equipment lines and processing labor efficien
was assumed constant. An Oklahoma model - 5f
processing plant study using hand operation p f -
cessing methods indicated an increase in the nu d
ber of cases processed per man-hour from 2.0 {
3.4 as plant capacity increased from six ca
per hour to 96 cases per hour (5). The O f -
homa study reported that an attainable standa
in processing eggs (candling and case handlin
is 3.3 cases per man-hour. The 2.0 cases p;
cessed per man-hour (including washing) by 
most efficient selected Texas producer-whole
ers is considerably below the 3.3 cases per y", a
hour standard (excluding washing). The p
ducer-wholesalers in group A processed o
about one-half case per man-hour, Table 4. '

In Figure 1, it is apparent that the variat'
in man-hours per case around the group av

  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
    

_ is considerable, particularly at average
kly volumes of less than 80 cases. Such
T11 as quality, percent requiring washing,
I ent cartoned, the type of processing equip-
t in the egg room and the skill and motivation
ithe wo-rkers would all affect labor efficiency.
ucer processing facilities were not neces-
'ly comparable in these attributes.

‘ In summary, it appears that the increase in
Jr productivity was significant as the aver-
y” number of cases processed weekly per pro-
x * r increased from 16 to 219. Further, there
e considerable differences in the labor pro-
- ivity estimates among the low-volume- pro-
fers, and it was apparent that many of these
rations were not using their labor as effici-
 as possible in the processing phase.

bor Costs

I Labor costs per case are determined by the
’-_ rate and the number cases handled per
‘ker during the pay period.

 In order to estimate labor costs for process-
and delivery, wages were imputed at one
r an hour where no Wages were actually
_’ ; only 140 of the total 227 workers associated
- the 53 producers were hired labor. The fact
I many of the smaller producers paid no direct
*1 costs could account for their remaining in
‘ness with a relatively high cost per case
"tion; they were allotting themselves low
rns for their labor. In several instances,
Fey wages were considerably below one dollar
l hour; however, on occasion low money wages
 supplemented with food and housing pro-
- ns, making it difficult to determine the pre-

' I labor cost. The imputed dollar an hour rate
g ally raised the average in most instances, only
‘ A producers in groups E and F had average
' s of over one dollar per hour. In practically
‘ ses, delivery labor was paid at a consider-
higher rate than was processing labor. Only
_ performed the route duties while women
ed to be in the majority in the processing
_= and received a lower wage than men.
021 delivery wages are explained to a large
it in that the work load is heavier and the
nsibility for the vehicle and egg sales and
_'*- tions is greater than that associated with
supervised processing phase.

i Table 6 treats all units on a hired labor basis
L the actual wages paid and one dollar per
Fwhere wages were not paid as such. As
.1 previously, favorable labor efficiencies ap-
i d to be reached at around 200 to 250 cases
week and processing labor costs per case did
idecline for larger; volumes. Estimated labor
 per case processed decreased from $1.90 for
p A to 37 cents for group E.

 ipment Costs

The average annual equipment cost per case
d depend on the amount of automatic egg
ing equipment used relative to the volume

TABLE 5. AVERAGE PROPORTION OF EGGS CARTONED WEEKLY,
BY SIZE GROUPS, 1962

Producers
Average percentage of eggs

Size Number cartoned
group
Percent
A 1s 91.12
a 1 19.31
c 11 63.23
o 1 10.18
s 6 54.41
1= 2 91.01
e 2 91.12
101m 4s 18.65
or I
average
processed. Technically, automatic egg process-

ing equipment is a substitute for hand operation
labor and vice versa. In an area with relatively
low wages, hand operation labor may be econom-
ical while in relatively high wage areas automatic
egg processing equipment should be considered.
Because of the small number of large producers
and the general method in which the equipment
cost data were taken, no specific conclusions were-
made regarding equipment use and labor pro-
ductivity.

DELIVERY PHASE

The second major phase of the producer-
wholesaler’s marketing activities was the delivery
of eggs among various market outlets. About 85
percent of the eggs processed by 52 of the pro-
ducers were off-farm deliveries; the remainder
were sold at the farm.

