0d Use d tential Nutritional Level 1,225 Texas Families RM UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION lierson, Director, College Station, Texas SUZMMAR Y The changing pace of American living is bringing changes t0 American eating habits and food purchasing patterns. In order to take a closer look at current food use patterns, 1,314 families in Texas were randomly selected for recall interviews. The homemaker in each family was asked t0 remember the kinds and amounts of foods used by her family during the 7 days immediately preceding the interview. The reports of 89 Latin-American families were dropped because the number was con- sidered too small to be representative. The remaining 1,225 families were grouped accord- ing to race (white and Negro), family composi- tion (according to age level of children), in- come and urbanization (for white race only). One interesting point of this survey was the frequency that the family composition group of adults only reported higher pound per person usage of foods than family composi- tion groups with growing children. Based on foods used, the potential level of nutrition of families in Texas is good. Those cially true for low income families with families most likely to be deficient in nutrient have teenage children. This is J" agers, but it was evident at all income l Of the eight nutrients studied, calcium, amine and vitamin C are most likely to deficient quantity. Potential deficienci these nutrients were associated with typ foods selected from each food group. i Sweet potatoes were good suppleme sources of vitamin A and C, especially Negro families. Legumes, nuts, potatoei fruits other than vitamin-C-rich fruits furnished the margin of difference bet‘ adequacy and inadequacy for various nut This was especially true when families g enough of a food considered a primary of a given nutrient. ' i’ Examination of the dietary potenti each of the nutrients emphasized the ance of a variety of foods in the diet for, quate nutritional status. " Calorie potential of the foods used se high. Adjustments made to account for i, A to pets and other dietary losses would in marginal nutritional adequacy or deficiencies for several family composi- “oups. It would seem, therefore, that ‘ietaries are too high in caloric content i or marginal in high nutrient foods. ecific significant patterns in food usage oted. White families reported using twice as much dairy products in pounds rson as Negro families. White rural f used more dairy products per person j hite urban families. Rural white fam- - adults only reported the highest pound rson use of dairy products. egardless of income level, the staple meat Ects in the American diet may be basically i» e, as indicated by this survey. Both low jigh income groups showed high percent- e of chicken, ground beef and bacon. ver, as income increased, the total use at in amount and variety increased. The f fancy or special cut steaks, as well as Al, lamb, oysters and shrimp was largely families. Negro families tended to use i_ pork than white families. Families of adults only consistently re- id using more eggs than any other family osition group. Rural white families used ‘ eggs per person than urban white fam- for Negroes. Negro families had a lower if eggs per family member than either of Q hite groups. "Most of the families interviewed used a y d or more white bread per family member i. g the week. Use of other cereal products, flour, corn meal, crackers, pasta products boat products was widespread. Prepared ‘lkfast cereal products were used by a higher entage of white? families than Negro fam- , and middle income white families used e of these breakfast foods than families i e two extremes of the income scale. As me increased, the pound use per person ll cereal products decreased. d to the highest income urban and rural i As family income increased in Texas, use of green and yellow vegetables also tended to increase. White families consistently had a higher pound per person use of green and ellow ve etables than Ne ro families, and in Y g g_ most instances use by white urban families was higher than use by white rural families. Greater use of vitamin-C-rich fruits and vegetables also tended to accompany greater family income. Pound per person use of these foods was most often highest for families con- sisting of adults only. Use of 12 other fruits also was reported. Apples, bananas and peaches were favorites in Texas diets. The Negro families interviewed used very little fruit other than these three. Low income urban white families reported low usage of fruit in several family composition groups. However, above the lowest income level, all urban white families within an income and urbanization group, not necessarily within a family, reported using a variety of fruits dur- ing the week. Rural white families at the lowest income level had more variety in the use of fruits than the low income urban fami- lies, but rural families at the higher income levels tended to have less variety than urban high income families. Irish potatoes were served in all family composition groups by 88 to l00 percent of the families. Sweet potatoes were especially popular among Negro families. Potato chips most often were used by white urban families with middle or higher income levels. Nine types of fats and oils were used by the Texas homemakers. Lard was used more often by families having income under $6,000. More Negro families used lard than rural or urban whites. Butter was used more often by rural white families and Negro families than by urban white families, who used more oleo- margarine. Butter, oleomargarine, lard and hydrogenated fats (shortening) were used in larger amounts than any of the cooking or salad oils. Summary _________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 2 ’ Introduction ............................................................................................ .. 5 a Objectives ........................................................................................ .. 5 1‘ Procedures ....................................................................................... .. 6 I Analysis ............................................................................................. .. 5 Part I—Foods Used ............................................................................ .. 7 Dairy Products ............................................................................... .- 8 S Meats _Beef, pork, poultry, Fish ____________________________________________ __ 3 a Legumes and Nuts ........................................................................ .- 9 Eggs __________________________________________________________________________________________________ "l0 Cereal Products .............................................................................. .-l0 Green and Yellow Vegetables .................................................. -. ll ‘i Vitamin-C-Rich Fruits and Vegetables .................................... ..l2 Fruit Other Than Vitamin-C-Rich ............................................ "l3 ' Potatoes ........................................................................................... ..l4 Fats and Oils .................................................................................. -.l5 Observations ........................................................................................... --l5 Part II — Potential Nutritional Level of Families ........................ ..l6 A. Protein .......................................................................... ................. -17 4 Iron .................................................................................................. .-1s Calcium ........................................................................................... -19 a Thiamine ........................................................................................ ..2 l“ Riboflavin ....................................................................................... .-21 i‘ Niacin .............................................................................................. .22 Vitamin A ....................................................................................... .23 Vitamin C ....................................................................................... .24 i Calories ......................................................... ................................. ..25 A Observations and Conclusions ............................................................ __26 Acknowledgments .................................................................................. _-26 Appendix A ............................................................................................ -.27 Appendix B ............................................................................................ ..27 _ Appendix Tables ___________________________________________________________________________________ i Food Use and a, h‘ , lII-VI.» fIIIIHI _ , Potential Nutritional Level -'1.-'4lI|I v4 u". Department of Home Economics etary habits of the population change slowly. i eless, they do change. The American diet at in had a high percentage of starches, dried le- “and seasonal foods. Today, because of rapid rtation, high production, improved processing, i family income, increasing nutritional knowl- d other factors, the picture has changed. Food i-tion and marketing is the largest industry in p; ited States. In 1958 twice as much was spent u and alcoholic beverages (76.6 billion) as was n all durable goods, such as automobiles, furn- d household equipment. Twice as much was on food as on all other non-durable goods, in- I clothing and gasoline. Twice as much was tfor food as was spent for housing} v e family spends approximately one-fifth to ird of its income on food. This amounts to 17 pt of the Gross National Product. Production, i, ing and marketing of foods are highly special- Even the rural family will be expected to pro- f,» a small p-ortion of the total foods consumed family. The importance of food in all econ- reas has led to many studies related to it. The ‘ has made periodic studies on food consump- atterns in the United States.’ The purpose of fudy reported in this paper is to provide food- ct-use information that will be beneficial to I ors, producers and distributors as well as to ' 6T8. rograms of food production and marketing pro- _ are directly related to food use. Changing consumption habits of the American family nec- y change methods of food production and ing. The growth of the frozen food industry fhe past 2 decades and the expansion of food s to supermarkets are notable examples. l/Vith Ethan 5,000 items to choose from in a single food 1 the job of the family food purchasing agent g. much more complex. Educational programs, ods and subject matter must be adapted and A derived from Business Statistics, 1963 Edition, U. S. i tment of Commerce, Office of Business Economics, ington, D. C., p. 3. I Consumption of Households in the United States,” p hold Food Consumption Survey 1955, Report Number 1, Department of Agriculture, and similar publications SF series (1-10) , Washington, D. C. of 1,225 Texas Families Alice Stubbs, Acting Head and Associate Professor, revised to meet the needs of all groups — the producer, distributor and consumer. In the spring of 1958, data were gathered from 1,314 families in 23 urban communities and l2 rural counties of Texas. The homemakers interviewed were asked to recall the kinds and amounts of foods used by the family during the 7 days immediately preceding the day of the interview. This included all foods consumed by family members as well as food served to pets or discarded as waste. Foods reported were divided into 14 groups: Dairy products Meats, fish and poultry Legumes and nuts Eggs Breads and cereals . Green and yellow vegetables Citrus fruits and vitamin-C-rich vegetables . Other fruits ©°°.\'@E"EPP°!\°i-‘ . Potatoes . Fats and oils r-l @ ll. Other vegetables l2. Mixed products l3. Sweets and sugars l4. Miscellaneous products and condiments The first ten were analyzed for pound-use per person and per family and for their nutritional con- tribution to the families. The last four food groups were eliminated for these reasons: the limited num- ber of families using vegetables in group ll, the diffi- culty of determining nutritional contributions of foods in groups 12 and 14 and the limited contribu- tion of calories by group l3 only. OBJECTIVES This study has two objectives: l. To determine present family food consump- tion patterns within the state. 2. To determine factors influencing the purchase of specified family foods. It was assumed that recall data for the week im- mediately preceding the date of the interview, taken from a randomly selected sample of the urban and rural population, would adequately reflect food con- sumption patterns within the state. Also, knowledge of consumption patterns would be useful to produc- ers, distributors, educators and consumers. The second objective was closely related to the first but has been reported in other publications and will not be specifically discussed in this report?’ PROCEDURES Methodology and details of procedure are given in Appendix A. In general, types of information obtained from families included: 1. General family information such as family composition (number, age, sex and relation- ship), economic group, race, educational status and other pertinent socioeconomic data. 2. Kind, form, amount and source of food used during the interview week. 3. Attitudes of homemakers toward selected classes of foods and food products. 4. Sources of food attitudes and types of informa- tion usually used in forming attitudes and in “Previous publications include “Family Food Marketing Prac- tices,” Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station, Texas, March, 1961, and “Homemakers’ Attitudes Toward Selected Food Store Services,” Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station, Texas, May, 1963. TABLE 1. NUMBER OF FAMILIES AT EACH INCOME LEVEL BY FAMILY COMPOSITION, URBANIZATION AND; ‘shows the average number of persons by incom- making decisions regarding selection and l‘ of foods. 5. Current and past sources of knowledge I cerning nutritive values of particular f food groups and standards of individual quire-ment. I 6. Educational and promotional material tow the family food buyerfihhs been exposed; as newspapers, television, radio, maga ’ club meetings, school and promotion in food stores. 5 ‘ANALYSIS For the purpose of analysis, data were gr in six categories: types of foods (ten food gr , race (Negro and white), family composition groups), income (five categories), urbanization‘; white race only) and eight nutrients. The food groups analyzed were dairy products; n, fish and poultry; eggs; legumes and nuts; brea . cereals; green and yellow vegetables; vitamin- fruits and vegetables; potatoes; fats and oils; other fruits. - a Of the 1,314 families interviewed, 89 were Americans. It was felt this was not a represen sample; therefore, they were dropped from th lysis. Data are from the remaining 1,225 t" The number of families in each income family composition, is shown in Table 1. and family composition group. Income c Family Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 c°mP°siti°n Under $2900- $4,000- $6,000 $8,000 I $2,000 3,999 5,999 7,999 and over WVhite urban Adults (Group 1) 45 67 66 45 40 Adults and preschool (Group 2) 2 35 43 24 10 Adults and elementary (Group 3) 2 ll 16 16 9 Adults and teens (Group 4) 2 21 13 13 18 *Adu1ts and all (Group 5) 4 20 59 36 48 Total 55 154 197 134 125 WVhite rural Adults (Group 1) 76 57 26 12 10 Adults and preschool (Group 2) 7 13 13 3 5 Adults and elementary (Group 3) ' 3 9 4 4 8 Adults and, teens (Group 4) 10 17 ll 5 5 ‘Adults and all (Group 5) 21 39 31 12 e 23 Total 117 135 85 36 51 Negro Adults (Group 1) 34 l4 5 ** Adults and preschool (Group 2) 5 l4 5 Adults and elementary (Group 3) 3 l 2 Adults and teens (Group 4) 6 1 3 *Adu1ts and all (Group 5) 13 21 9 Total 61 51 24 *Classification includes adults with children in two or more age levels. "The three Negro families whose incomes were over $6,000 have been included in the income level $4,000-5,999 at the v family compositions. 