AN ANALYSIS OP CHANGES IN CONSUMER MILK

PURCHASES IN TWO OHIO METROPOLITAN AREAS

DISSERTATION

Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy In the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

RONALD HOWARD POLLOCK, B.Sc., M.Sc.

« # * e *

The Ohio State University

1959

Approved by

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer wishes to express his appreciation to those who helped make this study possible.

To Dr. Glen H, Mitchell for his valuable counsel relative to collection and organization of the data.

To Dr. Richard R. Newberg whose recommendations and advice concerning statistical limitations In this analy­ sis provided meaningful assistance.

To Dr. George F. Henning under whose guidance, stimu­ lation and leadership the requirements preceding this study were completed and from whom the writer received helpful suggestions during the analysis of the study and preparation of the manuscript.

To Dr. Mervin G. Smith and Dr. Virgil R. Wertz for their constructive suggestions after reading this manu­ script.

Special thanks is expressed to Dr. Elmer F. Baumer for his patience, stimulation, encouragement and tireless efforts throughout the study.

My deepest gratitude goes to my wife, Rosemary, and children, Sue, Angia, Lynn and James for their inspiration and sacrifice during the time this study was in progress.

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES ...... 5

OBJECTIVES ...... 13

PROCEDURE ...... 11*

DESCRIPTION OF MARKETS ...... 17

DAYTON SAMPLES COMPARED ...... 23

FINDINGS ...... 28

ANALYSIS ...... lj.6

THE FOLLOW-UP S U R V E Y ...... 78

SUMMARY ...... 83

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 88

APPENDIX ...... 91

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 149

AUTOBIOGRAPHY...... 157

111 LIST OP TABLES

Table Page

1 Estimated Short-Run Price Elasticity of Demand for Fluid Milk in a Community in Eastern Connecticut for Three Periods in 19^8 and 191+9 ...... 10

2 Range of Published Prices During Week of the Surveys for Homogenized Standardized 3.£# Milk in Two Ohio Markets According to Size and Type of Container and Source of Purchase, 1955 and 1958 ...... 20

3 Comparison of Selected Statistical Mea­ sures of Weekly Milk Purchases per House­ hold for 296 Old Survey and 300 New Survey Households, Dayton Metropolitan Area, 1958 2i+

1+ Comparison of Selected Statistical Measures of Daily per Capita Purchases of Milk per Household for 296 Old Survey and 300 New Survey Households, Dayton Metropolitan Area, 1958 ...... 25

5 Comparison of Weekly Milk Purchases by Source of Purchase for 296 Households (Old) and 300 Households (New), Dayton Metropolitan Area, 1959 .... 25

6 Comparison of Weekly Milk Purchases by Type of Container for 296 Households (Old) and 300 Households (New), Dayton Metropolitan Area, 1959 ...... 26

7 Comparison of Weekly Milk Purchases by Size of Container for 296 Households (Old) and 300 Households (New), Dayton Metro­ politan Area, 1959 ...... 26

6 Comparison of Weekly Milk Purchases by Type and Size of Container for 296 House­ holds (Old) and 300 Households (New), Dayton Metropolitan Area, 1959 ...... 27

9 Selected Statistical Measures of Weekly Milk Purchases, 335 Households, Cleveland Ohio, 1955-1958 ...... 29

iv LIST OP TABLES (cont.) Table Page

10 Selected Statistical Measures of Weekly Milk Purchases. 296 Households, Dayton, Ohio, 1955-1958 ...... 29

11 Distribution of 335 Cleveland and 296 Dayton Households, by Quantity of Milk Purchased Per Week for Use at Home, 1955-1958 ...... 30

12 Selected Statistical Measures of Per Capita Dally Purchases, 335 Households, Cleveland Ohio, 1955-1958 ...... 31

13 Selected Statistical Measures of Per Capita Dally Milk Purchases, 296 House­ holds, Dayton Ohio, 1955-1958 ...... 31 1 i; Distribution of 335 Cleveland and 296 Dayton Households by Dally Per Capita Per Household Milk Purchases, 1955-1958 .. 32

15 Weekly Milk Purchases by Source of Pur­ chase, 296 Households, Dayton, Ohio, 1955 and 1958 ...... 33 16 Weekly Milk Purchases by Source of Pur­ chase, 335 Households, Cleveland, Ohio, 1955 and 1958 ...... 33 17 Weekly Milk Purchases by Type of Con­ tainers, 296 Households, Dayton, Ohio, 1955 and 1958 ...... 35

18 Weekly Milk Purchases by Type of Con­ tainer, 335 Households, Cleveland, Ohio, 1955 and 1958 ...... 35

19 Weekly Milk Purchases by Size of Con­ tainer, 296 Households, Dayton, Ohio, 1955 and 1958 ...... 36

20 Weekly Milk Purchases by Size of Con­ tainer, 335 Households, Cleveland, Ohio, 1955 and 1958 ...... 36

v LIST OP TABLES (cont.)