Information on the number and types of
market outlets was available for 62 producers,
Table 7. Retail food stores were the dominant
outlet in terms of both number (70 percent) and
volume of eggs. Detailed information on volume
by type of outlet was not generally available. A
high proportion of the smaller producers, 37 per-
cent of the producers in groups A, B and C, sold

TABLE 6. AVERAGE NUMBER OF CASES PROCESSED WEEKLY AND
AVERAGE LABOR COSTS PER CASE IN PROCESSING AND
DELIVERY, BY SIZE GROUPS, 1962

Producers Average cases processed Average labor

Size per producer costs per case‘
group Number Average Low-high Processing Delivery’
— —— —- Cases -— — — —- Dollars —- -

A 14 16.33 8-24 1.90 .77
B 7 29.10 18-36 1.23 .71
C 12 62.23 44-153 .92 .41
D 8 122.72 59-244 .60 .25
E 6 219.00 165-312 .37 .34
F 3 408.10 288-549 .47 .32
G 3 1,009.80 477-1,500 .44 .15

‘Where family (non-paid) labor was involved, wages are imputed at
$1.00 per hour.

zFor delivered cases only.
Source: Producer’: estimates and records where available.

TABLE 7. TYPES AND ‘NUMBER OF MARKET OUTLETS UTILIZED BY
PRODUCER-WHOLESALERS, BY SIZE GROUPS, 1962

Types and number of market outlets

Pmducels Producers selling
Size Retail On
N b Wh I - t
group um er food Sula; consumer farm Cafes Other‘
stores routes

—--—-——— Number ————-—
A 15 49 3 7 4 1 1
B 7 12 4 3 4 19 3
C 13 118 »2 3 6 38 8
D 12 174 1 1 0 7 69 1 6
E 8 99 5 1 4 4 0
F 4 233 7 0 1 52 8
G 3 37 4 0 2 O 4

lRest homes, hospitals, schools and military installations.

directly to consumers on door-to-door routes which
tended to decrease the number of eggs delivered
per hour.

Table 8 presents a more complete picture of

the delivery phase. As producer size increased,

the geographic marketing area and total milage
tended to increase. The average distance for
group B producers to the furthest delivery point
was only 13.0 miles while that for the three plants
in group G was 153.0 miles. The rather extreme
increase in cases delivered per hour between
groups F and G was due to the large number of
outlets per producer in group F relative to those
in group G, Table 7. The density of distribution
(cases per mile of weekly travel) varied directly
with volume delivered, indicating that the smaller
producers were driving a disproportionately
greater number of miles in order to sell their
eggs. Although the number of outlets per pro-
ducer did tend to increase as producer size in-
creased, the volume per outlet increased at a
faster rate which reduced the time required per
case delivered. The range figures in Table- 8
indicate that there were exceptions in the aver-
age number of cases delivered and cases per mile
among the seven groups. For example, one pro-
ducer in group A was delivering about .41 cases
per mile which was almost as high a rate as one
of the producers in group G with .43 cases per
mile. For cases delivered per hour, one producer
in group A was distributing an estimated 5.20
cases per hour which was greater than one pro-

TABLE 8. AVERAGE MILEAGE AND TIME- USED PER PRODUCER IN THE DELIVERY OF WEEKLY EGG SALES, BY SIZE GROUPS, 19é

  
     
  
  
    
   
    
 
   
   
  
   
  
     
 
    
    
 

ducer in group F at 2.88 cases per hour. _
overlap in distribution efficiency among pr
ers in the seven size groups emphasizes:
effects of number of outlets and total milag;
distribution efficiency. .

Labor Efficiency and Costs

Differences in costs pier case for egg
livery were mainly associated with varia
among total cases delivered, total mileage
the number of stops involved. For examp
large volume delivery over a short distan
a single outlet should be a low delivery cos,
case situation; whereas, a small volume of '
delivered to numerous outlets which are v
scattered would be a high cost situation.
are various combinations between these 
tremes. The delivery labor efficiencies asso j
with large volume are evident in Table 8 
the producers in group A averaged deliv
about 1.27 cases per hour, while the prod
in group G delivered an average of 10.55 "
per hour. ‘

In order to examine the effect of ti
mileage and number of outlets on labor us
case delivered, multiple regression analysis‘
employed. The estimating equation was: f