6 AVERAGE NUMBER. OF PERSONS IN FAMILY AT EACH INCOME LEVEL BY FAMILY COMPOSITION, 1 URBANIZATION AND RACE Income Group l Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Under $2,000- $34,000- $6,000- $8,000 $2,000 3,999 5,999 7,999 and over fan (Group 1) 1.62 1.97 2.00 2.13 2.20 f and preschool (Group 2) 4.00 4.11 3.79 3.79 3.40 ‘s. and elementary (Group 3) 3.00 3.36 3.31 3.69 3.44 and teens (Group 4) 3.00 3.29 3.62 3.46 3.39 and all (Group 5) 4.75 5.35 4.92 4.89 4.79 - I 2.04 3.18 3.48 3.49 3.55 ' m1 . _ F. (Group 1) 2.14 2.25 2.27 2.33 - 2.10 i». and preschool (Group 2) 4.29 4.08 3.77 3.67 4.00 i] and elementary (Group 3) 3.67 3.22 3.50 4.00 3.38 _ and teens (Group 4) 3.80 3.35 3.27 3.20 4.00 I and all (Group 5) 6.33 5.28 5.90 5.17 5.09 3.21 3.50 4.01 3.69 4.02 ..~ (Group 1) 1.82 2.29 2.40 ** ’. and preschool (Group 2) 3.60 3.93 4.80 ** p; and elementary (Group 3) 3.00 3.00 3.00 * and teens (Group 4) 4.67 4.00 5.00 ‘ ‘ and all (Group 5) 6.85 6.43 6.22 ,-_ e 3.28 4.49 4.75 Ecation includes adults with children in two or more age levels. ree Negro families whose incomes were over $6,000 have been included in the income level $4,000-5,999 at the appropriate " compositions. A e five family composition groups were adults (ults with children under 7, adults with chil- ;l2, adults with children 13-19, and adults with i in two or more of the age groups given sly. l: income classifications were set up: under i, $2,000-s,999; s4,000-5,999; s6,000-7,999; ,000 and over. The national average family group ($5,050) and the state average family ($4,058) fell in the middle income group the total pounds used (7.48). Dividing this num- ber by the total number of people (100) will show that the use for the total population is much lower (.07 pound per person) . The eight nutrients used in the analysis will be discussed more fully in the second section of this bulletin. PART 1 - FOODS USED , o lower income groups and two» higher in- oups. The distribution of the sample among i come groups is comparable with other studies . S. population census data. inly 136 Negro families were contacted; there- nalysis was made on the group as a whole Qwhite families, who formed the largest portion i sample, were divided into rural and urban cations. State census data show the Negro tion to be approximately 10 percent of the rpulation; therefore, sample results compare the expectations from random sampling. pound use per person is based on families and ='- of people actfiia-lly using the food. For ex- ‘, in a representative sample of 100 persons, 34 's used an average of .22 pound of canned -oes and 66 persons used none of the food. Thus, _rcentage of people actually using the food was ‘cent. Multiply the pound use per person by umber of people using it (.22 X 34) to get A table giving all foods reported being used during the week preceding the interview is included in the appendix tables. To insure a common denom- inator from which to make cal-culations, all foods reported were converted to pounds. For example, if a family reported using 4 quarts or a gallon of whole milk, analysis was made on the basis of 8.45 pounds of whole milk. In this bulletin for purposes of clarity to the general reader, some foods have been reconverted to their common unit of mea- sure. Dairy products are among the foods recon- verted. - Appendix Table 6 gives average pound per person use of the l0 food groups. In most instances where the average pound per person use is much higher than in other family composition groups, there is not a representative sample. In thse cases only two or three families are in the group and have had an unusually high use of a particular food during the week. This use may reveal unique characteristics 7 of a given family for the interview week, but it is not necessarily representative of other Texas families in the same family composition and income group. DAIRY PRODUCTS Whole milk was used by a higher percentage of the families in all family composition groups than any of the other 12 dairy products reported. All dairy products were converted to whole milk equi- valents to obtain pounds of milk used per person. The conversion factor used was 2.11 pounds per quart of whole milk. White families used almost twice the amount of dairy products in pounds per person as Negro families. White urban families used an average of 7.58 pounds per person. White rural families used 10.19 pounds per person and Negro families use an average of only 4.50 pounds per person over the week for which data were col- lected. In terms of whole milk, this means white urban families. use-d 3.6 quarts, white rural families used 4.8 quarts and Negros used 2.1 quarts per person during the interview week. All families did not use this much whole milk. In some cases the pounds of dairy products used were entirely in whole milk; in other cases the total included cheese, cream, ice cream, sherbet and processed milk — evaporated, dry- skim and condensed. American cheese was used by 69 percent of the urban, 68 percent of the rural and 55 percent of the Negro families. Adults in the urban white low in- come groups, using .5 pound per person, had a higher per capita use of American cheese than any other family composition group. On the average, in all family composition groups and at all income levels, families used between .20 and .33 pound of Ameri- can cheese per person. Cream cheese was used by only ll percent urban, 5 percent rural and 1 percent of the Negro people. Urban families with only elementary school children had the highest pounds per person use of dairy products with 8.82 pounds. Urban families consisting of adults only had the lowest pounds (5.89) per person use of dairy products. Use, in each of the preceding, was equivalent to 4.18 and 2.79 quarts of whole milk per person, respectively. Since use of dairy products, especially whole milk, is generally believed to be low among teenagers, it should be pointed out that urban families with teenagers aver- aged 3.40 quarts per person of whole milk equivalent. The sample size, however, was small. Rural white families of adults only had the highest pound per person use of whole milk equi- valent; those with only elementary children had the lowest usage. Families with teenagers had the sec- ond highest use of dairy products. There was a complete reversal of the situation in white urban families. 8 to have a significant relationship. Negro families had the lowest overall consum . tion of dairy products. Negro families with e mentary children averaged only 1.53 quarts o4 person. Families with preschool children had g highest use, but they averaged only 2.81 quarts p person. This pounds per person use of dairy p I ducts will be reflected in the nutritional adequa; of the total foods used, whiclg» will be discussed '_ the second section of this bullefin. f At the lowest income level both rural white a_ the Negro families used buttermilk and evaporat milk in larger quantities than urban white famili’ As the income levels increased, urban white fanflil increased their use of these products. ‘ Mellorine and/or ice cream were used by u.’ families in all family composition groups at m time during the interview week except for the t 5 family composition group of the Negro famili Use ranged from .38 pint per person to 3.00 pi per person. Rural white families with teenage c dren used the largest amount per person. Exc for urban families in the lowest and highest inc , groups, income did not appear to have a direct _' lationship to the use of ice cream or mellorine. A these two income classifications, mellorine was more often by the low income families and ,1 cream was used more often by the high inc - families. Difference in use, however, was not eno = Use of a variety of dairy products was restri most in Income Group 1 and among the families. 1 MEATS — BEEF, PORK, POULTRY AND FIS Some meat products were not used by faml in the low income classification or were used i limited amounts by families of adults only, Ap dix Table 7. Among these were special or steak cuts, veal, lamb, oysters and shrimp. S» last four were used in limited amounts at all inc: levels. Urban families tended to use these prod more than rural or Negro families. At the lowest income level, chicken was ‘ portant in the diet. Sixty-three percent of v Negroes, 60 percent urban white and 48 per rural white used this meat product. Ground was also important with 57 percent of the u. white, 68 percent of the rural white and 71 0' of the Negroes using it. Bacon was used by 71 1 cent of the urban white in Income Group-1, 61 cent of the rural white in this income level an percent of the Negroes. " Most often the highest use per person of f" meats was in families with only adults. This. trasted with families having teenagers, who ~- need as much meat or more for growth as a‘ Meat products used in the greatest amount by y teenage children in the lowest income bracket T ken, beef roast and bologna. come increased, total use of meat in amount 'ety increased. The use of fancy 0r special f . was largely limited to the highest income d rural white families. In these classifica- lwever, only 12 to 20 percent of the families , group used these meats. On the other hand, 3Y- similar steak cuts were used by 73 to 86 of the urban and rural white families at ‘_ levels above $5,999. In addition to this centage use of various steak cuts and simi- h use of beef roasts, ground beef was used o 92 percent of the urban and rural white in the highest income level. More than int of the higher income families also used 55 to 1.41 pounds of chicken per family a 111.1168 with incomes above $3,999 used between i’: .90 pound of pork roast or chops per family I; during the interview week. The percentage Flies using this amount of fresh pork ranged 6 percent in the fourth income classification al white to 67 percent in the highest income tion for Negroes ($4,000-5,999). Ninety- ‘i- cent of the Negro families in this income tion used bacon. The average use ranged ‘ 9 pound per person in Family Group 5 to .67 j per person in Family Group 3. Approximately ent of all urban white families with incomes $3,999 used from one-third to two-thirds pound g n per person during the week. lound per person use of prepared meats — f“ weiners, luncheon meats — was most often t in families of adults only. The range in use a.’ three meats by adult only families was from iners used by rural white families in the high- come group to .78 pound per person use of a by white urban families in Income Group 2. often, however, the adult families used from "ird to one-half pound of these prepared meats. ‘of the adult families, except the group given used all three classifications of prepared meats. "rusual use ranged from .58 and 1.67 pounds per l; of prepared meats during the interview week. high use contrasted with the lower use of these i’ products by families of both races having teen- where the range of use was from no use y y of these meats by Negro families in the under 4i income group to .67 pound of bologna per p; n by Negro families in the third income classifi- n. Most often, use ranged between one-fourth ind and a little less than one-half pound per in. These data did not support the idea that in either the high income groups or the income groups are high users of weiners and "lar prepared meats. LEGUMES AND NUTS Legumes and nuts reported include fresh legumes (mature beans and peas), dried beans and peas (pinto beans were included in a separate cate- gory), canned pork and beans, pinto beans, coconut, peanut butter, pecans and mixed nuts. Additional explanation of this group is given in Appendix Table l. Except for families with teenagers, urban white families in the lowest income group used more leg- umes and nuts per family member than families in other income groups. Among rural white families there was some variation. Although the tendency was for the amount of these foods used per family member to decrease as income increased, in two rural family compositions the use was highest at the highest income level. Family Composition Group 1 with income $8,000 and over used 1.16 pounds of these foods per family member. Also, Family Composition Group 3 in the same income class used .98 pound per family member. Urban white families in Family Composition Group 4 at the lowest income level used only dried beans and peas. At the same income level, Negro families in Family Composition Group 3 used only pinto beans. These two groups used .50 and .30 pound per family member, respectively. At the lowest income level pinto beans were used by all family composi- tion groups except urban white families in Group 4. Negro families at the lowest income level, ex- cept Family Composition Group 3, used more leg- umes and nuts per family member than Negro fami- lies at the higher income levels. However, Family Composition Group 8 with $4,000-5,999 income used 1.79 pounds of legumes and nuts per family member. Use of nuts including peanut butter was in smaller amounts per person than use of legumes. The range in use was from 0 to 1 pound per person, but the usual range was .09 to .28 pound per person. Many families of both races in the lowest income group did not use nuts. Among Negro families at the lowest income level only Family Group 5 use-d peanut butter, and this group used only .06 pound per person. In the urban white low income group, Family Group 1 (adults only) used pecans. Also, among urban whites, adults (Group 1) and adults with elementary children (Group 3) used more nuts per person than any other group at any income level. » At income levels 2, 3 and 4, all urban white families used some of all the legumes and nuts in- cluded in this report. At the highest income level both urban white and rural white families did not use one or more types of the legumes and nuts. Urban whites in Family Composition Groups 3 and 4 and rural whites in Family Composition Groups 2 and 4 did not use pinto beans. Also, urban whites in 9 Family Composition Group 2 did not use pork and beans or coconut. Rural whites with teenagers did not use fresh legumes, pecans or mixed nuts. Rural white adult families did not use peanut butter. Range in use of the legumes at the highest income level was from .22 to .84 pound per person. Use of nuts was between .05 and .54 pound per person. Families of adults only usually had a higher pound use of legumes and nuts per person than other family composition groups. Use of the first four foods» in this food group, various forms of beans and peas, ranged in amount from 0 to l.l9 pounds per family member. Amounts used most often at all income levels and in all family groups were- between one-fourth and one-half pound per person. EGGS Recommendations on the quantity of eggs to be used have varied from one egg per person daily to a mimimum of four eggs per person weekly. Rec- ommendations haveebeen based on the relative nutri- tional contribution of eggs and individual nutritional requirements. Therefore, analysis of use has been made on the number of eggs used per person and the size egg used by different family groups at various income levels, Table 3. Ninety-seven percent or more in each income group- used eggs. The white families used between 5 and 16 eggs per person each week. Urban white families in the lowest income group and Family Composition Group 5 used five eggs per person each week. Urban white families consisting of adults and elementary children in Inco-me Group 3 used l6 eggs per person each week. Use by other family composition groups and other income groups fell between these two extremes. The average use by urban families. with children was between six and eight eggs per person while adult families used nine to ten eggs per person during the interview week. TABLE 3. PERCENTAGE USE OF EGGS Small and Medium Large Total assorted Urban white g Under $2,000 ' 6 46 46 99 $2,000-3,999 5 53 38 97 $4,000-5,999 8 39 53 100 36000-7 ,999 5 42 52 99 $8,000 and over 3 39 58 100 Rural white Under $2,000 26 54 18 99 352000-3999 34 45 20 99 $4,000-5,999 33 42 24 100 $6,000-7,999 26 46 28 100 $8,000 and over _ 46 17 37 100 Negro Under $2,000 24 , 58 15 97 $2,000-3,999 4 l0 60 30 100 $4,000 and over ‘ 7 6s 25 100 iThe discussion will be concerned with selected A 10 l/Vhite urban families in the lowest income gr“ used 12 eggs per person each week. Rural white families had a slightly higher. family member use of eggs than urban white fami The average difference in use was one egg per A son during the interview week, in all income of’ for urban and rural whites. Family Group l (ad p had a higher use of eggs perigfamily member any of the family composition groups with ad and children. i Negro families had a lower use of eggs f family member than either urban or rural f families. Use by Negro families ranged from ‘ to nine eggs per