FLUID MILK and CREAM. Consumption. Selected Marketing Areas U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Statistical Bulletin No. 312

Transcription

1 FLUID MILK and CREAM Consumption in Selected Marketing Areas Statistical Bulletin No. 312 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE Crop Reporting Board Washington, D. C. MAY 1962

2 This bulletin revises and brings forward the consumption series first published under the title. "Fluid Milk and Cream Consumption in Northeastern Marketing Areas" and more recently under the present title. Statistical Bulletin No. 168 carried data for the years for markets in Northeastern areas only. Statistical Bulletin No. 226 included aoditional products for the years The latest bulletin was published in June 1960 for the period , showing sales data for 8 categories of products in 40 Federal Order, State, and other markets. The current issue contains data from a total of 79 areas for various years for the period , for 12 fluid items. For 1959, the 69 areas having data in that year cover about 60 percent of the nonfarm population of the United States (excluding Alaska and Hawaii.) For 65 areas, the data have been supplied by the respective Federal Order Administrators. The following agencies have provided sales data for their respective areas: Rhode Island Milk Control Board; Office of the M-: lk : dministrator, State of Connecticut; Division of Milk Control, New York l..,:partment of Agriculture and Markets; Office of Milk Industry, New Jersey, Department of Agricultural Economics, Pennsylvania State U:o;,ver<lity (for Allegheny County); Baltimore City Health Department; Virginla State Milk Commission; North Carolina Milk Commission; South Carolina Dairy Commission; and the California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. All dava for the New York Metropolitan Area are from "Consumption of Milk and Cream in the New York City Market and Nort. ~rn New Jersey", by Leland Spencer and Ida A. Parker, Cornell University, Bulletin No. 965, July Data for the entire State of Virginia were published in "Looking into the Fluid Milk and Ice Cream Iro:J.ustry in Virginia", Virginia Joint Agricultural Publication, No. 3, June CONTENTS Sl.liilillary..... In traduction..... Population estimates.... Sales and per capita consumption of fluid milk and cream products: Whole an.d skim milk products..... Average test of whole milk sold.. Milk equivalent of fluid cream products.. Milk equival.ent of all fluid products Sales and per capita consumption for individual markets. Appendix For i960 and 1961 data, these series will be continued as a supplement to ~his "Fluid Milk and Cream Report." bulletin in the May 1962 issue of the monthly Page 3 4 4,5,10,11 5,6,12,13 6 6,14,15 6,16,17 7-9,

3 FLUID MILK AND CREAM CONSUMPTION IN SELECTED MARKETING AREAS, y SUMMARY Per capita consumption of fluid milk and cream (combined) advanced steadily from 1950 until about 1956 or 1957 in most markets included in this report. Although declining in a number of markets in 1958 and 1959, per person usage was significantly higher than 19)0. Sales increased generally in every year of the decade, but population grew at a faster rate near the end. Individual product consumption rates varied. Plain whole milk usage increased and then declined following the general pattern. However, consumption of seven other fluid products advanced during the period. Plain and fortified skim milks made substantial gains in per capita consumption. The use of flavored whole milk became more prevalent; yogurt sales in relation to population increased after introduction in a number of markets during the period. Mixtures of milk and cream, sour cream, and eggnog made important consumption advances. Flavored skim milk showed gains in some markets and losses in others. Buttermilk, a product popular in Southern area~ found less per person usage at the end of the decade. Rates of utilization of both light and heavy cream were down practically every year. Expressed in milk equivalent terms (a milkfat concept), consumption exhibited mixed trends. The milk equivalent of all fluid products followed the general trend of higher and then lower consump~ tion. However, the milk equivalent of fluid cream products declined in almost every market for the entire period. y Prepared by L. w. Haynes and K. D. Ackers, Agricultural Statisticians, Agricultural Estimates Division, SRS, under the general direction of G. G. Butler, Head, Milk Section, and I. E. Wissinger, Chief, Dairy Statistics Branch. Acknowledgment is due various City, State, and Fed~ Agencies which furnished basic data for this report and helpful comments

4 INTRODUCTION Annual sales and estimated annual populations for each marketing area have been used to calculate annual per capita rates of consumption. For the earlier years, product groupings have not been separated as completely as in later years. Much effort during the decade has been made by both Federal and State agencies to separate data by products when statistically significant. In Federal Order markets, sales of flavored whole milk were separated from flavored skim milk beginning with the 1957 data. Likewise, plain skim milk and fortified skim milk (solids added) were reported together in the period 1950 to Yogurt and eggnog consumption are reported for the first time in this bulletin. All sales and rates of consumption per capita are shown in pounds annually. Although the data are designed to show general trends of consumption only, they are not precise measures. There is considerable variation between the areas as to composition of the population, the areas and portions of areas covered, etc. Also, the separation of "inarea" sales from "out-of-area" sales in earlier years of the decade may have been somewhat less precise than later. Direct comparisons of per capita consumption rates between markets should be made with caution. For purposes of analysis, the trends of consumption for each individual market would be of more value. POPULATION ESTIMATES Estimates of population for this bulletin have followed previous procedures fairly closely. For those areas following State lines, the July 1 resident population estimates of the u. s. Bureau of the Census have been the basis for the estimate. For other areas, except as described below, the April 1, 1950 and 1960 Census enumerations were used as a base. For those markets not covering entire States, April 1 populations for 1950 and 1960 were adjusted to July 1 by one-fourth the average annual change during the decade in most instances. Tentative annual estimates for each year between 1950 and 1960 were then prepared by straight line interpolation. Where there were indications that annual changes for the period did not follow a straight line pattern, modifications were made. Draft calls for the Korean War were important in early years of the period. For those markets appearing in the edition of the bulletin, previous population estimates were used for where applicable. These estimates had been based on State agency estimates for counties and cities and were prepared prior to the Census enumeration. Although - 4 -

5 the levels of these earlier State-based estimates may have been different from those established later by the Census, year-to-year changes were close to those now shown for most markets. Other indications {such as annual changes for the entire State as reported by the Census Bureau) were used, if applicable. For the New York Metropolitan Area and the Virginia State estimates, the population data are from publications cited. Baltimore City population estimates were prepared by the Baltimore City Health Department. In marketing areas having important segments of rural population, the annual estimates were also modified. An annual estimated number of persons using milk from their own farms was subtracted from marketing area populations. This was done by first taking the number of farms with milk cows from the 1950, 1954, and 1959 Census of Agriculture in each county or major portion of a county. This figure for each county was then multiplied by an estimated average number of persons per farm having milk cows. These estimates are based on the size of household for all farms as reported in the 1950 and 1960 Censuses of Population. For areas where applicable, some further adjustment was made in area population estimates for people living on farms with milkcows but using milk from commercial sources. The reliability of area population estimates probably varies largely with the size of the area and because of the estimating methods used and assumed rates of change. However, it is believed the population estimates are sufficiently reliable to yield estimates of per capita consumption satisfactory for further analysis. Of the 9 marketing areas which have comparable area populations for the 10-year period, all except Baltimore, Md., showed increases. In Baltimore, the 1959 population was 1 percent less than Area population advances ranged from 7 percent in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania to 46 percent in California. Whole and skim milk products PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF FLUID MILK AND CREAM PRODUCTS Table 2 shows total sales of whole and skim milk products in each market as reported for the years These items are combined in this table since much of the available data by markets for earlier years of the period are on this basis. Of the markets in the table, there were 25 with whole and skim sales available beginning as early as Twenty-one of the 25 reported higher per capita whole and skim consumption in 1959 than in 1950 or the earliest year shown. Lower rates in 1959 than in the earliest year were reported in only 4 marketing areas: Philadelphia, Chicago, Kansas City and Wichita, Kansas. Of the 25 markets, 23 reported higher rates in the middle years of the period than in the earliest or latest year. Highest rates of consumption for - 5 -