Y:a+b.x,+b2x2+b,x,+b,

where: Y I cases delivered per hour z _
X1 I total delivery miles per =3 I
X2 I number of outlets l”

X3 I percent of delivered eggs 
buted on consumer routes y‘
X4 I total cases delivered per We

Outlets were separated into two catego
X2 and X3—that is, regular stops such as ‘
food stores, cafes, hospitals and schools af
general category of door-to-door consumer 
where small volumes were distributed 
many stops, respectively. Number of outle‘
cases per week were not combined into cast
outlet because specific volume per outlet inf ‘
tion was not available. 4

Due to incomplete delivery information
47 producers Were used in the regression a 5

The resulting equation was: Y I 4.94
.O0724X1 — .08733X2 — .O4451X3 + .026‘
(D0316) (D3598) (.O2084) (.0,

   
 

producers Mileage per producer Cases delivered per producer
Size Most distant outlet Weekly mileage Per mile Per hour;
group Number Average Range Average Average Range Average ‘
—-——--—--I-Miles — — — — — — — — — — I I —--—Cqse§—--—_-l‘f
A 14 17.4 2-43 92 3 25 292 .171 .07-.41 1.27
B 7 13.0 1-34 1301 14 210 .197 .14-1.35 1.41
C 12 25.5 3-95 169 7 0 312 .299 0-.72 2.87
D 8 30.4 2-80 380 7 18 955 .232 .18-2.21 4.25
E 5 35.2 3-85 286.0 20 390 .647 .56-1.84 5.68
F 3 59.6 46-75 530.0 380-680 .799 .42-1.42 4.32
G 3 153.0 23-291 1,282.0 600-1,846 .691 .43-1.07 10.55

 

   
   
  
  
  
   
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
  
   
 
 
   
   
  
   
 
  
   
  
   
    
    
  
  
  
  
 
    
  
  

All regression coefficients were significant
4e 95 percent level.1 As expected, mileage
i, number of outlets (X2) and percent of
1 distributed 0n consumer routes (X3) each
l; adverse effect on cases delivered per hour
 volume (X4) had a positive effect. Inter-
} g the equation; if volume delivered per
W increased by ten cases (mileage, outlets and
nt distributed on routes remaining con-
) then the increase in cases handled per hour
4 a,» be .2658 or about 1A; of a case. In con-
. if the number of outlets served increased
n (other variables remaining unchanged),
'umber of cases delivered per hour would
se by .873 or almost 9/10 of a case. Al-
ih there was considerable variation among
,cers in the number of cases handled per
§_ and therefore the labor cost per case, the
‘Z producers generally delivered eggs for
abor cost per case than the small producers.
 6 shows the estimated labor costs per case
jred for the 53 producers in the seven
s. Labor costs per case varied from an
ige of 77.0 cents for group A to 15.0 cents
i; oup G, indicating the importance of the
j of volume per stop on delivery labor pro-
vity.

fvery Equipment

Automobiles and l/g-ton pickups were used
_ively among the smaller producers and
 (one ton and larger) were used in the
., G groups for egg delivery. The multi-
fse use of vehicles throughout the seven
troups, but particularly among the smaller
 cers, made it impractical to determine the
rtion of annual vehicle costs which should
I ributed to egg delivery. Synthesized or
entative truck costs will be incorported
later section.

COSTS SYNTHESIZED

posts per case for processing and delivery
, packaging and truck expense were esti-
p» by a synthetic procedure. Labor costs
f estimated by aggregating the total wage
t both actual wages paid and the one dollar
7n imputed cost, on a weekly basis and
ng those by the average total weekly cases
sed by the particular size group. Delivery
_, costs were computed similarly, using the
" delivered as the denominator. The deter-
'on of packaging costs and truck expenses
lained in a following section.

ssing Costs

rocessing costs “in this study include only
’ ing labor and packaging materials. The re-
 g portion of total processing costs per case
 estimated in a following section. Process-
_,bor costs are those presented in Table 6.

oefficient of multiple correlation was .5613; stand-
irror of estimate, 32691.2.