person. The highest use was‘: families consisting of adults only. These f It used eight to nine eggs per person each week. y CEREAL PRODUCTS Bread has been called the staff of life. , the variety of grains and grain products is exam” their importance in the diet is obvious. Pr‘ in the production and marketing of other f reduced the relative amount of grain produc‘ the American diet. At the same time the .. of products has increased, and these foods _ their place of importance as the basic food us: every meal. Eighteen bread and cereal produc reported in this study, and it includes a cons i tion of some foods the homemakers reported i’ in this group. a White flour, white bread and corn produc ‘ the basic cereal products used. Two-thirds or , of the families used each of these products d5 the interview week. Most of the families A pound or more white bread per family membe, ing the week. The range in pound use of A.’ bread was .54 pound per person by rural whi, Family Composition Group 3, Income Group 2.33 pounds per p-erson by Negroes in the '5 group, with $2,000-3,999 income. The medi per person for all families was between l vii pounds " ' Families in the lower income groups g had a higher pound per person use of white’ than families in higher income groups. Use i two lowest income groups ranged from .50 A pounds per person. For the two highest i groups, it ranged from .34 to 1.38 pounds per u Families in the middle income groups used y‘ .25 and 1.64 pounds per person. The mode 5 all families was .96 pounds per person. ‘ White bread and white flour were used b j than 84 percent of the families in each inco us“ family composition group. Use of corn p dropped to 68 percent or more of the fami. each group. Although pound per person use of V’ usually was lower in all income and family ion groups than use of whitey flo-ur, it f a similar pattern of decreasing in use as jxincreased. Use ranged from 1.74 pounds ‘n for Negro families in Family Group 3, VQGrQup l to .18 pound per person by urban 't Family Group 2, Income Group 5. At the income levels, families used approximately i pound of corn products per person. At fer income levels the usual use was two- r more pounds per person for rural whites ; oes and about one-half pound per person _< whites. For each of the cereal products ft above, rural whites and Negroes had a use per person than urban whites. nd in importance in use, as determined by ntage of families using them and amount person, were crackers, pasta products and ucts. These foods were used by between i. 79 percent of the families. Fewer Negro i‘ ite families used these foods. Pasta products ,0 ed by 39 to 69 percent, crackers by 38 to , nt and oat products by 21 to 53 percent of at members. Range in pound per person L .06 to .45 for pasta products, .05 to 1.35 products and .07 to .50 for crackers. Pound son use of all three products was usually higher lilies of only adults. However, Family Group me Group 2, used 1.35 pounds per person of lucts. p, kfast cereal products were used by a higher tage of white families than Negro families. '1 ree food types reported ‘here - bran flakes, i’ wheat products and farina—were used by '_ percent of the white families and by 5 to 12 it of the Negro families. The amount use-d rson was most often between .10 and .25 pound. was used in larger amounts ranging from .04 g l pound per person. White families in the income groups used more of these foods than at the lowest or highest income levels. arious types of prepared quick breads and -. breads were used by some of the families. “r these were used more often by white than i; families. The percentage of families using red breads was 13 to 40 percent of the urban A families, s to 44 percent of the rural white V- and 1 to 29 percent of the Negro families. prepared breads included rolls, canned bis- land bread mixes. Families in all income levels ults only, except; Negroes with a $4,000-5,999 ;t used each ofi these foods. As with other , the amount per person use was higher for _ families than for other family composition Jet . Above the lowest income level, bread mixes i used by white families in all family composition it at all other income levels. Canned biscuits were used by families in all groups except Family Group 2, Income Group 5. Among the Negroes, Family Groups 3 and 4 had very few families using any of these products. As income increased, the pound-use per person of all cereal products decreased. This is shown in Table 4. GREEN AND YELLOW VEGETABLES Green and yellow vegetables were grouped to- gether for analysis of nutritive contributions of vitamin A and iron. Also, except for potatoes and fresh legumes, this group contains the vegetables most commonly used in the American dietary, such as green beans, green peas, greens, corn, carrots and others. Of particular interest is the difference in vegetables used from one income group to another by urbanization and racial groups. The percentage of urban whites using asparagus increased from l3 percent at the lowest income level to 47 percent at the highest income level. This trend was not evident for rural whites and Negroes. Corn and green beans were used by higher percent- ages of Negro families. As income increased for the Negro families, the percentage of people using greens increased. The reverse was true for white families, both urban and rural; as income increased, the per- centage of white people using greens decreased. Car- rots and green peas ranked next in percent used. Carrots were used by more people of both races than green peas, but the differences were small. In general, the tendency was for the percentage of people using any of these foods to increase as in- come increased. The most obvious exception was in the use of squash which did not have a straight line increase for urban whites or Negroes. The initial increase for rural whites was small; then there was a drop, and at the highest income level a large increase in percentage of families using squash. I/Vhite adult families had some use of all of these foods. White families with children and Negro families did not use some of the foods. At the lowest income level, white families with children 12 and under used only green beans, green peas, carrots and corn. All of the foods except squash and celery were used by some families having teenagers. Fam- ilies at the lowest income level having children in two or more age groups used only green beans, green peas, spinach, greens, carrots and corn. Negro adult families at the lowest income level had some use of all foods in this food group. Among the other Negro family composition groups, greens were used by all groups; carrots, corn and green beans were used by all except Group 3; green peas were used by all except Group 4. In addition, Family Composition Group 5 used some spinach and some celery. Negro families in Income Group 2, 11 TABLE 4. POUND ‘PER PERSON USE OF CEREAL PRODUCTS BY FAMILY COMPOSITION, URBANIZATION, AND INCOME F _l _ _ Income amlirigigirilzfiiiglon’ Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group) and me Under $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 m $2,000 3,999 5,999 7,999 and ~ — —'— —- —— — ——— Poundsperperson—— — v — — — — —— V.’ Urban white '~ I: j Adults (Group 1) 3.59 3.02 3.20 2.73 3*. Adults and preschool (Group 2) 2.59 2.94 2.53 2.35 2.1 Adults and elementary (Group 3) 5.80 2.88 2.46 3.17 2. Adults and teens (Group 4) 1.01 3.69 2.96 3.28 2. » *Adults and all (Group 5) 2.86 3.48 2.95 2.45 2 . Average 3.17 3.20 2.82 2.80 2. Rural white Adults (Group 1) 4.96 4.50 3.95 4.37 Adults and preschool (Group 2) 3.79 3.41 2.78 3.24 Adults and elementary (Group 3) 4.12 4.40 2.76 3.04 Adults and teens (Group 4) 3.60 4.26 3.72 3.81 "‘Adults and all (Group 5) 3.52 3.11 3.41 2.70 Average 4.00 3.94 3.33 3.43 Ne ro adults (Group 1) 4.81 4.32 2.98 H Adults and preschool (Group 2) 4.33 3.70 3.38 Adults and elementary (Group 3) 5.83 3.32 3.27 Adults and teens (Group 4) 3.03 5.35 4.40 ""Adults and all (Group 5) 3.86 3.36 3.04 Average 4.37 4.01 3.4]. ‘Classification includes adults with children in two or more age levels. "The three Negro families whose incomes were over $6,000 have beenincluded in the income level $4,000-5,999 at the app family compositions. Family Group 3 used only corn. At the third in- come level, families in Family Group 3 used green beans, greens, corn and squash. Negro families in Income Group 2 and Family Group 4 used only spinach and greens. As a whole, Negro families with teenagers used only .51 pound per person of green and yellow vegetables during the interview week. This amount is for families actually using these vegetables, and an average for the whole group would be much smaller. The average pound per person use by all Negro families was 1.17. Among the Negroes, families of adults only had the highest pound per person use, 1.73 pounds. White families consistently had a higher pound per person use of green and yellow vegetables than Negro families. In most instances, use by white urban families was higher than use by white rural families. The average pound per person use by white urban families was 1.65 pounds. For white rural families the average use was 1.56 pounds. White families of adults only had the highest pound per person use, and families with teenagers were second. For urban families as income increased, there was an increase in the pound per person use of these foods. For rural white families the highest use was for Income Group 4, 1.98 pounds; Income Group 5 was second, 1.71; and Income Group 2 was third, 1.52, in average pound per person use of these foods. Income Group 1 had the lowest use with 1.19 pounds per ‘person. 12 ~VITAMIN-C-RICH FRUITS AND VEGET p; As income increased, the percentage of f g using lemons, oranges, fresh tomatoes, grapefru'_ orange juice increased. There were some excef such as the use of oranges by rural white f :7 The percentage use did not increase at the income level, but at lower incomes the incre significant, rising from 28 to 72 percent. strawberries by white families increased as i increased, with a drop at the fourth-income lev an increase at the fifth-income level. The o age of families using tomatoes, grapefruit jui canned tomatoes did not seem to relate dire income. There was not a consistent increase i crease in percentage use of these foods wi creased income. 5 Pound per person use of these foods often highest for families consisting of adulti} Urban white families in Income Group 1 u ' of these foods than either rural white or Ne ilies at this income level. Urban white i’ at the lowest income level with teenagers A vitamin-C-rich fruits and vegetables. Negro families in Family Group 3 us’ lemons and orange juice. Other family com groups of both races with incomes under $2, lg four or more of these foods. The range in pou, person use was from .05 pound of fresh toma‘ Family Group 3, Income Group 1 to 4.19 f anges by Family Group 1, Income Group 1. use of oranges would be about 12 per person lweek. It was used by 10 adult families having Vple in all. The .05 pound per person use of “Oes was by one family having five people. ‘t the second and third income levels, Negro “es with elementary school children and those i; teenagers were low in use of these fruits and bles. White families, at these two income _;. had some use of all of these foods in all family o ition groups except Group 3 of the rural i Also, at the two highest income levels it I e rural white families who did not use some f foods. Canned tomatoes, grapefruit and straw- es were the fruits and vegetables least often Families of both races had a higher pound erson use of oranges than of any other fruit egetable. The median pound per person use _ nges was between .90 and 2.00 pounds or from 6 oranges per person. The median use of toes was from .20 to .50 pound per person or I one-half to one and a half tomatoes per person. Lemons were used at all income levels and by _ ily composition groups except Group 4 urban at the lowest income level and Group 3 Negroes e second income level. The pound per person ound most often was .24 to .29 pound used by ' j the 65 family composition groups. [Orange juice was used by all rural white family fps and all urban whites above the lowest income It was used by all Negro family groups at i-lowest income level, but not used by all at the 1d and third income levels. Grapefruit juice used by 14 percent or less of the families in both l groups. Between 18 and 44 percent of the ’- families used grapefruit, but use by Negro lies dropped to 12-23 pgrcent of the families. s very few Negro families used strawberries. The highest percentage of families using strawberries was 45 percent of rural whites at the highest income level. Average pound per person use of all these foods for white urban families was 2.02 pounds and for white rural families, 2.00 pounds. For Negro families it was 1.54 pounds. For both racial groups as in- come increased the pound per person use tended to increase. For white families the highest pound per person use was by adult families. For Negro families the highest use was for families with pre- school children. The difference in use by these families and adult families was very small and not significant. ' FRUIT OTHER THAN VITAMIN-C-RICH Data were gathered on 12 different fruits used during the interview week. Those reported here were apples, apricots, avocados, bananas, berries, cherries, peaches, pineapples, prunes, raisins and mixed fruits. Nectarines were used by very few people and are not included in this report. The percentage of persons using these fruits (except ber- ries) is given in Table 5. All forms used (fresh, canned, frozen and dried) are combined and the report based on pounds per person use of fresh fruit. As income increased, use of fruit increased both in variety and in the percentage of persons using them. The amount used per person decreased so that the total pound use per family member did not change a great deal from Income Group 2 up. Apples, bananas and peaches were used more often than any other fruit. Negro families used very little fruit other than these three. At the lowest income level Negro Family Composition Group 3 used only one-third pound each of peaches and raisins. At the second income level this group used no fruit, and at the third income level they used only two- I ABLE 5. PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES USING NON-CITRUS FRUITS BY URBANIZATION, INCOME AND RACE i i nization, Fruits e and race _ _ _ , _ _ A Apples Apricots Avocados Bananas Cherries Peaches Pineapple Prunes Raisins Mixed g white — - — — — — — — — — — — — — — Percent — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — nder $2,000 s4 6 5 46 1 3s 16 17 19 13 »' ,000-3,999 14 9 9 62 8 46 18 13 12 2O 05,999 69 8 22 73 15 48 32 14 23 16 ,00-7,999 69 5 25 73 11 40 57 7 17 21 ,000 and over 74 13 33 79 14 58 56 13 25 28 lwhite ‘rider $2,000 39 3 2 50 4 40 is 21 18 6 ,000-3,999 52 i 7 7 64 12 53 32 16 18 13 ,000-5,999 62 ' 6 s 66 20 56 as 18 25 15 ,000-7,999 37 18 8 49 12 62 26 26 14 14 ,000 and over 56 12 14 80 32 72 56 18 29 28 nder $2,000 43 0 0 33 2 21 4 6 6 1 000-3999 50 0 4 52 s 27 9 16 14 7 , ,000 and over 59 0 3 54 4 45 8 15 5 16 thirds pound each of apples and bananas. Negro families used no apricots. Only 4 percent of In- come Group 2 and 3 percent of Income Group 3 used avocados. Also among the Negro families only Family Group 2 used cherries. Families with teenagers used apples and bananas at all income levels. At the lowest income level this family composition group added berries. In- come Group 2 added peaches and Income Group 3 added peaches and mixed fruit. Negro Family Groups 2 and 5 had a greater variety of fruit used at income levels 2 and 3 than any other Negro family composition groups. This variety of use was not necessarily within a family but between families within the group. Urban whites in Family Composition Groups 2, 3 and 4 at the lowest income level used very little fruit. Family Group 1 used some of all the fruit reported here and Family Group 5 used 8 of the 11 fruit. Range in use was from .15 pound per person of cherries (used by adults) to 2.00 pounds per person of bananas (used by families with elementary children). Above the lowest income level all urban white family composition groups reported eight or more fruits used during the interview week. Again, this variety of fruit is for the entire group reporting and not for individual families. Rural white families at the lowest income level had more variety in the use of fruit