6 the period were reported in 1957 for 10 markets and in 1956 for 7 areas. Largest increases in per capita consumption between 1950 or the earliest year and the highest year were: Wichita, Kans., 49 pounds, Sioux City, Iowa, 43 pounds; and Worcester, Mass., Kansas City, Mo.-Kans., Omaha Lincoln, Nebr.; Council Bluffs, Iowa, each 41 pounds. However, drops in consumption between the high year and 1959 were less than 15 pounds per person in 18 of the 25 markets. The six marketing areas carried in the former "Northeastern" report, for which data are not available for 1959, all exhibited similar trends to the others through 1956, with the exception of Rhode Island. In that area, the high year in the period from 1950 to 1956 was After decreases in 1953 and 1954, the 1955 and 1956 rates of' consumption in this area were almost as high as those in Average test of whole milk sold The average test of whole milk sold in marketing areas where this is reported declined in almost every area during the 10-year period. Of the 19 areas with data for 1954 or earlier, only Oklahoma Metropolitan and California showed higher tests in the later years of the period. The drop in average test from 1950 to 1959 in Springfield, Mass. was 0.19 percent, and Omaha-Lincoln, Nebr.-Council Bluffs, Iowa, 0.16 percent. San Antonio, Tex. reported a 0.13 percent decline in test from 1951 to In 4 other markets of the group, the decrease in the fat percentage of whole milk sold was as much as 0.10 percent during the period. Milk equivalent of fluid cream products The milk equivalent of' fluid cream products is the quantity of' producer milk at average test required to supply the milkfat contained in the cream items sold. Twenty-six of the 79 markets shown in Table 3 have annual per capita rates of' consumption for this concept calculated for 1954 or earlier. Of these markets, only Springfield, Mass., showed. a higher rate in 1959 than for the earliest year. A decline of at least 10 pounds per person in the milk equivalent of' cream used was reported for 9 markets. For the remainder of' the areas, except Milwaukee and Louisville, the decrease in milk equivalent of cream was between 1 and 10 pounds per person. For Milwaukee, per person consumption of 45 pounds in 1954 rose to 47 in 1957, but was back to 45 pounds in The per capita rate for Louisville was about 23 pounds per person for all years from 1953 to 1959 Milk equivalent of' all fluid products As for cream, the milk equivalent of all fluid products is computed on a milkfat basis. In table 4, there are 24 marketing areas which have series of' annual per capita calculations of the milk equivalent of' all products from at least 1954 to 1959 Of these 24 markets, all but 8 had higher rates of' consumption in 1959 than 1954 or earlier. Two marketing areas, Louisville, Ky., and Oklahoma Metropolitan, showed generally increasing milk equivalents for the period. Chicago, Ill., sales were generally declining in milk equivalent terms. The remainder - 6-

7 of the markets were on a higher level in the middle years of the period than at either end. In 14 markets, there were increases of between 20 and 40 pounds in consumption from 1950 or the earliest year to a higher middle year. The year of highest consumption reported for these 24 markets was: 1957 for 9 markets; 1956 for 7 markets; and 1955 for 5 markets. Except for 4 marketing areas, declines in the milk equivalent of all fluid products from the highest middle year to 1959 were reported. In ll marketing areas, this decline was from 15 to 30 pounds per capita. SALES AND PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION FOR INDIVIDUAL MARKETS New England Per capita consumption of whole milk items in Boston, and Merrimack Valley, Mass., was fairly stable for the period with some increase in skim items, but a relatively small decrease in cream consumption. Springfield and Worcester, Mass., each reported some increases in plain whole and skim milk, with cream items fairly stable for the decade. Increases in usage of whole milk and light cream for Fall River, Mass. were reported. Whole and skim increases are noted for Rhode Island with little change in the milk equivalent of cream consumption. The utilization of most fluid products in Connecticut was fairly stable for the period. Middle Atlantic Declines in the consumption of both whole milk and cream products from 1950 to 1959 were reported in the New York Metropolitan area. Some increasedusage of milk and milk drinks, with substantial declines in the milk equivalent of cream, was noted for both the Niagara Frontier and Rochester, N. Y., areas. Higher utilization of milk and milk drinks was also apparent in the Middle Hudson, Syracuse and Binghamton, N. Y. areas. New Jersey skim milk and mixture sales per person increased but other items were generally down. More whol~ milk was used per person in Allegheny Co., Pa., but slightly less of the cream items. In Philadelphia, Pa., increased usage of skim milk almost made up for the decline in whole milk but cream items were somewhat lower. East North Central The Akron-Stark Co., Cleveland and Northeastern Ohio areas, considering area mergers and changes, showed little change in consumption from 1955 to Declines in the utilization on a per person basis of whole milk and light and heavy cream were accompanied by an increase in fortified skim and sour cream in Columbus, Ohio. Decreases in consumption for all items except plain and fortified skim eggnog and sour cream were reported for Chicago, Ill. Yogurt came into the picture somewhat-in recent years in Detroit, Mich. Whole milk, cream mixtures and sour cream usage in this market was up while that for light cream was down. Milwaukee, Wis., consumption increased since 1954 for whole milk, mixtures, eggnog, and sour cream. Most other item usage was down. -7-

8 West North Central In Minneapolis, Minn., the major change from 1953 to 1959 in fluid sales per person was an increase in whole milk but buttermilk and light and heavy cream were down. Whole milk, skim items and cream mixtures were increasingly important in Sioux City, Iowa, but usage declined for buttermilk. Kansas City, Mo.-Kans., sales of whole milk, buttermilk, and light cream per person decreased but cream mixtures and sour cream increased for the period. In St. Louis, Mo., advance's in whole milk, plain skim, eggnog, and sour cream consumption were accompanied by a downward usage of light and heavy cream. Whole milk, plain skim milk, eggnog, and sour cream sales per capita were higher in Sioux Falls Mitchell, s. D., while light and heavy cream were lower for the period For the Omaha-Lincoln-Council Bluffs, Nebr.-Ia., area, higher per person usage of whole milk, plain and fortified skim, mixtures, eggnog, and sour cream were reported. Light and heavy cream consumption was lower. Consumer utilization of whole milk, buttermilk, and light and heavy cream were lower at the end of the decade in Wichita, Kans.; plain skim and cream mixtures were higher. South Atlantic In Wilmington, Del., consumption from 1957 to 1959 was fairly stable but with some increases in plain skim, cream mixtures, and heavy cream and a reduction in flavored skim. An expansion in consumption of whole milk and chocolate milk in Baltimore, Md., was accompanied by a lowering in the milk equivalent of cream used. Whole milk utilization per person in Richmond, Va., advanced from 1950 to 1959 but cream usage diminished somewhat. Whole milk consumption declined from 1957 to 1959 in South Carolina, while other fluid usage was steady or higher. Southeastern Florida utilization per person increased from 1958 to 1959 for yogurt, plain skim, cream mixtures, eggnog, and sour cream. East South Central There was some decline in the consumption of buttermilk in Louisville, Ky., since The four Tennessee markets for which data are available consumed sizable quantities of buttermilk. Whole milk consumption in Chattanooga was down from 1957 to 1959 Knoxville per capita consumption of all items has been fairly stable since Cream mixture sales per person in Memphis were higher but for light cream were lower for the period The Nashville whole and skim milk utilization per person was higher with some losses for other items from 1958 to Usage of whole milk, plain and fortified skim, cream mixtures, eggnog, and sour cream in Central Mississippi showed gains from 1957 to