Packaging costs are somewhat of a fixed
cost per case and do not necessarily decline signi-
ficantly with increases in volume although volume
discounts were apparent in some instances. Pack-
aging costs depend on what the producer has to
pay for cartons, cases, filler flats and sealing
tape. Some producers were in a position to re-
use both cartons and cases which reduced their
packaging costs per unit. Among the 69 pro-
ducer-wholesalers contacted, numerous packag-
ing costs situations were found. Some producers
reused cartons and cases while others reused cases
but used only new cartons. Other producers pur-
chased used cases and flats while a few obtained
them without cost. Carton costs vary depending
on the size of egg. t-o be packed and the carton
design. The average carton cost among 56 pro-
ducer-wholesalers was 2.57 cents per carton.
In order to estimate the average per case pack-
aging costs the following assumptions were made:
(1) carton cost at 2.57 cents each; (2) delivery
cases at 20.0 cents per case and (3) one-piece
filler flats at 2.0 cents each; 14 filler flats are
used per case where eggs are not cartoned. Total
estimated packaging cost per case (no items re-
used, all cases hold 30 dozen) would be:

Unit Cartoned Loose
Cents Cents

Per case 97.1 48.0

Per dozen 3.24 1.6

The average total packaging cost per case
for a producer’s total weekly volume would de-
pend on the percentage of his eggs cartoned,
Table 5.

Delivery Costs

Labor and truck costs constitute delivery
costs. Delivery labor costs per case are pre-
sented in Table 6. Vehicles of numerous types,
sizes and ages were used to transport eggs from
the farm to the various market outlets. Truck
costs per case will vary considerably depending
on the wear and tear on the truck as determined
by driver practices, road conditions, weather,
maintenance, vehicle age and other factors.
Truck size and percent of capacity utilized would
also affect per unit costs. Truck expenses were
estimated by using standard costs and applying
them to delivery routes with differing char-
acteristics. Such routes are representative of
those observed among the producers interviewed.

In order to estimate truck costs, two general
types of chassis were used: a one-half ton pickup
and a 2-ton truck with an insulated van; one-half
ton trucks can haul up to 50 cases while the 2-
ton truck is capable of hauling 250 cases.

The general assumptions regarding one-half
ton truck use were 12,000 miles annual travel
and straight-line depreciation over 7 years. Fixed
costs were computed as follows: a one-half ton
truck cost $2,180 delivered in Central Texas
(salvage value of 10 percent, $218); 5 per-
cent interest on investment (5 percent of one-half

9

TABLE 9. ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS FOR ONE-HALF TON
TRUCK; 12,000 MILES PER YEAR

Fixed costs Annual Per mile
Dollars Cents
Depreciation‘ 248.54 2.071
Interest’ 66.96 .558
Insurance (liability only) 47.00 .392
Registration 9.46 .079
Total 371.96 3.100

Variable costs Annual Per mile
Dollars Cents
Gasoline g 226.28 1.886
Oil and filter 12.94 .108
Lubrication 1.253 .010
Tires 133.32 1.111
Repair and maintenance 180.00 1.500
Total 553.79 4.615
Total costs 925.75 7.715

‘Seven years depreciation on original cost minus tires and salvage
value.

“Five percent on one-half of depreciable balance plus salvage value.
“Wholesale grease cost; no labor charge.

of depreciable balance—original cost less tires-
plus salvage value); liability insurance of $47
per year and registration costs of $9.46 per year.

Variable costs apply within the following
assumptions: 14 miles per gallon at 26.4 cents
per gallon; 6 quarts of oil at 22.25 cents per
quart plus $1.90 filter each 3,000 miles; lubri-
cation each 2,000 miles; tire cost at 1.11 cents per
mile and repairs and maintenance at 1.5 cents
per mile (6). The fixed and variable costs are
presented in Table 9. Average total costs per
mile of travel are 7.715 cents.