than the urban white families. At the higher income levels the rural families tended to have less variety in use of fruit than urban white families. Pound per person use of fruit is given in Table 6. Average pound per person use did not vary TABLE 6. POUNDS OF FRUIT USED PER PERSON BY FAMILY COMPOSITION AND INCOME GROUP ' Family Group 3, Income Group 1 urban white. greatly between urban and rural white fam' or between family composition groups of the u and rural white families. Between income a; of the urban and rural white families the av amount used per person tended to increase slig as income increased. In some cases it dropped i increased at the next income level. The difference was between the lowest and highest come levels with an average “use of 1.21 pounds if 1.98 pounds per person respectively for urban w families. This difference for rural white fam‘ was 1.17 and 2.15 pounds, respectively. Averj pound per person use by the three income groui Negro families was .79, 1.05 and .97, respective POTATOES Three classifications of potatoes were These were Irish potatoes, sweet potatoes and p0 ' chips. At all income levels Irish potatoes were i in all family groups by 88 to 100 percent of s families. At the lowest income level 88 perc of the Negro families, 89 percent of the white if families and 96 percent of the white rural fami used Irish potatoes. One-hundred percent of 5 white rural families at the highest income used Irish potatoes. Among all families having“ . comes of $2,000 or more, 94 to 100 percent used I potatoes. The amount used per person ranged f ‘ a .75 pound per person by Family Group 4-, Inc Group 1 urban white to 2.75 pounds per person v1 average pound per person use for all families _ both races was between 1.09 pounds for Negroes , Income Group 3 and 1.91 pounds for rural whip in Income Group 4. At the lowest income level Income group Family - - Under $2,000- $4,000- $6,000 $8,000 Avera e er °°mp°sm°“ $2,000 9,999 5,999 7,999 and over family cofhpgsiti I/Vhite urban I. Adults only 1.51 1.70 2.22 1.87 2.21 1.902 II. Adults and preschool .89 - 1.20 1.40 1.34 1.40 1.246 III. Adults and elementary 2.33 1.61 1.42 1.70 2.53 1.918 IV. Adults and teens .33 1.98 1.62 1.56 1.92 1.482 V. Adults and all .99 1.26 1.64 1.48 1.83 1.440 Average per income group 1.210 1.550 1.660 1.590 1.978 1.598 White rural i I. Adults only 2.03 2.03 2.06 2.75 3.00 2.374 II. Adults and preschool .81 1.50 1.33 1.25 ' 1.55 1.288 III. Adults and elementary 1.56 1.50 1.60 .87 2.36 1.578 IV. Adults and teens .73 1.87 1.84 1.36 1.96 1.552 V. Adults and all .74 .12 1.36 1.10 1.89 1.042 Average per income group 1.174 1.404 1.638 1.466 2.152 1.567 Negro I. Adults only 1.64 .98 .62 1.080 II. Adults and preschool 83 .93 1.29 1.017 III. Adults and elementary .22 .00 .67 .300 IV. Adults and teens .61 2.62 1.42 1.550 V. Adults and all .68 .72 .88 .760 Average per income group .796 1.05 .976 14 nd urban white averaged respectively 1.84 :- pounds per person, but at the higher in- vels rural white families consistently aver- f» approximately one-sixth to one-half pound _;--0 more than urban white families. All white had a higher average pound per person use ggro families at the same income level. potatoes were used more often by Negro than by white families. Among the Negroes in product was used by some of all family 'tion groups in amounts ranging from .42 3.33 pounds per-person. Twenty-nine per- fthe Negro families at the lowest income level, int at the second income level and 54 per- githe third income level used sweet potatoes. fong white families use was limited. Only 6 5P of rural white families at the lowest income d sweet potatoes. The maximum use was by i ite families in Income Group 4. Twenty-four E of these families used sweet potatoes. Be- Q3 and 19 percent of the urban white families et potatoes. Lowest usage by these families ~ he lowest income level. At this income level ults (Family Group l) and adults plus chil- two or more age groups (Family Group 5) eet potatoes. Other urban families used some ”tatoes in all family composition groups at l e levels. The amount used by urban fam- l ged from .21 to 1.00 pound per person. i) rural white families the range in use was pound per person to 1.13. The average “i used by white families was from one-third -' alf pound per person. For the Negro families age amount used was from .86 to 1.45 pounds i on. to chips were most often used by white urban _p . Families of both races having incomes under 3 used very small amounts of potato chips. jority of the low income families did not (ato chips. Range in amount used by white g was .03 pound (rural white Family Group 5, Group 3) to .27 pound (urban white Family ,1, Income Group 2) per person. Of the 15 f, composition and income groups for Negroes, used potato chips. The range in use was l (Family Group 5, Income Group 3) to .13 I Group 4, Income Group 1). ymn OILS , recent years there has been a great deal of on about fats in the diet. Emphasis has been on the kindf. and the amount of fats that be included for health reasons. Homemakers study reported nine types of fats and oils used ‘ the interview week. Of these nine, five are l have an oil base, three are soft fats with low =; points and one is a saturated hydrogenated Families having incomes under $6,000, both white and Negro, used more lard than families having incomes over $6,000. At the lowest income level 23 percent of the urban white, 42 percent of the rural white and 54 percent of the Negro people used lard. At the second income level the percentage of people using lard dropped by 13 to 24 percent. As income increased, the percentage of people using this fat continued to decrease. Rural white families and Negro families at cor- responding income levels used butter more often than urban white families. Urban white families used oleomargarine more often than the rural white or Negro familiesl A higher percent. of urban white families at the second and third income levels used hydrogenated fats (shortening) than did the rural white or Negro families at the same income levels. The range in pounds per person use of fats for urban whites was from .48 for Family Group 2, In- comeGroup 1 to 1.83 for Family Group 3, Income Group 1. For rural whites the range was from .60 for Family Group 2, Income Group 5 to 1.84 for Family Group 1, Income Group 5. The range for Negroes was from .54 in Family Group 3, Income Group 3 to 1.50 in Family Group 1, Income Group 1. The average pound per person use by Negroes was .93. For rural whites the average use was 1.04 pounds per person, and for urban whites it was .91. Although difference in average use per person be- tween racial and urbanization groups was small, the difference between family composition groups was much larger. Also, the kind of fat used most often is important to note. Butter, oleomargarine, lard and hydrogenated fats (shortening) were used in larger amounts than any of the oils. Approximately one-fourth to one-half pound of these fats was used per person during the interview week. In- terestingly, there is low use of salad oils and oil dressing by the lowest income group among both white and Negro families. Negroes with incomes under $2,000 used cooking oil in fairly large amounts in three family composition groups. Urban whites in the same income group used it in two family co-m- position groups and rural whites in three family composition groups. Above the lowest income level the amount of cooking oil used per person was usually smaller. In almost all cases the amount used per person was greater for families consisting of adults only than it was for families having adults plus children. OBSERVATIONS Pound per person use of foods by Texas families is high for the majority of families. Low use is most commonly observed among low income families of both white and Negro races. At this income level, families with teenage children may be expected to have the lowest pound per person use of each 15 of the food groups reported. This was more often true for urban white and Negro families than for rural white families. Part of the low use may be caused by a higher proportion of meals eaten away from home, such as school lunches. Negro families are low users of dairy products; therefore, educational and marketing programs should be deveolped to encourage the use of these products by members of this race. Families are low users of manufactured dairy products other than American cheese and ice cream or mellorine. Programs designed to stimulate use of these products by both races should be useful in increasing total sales. Use of various beef cuts is directly related to in- come for both white and Negro families. There are other limiting factors in the use of veal, lamb, oysters and shrimp. These meats were used in limited amounts and most often by families with only adults. Promotional and educational programs should be aimed to develop a familiarity with and knowledge of these meats at an early age to reach a wider adult market. Pound per person use of fruit and vegetables was generally good, but the variety of vegetables was often restricted. Programs should be developed to increase the use of dark green and yellow vegetables and vitamin-C-rich fruits and vegetables especially among Negro families. There is low use of fruits other than bananas, apples and peaches. This may be dependent partially on availability of the fruits. Cost, familiarity with TABLE 7. NUMBER OF ADULTS AND CHILDREN IN EACH FAMILY COMPOSITION GROUP BY URBANIZA; the product and flavor preferences are also dete. ing factors. Promotional or educational pr0' must be oriented around these consumer limitin tors to be effective. ” Negro families had a high per person sweet potatoes while white families had a low per’ son use of this food. On the other hand, white lies had a higher pound per person use of Irish ii toes. The reason for the difference in use of p0 by the two races was not indicated by the data. ' PART II - POTENTIAL NUTRITIO _ LEVEL OF FAMILIES ' Previous reports from this study have shown ” only 25 percent of the homemakers interviewed§ formal training in nutrition, and their food sel was strongly influenced by likes and dislikes of members.‘ Nevertheless, from their own respo . can be assumed that although accurate inform; may be limited, nutrition is an important incenti: the homemakers’ selection of food. This is espe true for homemakers with minor children. v homemakers reported they tried to buy “what is ; for my family.” ' Dr. Agnes Fae Morgan has stated, “The nutri al status of these citizens of the U.S.A. on the I was found to be good. . . .”*‘ This bulletin will‘ stantiate this statement for the people of Texas. ; ‘Alice c. Stubbs, “Fami1y Food Marketing Practices," 7 Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin MP-497, 1961, p. s. . “Nutritional Status U. S. A.” California Agricultural ' ment Station, Bulletin 769, October, 1959, p. 5. AND RACE Urbanization, Number in the family T399 and famill’ Adults Children Teenage comPosition Male Female Preschool Elementary Boys Girls Urban white Adults only 224 298 Adults and preschool 112 123 205 Adults and elementary 51 61 74 Adults and teenage 65 71 47 42 Adults and all 166 172 181 208 51 45 Total ' 618 725 386 282 98 87 y, 2» Rural white i‘ Adults only 200 199 Adults and preschool 5O 45 71 Adults and elementary 28 28 40 Adults and teenage 51 50 41 25 Adults and all 140 141 123 179 62 57 Total 469 463 194 219 103 82 Negro Adults only 45 61 Adults and preschool 21 30 47 Adults and elementary 4 6 8 Adults and teenage 13 12 11 11 Adults and all 39 57 69 82 20 14 Total 122 166 116 90 31 25 16 This, however, was a marketing study. Exact _ on the potential level of nutrition of individual 0-. were not collected. Therefore, Part II of the etin will deal only with expected potential level utrition of families as determined from the foods “o by the family group. I Five family composition groups were set up for _ purpose of making estimates of the nutritional . e of the foods used. A count was made by sex of number of adults and children in each family com- iiition group, Table 7. Calculations were made for Ell of eight nutrients of the recommended nutrition- lowances needed per week by ea-ch family compo- i» group. See Appendix Table 2. I Nutrients provided by each food were calculated In values in “Composition of Foods,” U. S. Depart- "5 t of Agriculture, Agricultural Handbook No. 8, In some instances a composite number had to {derived for calculating the approximate nutritive f e of foods reported. Calculations were made for eight nutrients: Protein Calicum Iron Vitamin A jThiamine Riboflavin Niacin Vitamin C l‘ These are nutrients for which human needs have determined and daily recommended allowances e been made by the National Nutrition Council if age, sex and activity groupings. Tables giving gates of the calorie contributions of the foods in ten food groups are also included in the Appendix ble 3. The nutrients calculated for each food group _- selected on the basis of relative importance of l’ food group as a source of a specific nutrient. For A ple, four nutrients — protein, calcium, vitamin A i» riboflavin —were calculated for dairy products. i‘ Calculations were made using all families within mily composition, urbanization, race and income , p, such as urban white all adult families having (mes under $2,000. This means the summary ta- for all foods used (Appendix. Table 5) gives aver- of the percent of the recommended allowance of A eight nutrients over the total sample population. icentages of 100 or more can not always be consid- i’ indicative of adequacy, Figure l. In some cases homemakers’ recall data were extremely high. ‘» extremes serve to qualify the dependability of l averages obtained. Also, many families did not certain foods. Fpr, these reasons, the range be- 'n 90 and 110 percent is considered borderline, icating possible adequacy or inadequacy. A bet- understanding of food consumption in Texas far i- I may be gained by comparison of nutritional ade- j as reported here with percent use discussed in I of this bulletin. PERCENT 25 5O 75 Income Under $2000 9O IOQ llO I25 URBAN WHITE Adults Adults 8 Preschool AduItsG Elementary Adults 5 Teens Adults 8 All RURAL WHITE Adults Adults 8 Preschool Adults 6 Elementary Adults 6t Teens Adults B All NEGRO Adulti Adults 8t Preschool Adults 8 Elementary Adults 6 Teens Adults 8s All / INADEQUATE / Figure 1. Percentage of recommended allowance of calcium in foods used by families in low income groups by family composi- tion, race, and urbanization. PROTEIN Dairy products, meats, legumes, nuts, eggs, breads and cereals were analyzed for p-rotein content. Only five family composition groups — two urban white and three Negro — used foods supplying less than the recommended allowance of protein. Dairy Products Urban white Family Group-4 (adults with teen- agers) and Family Group-S (adults with children in two or more age groups) had available 7 percent and l5 percent respectively of the recommended allowance for protein from dairy products. Correspondingly these two family composition groups showed a poten- tial deficiency in this nutrient. One other urban white family composition group had a total protein percent potential under 100 percent (Family Group-S, Income Group-1 with 99 percent) which may have indicated adequacy or inadequacy. There was no potential protein deficiency for rural white families. All of the families had 114 per- cent or more of the recommended allowance for pro- tein available from the foods used. Families with teenage children in the lowest income group again had the lowest percent. Dairy products were an im- portant source of protein for all rural white families. Among the Negro families, three family composi- tion groups had a potential deficiency. Family Groups 4 and 5 at the lowest income level and Family Group-f’: at the second income level had respectively 89, 90 and 78 percent of the recommended allowance for protein available from the foods used. Families with teenage 17 children had a 10w use of all protein rich foods; simi- larly these families had also the lowest percent of protein available from dairy foods of any family com- position group in the same income level. These two factors apparently were responsible for the deficiency of total available protein. Low income families with teenage children had only 14 percent of the recom- mended allowance for protein available from dairy products. Families with children in two or more age groups at the lowest income