9 West South Central From 1958 to 1959, per capita consumption of all fluid items except light and heavy cream increased in Central Arkansas. For the same period, usage was down in New Orleans, La. for about half the items but higher for the others. Important changes in per capita utilization in the Oklahoma Metropolitan area since 1952 were increases in whole milk and cream mixtures and a decline in light cream. Consumption of most fluid items in Austin-Waco, Tex., was fairly stable from 1956 to 1959 From 1956 to the end of the period, whole milk and buttermilk consumption declined somewhat in the Corpus Christi and North Texas markets. Consumption of whole milk increased but buttermilk decreased from 1953 to 1959 in San Antonio, Tex., with other products adding little to total utilization. Texas Panhandle whole milk sales per person were lower from 1956 to 1959 Mountain ~as For Central Arizona, 1957 to 1959 per person usage for all items fairly stable. Pacific Changes in consumption for the Inland Empire, Wash.-Ida., market from 1957 to 1959 were small for most items except whole milk which was 15 pounds per capita lower. Puget Sound data indicate a fairly stable consumption of most fluid items from 1952 to 1959, except light cream. The per capita rate for this item for 1959 was about one-third that of the earliest year. For California, whole milk consumption was fairly stable for most of the decade. Plain skim items and sour cream increased, but most other item usage was lower

10 areas Marketing area NEW ENGLAND: Thous. Thous. Thous. Thous. Thous. Thous. Thous Boston, Mass ,172 2,175 2,180 2,190 2,195 2,200 b2,270 Merrimack Valley, Mass Springfield, Mass Worcester, Mass! Fall River, Nass Rhode Island \ Southeastern New Eng \ - 1,545 Connecticut, 1,990 1,970 2,010 2,100 2,170 2,190 2,210 2,270 2,370 2, MIDDLE ATLANTIC: I New York Metropolitan.! 9,399 9,572 9,657 9,792 9,969 10,104 10,180 10,259 10,314 10, Niagara Frontier, N.Y! l,o6o 1,080 1,110 1,120 1,140 1,160 1,180 1,200 1,220 1, Rochester, N. Y. j Middle Hudson, N. Y. I Syracuse, N. Y b Binghamton, N. Y... l New Jersey......! 4,800 4,920.5,000 5,090 5,200 5,320 5,480 5,580 5,740 5, Allegheny Co. (Pitt.)Pa.ll,515 1,525 1,535 1,.545 1,555 1,570 1,570 1,580 1,590 1, Philadelphia, Pa.... 2,600 2,590 2,610 2,630 2,660 2,670 2,680 2, 700 b2,910 2,930 EAST NORTH CENTRAL: I Akron-Stark Co., Ohio i Cleveland, Ohio ,900 1, Northeastern Ohio...! 2,880 Cincinnati, Ohio..,! bl,l85 Columbus, Ohio b800 D~n-Springfield,Ohio Toledo, Ohio Ft. Wayne, Ind.. j South Bend-LaPorte-Elk,Ind Chicago, Ill.! 5,380 5,480 5,570 5,680 5,790 5,970 6,o6o 6,270 6, Detroit, l"li. ch.! 3,240 3,320 3,390 3,470 3,540 3,650 3,720 3, Michigan Upper Peninsula Northeastern Wisconsin Milwaukee, Wis : 1,010 1,040 1,060 1,075 1,090 1, WEST NORTH CENTRAL:! }linneapolis-st.pau~minn 1,085 1,115 1,150 1,180 1,195 1,210 1, Des Moines, Iowa. I 615 Quad Cities, Ill.-Ia 1?} Sioux City, Iowa...! Kansas City, Mo. -Kans! bl,435 1,470 St. Louis, Mo ,480 1,510 1,545 1,570 1,590 1,610 1,620 1, Ozarks, Mo.-Ark.. l 355 Black Hills, s. D. l 98 Sioux Falls-Mi tchel~s.d~ no Omaha-Lin.-C.B.,Neb.-Ia b Wichita, Kans uo b46o SOUTH ATLANTIC: Wilmington, Del Baltimore, Md u Richmond, Va Virginia. 3,442 3, Richmond, Va,... 45o I Appalachian, Va.-W. Va.-T./ Bluefield, Clarksburg, W. w. Va Va 190 2) Wheeling, w. Va North Carolina, 4,040 South Carolina. I 2,090 2,140 2, Southeastern Florida 1 1,400 1, EAST SOUTH CENTRAL: Louisville, Ky.-Ind Paducah, Ky Chattanooga, Tenn Knoxville, Tenn Memphis, Tenn

11 Marketing EAST SOUTH GEN.: (Cont.) Nashville, Tenn Central Mississippi Mississippi Delta Mississippi Gulf Coast. WEST SOUTH CENTRAL: Central Arkansas New Orleans, La... Northern Louisiana Oklahoma Metropolitan Red River Val.,Okla.-Tex Austin-Waco, Tex. Central West Texas. Corpus Christi, Tex North Texas. San Antonio, Tex Texas Panhandle.. MOUNTAIN: Colo.Springs-Pueblo,Colo. - Western Colorado j - Central Arizona. PACIFIC: Inland Empire,Wash.-Ida Puget Sound, Wash California lo,450 I Table 1.--Estimated annual average populations using purchased milk in selected marketing areas Continued area Thous. Thous. Thous. Thous. Thous. Thous. Thous. Thous. Thous. Thous r35 J:i o , b oo ,750 1, , , , b340 26o 78 1, ,350 1,375 1,415 1,470 1,510 1,540 1,570 1,610 10,950 11,6oo 12,100 12,600 13,000 13,600 14,100 14,650 15,250 a. 'Where all years are not shown in the table, the calculated percentages are for the latest year shown as a percent of the earliest year. No percentage appears where there has been a change in the marketing area. b. The sales data for this year are for a different marketing area than for the previous year. 1~59 as % of 1950 a Pet ll -