The 2-ton truck was assumed to travel 25,000
miles per year and depreciated over 6 years.
Fixed costs were as follows: a 2-ton truck chassis
delivered to Central Texas lists at $2,801 (sal-
vage value $280.10) an aluminum-insulated van
with capacity of 250 cases lists at $1466.76 in-
stalled; the van is depreciated over 10 years;

TABLE 10. ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS FOR 2-TON TRUCK WITH
250 CASE INSULATED VAN; 25,000 MILES PER YEAR

Fixed costs Annual Per mile
Dollars Cents
Depreciation‘ 444.42 1 .778
lnterestz 127.82 .511
Insurance (liability only) 47.00 .188
Registration 17.57 ' .070
Total 636.81 2.547

Variable costs Annual Per mile
Dollars Cents
Gasoline 825.00 3.300
Oil and filter 26.94 .108
Lubrication 2.603 .010
Tires 367.23 1.469
Repair and maintenance 500.00 2.000
Total 1,721.77 6.887
Total cost 2,358.55 9.434

‘Depreciated over 5 years on original cost minus tires, tubes and

salvage value; van depreciated over 10 years.
‘Five percent on one-half of depreciable balance plus salvage value.
sWholesale grease cost; no labor charge.

l0

 
    
  
   
   
 
   
  
   
  
   
   
  
  
  
    
   
    
   
 
   
   
  
  
   
   
   
 
  
   
  
  
  
   
  

5 percent interest on investment; liabll
surance of $47 annually and registra
$17.57. 

Using the same prices as above, {
costs were computed on the basis of: 8 .__
gallon; 6 quarts of oil and filter eve .
miles; lubrication every 2,000 miles; ti
at 1.469 cents per mile and repairs and .3‘
ance at 2.0 cents per mile. Total costs L
are 9.434 cents, Table 10. i

Volume has already been shown 
important variable in delivery labor efi
Using the data in Tables 4 and 8 delivery '
case for various route situation can 
mated. Table 11 indicates that avera
delivery costs per case declined steadily 
age Weekly volume delivered per prod’
creased, dropping from $1.22 to 29.0 
case between groups A and G. Of couf
amount of delivery costs per case is in
not only by volume but also by cases i"
distance and the proportion of the eggs d
on door-to-door consumer routes. For 
using the same procedure by which the wi
costs in Table 11 were obtained, one t‘_
in group A had an estimated delivery y
case of 54.8 cents due to low mileage y’
stops while one of the group F producers;
estimated cost of 61.2 cents per case dub
to a large number of outlets and, =5"
both low volume and high cost per stop. t g i
costs, both labor and truck, must be -!
by the producer if his additional egg m
activities are to be profitable.

Partial Costs: Labor,
Packaging and Truck Use

Estimated labor costs per case, Tabl
Washing, grading and packing andfor 
can be combined with estimated packagi
and truck expenses to obtain estimates f
per case for these items. “

.

Table 11 presents the estimated aver‘
per case for processing and delivery laboj
aging and truck use for the seven size:
Although these three cost components c'
a majority of the cost per case (rougy
percent in the Georgia study) (2), they J
only a partial cost. Other costs such as 
repairs and maintenance, management i,
fice cost, depreciation and interest oh.
ment for building and equipment, insura
taxes are not included. 

The partial cost estimates in Table-l
synthetic in that standardized truck w»,
packaging c-osts were used in conjuncti
the time and distance estimates reported ,-
ducers. Also, labor costs were assigne?
none were actually paid to family lab
costs in Table 11 can be used to examine"
fect of volume on labor efficiency in both i
cessing and delivery phases and of route s ‘
on delivery costs. Costs per case declined _

   
  
  
    
   
 
    
   
  
   
 
  
  
  
  
   
   
    
 
 
  
  
  
 

I, increases in weekly volume. Group E had
‘west processing costs per case ($1.12) and
west partial cost per case ($1.61) although
1 G had nearly the same partial cost per
e. ($1.66) due to their particularly 10W de-
1r costs. Group E’s low processing cost may
irtially explained in that those plants, on
verage, cartoned only 54 percent of their
"while groups F and G cartoned 97 and 92
gnt, respectively.

- Figure 1 shows that, although the producers
_ 0t strictly comparable in terms of methods,
ment or egg quality, wide variations in
p productivity per case-Were present at small
7y output levels. Although most of the small
cer-wholesalers were not incurring hired
, costs, their egg marketing activities were
r in the sense that the family labor Was, in
i~ instances, receiving a lower return than
zmight have earned in other employment.