level had l9 percent of the recommended protein allowance available from dairy products; families at the second income level with elementary children had only 2 percent of the recommended allowance of protein available from dairy products. Meats — Beef, Pork, Chicken and Fish Low income urban white families with teenage children (Group-4) had only 18 percent of the recom- mended allowance for protein available from meat. In the same income group Family Group-5 used meats providing only 32 percent of the recommended allow- ance. No other urban white families had a potential protein deficiency, and all other urban white families had at least 40 percent of the protein recommendation available from the meats used. Two rural white family composition groups (2 and 5) had 35 and 30 percent respectively of the recommended allowance from meats. These were low income families, but from all foods used they had a high protein potential. Family Groups 4 and 5 in Income Group-l and Family Group-3 in Income Group-2 of the Negro families had potential protein deficiencies in the foods used. The percent of protein for each of the three family composition groups was 89 for Group-4, 90 for Group-5 and 78 for Group-3. Meats provided 3O per- cent of the protein for Group-4, 17 percent for Group- 5 and 38 percent for Group-3. Families consisting of adults only had the highest percent of protein in the meats used — 72 percent for urban whites, 79 percent for rural whites and 82 per- cent for Negroes. The lowest percentages from meats were in the lowest income group for Family Group-4 (families with teenage children + 18, 43 and 30 per- cent) and Group-5 (families with children at two or more age levels — 32, 30 and 17 percent) . Legumes and Nuts These foods are an important source of protein for low income families, especially families with two or more children and families with older children. Three and one-half ounces (or 100 grams) of cooked mature dry beans (one large serving) have 7.8 grams of protein, approximately 10 percent of the recom- mended daily allowance for an adult. Most low in- come families in this study used these foods in quanti- ties large enough to supply ll to l5 percent of the 18 recommended allowance for protein. All such f lies of both races in Family Group-5 had this peg of protein provided by legumes and nuts. Rural ~_ families in Family Groups 1, 2 and 3 and Negro lies in Family Groups l, 2 and 4 — all at the l5 income level — used legumes and nuts supplying l, l6 percent of the nutrient. I Urban white families did: riot use large am; of legumes and nuts except for Family Compos Group-3 and Group-5 in Income Group-l. The i centage range of protein from legumes and nuts >* by urban families was usually 2 to 9 percent. _ percent was the most common. Family Group-3 31 percent and Group-5 had 15 percent. = Among rural white families, the higher in i levels had a percentage range similar to that of u » white families at all income levels. Exceptions y adults and adults with elementary children in In’ 5 with 12 and ll percent respectively. i Negroes in Income Groups 2 and 3 also similar in their use of legumes and nuts to u whites and higherincome rural white families. ceptions were Family Group-2 with 16, 10 anf percent at the three income levels and Family Gr 3, Income Group-3 with 18 percent. ' i Cereal Products The proteins found in cereal products have f" classified as incomplete proteins, ones that do} supply all essential amino acids. Nevertheless, foods supplied from 23 to 57 percent of the a mended allowance of protein for families of -.i races, both urbanization classifications and all f composition and income groups. The diets of u white families with teenage children at the ~__ income level were again most likely to be defi V, Breads and cereals furnished only 8 percent of recommended allowance for protein to famili this family composition and income group. . foods furnished respectively 30 and 24 percent of recommended allowance for protein to rural and Negro families in Family Group-4 at the r‘ income level. ’ The percentage of protein provided by c products for urban white families usually ranged t 23 to 26 percent. Ten out of 25 family compos, and income groups were within this range. For i“ white families the median percentage was 34 pe w. The median for Negro families was 38 percent. " IRON Iron is often low in the diets of children d g rapid growth stages. A potential deficiency shown in this study in family composition groups i) teenage and preschool children. Among urban i families six had 109 percent or less in total 5 Three were in Income Group-l, two in In‘ Group-4 and one in Income Group-5; two were f’ with teenage children, two were families with ,1 ren in two 0r more age groups, and two were flies with preschool children. “Rural white familes had five family composition yps with total iron ranging from 92 to 105 percent. _ of the five were in Family Groups 4 and 5 and in Family Group-3. ilNegro families had four family composition ps with total iron of from 85 to 108 percent. pl ee of the four were in Family Groups 4 and 5 and "i, was in Family Group-3. i} All other family composition groups used foods 1, iding 110 percent or more of the recommended allowance. Rural white adult only families had {iron potential of 172 percent. Kl: Urban white families with teenage children in lowest income group had a potential deficiency of w Foods used by these families had only 45 percent the recommended allowance for iro-n. Four other 5». white family composition groups had a poten- iron deficiency. This estimate is made on the of a probable deficiency with a plus or minus l0 lcent from 100 percent. Family Groups 2 and 5 in fiome Groups 1 and 4 and Family Group-4 in In- j“ Group-5 used foods providing between 99 and _ percent of the recommended allowance for iron. -_ Five rural white family composition groups at of the five used foods with less than 100 percent ‘the recommended allowance for iron. Families i children in two or more age groups and in In- f" Groups l and 3 used foods providing 107 and ~ percent of the recommended allowance of iron. Most of the families with low percentages of iron - id correspondingly low percentages o-f iron from ‘ats used. However, some family composition {ups with low percentages of iron in the meats used V, high percentages in breads and cereal products. Vnsequently they did not show a potential iron defi- ncy. Also, use of meats with a high percentage of yn did not assure adequate amounts in the total in sources unless supplemented by other iron-rich is. This was indicated by rural white families gth teenage children in Income Group-5. Meats _“ had 42 percent of the recommended allowance f ifon; the total iron in foods used was 105 percent, ’ther borderline case which may or may not have aw adequate. In rural white Family Composition up-5, Income Group-l meats supplied only 24 per- J of the recommended allowance for iron, but the al foods used provided 114 percent of the recom- nded allowance. , eals p’ While grain products are good supplemental urces of protein, for many families they are good ‘r income levels had low percentages of iron. Only primary sources of iron. Among white families with teenagers in Income Group-l, cereal products provid- ed only 9 percent of the recommended allowance for iron. Total iron for these families was 45 percent of the recommended allowance. Most important is that all families with a low percent of iron from cereal products (30 to 36 percent) were in the 90-110 percent range where adequacy might be questioned. Five other urban white family composition groups were in this range. They were Groups 2 and 5 in Income Groups 1 and 4 and Family Group-4 in Income Group-5. Rural white Family Group-2 (adults with pre- school children) in Income Group-S received only 26 percent of the-recommended allowance of iron from cereal products. This family composition group was the only white rural group with less than 100 per- cent of the recommended allowance from total foods used. Also, all other rural white family composition groups received 30 percent or more of the recommend- ed allowance of iron from cereal products. Negro families had relatively high percentages of iron from cereal products. The two family composi- tion groups with less than 90 percent of the recom- mended allowance from total foods used had only 31 and 39 percent of the recommended allowance from breads and cereals. These examples illustrate the importance of iron in the enrichment program for cereal products. Its importance is further emphasized by the observation that the percent for low income families of iron from cereal products is proportionately higher than the percent of iron from other foods. This statement is true even in regard to meats, which supply the highest percent of iron for all families. CALCIUM Variations in the concentration of calcium in foods and ease of use make some foods essential sources. Dairy products are of such importance that the calcium supplied by breads and cereals and some meats has not been calculated. For some families the calcium in these foods may have made the difference between adequacy and inadequacy. Legumes were calculated, but the calcium supplied by these foods was at most 7 percent. For the majority of families it was 3 percent or less of the recommended allowance. Dairy Products The importance of dairy products as a source of calcium is emphasized by an examination of the per- cent of the recommended allowance obtained by each family composition and income group from the use of dairy foods. Families with children using less than 4 quarts whole milk equivalent per person per week had a potential deficiency of calcium. Foods used by urban white families in the sam- ple were deficient in calcium for all family composi- tion and income groups except Family Group-3 at 19 the lowest income level and Family Group-2 at the highest income level. During the interview week, these two family composition groups had an average use respectively of 5.4 and 4.7 quarts per person of whole milk equivalent. Use by all other family com- position groups per family was progressively less. Families at the lowest income level with adults and teenage children used only .5 quart per person of whole milk equivalent. Foods used by rural white families were deficient in calcium at all income levels but not for all family composition groups. The deficiencies observed were: INCOME GROUP FAMILY COMPOSITION GROUP 1 2 3 4 5 2 4 5 3 3 4 5 4 l 3 5 5 2 3 4 5 The rural white families had an average use of 4.8 quarts per person of whole milk equivalent during the interview week. High use by families of adults only accounts for the high average use by all families. Low use by rural non-farm families accounts for the deficiencies in families with children. Foods used by Negro families were deficient in calcium for all family composition groups at all in- come levels. During the interview week, Negro fam- ilies had an average use of only 2.1 quarts per per- son of whole milk equivalent of dairy products. Legumes Most low income families (less than $2,000) re- ceived 4 t0 7 percent of the recommended allowance for calcium from legumes. Legumes as a source of calcium are of little importance where dairy products ~ supply high percents of calcium. Restricted or low use of dairy products increases the importance of all supplementary sources of this nutrient. For example, legumes supplied 7 percent of the recommended al- lowance for calcium in the foods used by Negro Fami- ly Group-4, Income Group-l. This 7 percent was one- fifth of the total calcium calculated in the foods used by these families. THIAMINE After calcium, thiamine (vitamin B1) was the nutrient most likely to be lacking in the families’ diets. Calculations were made on meats, cereal prod- ucts, legumes and nuts as sources of this nutrient. Urban white families were more deficient in this nu- trient than either rural white or Negro families. Higher average pound per person use of meats and cereal products by the rural white and Negro families accounted for this difference. Meats Only one urban white family group had above 110 percent of the recommended allowance for thia- 20 mine, Family Group-3 at the lowest income _ These families had 196 percent of the recomm allowance. Sixty-six percent came from meats, high bread and cereal use accounted for the re”, ing thiamine. This category, however, included,‘ two families. ‘* Four other urban white family groups had 104 percent of the recommended-tfallowance. All 5 family groups had less than 100 percent, nine h than 90 percent. Four of the nine were in th highest income groups. White rural families in g Group-2, Income Group-5, had only 21 percent vitamin available from meats. The total perc in all foods for these families was 62. The otheri family groups with less than 90 percent of the r mended allowance were Groups 3 and 5 in In Group-4 and Group-4 in Income Group-5. t; with teenage children in Income Groups l, 4 . had only 26, 24 and 26 percent of the recomm_ allowance for thiamine available from meats. I Only lowest income families with tee among the Negroes had less than 90 percent of recommended allowance for thiamine. These . lies used meats providing only l7 percent of th ommended allowance. Six other family grou the three income groups had between 100 and ll cent of the recommended allowance. These if adult only families at the highest income level, f lies with elementary children in Income Group 2’ 3 and families with children in two or mor groups at all income levels. Except for F‘ Groups 3, 4 and 5 at the lowest income level, families used meats providing 37 percent or w. the recommended allowance of thiamine. used by these three family composition groups vided 22, 17 and 18 percent respectively. Use of i foods with high thiamine content by Family Gri compensated for low thiamine in meats. f Cereals For the families in this study cereal products a primary source of thiamine. At the lowest in level the percentage of thiamine in cereal pr used was high. At the highest income level, i, cereal products was much lower. In either case, ~: mine in cereal was supplemented, but not fully, pensated in all family groups by thiamine from A sources. Except for urban white families with age children in the lowest-income group, the pe l ages of this vitamin provided by breads and c used was 33 to 102 percent of the recommended .1 ance. The above family composition group only l5 percent of the recommended allowance‘ cereal products. Families in the lowest income ; u’ usually had higher percentages of thiamine ava from the breads and cereals used. Urban white lies had slightly smaller percentages than rural l or Negro families, but the pattern of lower pe » ages as the income increased was common to all. i and Nuts percentage of thiamine in the legumes and i , closely paralleled the percentage of protein in these foods. They were good supplement- of thiamine, especially in the lower Income 2 and 3. Rural white and Negro families _ r percents of thiamine from the legumes and i‘ urban white families. These foods were of 'portance as supplemental sources of the nu- a families with teenage children. The per- 'lable was most often 10 to 15 percent of the inded allowance. ntial deficiencies in thiamine in the foods Jthe sample were dependent on limited use of d cereals and limited use of meats with high I content. Legumes, also, were important ental sources for both rural white and Negro and probably accounted for much of the dif- ,3 between these families and urban white ‘ VIN l- of dairy products in amounts that will sup- recommended allowances for calcium will us- ure an adequate supply of riboflavin. En- ' t of cereal products has given additional assur- adequacy of this vitamin in diets. Other Qpplying fair to good amounts of this vitamin iiet are legumes, nuts and meat. Foods used white families with teenage children were ".