12 Table 2.--Whole and skim milk products: Annual per capita consumption and c anges 1.n s es an popu a 1.on 1.n se eo e mar e 1.ng areas, - h. al d 1 t. 1 t d k t a 19~9 as.~ Per capita consumption of 1950b Marketing area Sales J Population NEW ENGLAND: Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Pet. Pet. Boston, Mass Merrimack Valley, Mass ll Springfield, Mass ll5 Worcester, Mass Fall River, Mass Rhode Island Southeastern New England Connecticut MIDDLE ATLANTIC: New York Metropolitan llo Niagara Frontier, N.Y ll8 Rochester, N. Y ll8 Middle Hudson, N.Y ll7 Syracuse, N.Y Binghamton, N.Y New Jersey Philadelphia, Pa EAST NORTH CENTRAL: Akron-Stark Co., Ohio l:07 Cleveland, Ohio Northeastern Ohio Cincinnati, Ohio Columbus, Ohio Dayton-Springfield,Ohio o Toledo, Ohio Ft. Wayne, Ind South Bend, Ind Chicago, Ill ll9 Detroit, Mich ll7 Michigan Upper Perd.nsula Northeastern Wisconsin Milwaukee, Wis WEST NORTH CENTRAL: Minneapolis-st.Paul,Mi~ ll3 Des Moines, Iowa Quad Cities, lll.-iowa Sioux City, Iowa ll3 107 Kansas City, Mo.-Kans St. Louis, Mo llo llo Ozarks, Mo. -Ark Black Hills, S.D Sioux Fa.lls-Mitchell,S.n Omaha-Lin. -C.B.,Neb.-Ia Wichita., Kans - 3ll SOUTH ATLANTIC : Wilmington, Del Baltimore, Md 26o Richmond, Va Virginia Richmond, Va Appala.chian,va.-w.va.-T Bluefield, w. va Clarksburg, W.Va Wheeling, w. va North Carolina South Carolina Southeastern Florida EAST SOUTH CENTRAL: Louisville, Ky. -Ind ll6 Paducah, Ky Chattanooga, Tenn Knoxville, Tenn

13 Table 2.--Whole and skim milk products: Annual per capita consumption and changes in sales and popuj.ation in selected mar k e t 1ng areas c on t 1nue d a 1959 as % Marketing Per capita consumption of 1950 b area Sales!Population EAST SOUTH CENTRAL:(Cont. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Pet. Pet. Memphis, Tenn Nashville, Tenn Central Mississippi Mississippi Delta 134 Mississippi Gulf Coast WEST SOUTH CENTRAL: Central Arkansas New Orleans, La Northern Louisiana Oklahoma Metropolitan Red River Val-,Okla.~x Austin-Waco, Tex Central West Texas Corpus Christi, Tex North Texas San Antonio, Tex Texas Panhandle I MOUNTAIN: Colo.Springs-Pueblo,Colo 282 Western Colorado Central Arizona PACIFIC: Inland Empire,Wash.-Ida Puget Sound, Wash California !!: Product quanti ties include all grades of whole and skim products shown in table 5 sold within the market area. ~ Where all years are not shown in the table, the calculated percentages are for the latest year as a percentage of the earliest year. No percentage appears where there has been a change in the marketing area. - 1~ ::.

14 Table 3.--Milk equivalent of fluid cream products: Annual per capita consumption and changes in sales and population in selected marketing areas a ' 1959 as % Marketing Per capita consumption of 19~0 b area Sales J Population NEW ENGLAND: Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Pet. Pet. Boston, Mass Ei5 Ei5 8L Merrimack Valley, Mass Springfield, Mass i Horcester, Hass.. j Fall River, "" ~ b Rhode Island b6 l Connecticut MIDDLE ATLANTIC: New York Metropolitan Niagara Frontier, N. Y Rochester, N, Y Middle Hudson, N.Y Syracuse, N. Y Binghamton, N, Y, o New Jersey Philadelphia, Pa, EAST NORTH CENTRAL: I Akron:Stark Co., Ohio Cleveland, Ohio Northeastern Ohio. I Cincinnati,?hio Columbus, Ohio Dayton-Springfield, Ohio., Toledo, Ohio Ft. Wayne, Ind South Bend-LaPorte-Elk., Ind Chicago, Ill.... "I Detroit, Mich h Michigan Upper Peninsula. 40 Northeastern Wisconsin Milwaukee, Wis WEST :OORTH CENTRAL: Minneapolis-St.Paul,Minn Des Hoines, Iowa Quad Cities, Ill.-Ia Sioux City, Iowa Kansas City, Ho.-Kans St. Louis, Mo Ozarks, Mo.-Ark Black Hills, S, D Sioux Falls-Mitchell,S.D Omaha-Lin.-C.B.,Nebr.-Ia Wichita, Kans u2 39 3h SOUTH ATLANTIC: Wilmington, Del Baltiwore, Md Richmond, Va Virginia Richmond, Va Appalachian, Va.-"1-J. Va.-T Bluefield, W.Va Clarksburg, w. Va /heeling, W. Va North Carolina South Carolina Southeastern Florida AST SOUTH CENTRAL: E Louisville, Ky.-Ind Paducah, Ky Chattanooga, Tenn u Knoxville, Tenn Memphis, Tenn

15 Table 3.--Milk equivalent of fluid cream products: Annual per capita consumption and c h anges i n s al es an d pop ul ation in selected marketing areas c on t lnue d a 1959 as % Marketing Per capita consumption of 1950 b area h ] Sales ]Population EAST SOUTH CEN. : (Cont.) ~ ~~ ~ Lbs. Lbs. ~ Lbs, Lbs. L~i Nashville, Tenn Central Mississippi Mississippi Delta. 6 Mississippi Gulf Coast WEST SOUTH CENTRAL: Central Arkansas New Orleans, La Northern Louisiana Oklahoma Metropolitan Red River Val.,Okla. -Tex Austin-Waco, Tex Central West Texas Corpus Christi, Tex North Texas,,, San Antonio, Tex Texas Panhandle MOUNTAIN: Co1o.Springs-Pueblo,Co1~ 34 Western Colorado Central Arizona.,,,,,,,, PACIFIC: Inland Empire,Wash.-Ida Puget Sound, Wash California 6o o a. The quantity of' producer milk at average test required to supply the milkf'at contained in all products shown in table 5. b, Where all years are not sham in the table, the calculated percentages are f'or the latest year as a iiercent of' the earliest year. No percentage appears where there bas been a change in the marketing area. Pet. Pet

16 Table 4.--Milk equivalent of all fluid products: Annual per capita consumption and changes in sales and popu 1 a t 10n ln. se 1 ec t e d mar k e t' 1ng areas a 1959 as % Marketing Per capita consumption of 1950b area !1954!1955 J19s ! Sales JPopulation Boston, Mass NEW ENGLAND: Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Pet. Pet. Merrimack Valley, Mass Springfield, Mass Worcester, Mass Fall River, Mass Rhode Island c Connecticut MIDDLE ATLANTIC: Niagara Frontier, N. Y. c Rochester, N.Y. c b Middle Hudson, N. Y. C Syracuse, N.Y. c Binghamton, N.Y. c New Jersey Philadelphia, Pa EAST NORTH CENTRAL: Akron-Stark Co., Ohio Cleveland, Ohio Northeastern Ohio Cincinnati, Ohio Columbus, Ohio Dayton-Springfield,Ohio Toledo, Ohio Ft. Wayne, Ind South Bend-LaPorte-Elk., Ind Chicago, Ill Detroit, Mich Michigan Upper Peninsula Northeastern Wisconsin Milwaukee, Wis WEST NORTH CENTRAL: Minneapolis-St.Paul,Minn Des Moines, Iowa Quad Cities, Ill.-Ia Sioux City, Iowa Kansas City, Mo.-Kans ~ St. Louis, ~1o Ozarks, Mo.-Ark Black Hills, S.D Sioux Falls-Mitchell,S.D Omaha-Lin.-C.B.,Nebr.-Ia Wichita, Kans SOUTH ATLANTIC: Wilmington, Del Baltimore, Md Richmond, Va Virginia Richmond, Va Appalachian,Va.-W.Va.-T Bluefield, W.Va Clarksburg, W.Va Wheeling, W. Va North Carolina South Carolina Southeastern Florida EAST SOUTH CENTRAL: Louisville, Ky.-Ind Paducah, Ky Chattanooga, Tenn Knoxville, Tenn Me ~ his Tenn ~