PRICES AND COSTS

' he main economic reason for a producer
sing and delivering his eggs is that the
nce between the price paid by the dealer-
alers and that paid by retailer and/ or con-
; outlets would be large enough to justify
bly the additional cost per dozen. The

unities for selecting market outlets are
bly quite varied. For example, it might be
le for a small producer to process his eggs
arket them door-to-door at retail prices
I alternative source of income, however, it
,n0t be feasible for a large producer with

» The most profitable type of market out-
r plicable would depend on the particular
ion which the producer faces.

pt is possible to get a general idea of the
[situation which the producers faced in 1962
mparing reported prices paid at stations
. rade A large eggs on a loose basis in six

PER CASE, BY SIZE GROUPS:

bor to attempt to market his eggs door-to- '

 

Texas areas with the prices received reported
by the selected producer-wholesalers. Prices paid
producers for Grade A large eggs on a loose basis
during 1962 were estimated by averaging the
midpoints of Weekly (Tuesday) price ranges re-
ported for the six areas; Lubbock, Dallas-Fort
Worth, East Texas, Houston, South-South Cen-
tral and Corpus Christi (7). This method pro-
vides a rough estimate of the producer’s price
for loose packed Grade A large eggs at the whole-
sale level in Texas. The annual averages of the
price range midpoints for the six areas for
Grade A large eggs during 1962 were as follows:

Area Grade A large average price
per dozen (midpoint) 1962
Cents
Lubbock 33.42
Dallas-Fort Worth 30.98
East Texas 32.90
Houston 35.10
South-South Central 34.59
Corpus Christi 32.75
State 34.17

These above prices are averages of mid-
points of price ranges 1n the SIX areas, not aver-
age or Weighted average prices.

Because of the problems in obtaining the
prices received by the selected producer-Whole-
salers by weeks or months, it was decided to
get only the peak-winter price and the low-sum-
mer price for various market outlets. The pro-
ducer-Wholesalers’ winter and summer prices for
what were reported as generally Grade A large
eggs sold to retail outlets in cartons were based
on information from 44 producers. The average
peak-Winter price was 51.8 cents per dozen and
the average low-summer price was 39.6 cents per
dozen, Table 12. The peak-Winter price aver-
age for the six state areas Was 39.7 cents per
dozen, and the low-summer price was 26.2 cents
per dozen. Assuming that the Texas area prices
and the producer-Wholesaler prices are approxi-

I. ESTIMATED AVERAGE COSTS PER CASE FOR PROCESSING AND DELIVERY LABOR, PACKAGING, TRUCK AND COMBINED COSTS
‘ BASED ON OPERATIONS OF 53 PRODUCERS-WHOLESALERS, T9621

Costs per case

 

Cost
Processing costs Delivery costs pef
_ Total dozenz
Labor Packaging Total Labor Truck Total
_ _ _ — — — — — — — — — —-—DolIars—--——-—-—--—-———-——-—----- Cent;
1.90 93 2.83 .77 .45 1.22 4.05 13.5
1.23 87 2.10 .71 .39 1.10 3.20 10.7
.92 79 1.71 .41 .26 .67 2.38 07.9
.60 83 1.43 .25 .33 .58 2.01 06.7
.37 75 1.12 .34 .153 .49 1.61 05.4
.47 96 1.43 .32 .15 .47 1.90 06.3
.44 93 1.37 15 .14 .29 1.66 05.5
56 87 1.43 28 .19 .47 1.90 06,3

 
    
  
  

of eggs cartoned.

l. - ired in processing and delivering as estimated by producers interviewed.
,mily labor was used. Packaging costs were based on representative costs reported by producers and vary per case depending on

Wages are actual where paid and imputed at $1 an hour

I" does not include the following processing cost items; equipment, utilities, building, cooler, inspection, taxes, insurance and interest

_ ton trucks for groups A, B, C and D; two-ton trucks for groups E, F and G.

l1

TABLE ‘l2. COMPARSION OF ESTIMATED AVERAGE PRICES FOR
EGGS SOLD LOOSE AT WHOLESALE IN SIX TEXAS
AREAS AND PRICES RECEIVED FOR CARTONED EGGS
SOLD AT RETAILER OUTLETS BY PRODUCER-WHOLE-
SALERS DURING WINTER AND SUMMER PERIODS, ‘I962

Estimated
average prices for Grade A

Time period “"99 °995= ‘ems P" dfle" Difference
Wholesale Cartoned for

loose basis‘ retailers2

— — — — -——-Cents-———--———
Fall-winter 39.7 I 51.8 'l2.'I
Spring-summer 26.2 39.6 ‘l 3.4
Average 33.4 -—- ——

‘Determined by averaging midpoints of (weekly: Tuesday) price
ranges reported for six Texas areas. Winter price is the high
weekly price and the summer price is the low weekly price for I962.