- at the lowest income level had only 3O per- the recommended allowance of riboflavin. Qwhite families with children in two or more i’ ps at the lowest income level used foods pro- "nly 31 percent of the recommended allowance lflavin. All other family groups of urban ilies had 106 percent or more of the vitamin le in the foods used. Oral white families with teenage children in the income group also had a potential deficiency avin. Foods used by these families had only f ent of the recommended allowance of the i available. All other rural white families had ‘tial of 101 percent or more of the recommend- ance for riboflavin. f} ee Negro family composition groups had n an 110 percent of the recommended allowance 4 flavin, and four had less than 9O percent. l_ Group-l had 5? percent of the recommended yce. Family Grqtip-5, Income Groups 1 and 3 e other two groups with less than 9O percent irecommended allowance. Families using foods Y high potential riboflavin were Group-Z, In- i= roups 2 and 3 and Family Group-l, Income i l. f in riboflavin in Income Groups 1, 3 and 5. i Dairy Products Dairy products supplied the largest percentage of riboflavin. All white family composition groups with less than 5O percent of the recommended allowance for ribo-flavin available from dairy products had a po- tential deficiency for the vitamin when the percent- ages available from all foods used were totaled. Five urban white and three rural white family composi- tion groups had 103 percent or less of the recommend- ed allowance in the foods used. Not all Negro fami- lies having less than 5O percent of the vitamin avail- able from dairy products showed a potential deficien- cy, but nine Negro family composition groups had less than 103 percent _ of the recommended allowance available from the foods used. l Meats Most urban families used a variety of meats sup- plying a higher percentage of riboflavin than the meats used by rural white families. Low income fam- ilies usually had smaller amounts of riboflavin. Fam- ily Group-3, Income Group-1 was an exception with 66 percent; 38 percent came from the use of pork. Urban white families with teenage children at the lowest income level was the other extreme with only 5 percent from meats. Meats used by this family group were beef roast, ground beef, bacon and whole fish. l z l Rural white families with low percentages of this vitamin in total foods used usually had low percent- ages in the meats used. For example, families in the lowest income group with teenagers had 93 percent of the recommended allowance and only 19 percent from the meats used. Negro families followed a sim- ilar pattern. Families with teenage children and families with children in two or more age groups were consistently low in the percentage of riboflavin in the total foods used and were also low in the percentage of the vitamin in meats used. Cereal Products After checking food stores and determining the availability of enriched and unenriched products, cal- culations were made on cereal products enriched with riboflavin. Enrichment is of special importance for low income families with high per person use of breads and cereals. Breads and cereals were good supplementary foods for riboflavin but did not make as large a difference in the percentage of the total vitamin as they did for thiamine. Low income urban white families had 7 to 44 percent of the recommend- ed allowance for riboflavin provided by cereal prod- ucts. The lowest percentages were for Family Group- 4 (7 percent) and Family Group-5 (21 percent). Rural white low income families had a range from 25 to 37 percent- Again the families having the low- est percentages were Groups 4 and 5. 21 The range for‘ Negro families was l9 to 45 per- cent, and once more Family Groups 4 and 5 had the lowest percentages. The percentage of riboflavin provided by cereal products at higher income levels was less than at the lowest income levels; nevertheless, for the majority of families cereal products provided 20 percent or more of the recommended allowance of this vitamin. Legumes and Nuts The percents of riboflavin available from le- gumes and nuts used by sample families were almost identical with the percentages of calcium provided by these foods. The exception to this was Family Group- 3, Income Group-1. These families had 12 percent of the recommended allowance for riboflavin in legumes and nuts used and only 4 percent of the recommended calcium allowance. For most of the families of both races and urban- ization groups the legumes and nuts provide 1 to 5 percent of the recommended allowance for riboflavin. NIACIN Meats, cereal products, legumes, green and yel- low vegetables and potatoes were the food groups analyzed for niacin. Only the first two food groups provided more than l0 percent of the vitamin to any family composition group except Family Group-f}, In- come Group-l for urban and rural white families and Family Group-3, Income Group-3 for Negro families. Urban white families at the lowest income level with preschool children used foods providing 89 per- cent of the recommended allowance for niacin. Fami- lies with teenage children in the lowest income group again had the greatest potential deficiency of the nu- trient. Total foods used by these families had only 30 percent of the recommended allowance for niacin. Four other urban family composition groups used foods providing less than 100 percent of the recom- mended allowance (Family Group-5 at the lowest in- come level, Group-3 in Income Group-S, Group-5 in Income Group-4 and Group-4 in Income Group-5) . Nine family composition groups used foods provid- ing more than llO percent of the recommended allow- ance for this vitamin (families with elementary chil- dren in Income Groups 2 and 5, families with teen- age children in Income Group-4; families with chil- dren in two or more age groups in Income Group-2 and adults only in Income Groups S, 4 and 5) . Rural white families had l3 family composition groups with total percentages above 110 percent of the recommended allowance for niacin. Only 3 fami- ly composition groups used foods providing less than 90 percent. The other nine groups used foods provid- ing between 91 and llO percent of the recommended allowance in the foods used. Families with elementary children at all income levels had a potential of llO percent or more of the recommended allowance from 22 - min. Also, Family Group-4, Income Groups l and foods used. Families with teenage children had l p than 100 percent in Income Groups l and 5 and than llO percent in Income Groups 3 and 4. Ad only families at all income levels had a potential , 126 percent or more of the recommended allowa. for niacin. if Among Negro families, Family Groups 4 an in Income Group-l and Group-ES in Incof Group-2 used foods providing 78, 89 and 63 perc respectively of the recommended allowance of nia All other Negro family composition groups used f providing 109 percent or more of the vitamin. ' Meats i For the majority of the families as income creased, use of meats increased, and the percen T of niacin from meats increased. Meats were the n: source of this vitamin, and when use was low, a tial deficiency existed. All urban white families f cept Groups 2 and 4, Income Group-l and Fa ti“ Group-5, Income Groups 1 and 4 used meats pro I ing 60 percent or more of the recommended allowa-fi for this vitamin. I Among rural white families, Family Group-Z i all income levels except Income Groups 3 and 4 ' \ Family Group-5 at all income levels except w" Groups 3 and 5 used meats providing less than percent of the recommended allowance for niacin. ~ o-f these families had potential deficiencies of this vi with 52 and 61 percent of the recommended all, ance from meats had totals of only 97 and 91 perc i, Low income Negro families in Family Groups and 5 used meats providing 39 and 34 percent of recommended allowance. These families had a low , percent from meats and a correspondingly low total 63 percent. Other Negro families had high perce; of niacin from meats and 109 percent or more of vitamin available from total foods calculated. Cereal Products Cereal products furnished 25 to 3O percent ' the recommended allowance of niacin for the u: jority of urban white families. The most notable i ception was low income families with teenagers only 9 percent of the recommended allowance pro " ed by cereal products. These families used only wh flour, puffed oats and white bread during the in _ view week. Other family groups used a greater riety and larger quantities of cereal products. i y ' Rural white families used cereal products p viding 21 percent or more of this vitamin. All i five family composition groups had 30 percent? ' more of the vitamin in the cereal products u Q Three of the five had totals for niacin of 91 perc and under. ' Only four Negro family composition groups cereal products providing less than 30 percent of = ended allowance for niacin. Of these only Group-4, Income Group-l and Family Group-3, Group-2 used foods providing less than 9O 3' total niacin. M s, Potatoes, Green and Yellow Vegetables yese foods combined provided between IO and '- ent of the recommended allowance for niacin. if rth of the family composition and income f‘ received less than l0 percent from these foods y» groups received more than 20 percent. The ‘mmon percentages were l0 to 13 percent. ftatoes, with 4 to 8 percent, were most import- jproviding this percentage. Green and yellow les provided 1 to 3 percent of the recommend- i nce and legumes, 2 to 6 percent. i ere was little difference in the amounts of nia- vided by these foods for urban and rural white For Negro families the percentages were jower. Urban white Family Group-3, Income ll had an unusually high percentage (29 per- l ovided by legumes and nuts because they used i butter and mixed nuts. This group among hite families had a high percentage (15 of niacin from legumes and nuts. Family ‘i3, Income Group-3 for Negroes had l0 percent i niacin recommended allowance from legumes ts. .. IN A rne the percentage of vitamin A in the foods g-‘These were dairy products, meats, eggs, pota- jii een and yellow vegetables, vitamin-A-rich I d vegetables, other fruits and fats. Only one g composition group among white families and ong Negro families showed a potential defi- iibelow 90 percent. The white group was urban I Group-4, Income Group-1, and the Negroes family Groups 4 and 3, Income Groups l and 2. l other family groups had percentages above 1 cent, except rural white Family Group-2, In- roup-l, with 108 percent. Products iry products supplied 20 t0 35 percent of the gended allowance for vitamin A to all urban _ ilies except Family Group-4, Income Group- e families used only I l/6 quarts of whole Ir person during the week and no other dairy s. ierall percentagesafor rural white families were " to those of urban white families. Low income with teenage children again had the lowest i; age (l7 percent). These families used ap- tely 3 quarts of whole milk equivalent per Many of the products used had low fat con- i. consequently low vitamin A. Jlculations were made on eight food groups to‘ Negro families had the lowest percentage of vita- min A from dairy products. Family Group-3, Income Groups 2 and 3, were the lowest. The only family groups with the percentages as high as the white groups were Family Group-2, Income Groups 2 and 3. All others had less than 20 percent except Family Group-1, Income Group-3 and Family Group-4, In- come Group-2. Meats Liver was the only meat calculated for contribu- tion of vitamin A. All urban white families except families with teenagers in the lowest income group used some liver, which provided from 8 to 76 percent of the recommended allowance of this vitamin. All rural families except those with teenage chil- dren in the highest income group used liver. From 7 to 91 percent of the recommended allowance of vita- min A was provided by use of liver. Three family composition groups among Negro families did not use liver. These were families with teenagers in Income Groups l and 2 and families with elementary children in Income Group-2. Other fam- ilies had from l4 to 63 percent of the recommend al- lowance of vitamin A provided by use of liver. Eggs Eggs provided 12 to 18 percent of the recommend- ed allowance for vitamin A for all urban white fami- lies except Family Groups 4 and 5, Income Group-l. The percentages for these two groups were 7 and 9 percent respectively. All rural white families received ll percent or more of the recommended allowance for vitamin A from eggs. The majority received 16 to 20 percent. Eggs used by Negro Family Groups 4 and 5, In- come Groups l and 3 and Family Group-3, Income Group-2 provided only 7 percent of the recommended allowance for vitamin A. Percentages for other Negro family groups were comparable to urban white groups. Potatoes Calculations were made for sweet potatoes to determine contributions of vitamin A to the total diets. Three urban white family composition groups (low income families in Family Groups 2, 3 and 4) did not use these foods. Twelve other urban family composition and income groups used sweet potatoes in small amounts and received less than l0 percent of the recommended allowance from them. The other ten groups had 10 to 27 percent of the recommended allowance for vitamin A provided by sweet potatoes. Rural white families were similar to urban white families in their use of sweet potatoes. Family Groups I and 2 had the highest percentages of the vitamin available from use of sweet potatoes, and Family 23 Groups 4 and 5 had the lowest percentages. Family Group-3, Income Groups 1, 2 and 4 did not use sweet potatoes. Negro families had very high percentages of vita- min A provided by sweet potatoes. The percentage of vitamin A from potatoes used by Negro families ranged from 2 to 172 percent, as shown in the follow- ing table. FAMILY GROUP 12345 INCOME GROUP l 42 89 52 27 39 2 29 20 2 129 39 3 32 15 19 172 25 Green and Yellow Vegetables Green and yellow vegetables were important sources of vitamin A. For all but three urban white family composition groups they provided 57 to 104 percent of the recommended allowance. Family Group-3, Income Groups 1 and 3 had 43 percent of the vitamin in the vegetables used and Family Group- 4, Income Group-1 had 23 percent. Rural white families also had high percentages of the vitamin in the vegetables used. Five family composition groups received less than 58 percent from these foods. These family groups were Group-2, In- come Groups 1 and 4; Group-4, Income Group-1; and Group-5, Income Groups 1 and 2. The lowest per- centage (21) was for Family Group-2, Income Group-4. The overall percentages were not as high for Negro families as for white families. Family Group-3 had the low percentages at all income levels — 18, 2 and 36 percent from lowest to highest income levels for Negroes. Family Group-4, Income Group-1 had only 15 percent of the recommended allowance for vitamin A provided by the vegetables used. All fami- lies with very low percentages of vitamin A from green and yellow vegetables had-very low or no usage of dark green and dark yellow vegetables. Vitamin-C-Rich Fruits and Vegetables These foods were fair to good supplemental sources of vitamin A. They provided 7 to 16 percent of the vitamin for all urban white family composition and income groups except Family Group-4, Income Group-1; these families used no foods from this group. All rural white families had some vitamin A provided by this food group. The range in percent- age of the recommended allowance was from 3 to 16 percent. The most common percentages were 6 to 8 percent. Use of these foods by Negro families was gener- ally less than for white families. Family Groups 3 and 4 received only 2 percent of the vitamin-A recom- mended allowance from these vitamin-C-rich fruits and vegetables. Only Income Groups 2 and 3 in Family Group 2 had a fairly high percentage (15) of 24 vitamin A from these foods. Family Group-2, Incl Group-1 did not use these foods. " Other Fruits Percentage of vitamin A provided by other f » (listed in Appendix Table 1) was similar for all f: ly and income groups to that provided by vitam' rich fruits and vegetables. These foods were fair plemental sources, but with the’ high concentratim the vitamin in other foods — green and yellow vef bles, dairy products, eggs, sweet potatoes, fats selected meats — they were not of great importan Use of these foods was higher for rural white’ ilies; therefore, the percentage of the vitamin . higher for these families than for urban whit Negro families. The range for both races and uri zation groups was urban white — 2 to 11 percent; white — 3 to 18 percent; Negro — 0 to 7 percent. Y Fats Vitamin A was calculated for butter and a; garine. Family Groups 3 and 5 for urban white f, lies had low percentages as well as Family Gro i Income Group-1 and Family Group-4, Income Gr 1. The average for the latter two was 9 percent, f the range for Groups 3 and 5 was I5 to 17 per Family Group-1 had the highest percentages (19 p percent) . >1: All rural white families had slightly higher.» centages than urban white families. The rang these families over all income and family compos! groups was 12 to 33 percent. Family Group-1 w?