17 Annual per capita consumption and c t d Table 4.--Milk equivalent of all fluid products: changes in sales and population in selected marketing areas - -- on J.nue a 19~9 as % Marketing Per capita consumption of 1950b area 1950! I !1959 Sales I Population EAST SOUTH CEN. : {Cont.) Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Pet. Pet. Nashville, Tenn Central Mississippi Mississippi Delta Mississippi Gulf Coast WEST SOUTH CENTRAL: Central Arkansas New Orleans, La Northern Louisiana Oklahoma Metropolitan Red River Val.,Okla. -Tex Austin-Waco, Tex Central West Texas Corpus Christi, Tex North Texas San Antonio, Tex Texas Panhandle MOUNTAIN: Colo.Springs-Pueblo,Colo Western Colorado Central Arizona PACIFIC: Inland Empire,Wash.-Ida Puget Sound, Wash California a. The quantity of producer milk at average test required to supply the milkfat contained in all products shown in table 5 : Where all years are not shown in the table, the calculated percentages are for the latest year as a percent of the earliest year. No percentage appears where there bas been a change in the marketing area. The quantity of milk and milk drinks plus the milk equivalent of cream produced are shown for these markets except Niagara Frontier for 1959 and Rochester for 1958 and Calculations for those markets for those years were the same as the remainder of the table

18 Area and Year NE\IIT ENG LAND: Boston, Mass. Table 5.--Annual sales, milkfat test, population and per capita 5 5 consump_tion of fluid milk and cream woducts by marketing areas, Annual sales for fluid use a Whole milk Plain Yo_~ b Sales I Fat I Sales l Fat 1,000 1,000 lbs. Pet. lbs. Pet b1, J , , , , , , , l,Oh tt!errimack Valley, Mass. g , , , , , , , S,l Springfield. Ma.<Js , , , , , , , , , , Worcester Mass , , , , , , , , , , Fall River, Mass , , , , , , , , , Rhode Island h , , , , , , , Skim milk l Flavored c Plain d I Fortified d I Flavored clsuttermilk l Sales I Fat Sales I Fat I Sales I Fat I Sales J Fat I Sales (Fat - 1,000 1,000 lbs. Pet. lbs. Pet. -- 3,344-5,037-6,151-6, , , , , , , ,116-1,665 2, ,609-3, ,531-3,572-3,835-3,825-4, , , ,153-1,410 1, , , ,000 lbs ,000 1,000 Pet. lbs. Pet. lbs. Pet , , , , , l1, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 715 l. 41 2, , , , , ' , , , so ll

19 Area and Year Tab~e 5.--.Armual. sales, ~at test, population and per capita consumption of fluid milk and cream products by marketing areas, Continued Annual sales for fluid use a ~ual ~r capita cons. Estima- Cream Whole Milk ecuivalent ted Mixtures Eggnog Ligllt Sour Heavy and All popuskim Cream fluid lation Sales I Fat Sales I Fat Sales I Fat Sales I Fat Sales I Fat milk items f 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1bs. ~ ~ Pet. ~ Pet. lbs. Pet. lbs. Pet. Thous. Pounds Pounds Pounds --- ~ NEW ENG LAND: Boston, Mass , , , , , , ,927 J6.9w 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , hlo , , , ,200 3L , , , , ; , , , , , , , , Merrimack Valley, Mass. g , L , ,153 1a.au L , w , E 42 Ju , o , Springfield, Mass , , , , J5u , , , u , u , , , , , , uu , , , , , , u5o Worcester. Mass , , ,3o1.J , , , u , u1 1a.o3 1, , u6 1s.o5 1, su , u6 1a.o5 1, , ,os6 36.6u , , u w , , , , Fall River, Mass u o uo Li Rhode Island h , , , , , , , e - 19 :.

20 Tabl.e 5.--Annual. sales, mil.kf'at test, popul.ation and, per capita consumption of fluid ~ and cream products by marketing areas, Continued Annual per capita consumption Area Whole milk Skim milk Cream and Yea.r Plain I Yo~t.,Flav~d J d d c Butter- Plain Fortified Flavored milk Mixtures Eggnog Light J Sour J Heavy Pounds~ Pounds ~ Pounds ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ NEW ENGLAND Boston, Mass Merrimack Valley Mass. _g oo S;eri!!Sfie1d 1 Mass L o o o o Worcester, Mass. 19jO jjj l oo 4.58.o Fall River. Mass o Rhode Island h il

21 Table 5.--Annual sales, milkfat test, population and per capita consumption of fluid milk and cream pro uc s oy mar e areas - a d t b k ting Annual sales for fluid use Area Whole milk Skim milk and Year Plain Flavored c Plain I Yogurt bl d I Fortified d I Flavored c!buttermilk Sales I Fat I Sales I Fat I Sales I Fat Sales I Fat I Sales I Fat I Sales I Fat I Sales!Fat 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 lbs. Pet. ~ Pet. ~ Pet. lbs. Pet. lbs. ~lbs. ~lbs. Pet NEW ENGLAND: (Continued) Southeastern New England o1,91s ,253-8,240-1,113-6,466-1,371 Connecticut i 1950 o22,m9 6,502 13,682 2, , , ,447-3, , , ,924-3, ,488 10,192 16,409 3,6o ,302 11,336 15,448 3, ,900 13,136 16,754 3, ,477 15,556 16,742 3, ,276 18,829 15,390 3, ,188 20,501-13,449 3, , , ,780-3,330 - MIDDLE ATLANTIC: New York Metropolitan, N. Y ,13.5, ,151, ,193, ,170, ,195, ,276, ,311, ,297, ,25fJ,975 47, ,282, , Ni~ara Frontier z N. Y. h , , , , , , , o,155' - 9,755 6, , , , , , , , , Rochester. N. Y. h 19~0 139, , , , , , , , , , , , , o 1, , , , , , , Middle Hudson 2 N. Y. h , , , , , , , Syracuse. N. Y. - - h 195~0 96, , , , , , ,