2Average of low-summer and peak-winter prices obtained from 44
producer-wholesalers.

mately representative of prices paid at alter-
native outlets, Wholesale as compared with re-
tailers, it appears that a 12 to 13 cent margin
existed between these types of outlets.

The partial costs per dozen, Table 11, may be
adjusted to an estimated total cost per dozen by
dividing the partial costs by 74 percent, the aver-
age proportion of total costs per dozen Which
labor, packaging and truck expense were found
to represent in the Georgia study? Using this
procedure, partial costs per dozen, Table 11, are
raised from 13.5 cents to 18.0 cents in group A
and from 5.4 cents to 7.2 cents in group E.
Groups D, E, F and G’s estimated total costs per
dozen varied from 8.9 cents to 7.2 cents, sug-
gesting that these groups were processing and
delivering eggs for a cost Within the approximate
margin determined above.

Groups A and B with estimated total costs
per dozen 18.0 cents and 14.3 cents, respectively,
would not fall Within the general margin limits,
but their presence in the market could be ex-
plained by their acceptance of returns for their
labor and capital of less than market value, and/
or the receipt of higher prices than indicated in
Table 12. Group C is a borderline case at 10.5
cents per dozen. Of course, an individual pro-
ducer could develop a specialty market by sell-
ing a high quality egg with farm-fresh appeal
and get a higher margin than 12.0 to 13.0 cents

“This procedure assumes that costs other than labor,
packaging and truck use varied proportionately among
different sizes which is not fully justified.

12

   
  
   
   
    
 
  
   
   
 
   
  
   
 
  
   
    
  
   
 
  
    
  
   
   
  
 
 
 
   

per dozen over wholesaler prices. On y‘
hand, some producers may have been Z
smaller margins and very low returns r
labor and investment. .

The number of assumptions upon "
information in Tables 11 and 12 is ba
be emphasized and additional study of
price and market alternatives would be 
in order to draw firm conclusions regar
most desirable market outlets for spec
producers.

REFERENCES

1. A. C. Magee, B. H. Stone and B. C. '1
Planning for Profitable Egg Pr
Bulletin 1012, Texas Agricultural fl
ment Station, College Station, Texas.

2. H. B. Jones and J. C. Thompson, M'
Costs and Labor Productivity in C f
Egg Packing Plants, Bulletin N. j
Georgia Agricultural Experiment l,
Athens, and Marketing Economics It
Economic Research Service, U. S. .
menZ of Agriculture cooperating, Ju
p. 1 . l.

3. W. W. Gallimore and A. P. Stemberg‘
of Egg Marketing Services: Farms’
Central Station, A. E. Information 
74, Department of Agricultural Ec.
North Carolina State College, Raleig
March 1960. ’

4. R. J. Peeler, Jr. and Richard A. {Ii
Plant Costs of Grading and Packi 1
A. E. Information Series No. 106, 
ment of Agricultural Economics, N. i
of the University of North Carolina
leigh, August 1963. 

5. Kermit Bird, An Analysis of Egg g
Costs and Efficiency, Bulletin D-56
cultural Experiment Station, Oklaho “
University, Stillwater and Agricultu y’,
keting Service, U. S. Department of _
ture cooperating, November, 1960. i

6. John T. Buck, Egg Delivery Pract’
Costs, Bulletin 551, Agricultural Ext
Station, Virginia Polytechnic I,
Blacksburg, Virginia, December 1963.

7. Texas Department of Agriculture,»
and Eggs, Vol. XII, selected weekly
Market Information Service, U. S.
ment of Agriculture, Austin, Texas, g