‘ highest percentages and Family Group-5 the ti percentages. s Family Groups 1 and 2 for Negro families h; similar to urban white with 14 to 23 percent. 1, Groups 3, 4 and 5 were lower with 14 to 18 perce VITAMIN C Calculations were made of the percent ; i vitamin C provided by four food groups —vitam rich fruits and vegetables, potatoes, green and y vegetables and other fruits. 3‘ All low income urban white families except ly Group-1 had less than I00 percent of the - mended allowance for this vitamin in the foods y lated. A Eight of the family composition groups for ’ white families used foods providing less than ‘l; cent of the recommended allowance for this vi Negro families had six family composition _, with less than 9O percent of the recommended ' ance. - Low income families with teenage children again the families with the highest potential de, cy. Total for urban white families in this grou ; ent. For rural white families the percentage jand for Negroes it was 56. ' -C-Rich Fruits and Vegetables w income urban white families in all family ition groups except Group-1 had only 29 per- less 0f the recommended allowance for vitamin Aided by vitamin-C-rich fruits and vegetables. Group-4 did not use these foods. All income l above Group-1 had 50 percent or more of the B from this foo-d group except Family Group-4, Group-3 with 39 percent. Adult only families ‘e highest with a range’ from 66 to 112 percent. but three rural white family composition and groups had 40 percent or more of the vitamin ‘ mended allowance provided by the use of -C-rich fruits and vegetables. Family Group-2, Group-4 had 37 percent, Family Group-3, In- roup-2 had 28 percent and Family Group-4, Group-1 had 32 percent. Each of these fami- 1| e group combinations had less than 9O per- the recommended allowance provided by the r~ v v s used. 3i! percentage of vitamin C provided by these was much less for most Negro family-income than it was for white family-income groups. ions to this were Family Group-2, Income f~ 2 and 3 with 124 percent each. All other “family groups with children had 50 percent or the vitamin provided by vitamin-C-rich fruits etables. Adult only Negro families in Income i, 1, 2 and 3 had 73, 58 and 58 percent of the vit- - ecommended allowance for this food group. A ‘is with teenage children and with children in more age groups had lower percentages. j s tatoes were an important supplemental source in C for all families in this study. This irovided 14 to 42 percent of the total recom- 1 allowance for both white and Negro fam- ‘Jxcept urban white Family Group-4, Income 1, Table 8. The Negro families with the percentage of vitamin C had a high per fuse of sweet potatoes. I and Yellow Vegetables ese foods were also an important source of tamin. One rural white family group and iegro family groups had only 7 and 4 per- pectively of the vitamin recommended al- 4- in the vegetable used. All other family both white aridaNegro, had 15 to 59 per- _’ the recommended allowance for vitamin C 7- by the use of green and yellow vegetables. , groups with children in both races had lower ges than adult only families. Families with percentages used one of more of the l2, g vegetables — broccoli, spinach and greens. Families with the lowest percentages used none or very small amounts of these three vegetables. Other Fruits Fruits other than citrus provided small per- centages of vitamin C for families in this study. They were most important for rural white adult families. This group of families had 9 to 14 percent of the recommended allowance provided by fruits. Most other white family composition groups had less than 10 percent of the vitamin C recommended allowance provided by the use of fruits other than citrus. Again Family Group-4, Income Group-1 was lowest with only 1_ percent for urban white and 3 percent for rural white families. The percentage for all Negro family groups ranged from 0 for Family Group-3, Income Group-1 and 2 to 7 percent for Family Group-4, Income Group- 2. All Negro families had a low per person use of fruits. CALORIES Calculations were made of the calorie potential in the foods used by family composition and income groups, Appendix Tables 3 and 4. These calcula- tions were made on the pound usage reported for each food in each food group. The daily per person potential for each family composition group (both races and all income groups) was: DAILY PER CAPITA FAMILY GROUP CALORIE POTENTIAL Adults only (Group 1) 3,037 Adults and preschool children (Group 2) 2,541 Adults and elementary children (Group 3) 3,383 Adults and teenagers (Group 4) 2,787 Adults and children in two or more age groups (Group 5) 2,730 TABLE 8. PERCENTAGE OF VITAMIN C RECOMMENDED ALLOWANCE FROM USE OF POTATOES Urban white Family group Income group l 2 3 4 5 1 18 23 3O 4 31 2 17 24 18 20 19 3 17 20 19 18 18 4 18 13 16 17 14 5 16 17 20 14 l4 Rural white Income group 23 19' 25 22 15 2 17 23 23 27 17 3 25 26 29 20 18 4 24 27 24 22 14 5 34 17 17 11 21 Negro Income group 1 24 42 26 19 18 2 20 19 26 35 19 3 17 28 13 42 l5 25 Similar calculations made by income showed a daily per person calorie potential of: DAILY PER CAPITA INCOME LEVEL CALoRIE POTENTIAL Under $2,000 (Level 1) 2,763 $2,000 to 3,999 (Level 2) 3,007 $4,000 to 5,999 (Level 3) 2,905 $6,000 to 7,999 (Level 4) 2,858 $8,000 and over (Level 5) 2,939 OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The calorie estimates seem high. Since the esti- mates were made on total food use, no allowance was made for waste, food fed to pets and other lossses to family member dietaries. Also, high calorie esti- mates indicate that percentage calculations for all other nutrients would be proportionately high. A l0 percent loss of calories for each family composi- tion group would give the following per capita daily calorie consumption: DAILY PER CAPITA FAMILY GROUP CALoRIE POTENTIAL 1 2,733 2 2,287 3 3,045 4 2,508 5 2,457 A l0 percent reduction of available calories made by income groups would give the following per capita calorie potentials: DAILY PER CAPITA INcoME LEVEL CALoRIE POTENTIAL 1 2,487 2 2,706 3 2,615 4 2,572 5 2,645 Foods containing only concentrated carbohydrates, low concentrations of other nutrients or no nutrients were not analyzed. These were sugars and other sweets, cake mixes and similar mixed food products. Use of these foods would be expected to increase the calorie content of the dietaries while having little nutritive value. Many individuals would therefore have more than adequate calorie content in foods consumed. An excess of calories in the diet might also be classified as inadequate food use. If these foods displace other nutrients, they would result in malnutrition. Symptoms would be over- weight, easy fatigue, listlessness and general lack of physical and mental vitality. A 10 percent reduction of other nutrients as calculated would result in several family composi- 26 tion groups dropping to the 90-110 percent where adequacy might be questioned. Others J_ drop below 90 percent and could be assumed definitely inadequate. The three nutrients likely to show deficiencies under these con are vitamin C, thiamine and calcium. In c} high calorie intake from carbohydrates, a thi deficiency would be emphasized due to the rel ship of thiamine to carbohydrate metabolism. ‘ ily groups where these deficiencies are most . to appear are those with teenage children and with children in two or more age groups. As a whole, the dietaries of families in’ study may be expected to be adequate in '- nutrients, even when adjustments have been for unexplained losses. Previous studies desi determine nutritional adequacy of diets of r, ent age groups have shown that many teenage dren have poor food consumption habits. Tak“ members of a family group, this tendency has‘, emphasized by this study. This is especially t b low income families but is also evident in famil higher income levels. Families with teenage chif used less fruits and vegetables and fewer dairy ducts as well as smaller amounts of these uf Also, these families had a slightly smaller a,‘ per person use of cereal products than families elementary children. These are some of the which account for apparent food deficiencies 0b for families with teenage children. In each c deficiency was greater at the low income level. g White and Negro families did not vary a ‘A deal in overall food consumption either in ~< or amount. Similarities were especially apl between urban white and Negro. Some d' ences have been noted. Negro families had a l, use of vegetables and a higher use of pork an, some extent, chicken. White families at high comes used a wider variety of beef cuts, but on the same income levels with Negro families similar foods. The most notable difference l the very low use of dairy products by Negro fa L, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This is a report from a contributing proj Southern Regional Project SM-13 “Why Cons Q Select Specified Foods.” Appreciation is expressed to those who i read the manuscript for their suggestions and ev, ' tion; to R. E. Branson, Department of Agricul Economics who cooperated in the gathering of to the technical staff who assisted in the compil and analysis of the data; to Frances Haley whf sisted in the preparation of the manuscript a .~ the secretarial staff who typed and proofed; manuscript. » i” were rural. APPENDIX A f 1) or SAMPLING the 1950 U. S. Census of Population the 'on of Texas was one-third rural and two- ban. Therefore, the state sample was a on this basis. The sample was drawn p, urban communities and 12 rural counties, <2. Seven of the urban communities had Qor more in population, eight had between Land 100,000, and eight had between 5,000 i000. The urban communities were drawn gom selection from different areas of the , or the rural sample one county was selected j h of the 12 agricultural Extension districts. , er urban communities, families to be inter- ere selected by using a table of random num- i the city directory. In the smaller urban ities and the rural counties, maps were used. ,ps were divided into numbered sections. The needed for the sample were drawn using 10f random numbers. Families were selected iof the urban communities as a proportion of A population. The rural sample was divided Ijamong the 12 counties. In all 1,314 families ured. Of these families, 889 were urban The random selection gave p glo white, 89 Latin American and 136 Negro. 3,50 U. S. Census of Population showed 13 {of the population to be Negro. The sample roximately l0 percent Negro. schedule used in collection of data related i’ consumption was based on the schedule used 1U. S. Department of Agriculture in the col- 50f food use data in 1955. i, COUNTIES 1. ,_ '11; ‘QJK- "1 j nmss or 5,00o~_24,999 i, muss or zspoo-uoopoo ‘UNITIES ABOVE |oo,ooo . Counties and urban communities where data were APPENDIX B CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FAMILIES There were 665 urban white, 424 rural white and 136 Negro families in this study. As a whole the families averaged 3.5 members in the urban group and 3.8 members in the rural. Separated by race, Negro families averaged 4.5 members per family; white families averaged 3.4 members. The number of children per family ranged from 1.3 to 4.3. In all groups the Negro families had the larger number of children per family. Five percent of the urban white families, 16 percent of the rural white and 15 percent of the Negro families had adult males at home other than the male head. Also, 9 percent of the urban white, 9 percent of the rural white and 20 percent of the Negro families had adult females, other than the homemaker, at home. All persons 20 and over were classified as adults. In most of the rural families, the family heads had been married longer than the urban white or the Negro families. Fifty-nine percent of the rural, 36 percent of the urban white, and 32 percent of the Negro families had been formed 17 years or longer. In 13 percent of the urban white, 7 percent of the rural white and 28 percent of the Negro families, the head was widowed or single. Sixty-five families were one-member families. The median age for the male head was be- tween 4O and 49 years, but l3 percent of the urban white,‘ 22 percent of the rural white and 15 percent of the Negro male heads were over 60 years of age. The percentage for the urban white compares with national percentages of population in the older age group, but the rural white percentage is much higher than the national average. Age of home- makers was generally comparable to age of the male head or only slightly younger. The majority of male heads had less than a high school education. The homemakers in this group usually had a little more formal education than the male head. There was, however, a higher percentage of male heads with education beyond high school than there were homemakers with such education. Ten percent of the male heads were college graduates, but 30 percent of them had only an eighth grade education or less. The majority of male heads were employed as farmers, skilled craftsmen -or professional men, in that order. When Negro male heads were separated from white male heads, the majority were employed as craftsmen, laborers and service workers, in that order. There were no farm operators among Negro male heads and only five professional men. Only l8 percent of the homemakers were em- ployed outside the home. This represented 21 per- cent of the urban white, 6 percent of the rural 27 white and 38 percent of the Negro homemakers. Employment was in clerical, professional or service jobs. Negro homemakers were most often in service jobs. Of those employed, 70 percent of the urban white, 56 percent of the rural white and 55 percent of the Negro homemakers were on full-time jobs of 36 or more hours per week. Among the unem- ployed homemakers 71 percent of the rural white, 69 percent of the urban white and 51 percent of the Negro homemakers spent 1 to 7 hours away from home during the week preceding the interview at a social or community activity. Other unemployed homemakers were not away from home during the week preceding the interview. Attendance at church or church activities was included in the community participation of homemaker. Family income ranged from much below $2,000 to well above $8,000 annually. Among the Negroes 82 percent had incomes under $4,000, and only three families had incomes above $6,000. The median income for the Negro families fell between $2,000 28 and $3,000. Among the white families, 60 w; of the white rural and S] percent of the urban l had incomes under $4,000 while 19 percent ~- urban white and l2 percent of the rural whit incomes above $8,000. The median incoml the white families was between $4,000 and ~f Thirty-nine percent of the families in the f fell in the family compositionlgroup 1, adults Therefore, Family Group 1 showed a wider dis tion of types of foods used in each food group. v second highest percentage of families fell in i Group 5, adults with children in two or mo i‘ groups. In some family composition groups were only two families. Data have been repo _ found in these families, but they are not nec representative of the population in the given composition and income group. Data have been consolidated by family composition groups all income groups, and by income from all f, composition groups. 