22 Table 5..--Annual. sales, milkfat test, population and per capita consumption of fluid milk and cream products by marketing areas, Continued Annua.l sales for fluid use a ~ua.l ~r cap_i ta cons. ~ ~==~==~~~==~~~~ ~EstUm- Area Cream ted and Mixtures ~og Ligqt Sour Heavy popu- Year I I I I r lation Whole Milk e uivalent e and All skim Cream fluid milk items f Sales Fat Sales 1 Fat Sales Fat Sales Fat Sales Fat 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 lbs. Pet. ~ Pet. ~ Pet. lbs. ~ lbs. ~ ~ Pounds Pounds Pounds NEW ENGLAND: (Continued) Southeastern New England 1959 I 3, Connecticut i , , , , , h,56o , ,500 MIDDLE ATLANTIC: New York Metropolitan N. Y Niagara Frontier, N. Y. h , Rochester, N. Y. h , , Middle Hudson, N. Y. h Syracuse, N. Y h 7,059 9,lo6 9,268 7,970 7,70h 7,51h 7,527 7,352 7,583 7,246 7,500 1, ,119 1,h78 1,880 2,429 2,278 2,8h2 3, ,087 6,191 5,995 5, 757 5,655 5,426 5,129 L,83l. 4,371 ),876 3,750 j79,503 77,963 75,hll 7L,3L6 73,01,5 72,599 72, Li 68:!,os 6u,669 42,031-43, 73h - 43,526-43,583-41,634-42,923 - h3,316 - h2,l78-39,344-3,763 2L.L 16,775-16,982-16,336-16,442-16,091-1Q<,482-1'7,094-17, ,386 17,368 17,376 18,455 19,313 20,111 21,439 16,399 17,127 18,527 18,697 18,212 19,049 19,434 1,545 1,990 1,970 2,010 2,100 2,170 2,190 2,210 2,270 2,370 2,470 9,399 9,572 9,657 9,792 9,969 l0,10u 10,180 10,259 10,314 10,369 1,06o 1,080 1,110 1,120 1,140 1,160 1,180 1,200 1,220 1, LBO PO LO L , ' J )86

23 Table 5.--Annual saj.es, milk:t'at test, population and per capita consumption of fluid ~lk and cream products by marketing areas, Continued Annual per capita consumption Area Whole milk Skim milk Cream y= Plain I Yo~tj Flav~red Pla1n/Fortif1ed1Flavo~dJ B::r- Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds ~ Pounds ~ NEW ENGLAND:""""(~ued_) Southeastern New England 19$9 I Connecticut i 19~ MIDDLE ATLANTIC: New York Metropolitan N.Y. 19~0 331! Ni~ara Frontier. N. Y. h 19~0 2Cl o Rochester. N. Y. h 19~ h.l & OJ l1iddle Hudson, N. Y. h 19~ Syracuse, N. Y. h 19~ o Mixtures l Eggnog1Light J Pounds Sour I Heavy Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds ~6 J,!JL 3.33 J.JI J.o6 J.OL ,J6.41.1! ~ ) b6 '".lt 7.C:1 7.5u u !J L S l.o6

24 Area and Year Table 5.--AnnuaJ. sales, milkfat test, population and per capita consum tion of fluid milk and cream roducts b marketing areas Annual sales for fluid use a Plain Sales Sales 1,000 1bs. Pet. Pet. Pet. 1,000 lbs. Pet. MIDDLE ATLANTIC: (Continued) Bin hamton N'. Y. h , , o,ooo o, , , ,513 New Jerse , 30, 28 19,628 12, ,468,984 21,544-13, ,517,048 22,262 15, ,549,063 14,220 23,058 16, ,583,819 31,049 20,293-15,5Jii' ,654,354 30,329 22,107 16, ,713,174 35,615 20,868-15, ,748,336 36,296 20,952 16, ,735,532 45,576-17,148 14, , 785,377 55,086 17,475-15,494 Alle hen Count Pa , , , , , , , , , ,100 Philadel hia Pa , , , ,127 l , , , ,011 l , , , ,301 l , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , EAST NORTH CENTRAL:.Akron::Stark Count;r 2 Ohio , , , , , , , , , , , ,965 l. 76 6, , , , ,867,10 14, , , Cleveland 2 Ohio 1957 I 647, k 7, ,561.o6 11, , , , , , , , Northeastern Ohio 1959 I 913,o2o 3.53 k 17, , , , , Cincinnati Ohio , k 6, , ,117 l. 78 5,829 l. 76 6, , , , ,228 l. 70 4,907 l. 72 6, , , , , , , Columbus Ohio , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,649 2.o6 4,

25 Table 5.--Annual sales, mil.k:f'at test, population and per capita consumption of fluid milk and cream products by marketing areas, Continued Annual sales for fluid use a ~ual ~r capita cons. Area! ~~:!:...!~:!:C~re~am~!.=!:~...:!!::::,_..:;.. -i Estima- Whole Milk e ui valent e and j--!mixtur~~.!!.e~s -~.!::ES!SI::ggn;<o2-g-r-~L::.::i:.;qg4 t~-t--.:::so~urr=--+--=h;.;;.ea~'j.vyt--1 ted and All Year f lation popuskim Cream fluid Sa.les I Fat Sa.les I Fat Sa.les I Fat Sa.les J Fat Sa.les Fat milk items f 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 lbs. Pet. lbs. Pet. lbs. Pet. lbs. ~ ~ Pet. Thous.!Pounds ~ Pounds MIDDLE ATLANTIC: (Continued) Binghamton, N. Y. h New Jersey 10,100 10,200 10,300 10,100 10,400 10,806 10,136 19~0 t?~y , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Allegheny County (Pittsburgh), Pa Philadelphia Pa. 19~0 460 <l , , , , EAST NORTH CENTRAL: , , , , , Akron-Stark County, Ohio , , , o , Cleveland, Ohio 13, , , o 14, , , , ' , , , , , , I 7,6lo ss , , , Northeastern Ohio , , Cincinnati, Ohio 1957 I 2, (l(j , , Co1u:mbus Ohio 1957 I 3,1S , , o , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , : o , , , , so 14, , J J , , , , L5 8,66o 39. 4L; 8,529 8,353 8,469 7,613 6,891 6,863 7,389 7,887 7,756 7,646 1, , , , , , , , , , L ,800 o,no 5,000 5,090 5,200 5,320 5' 1!80 5,580 5,740 5,930 1,515 1,525 1,535 1,545 1,555 1,570 1,570 1,580 1,590 1,620 2,600 2,590 2,610 2,630 2,660 2,670 2,680 2,700 2,910 2, , , ,950 1, , , o Boo )! L9 L7 4L LJ J !,

26 Table 5.--Annual sales, milk:fat test, population and per capita consumption of fluid~ and cream products by marketing areas, Continued and Year 4.09 L,.38 Lt.L , Bu Li l Lu Ul 2.20 l Pa Cleveland, Ohio 1957 l 341 k Northeastern Ohio 1959 I 317 k Cincinnati Ohio k Columbus, Ohio 1957 I Ohio o , l ,J

27 Table 5.--Annual sales, milkfat test, populatian and per capita consum tion of fluid milk and cream oducts b marketing areas Annual sales for fiuid use a. Area~ ~~~~~--~ ~==~== ,r and Year~--~P~1=a=m~ ~~~~+-~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r== Sales Sales 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 lbs. Pet. lbs. Pet. Pet. lbs. Pet. lbs. E!.:. ~ Pet. lbs. Pet. EAST NORTH CENTRAL: (Continued) orfon-springrield, Ohio , L 2.o , , , , , , , , , , Toledo, Ohio 1958 I 179,360 6, , , ,028 6, , , , Ft. Wa e Ind. 19 7, , , South Bend Ind I 118,~o Chicagot Ill.-Ind ;614, ,645, ,619, ,693, ,755, ,827, ,830, ,818, ,826, Detroit1 Mich o1, o ,015, ,040, ,114, ,129, ,145, ,143, ,149, Michigan Upper Peninsula 1959 I 88, Northeastern Wisconsin 1959 I 25o,o Milwaukee, Wis , , , , , ,667 WEST NORTH CENTRAL: k ,012 40,977 43,073 47, , , ,466 3,100 14, , , , ,589 22,947 33,829 37,811 44,869 51,896 61,746 15,063 16,913 23,303 11,014 14,803 17,181 19,187 21,410 1,171 1,819 7,238 9,168 10,966 13,308 7,196 7,655 8, , , , , , , , , , , , ,669 l.ol , ' 372 l. 31 1, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,442 1.o6 7, , , , , , , , , k ,232 12,984 14,915 15,942 18, , , ,273 2, , ,461 1,508 1, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ~ , , , , , , , , , , , ,

28 Table 5.--Amlual. sales, mil.kfat test, population and per capita consumption of fluid milk and cream products by marketing areas, Continued Annual sales for fluid use a ~u&l. ~ c~ ta cons. Area ~----,---=C:.:.re=am=--..,r------r Es:e~- Whole Milk e uival.ent e and Mixtures Eggnog L!Mt Sour Heavy popu- and All Year 1 ti skim Cream fluid Sal.es I Fat Sal.es I Fat Sal.es I Fat Sal.es I Fat Sal.es I Fat a on milk items f 1,000 1,000 1bs. Pet. 1bs. Pet. EAST NORTii"CENTR:u;-( CO'ntin'ue~ nazton-s~ringfield, Ohio 195 I 3, 12 ll.bl , Toledo Ohio 1958 I ~, , Ft. Wayne, Ind I South Bend, Ind I 2, o Chicago, I11.-Ind , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Detroit, Mich , , , , , , , , Michigan UPPer Peninsula 1959 I 1, Northeastern Wisconsin 1959 I 5, Nil waukee Wis. 19S:4 3, , , , , , WEST NORTH CENTRAL: Minneapolis-St. Paul Minn. 19S:? 10, lltl tl , , , , , , Des Moines, Iowa 1959 I 5, o6 Quad Cities, Ill.-Ia I 3, , , ,000 1,000 1,000 1bs. Pet. ~ ~ _lb_s._ Pet. Thous. Pounds Pounds ~ 1, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ) , C 4, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,085 3, ,115 3, h 1,150 3, ,180 3, ,195 3, ,210 3, , o o , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , o 330 1, , , , , ,

29 Area and Year Table 5.--AnnuaJ. saj.es, mil.kf'at test, population and per capita consumption of :fluid mi,lk and cream products by marketing areas, Continued Annual tion ~ ~ Mixtures Heavy Pounds Pounds L ul n k u o l o Minn

30 Area and Year Table 5 --Annual sales, milkfat test, population and per capita consum tion of fluid milk and cream oducts b marketing areas Annual sales for fluid use a Plain Sales Fat Sales 1,000 lbs. 1,000 Pet. 1bs. Pet. Pet. l,ooo 1bs. Pet. (Continued) "WEST NORT'r! CENTRAL: Sioux Cit~ Iowa , , , , ,677 3.Lt8 2, , , , , , , l , , n1, , , ,029 l. b , k , , Kansas Cit , 0 6, , , ,672 8, , , ,104 8, , , ,406 9, , , ,867 9, , , ,506 8, , , ,391 8, , , J.47 5, , , , , , , , St , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ~ OJ 1, , , ,710 l , , , , , mn 1, , , , ,99)-l ,769 l , Neb.-Ia. 3,078 2, , ,200 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ' , ,827.84, J.h1 1, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

31 Table 5.--.Annual. sales, milk:tat test, population and per capita consumption of fluid milk and cream products by marketing areas, Continued Annual sales for fluid use a ~ual pe_r capita cons. Whole Milk e uiva1ent e and All skim Cream fluid milk items f ~ ~====~~~=-~~~~~ ;Est~- Area Cream ted and Mixtures Eggnog L1g4t Sour Heavy popu- Year I I lation Sales I Fat Sales I Fat Sales I Fat Sales Fat Sales Fat 1,000 1,000 1,000 lbs. Pet. ~ ~ lbs. ~ WEST NORTH CENTRAL: (Continued) Sioux City Iowa 1951 l,jo~ , , o , , , , , , Kansas City, Mo.-Kans I , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , St. Louis, Mo , , , , , , , , Ozarks, Mo.-Ark. 537 ll.lh I 1, Black Hills, South Dakota Sioux Falls-Mitchell. S. D. 5, ,16o 18.38!t, , , ,3hl , , ~76 12.~4 ~ o Omaha-Lincoln- Council Bluffs, Neb.-Ia , titi 1,~?~ , , ,397 ll.6o , , , , , , , , , , Wichita Kansas 1951 ti , , , , ! , , ,03! ,000 1bs , , , o Thous. Pounds Pounds Pounds , , > o 1b ,480 1,510 1,545 1,570 1,590 1,610 1,620 1, o L: Lo LO

32 Table 5.--Annual sa.les 1 milkf'at test, population an~ per capita consumption oi fluid ~lk and cream products by marketing areas, Continued Year Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds WEST NORTifCE~ (Continued_) Sioux City, Iowa k Kansas City. Mo. -Kans S: St. Louis. Mo. 19S: Ozarks, Mo.-Ark I Black Hills, South Dakota 1959 I s o Sioux Falls-Mitchell s. D n mnl o ).86 Omaha-Lincoln-Council Bluffs Neb.-Ia Wichita Kansas h ) lJ ) Mixtures Pounds ).62 ) Jl o ) o

33 Area and Year Pl.ain Tabl.e 5.--Annual. sales, mil.kfat test, popul.ation and per capita cons tion of fl.uid milk and cream oduets marketing areas Annual. sales for fluid use a Sales l,ooo l.,ooo 1,000 Pet. Pet. Pet. ~ Pet. l.bs. ~~ 2, , , k , , , , , , , , , , , k 1, , , , , , , , , b,h77 3,478 14,530 3,488 14,599 3, ,61,3 3,436 15,067 3,1!81 16,1uu 3,566-16,534 3,576 16,668 3,550-13,629 2,91!1.: 12,h78 2,772 3,103 3,580 3,108 h,818 3,046 5,260 2,804-5,315-3,004 5,500-3,090 5, , , , , , , , , , , , , Lo 1, ,160.Lo 8o L.36 1, , , , , o6.L , L5.2L ,Lh ,)~ o6 618 l.o6 1, , , , , , , , o6 2, , , ,227 1,717 L2,257 59,254 5,741 17,309 27,079 6,L19 18,255-27,973 7,425 18,184-29, , , , , , , , , , ,

34 Area and Year Table 5.--Annual. sales, milkfat test, population and per capita consumption of fluid milk and cream products by marketing areas, Continued Annual. sales for fluid use a uaj. Estimated Sour He a popu- lation Cream Sales Fat Sales Fat Sales 1,000 1,000 1,000 lbs. Pet. Pet. lbs Pet. lbs. Pet. Thous. Pounds Pounds Pounds (Continued) WEST NORTH CENTRAL: Wichita Kansas (Continued) , , ,oo o , SOUTH ATLANTIC: , , h Va. p30, ,199 9h , ,h , ,897 94h h, ,197 9h ,007 9h ,273 9h p6, ,27h , h 6,65h ,512 hoo h 6,2h , , , , , , h h h3 20h h L lt l LOS ,496 4, ,318 2, ,342 2, ,346 2, , , , , , ,