5 APPENDIX TABLES 511*‘ .. \ i APPENDIX TABLE 1. FOODS REPORTED IN EACH FOOD GROUP (FAMILIES REPORTED US‘ ONE OR MORE OF THE FOODS LISTED IN EACH GROUP) Foon I. Dairy Products “Thole milk Buttermilk Skim, dry Skim, fresh Evaporated Coffee cream, half and half Whipping cream, sour cream American cheese Cottage cheese Cream cheese Ice cream Mellorine II. Meat — Beef Steak (special cuts) T -bone steak Sirloin Porterhouse Steak Cubed steak Round Steak (unspecified) Roast Pot roast Pike's peak Rump roast Roast (unspecified) Stew meat and soup bone Boiling Stew Soup Ground Meat — Pork Loin Chops Roast Ham Canadian bacon Ham Sausage Bacon Meat — Poultry Fryers Hens Turkey Wild fowl Other poultry Meat — Veal Veal Roast Cutlets Stewing Meat Lamb or mutton Roast Chops Liver » Meat -— Prepared Bologna Franks, wieners Other prepared meats Lunch loaves Salami Pressed ham 30 UNIT REPORTED Gallons Quarts Quarts Quarts Cans (61/2 oz., 141/2 oz.) Pints Pints Pounds Pounds Ounces Pints Pints Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Foon Fish Fish Fillets Whole Fish sticks Canned fish Shell fish Oysters Shrimp III. Legumes and nuts Fresh legumes Beans, shelled I/Vax beans Field peas Dried beans Lima beans Blackeyed peas Pinto beans Pork and beans Other nuts Coconut Peanut butter Pecans Peanuts Almonds Walnuts Other IV. Eggs Small Assorted Medium Large Extra large Jumbo V. Breads and Cereal Products White flour Cake flour Corn products Cornmeal Corn flakes Grits Hominy Prepared wheat products Bran flakes I/Vheat flakes Shredded wheat Puffcd oats Rice products Puffed rice Rice flakes Rice Oats Cream of wheat Durum wheat products Macaroni Spaghetti Noodles Vermicilli Breads White Whole wheat Rye Rolls UNIT REPORTED Pounds Pounds Pounds " l/Ijor I pound Pints Package Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Cans Pounds Cups Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Dozen Dozen Dozen Dozen Dozen Dozen Pounds Cups Pounds Package Cups Pints Package Package Package Package Package Package Package Package Cups Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Dozen j its (canned) Cans " crs Package »~ mixes t. l1 Cups V; uit Cups ncake Cups A n and Yellow Vegetables ‘beans Pounds i. peas Pounds 1 gas Pounds gus Pounds _-=li Pounds ‘i ls sprouts Pounds ' Pounds ' Pounds pepper Pieces Stalk I ttuce Heads l? ~ Pieces , Cups in Cups I Cups 'trus Fruits and Vegetables - ble juice Cans ' to juice Cans ~ ‘ Dozen Dozen 1;“ . Dozen “fruit Dozen (A rries. Quarts ge Heads toes Pounds ed tomatoes Cans 7;" juice Ca11s l? fruit juice Cans UNIT REPORTED APPENDIX TABLE 2. APPENDIX TABLE 1, Continued Foon UNIT REPORTED Orange and grapefruit juice Cans Tangerine juice Cans Pineapple and grapefruit juice Cans VIII. Fruit Apples Apricots Avacados Bananas Berries Cherries Peaches Nectarines Pineapple ‘ Prunes Raisins Mixed fruits 1X. Potatoes Irish potatoes Sweet potatoes Potato chips X. Fats Salad dressings and oils Salad fats and oils French dressing Italian and Wish Bone Other Mayonnaise Salad dressing Butter Margarine Cooking oil Lard Shortening Vegetable shortening Other shortening Dozen Pounds Pieces Dozen Quarts Pints Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Packages Cups Cups Cups Cups Pints Pints Pounds Pounds Pints Pounds Pounds Cups DATA USED FOR CALCULATION OF NUTRIENTS Under $2000 income Adults Adults and Adults and Adults and Adults and only _ preschool elementary teens all ages Number of families — 55 , white 43 2 2 2 4 “tein (gr.) 31,822.0 3,282.0 2,667.0 3,116.0 7,981.0 f» (mg) 5,768.0 566.0 469.0 630.0 1,472.0 jcium (gr.) 408.8 47.0 39.9 46.2 127.9 min A (Int. units) 2,555,000.0 240,000.0 l89,000.0 245,000.0 549,000.0 iamine (mg.) 634.9 65.2 51.1 56.1 144.6 flavin (mg) 821.1 84.5 68.4 79.9 203.8 cin (mg.) 9,233.0 903.0 705.0 827.0 1,971.0 » (min C (mg.) 34,080.0 3,315.0 2,833.0 3,570.0 8,383.0 V Number of families — 117 i,’ white 76 7 3 10 ' 21 itein (gin) ., 72,898.0 11,410.0 4,963.0 19,3420 59,3130 i. (mg) j ' 12,572.0 1,946.0 847.0 3,409.0 10,247.0 ‘lcium (gn) 912.8 183.4 72.1 278.6 929.7 tamin A (Int. units) 5,705,000.0 770,000.0 350,000.0 1,330,000.0 3922,0000 iamine (mg.) 1,479.1 222.6 96.6 367.2 1,119.5 'b0flavin (mg.) 1,879.5 293.3 127.3 496.0 1,513.5 'acin (mg) 21,077.0 2,975.0 1,322.0 5,086.0 15,0880 tamin C 74,670.0 11,245.0 5,125.0 20,1050 60,904.0 31 APPENDIX TABLE 2, Continued Under $2000 income Adults Adults and Adults and Adults and only preschool elementary teens Number of families — 61 Negro 34 5 3 6 Protein (gr.) 27,1880 6,688.0 4,018.0 1496840 Iron (mg.) 4,872.0 1,214.0 700.0 2,667.0 Calcium (gr.) 347.2 109.6 58.8 219.1 Vitamin A (Int. units) 2,l70,000.0 470,000.0 287,000.0 1,0l5,000.0 Thiamine (mg.) 544.6 127.8 77.7 275.2 Riboflavin (mg.) 701.4 172.1 103.1 379.5 Niacin (mg.) 7,882.0 1,757.0 1,073.0 3,802.0 Vitamin c (mg.) 28,8200 6,985.0 4,224.0 15,500.0 $2,000 - $3,999 income Number of families — 154 Urban white 67 35 11 21 Nutrients Protein (gr.) 58,450.0 53,581.0 16,562.0 35,389.0 Iron (mg.) 10,430.0 9,348.0 2,870.0 6,083.0 Calcium (gr.) 744.8 884.5 240.8 497.7 Vitamin A (Int. units) 4,655,000.0 3,620,000.0 l,183,000.0 2,415,000.0 Thiamine (mg.) 1,172.5 1,033.6 321.3 671.0 Riboflavin (mg.) 1,507.8 1,377.5 425.0 899.2 Niacin (mg.) 16,940.0 13,874.0 4,432.0 9,237.0 Vitamin C (mg.) 44,1l5.0 34,215.0 27,571.0 23,650.0 Number of families — 135 Rural white 57 13 9 17 Protein (gr.) 57,260.0 20,380.0 12,614.0 28,770.0 Iron (n1g.) 9,870.0 3,538.0 2,156.0 4,963.0 Calcium (gr.) 716.8 321.0 177.8 400.4 Vitamin A (Int. units) 4,480,000.0 l,415,000.0 910,000.0 l,995,000.0 Thiamin (mg.) 1,162.0 397.3 247.8 549.3 Riboflavin (mg.) 1,476.3 524.2 323.9 732.0 Niacin (mg.) 16,5550 5,390.0 3,421.0 7,614.0 Vitamin c (mg.) 58,6250 20,485.0 12,995.0 29,8200 Number of families — 51 Negro 14 14 1 1 Protein (gr.) 14,252.0 20,697.0 1,316.0 2,192.0 Iron (mg.) 2,478.0 3,638.0 238.0 364.0 Calcium (gr.) 179.2 335.5 21.0 30.8 Vitamin A (Int. units) l,120,000.0 1,425,000.0 91,000.0 l40,000.0 Thiamin (mg.) 288.4 399.9 24.5 42.0 Riboflavin (mg.) 367.5 532.3 33.7 55.3 Niacin (mg.) 4,128.0 5,418.0 837.0 581.0 Vitamin C (1ng.) 14,705.0 20,980.0 1,442.0 2,245.0 $4,000 - $5,999 income Number of families — 197 w. Urban white 66 43 16 13 59 . Nutrients a Protein (gr.) 58,380.0 61,447.0 23,779.0 23,752.0 125,671; Iron (mg.) 10,290.0 l0,7l8.0 4,095.0 4,046.0 21,6 '* Calcium (gr.) 739.2 995.3 332.5 326.2 1,97 . Vitamin A (Int. units) 4,620,000.0 4,205,000.0 l,736,000.0 1,645,000.0 8,360, Thiamine (mg) 1,176.0 1,189.9 467.6 458.1 '15 Riboflavin (mg.) 1,505.7 1,580.1 610.9 604.4 3,21 Niacin (mg.) 16,905.0 l6,058.0 6,494.0 6,352.0 321,17 Vitamin C (mg.) 60,975.0 61,830.0 24,6270 24,095.0 128,2 APPENDIX TABLE 2, Continued $4,000 to $5,999 income Adults Adults and Adults and Adults and Adults and only preschool elementary teens all ages _ Number of families — 85 white 26 18 4 11 81 itein (gr) 26,474.0 18,672.0 6,314.0 l8,718.0 79,055.0 f. (mg.) 4,536.0 3,216.0 1,078.0 3,164.0 13,679.0 _ ium (gn) 330.4 298.6 91.0 259.0 1,264.1 in A (Int. units) 2,065,000.0 l,275,000.0 448,000.0 1,260,000.0 5,185,000.0 fmine (mg.) 538.3 363.7 123.2 360.6 1,489.5 flavin (mg.) i 682.5 480.1 162.0 474.7 2,018.2 cih (mg.) 7,651.0 4,898.0 1,690.0 5,018.0 19,9680 1 in C (mg.) 26,960.0 18,590.0 6,516.0 19,165.0 80,5200 Number of families — 24 5 5 2 3 9 tein (gt) 5,876.0 8,747.0 2,702.0 7,678.0 24,581.0 g (mg.) 924.0 1,530.0 462.0 1,267.0 4,289.0 cium (gr.) 67.2 148.7 37.8 103.6 388.7 in A (Int. units) 4200000 580,000.0 1960000 525,000.0 1,649,000.0 iamine (mg.) 109.2 167.6 53.2 149.9 465.1 flavin (mg.) 138.6 224.8 69.4 195.4 628.5 v cin (mg.) 1,554.0 2,233.0 736.0 2,052.0 6,296.0 min C (mg.) 5,490.0 8,770.0 2,782.0 7,560.0 25,503.0 A 86,000 - 87,999 income _ Number of families — 134 white 45 24 16 18 86 ntS ‘tcin (gr) 42,756.0 34,275.0 26,488.0 22,931.0 75,511.0 (mg.) 7,434.0 5,932.0 4,564.0 4,011.0 l3,013.0 Tcium (gr) 537.6 556.9 385.0 325.5 1,187.9 min A (Int. units) 3,360,000.0 2,325,000.0 l,883,000.0 1,575,000.0 5,033,000.0 ‘ A iamine (mg.) 865.2 664.7 514.5 432.0 1,437.5 iflavin (mg.) 1,102.5 881.2 679.6 582.5 1,930.6 (mg.) 12,369.0 8,925.0 7,076.0 6,000.0 19,355.0 min C (mg.) 44,l15.0 34,2150 27,5710 23,6500 76,9610 F Number of families — 36 white 12 8 4 5 12 tein (gr) 12,7120 4,173.0 7,224.0 8,368.0 28,2530 ,n (mg.) 2,128.0 722.0 1,232.0 1,400.0 4,850.0 lcium (gin) 156.8 67.1 106.4 114.8 435.5 min A (Int. units) 980,000.0 285,000.0 504,000.0 560,000.0 1,871,000.0 iamine (mg.) 260.4 81.1 140.0 162.4 534.8 ‘flavin (mg.) 327.6 107.3 185.2 212.1 720.5 'cin (mg.) 3,668.0 1,092.0 1,908.0 2,261.0 7,214.0 tamin C (mg.) 12,6800 4,170.0 7,468.0 8,565.0 28,8520 A u $8,000 and over income »r ‘,5 Number of families — 125 white 40 10 9 18 48 ‘ents tein (gr) 39,3400 13,1180 13,9300 31,0150 100,542.0 y (mg.) 6,790.0 2,268.0 2,394.0 5,362.0 17,3260 _" cium (gr) 492.8 205.8 198.8 434.7 1,570.0 tamin A (Int. units) 3080,0000 910,000.0 1,001,000.0 2,135,000.0 6,704,000.0 I iamine (mg.) 798.0 256.2 272.3 589.6 1,910.5 ‘boflavin (mg.) 1,014.3 337.4 357.6 788.4 2,568.9 iacih (mg.) 11,275.0 8,472.0 8,758.0 8,171.0 25.757.0 tamin C (mg.) 40,3250 13,1400 14,4370 31,7000 1020680 33 APPENDIX TABLE 2, Continued $8,000 and over income Adults Adults and Adults and Adults and only preschool elementary teens Number of families — 51 Rural white 10 5 8 5 Protein (gr.) 9,450.0 7,752.0 I 12,1730 10,0350 Iron (mg) 1,610.0 1,340.0 2,079.0 1,764.0 Calcium (gr.) 117.6 120.8 174.3 142.1 Vitamin A (Int. units) 735,000.0 540,000.0 868,000.0 700,000.0 Thiamine (mg.) 192.5 151.6 238.0 188.9 Riboflavin (mg.) 243.6 199.4 312.4 255.4 Niacin (mgn) 2,730.0 2,058.0 3,271.0 2,617.0 Vitamin C (mg.) 9,575.0 7,770.0 12,556.0 10,285.0 APPENDIX TABLE 3. ESTIMATED CALORIES PER PERSON PER FOOD USED IN ONE WEEK BY INCOME? Income Food Under 32,000 32000-3999 34000-5999 36000-7999 38,000 and WHITE URBAN ,_ Dairy products 3,054.04 4,934.42 4,795.60 4,751.43 5,350.88 Meat 3,104.78 3,564.40 3,855.18 3,845.80 4,005.26 ‘ Fruits 523.20 670.22 717.78 687.51 856.15 Vegetables 159.46 214.32 215.59 218.14 244.93 Cereals 5,240.64 5,290.24 4,662.02 4,628.96 4,314.85 ; Nuts and legumes 1,440.67 668.58 775.30 637.81 649.00 . Potatoes 1,992.87 1,796.85 1,633.50 1,437.48 1,481.04 Fats 3,033.02 3,111.63 2,875.80 3,026.46 2,829.94 a Citrus 115.40 225.91 193.64 200.49 255.25 1 Eggs 675.00 570.00 630.00 570.00 585.00 < weelely 19,339.08 21,046.56 20,334.59 20,004.08 20,572.30 f“ Daily 2,762.73 3,006.65 2,904.94 2,857.72 2,938.90 . WHITE RURAL 5 Dairy products 5,098.48 6,972.55 6,063.91 7,666.65 6,341.55 Meat 2,870.28 3,752.00 4,408.60 3,827.04 4,342.94 * Fruits 505.90 605.36 709.13 635.62 929.66 : Vegetables 151.80 193.90 181.14 253.86 218.14 f Cereals 6,612.80 6,513.60 5,488.62 5,670.47 4,728.43 P Nuts and legumes 842.02 864.40 738.51 744.11 951.12 Potatoes 1,992.87 2,003.76 2,145.33 2,079.99 1,851.30 Fat 3,439.17 3,537.43 3,340.90 3,229.54 3,471.92 Citrus 153.54 158.43 210.27 208.31 247.43 . Eggs 615.00 735.00 765.00 645.00 765.00 — Weekly 22,281.86 25,336.43 24,051.41 24,960.59 23,847.49 l Daily 3,183.12 3,619.49 3,435.92 3,565.80 3,406.78 a NEGRO , Dairy products 2,423.04 3,117.14 3,363.23 Meat 2,973.46 3,780.14 4,774.42 _ Fruits 344.19 670.29 422.02 Vegetables 116.34 141.60 190.07 ‘ Cereal 7,224.48 6,629.33 5,191.04 f Nuts and legumes 970.70 646.20 1,090.99; Potatoes 2,079.99 1,841.91 1,709.7?» Fats 3,537.43 2,947.86 2,653.07 Citrus 117.36 140.83 193.64, Eggs 465.00 495.00 480.005 Weekly 20,251.99 20,410.00 20,068.21 Daily 2,893.14 2,915.76 2.86638 34'- I‘ TABLE 4. ESTIMATED CALORIES PER PERSON PER FOOD USED IN ONE WEEK BY FAMILY COMPOSITION Adults Adults and Adults and Adults and Adults and only preschool elementary teenagers all ' N .1 ucts 3,716.59 5,123.72 5,565.42 3,899.58 4,593.68 4,436.74 2,635.78 3,939.60 4,024.02 3,348.66 821.56 540.50 830.20 639.95 622.65 , 266.62 177.36 191.40 222.02 196.50 yucts 5,200.00 4,166.06 5,604.34 4,513.23 4,761.21 egumes 696.56 579.06 1,317.57 788.86 766.48 ? 1,579.05 1,568.16 1,949.31 1,546.38 1,720.62 3,504.68 2,322.08 3,373.66 3,091.97 2,567.91 rich fruits - _; tables 269.92 151.59 220.05 179.95 167.23 * 765.00 510.00 690.00 600.00 465.00 7 -. weekly 21,256.72 17,784.31 23,681.55 19,505.96 19,209.94 _‘i-.. daily 3,036.67 2,540.61 3,383.08 2,786.57 2,729.99 ucts 6,934.69 6,568.71 5,773.65 6,707.53 6,152.25 ~ 5,196.52 2,832.76 4,164.72 3,948.98 3,048.50 , 1,024.78 557.79 683.19 670.22 449.69 243.65 146.70 213.04 241.10 155.63 ucts 7,174.88 4,976.13 5,587.81 6,017.64 5,257.17 ‘legumes 1,012.66 654.59 889.57 760.89 822.44 1 2,254.23 1,753.29 2,276.01 2,167.11 1,611.72 V 4,814.83 2,738.23 3,373.66 3,308.15 2,757.88 A-rich fruits ; tables 263.08 133.98 197.55 213.20 170.17 .4 930.00 570.00 540.00 765.00 585.00 Y n y. weekly 28,849.32 20,932.18 23,699.20 24,799.82 20,810.45 “.8. daily 4,121.33 2,990.31 3,385.60 3,542.83 2,972.91 fuels 3,344.30 3,741.83 2,044.44 3,319.06 2,397.80 ~ :4 5,327.84 3,461.22 3,676.96 3,948.98 2,785.86 446.99 441.04 129.72 670.22 328.62 422.18 144.15 135.22 65.06 139.05 4 1 ucts 6,678.92 6,282.16 6,844.24 7,042.63 5,653.94 f‘ legumes 601.44 913.35 993.09 1,212.69 793.06 1 1,666.17 2,025.54 1,829.52 2,657.16 1,383.03 3,864.97 3,232.80 2,620.32 3,308.15 2,194.51 212.22 223.96 75.30 122.25 120.29 650.25 500.25 425.25 500.25 324.75 > .»-. weekly 23,235.28 20,966.30 18,774.06 22,846.45 16,120.91 3,319.33 2,995.19 2,682.01 3,263.78 2,302.99 35 ‘APPENDIX TABLE 5. PERCENT RECOMMENDED ALLOWANCE OF NUTRIENTS IN FOODS‘ Income Nutrients Under $2.000 $2,000 to $3,999 a Adults Preschool Elementary Teens All ages Adults Preschool Elementary Teens All ages Adults _f White Urban Protein 156 109 247 49 99 140 150 134 132 t‘ 134 161 Iron 136 106 213 45 107 123 127 115 120 3 115 143 Calcium 9e 7s 111 22 s6 ss s4 76 72 " 71 s2 Vitamin A 218 185 263 45 149 181 180 173 190 190 213 Thiamine 103 80 - 196 36 103 93 103 88 94 95 104 Riboflavin 130 109 216 30 31 196 128 115 101 118 121 Niacin 105 89 201 30 93 107 112 100 104 113 121 Vitamin C 141 82 90 24 97 132 110 136 134 109 140 White Rural Protein 178 142 137 114 120 191 165 166 163 128 176 Iron 166 135 144 101 114 172 138 151 148 105 162 Calcium 105 84 77 60 68 120 115 103 96 87 102 Vitamin A 193 108 260 97 118 214 188 148 170 127 240 Thiamine 139 122 123 90 98 127 115 126 127 91 120 Riboflavin 142 129 135 93 103 155 154 142 136 118 144 Niacin 126 94 118 97 85 134 104 127 118 93 131 Vitamin C 125 85 135 79 82 133 95 82 120 84 166 Negro _ f Protein 170 152 136 89 90 154 160 78 146 124 169 Iron 161 153 145 86 107 148 141 85 144 120 138 Calcium 77 47 38 36 43 59 72 7 53 47 73 Vitamin A 225 195 149 72 178 197 243 87 249 183 205 Thiamine 136 157 128 87 105 120 119 103 130 109 107 Riboflavin 128 108 109 58 88 102 136 49 98 102 107 Niacin 135 128 145 78 89 123 131 63 122 110 133 a Vitamin C 140 119 86 56 76 138 187 80 123 85 127 36 TASITION, INCOME GROUP, URBANIZATION AND RACE Income $6,000 to $7,999 $8,000 and over ecns All ages Adults Preschool Elementary Teens All ages Adults Preschool Elementary Teens All ages 13s Y] 128 30s 111 102 117 ~j121 135 116 189 153 141 135 109 71 154 88 110 101 106 144 122 72 237 94 119 123 121 122 100 166 118 88 164 124 100 205 91 138 111 114 117 92 83 181 62 108 75 107 134 145 190 100 101 110 157 141 115 77 175 92 114 107 116 37 Foods used Adults Adults and Adults and Adults and only preschool elementary teens White urban Cereal products and breads 3.088 2.514 3.389 Legumes and nuts .499 .413 .941 ‘.563 Citrus fruits and vegetables 2.788 1.555 2.257 2.303 Fats g 1.073 .712 1.025 .945 Potatoes 1.444 1.438 1.794 1.414 Fruits 1.902 1.245 1.918 1.486 Green and yellow vegetables 2.211 1.383 1.502 1.741 Meats 4.735 2.815 4.202 4.288 Eggs 1.178 .803 1.103 .936 Dairy products 7.254 8.114 8.815 6.439 WHITE RURAL Cereal products and breads 4.336 3.013 3.383 3.642 _Legumes and nuts .725 .469 .633 .544 Citrus fruits and vegetables 2.612 1.373 2.019 2.181 Fats 1.472 .835 1.032 1.013 Potatoes 2 .076 1.584 2.094 1.991 Fruits 2.380 1.289 1.580 1.553 Green and yellow vegetables 2.247 1.146 1.666 1.891 Meats 5.544 3.021 4.436 4.213 Eggs 1.469 .833 1.064 1.179 Dairy products 10.996 10.409 9.151 10.630 NEGRO Cereal products and breads 4.033 3.801 4.141 4.260 Legumes and nuts .432 .651 .171 .866 Citrus fruits and vegetables 2.166 2.260 1.063 1.248 Fats 1.494 .990 .801 1.012 Potatoes 1 .531 1.858 1.680 2.442 Fruits 1.081 1.017 .444 1.550 Green and yellow vegetables 1.729 1.134 1.060 .850 Meats 5.582 3.688 3.923 4.207 Eggs 1.011 .788 .407 .706 Dairy products 5.301 5.928 2.236 5.261 APPENDIX TABLEh6. POUNDS OF FOOD USED PER PERSONAPER WEEK BY FAMILY COMPOSITION, URBANITAi AND RACE a Family composition APPENDIX TABLE 7. POUNDS USAGE OF MEATS BY FAMILY COMPOSITION GROUP AND BY INCOME GRO, [URBAN WVHITE RURAL WHITE NEGRO F '1 Comzlgsligon Under $2,000 $4,000 5176,000- $8,000 Under .$2,000- $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 Under $2.000 I a $2.000 3,999 5,999 7,999 and over $2,000 3,999 5,999 7,999 and over $2,000 3,999 an Adults 12.70 10.45 10.93 11.68 12.44 12.43 11.40 10.86 11.89 12.52 13.79 10.98 1 Adults and 3 preschool 4.07 6.61 6.37 7.55 8.32 6.46 8.40 9.01 4.40 6.25 7.56 6.28 Adults and elementary ’ 8.48 7.36 8.24 7.95 7 .53 5.10 7.70 9.05 7.34 9.01 4.00 2.42 Adults and teens 2.50 9.11 9.24 8.49 8.50 8.45 9.82 8.44 7.69 5.51 5.04 5.50 Adults and all 4.87 6.93 6.62 6.15 6.59 7.53 6.74 5.83 6.23 g 8.07 5.96 6.15 38 [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] Texas AGM University Texas Agricultural Experiment Station College Station. Texas 77841 Kidw» Director Publication-Annual Report or Bulletin or Report o! Progress Permit 1105 OFFICIAL BUSINESS is‘ x {,2 Penalty tor p _' payment oi _