35 Area and Year Table 5.--Annual sa.les, milkf'at test, population and per capita consumption of fluid ~ and cream products by marketing areas, Continued Annual tion Mixtures Heavy Pounds Pounds Pounds lJ JL k.7lj lJ.58 3.l! lJ lJ lJ.16.lJ lJ lJ lJ lj p31.5si lJO lJ - p l! l! '?8 8.L L.61 Ll! lJ Va.-W.Va. -Tenn Ll !!5.16.lJ L9.22.l! Va. Va L l b

36 Area Table 5.--Annual sales, milk:f'at test, population and per capita consum tion of fluid milk and cream roducts b marketing areas Annual sales for fiuid use a Sales 1,000 1,000 l,ooo Pet. lbs. Pet. lbs. Pet.!!!.!.: ~ Central Arkansas 1958 I 100, lo6,232 New Orleans, La I 209,5oa , Northern Louisiana 1959 I 93, Oklahoma Metro olitan , , , , k , ,006 3~ , , Red River Valley, Okla.-Tex I 111, Austin-Waco , , , ,431 Tex k 231 1,592 1,071 2, , , , , , , , ,598 3,921 4,400 6,181 6,858 8, S2 1, , , ,241 1,660 2,308 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , n1, ,938.so , , , , , , , , , , ,ho6.65 8, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , k 15, , , , , , , k 10, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,o , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

37 Tab~e 5.--Ammal. saj.es, mllk:tat test, popu1ation anci per capita consumption of fiuid milk and cream products by ma:rketing areas, Continued.Annual saj.es for fiuid use a ~ual per ca~ ta cons. Area r-...::C:.:.re:::.:am=-,r-----r-----t Es:e~- Who~e MUk e IUival.ent e and Mixtures!:ggnog LiAt Sour HeaVY popu and All Year E hti - skim Cream fiuid Sales I Fat Sales I Fat Salesl Fat Sales I Fat Sales I Fat on milk items f ~.ooo ~.~ooo ~.ooo ~.~ooo ~.ooo ~bs. ~!!!!..:... ~ ~ ~!!!!..:... ~ ~bs Pet. Thous. ICounds Pounds Pounds EAST SOUTH CENTRAL: Louisville. Kv.-Ind , !: , , , , , , Paducah, Ky I Chattanooga Tenn I Knoxville, Tenn ltl MeiiiJ his, Tenn , Nashville, Tenn. 19~!:3 I 1,22tl , Central Mississippi 1957 I 1, , , , , , , , , , , , Mississippi Delta 1959 I o 9.29 Mississippi Gulf Coast 1959 I E WEST SOUTH CENTRAL: Central Arkansas 1958 I 1, , New Orleans, La I 1, , Northern Louisiana 1959 I Oklahoma Metropolitan 19_52 2, , , , , , , , Red River Valley~ Okla.-Tex I rl, ~ - - Austin-Waco, Tex , , , , , , , , , , , , ! ! o h , Boo h lh

38 Table 5.--Annual sales, milk:t'at test, population and per capita consumption of fluid~ and cream products by marketing areas, Continued Annual~ cap_i ta consll,llii)_tion Area Whole milk Skim milk Cream Y= Plain l Yo~tl Flavo;ed Pl~n~Fortiiiedl Flavoied I B:;~r- Mixtures I Eggnog kigbt I Sour l Heavy Pounds ~ Pounds ~ ~ Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds ~ ~ EAST SOUTH CENTRAL: Louisville, Ky.-Ind k Paducah, Ky I Chattanooga, Tenn I Knoxville, Tenn I 28L I'Iemphis, Tenn. 19Sb Nashville, Tenn I 23L Ll l.l L.l L ! ! ! L )) n uo )) J)j L k ! )) ! ! 21.5L 32.1.!2 30.L4 ll.lj2 1L:.06 1l,.3L J ! ! !JJ L LL )).L ! o h ! ! L ! !.05.)) ! ! J9.41.! ,JJ ))0 1L.h9 Lou lr Austin-Waco Tex k :4 L Okla.-Tex L.o9 1.!.07 L ! so n4. 72 L.2o )J,i.J !:6 11' !7 9.L J.L !:.13 1.!.23 L.54 L !, OJ !2.L !~ )) JL.so.)JJ.OJ ! !

39 Table 5.--Annu.aJ. sales, milkfat test, population and per capita consum tion of fluid milk and cream oducts b marketing areas Annu.aJ. sales for nuid use a Area and Year Plain Sales Sales 1,000 1,000 lbs. Pet. Pet. Pet. lbs. Pet. WEST SOUTH CENTRAL: Tex , , , L 1, , ,06L , , , ,6L ,3oL.91 3, k 3, L 3, , , , , u ,1LIJ , , , , ' ,ll5.34 6, , ,51! , L, , , ,635 L9u 4,u85 L , , , , ,8L , , , ,8o3 1.u k },, nl, ,575 Lu , , ,L , ,078 L2L 3, , , , , , , L , ,038 1.uo ,5u , , , , k , ,861.7L 3, ,335 l.ol , :3 8, , ,9u , , , , , , k 4,982.3l 20lc LL2 1, , , ,982.L L ,7L , L, , , , ,03h , , , ,83L.17 4, , ~1 20, , , 709.9u 3.53 k 12,988.1L 8, , , , , , ,u , , , , ,958 53, ,704 3.h8 83,671 58, , ,102 63, ,073 3.L4 106,516 64, , ,737 62, , ,379 68, , ,01b.30 71, ,680 ) , , , , , , , L, ,

40 Tab1e 5.--Ammal. sales, milktat test, popu1ation and per capita consumption of fiuid milk and cream products by marketing areas, Continued Annual sales for f1uid use a Annual per capita cons. Area Cream Estima- Who1e Milk ted e< uival.ent e and ~igltt Sour Heavy and All Mixtures Eggnog popuskim Cream 'fiuid Year 1ation Sales I Fat Sales I Fat Sales_! Fat Sales I Fat Sales I Fat milk items f 1,000 1bs. Pet. 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 ~~ ~~ ~...- Pet. ~Pet. Tbous. Pounds Pounds ~ WEST SOUTH CENTRAL: (Continued) Central West Texas 1959 I 1, Corpus Christi Tex , , h , , North Texas , , , , , , h8 1, , , , , , , , , , , San Antonio Tex , o , , , , , , o Texas Panhandle 19~6 l,02cl , , , MOUNTAIN: Colorado SErings-Pueblot Colo I 1, G 23 L.o Western Colorado Central Arizona I 4,b3Cl , , , , PACIFIC: Inland Empire, Wash.-Ida I 2, K , , !.J Puget Sound, Wash ,03b 10.2b , , , so , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , California 19~0 130,716-5,217-11,262-4,314-9,462-10, ,838-5,154-8,662-4,561-8,887-10, ,475-5,194-6,943-5,158-8,990-11, ,468-4,985-5,999-5,883-9,055-12, ,918-4, 770-5,006-6,241-9,626-12, ,559-4,600-4,347-7,328-10,014-13, ,401-4,055-3,725-9,026-10,1J86-13, ~ ,817-3,880-2, ,459-10,982-14, ,226-3,555-2,574-13,207-10,444-14, ,738-3,4h5-2,482-15,765-10,053-15, h