Pape

21 Weekly Milk Purchases by Type and Size of Container, 296 Households, Dayton, Ohio, 1955 and 1958 ...... 38 22 Weekly Milk Purchases by Type and Size of Container, 335 Households, Cleveland, Ohio, 1955 and 1958 ...... 38

23 Number of Households by Size, 296 Dayton Area and 335 Households, Cleveland Area, 1955 and 1958 ...... lj.0 Zk Number of Individuals by Age Groups, 296 Dayton Area and 335 Cleveland Area House* holds, 1955-1958 ...... I4.I

25 Number of Households by Income Groups, 296 Dayton Area and 335 Cleveland Area Households, 1955-1958 ...... 1+2

26 Number of Households by Container Prefer­ ence Reported In 296 Dayton Area and 335 Cleveland Area Households, 1955 and 1958.. l+lj.

27 Households by Reported Reason for Buying Milk from a Store, 296 Dayton Area and 335 Cleveland Area Households, 1955 and 1958 ......

28 Changes In Per Capita Milk Used at Home Within a Specific Group of 335 Households Cleveland, 1955-1958 ...... 1+8

29 Changes In Per Capita Milk Used at Home Within a Specific Group of 296 Households Dayton, 1955-1958 ...... ij.9

30 Average Household Income of Households Increasing, Remaining Constant and De­ creasing Per Capita Milk Purchases from 1955 to 1958, Cleveland and Dayton Areas . 51

31 Average Per Capita Purchases by Households Increasing, Remaining Constant or Decreas­ ing in Household Income from 1955 to 1958, Cleveland & Dayton Metropolitan Areas .... 52

vi LIST OF TABLES (cont.)

Table Page

32 Changes In Income Per Household for Re­ spondents In Cleveland and Dayton from 1955 to 1958 ...... 53 33 Average Dally Per Capita Milk Purchases Per Households by Changes In Household Size, Cleveland and Dayton Metropolitan Areas, 1955 to 1958 ...... Sh 2k Relationship between Change In Household Size and Change In Per Capita Milk Pur­ chase Per Household, Cleveland and Dayton Metropolitan Areas, 1955 to 1958 ...... 56

35 Relationship Between Change in Total Milk Purchased per Household and Change in Per Capita Milk Purchased Per Household, Cleveland and Dayton Metropolitan Area, 1955 to 1958 ...... 57

36 Relationship of Changes in Household Size and Changes in Household Income, Cleve­ land and Dayton Metropolitan Areas, 1955 to 1958 ...... 59

37 Comparison of Average Quantity of Milk Used Per Week by Households Using Various Size and Type of Containers, 335 Households, Cleveland, Ohio, 1955-1956 ...... 61+

38 Comparison of Average Quantity of Milk Used Per Week by Households Using Various Size and Type of Containers, 296 Households, Dayton, Ohio, 1955 & 1958 ...... 65

39 Comparison of 1955 Container Preference With 1958 Container Preference, 335 Households, Cleveland Area ...... 70

14.0 Comparison of 1955 Container Preference With 1958 Container Preference, 296 Households, Dayton Area ...... 70

14.1 Average Size of Household in Cleveland and Dayton for all Households Changing Their Stated Preference for Container Size 1955 to 1958 ...... 72 vii LIST OP TABLES (cont.)

Table Page

42 Number of Households by Size Indicating Preference for Specified Milk Containers, Cleveland Area, 1956 ...... 73

43 Number of Households by Size Indicating Preference for Specified Milk Containers, Dayton Area, 1956 ...... 73

1+4 Change In Reasons for Buying at Store Within 335 Households, Cleveland, Ohio, 1955-1958. 75

45 Change in Reasons for Buying at Store Within 296 Households, Dayton, Ohio, 1955-1958 ... 76

46 Distribution of 335 Cleveland and 296 Dayton Area Households by Magnitude of Change in Per Capita Milk Purchase for Use at Home from 1955 to 1958 ...... 92

47 Changes In Total Milk Purchased at Home Within a Specific Group of 335 Households Cleveland, Ohio, 1955-1958 ...... 93

48 Changes in Total Milk Purchased at Home Within a Specific Group of 296 Households Dayton, Ohio, 1955-1958 ...... 93

49 Changes Reported in Household Income Within a Specific Group of 335 Households, Cleve­ land, Ohio, 1955-1958 ...... 94

50 Changes in Household Income Within 296 Spe­ cific Households, Dayton, Ohio, 1955-1958. 94

51 Change in Household Size Within a Specific Group of 335 Households, Cleveland, Ohio, 1955-1958 ...... 95

52 Change in Household Size Within a Specific Group of 296 Households, Dayton, Ohio, 1955-1958 ...... 95

53 Changes in Number of Individuals Under 10 Years of Age Per Household in a Specific Group of 335 Households, Cleveland, Ohio, 1955-1958 ...... 96

viii LIST OF TABLES (cont.)

Table Pape

Sk Changes In Number of Individuals Under 10 Years of Age Per Household in a Specific Group of 296 Households, Dayton, Ohio, 1955-1958 ...... 96

55 Changes in Number of Individuals 10-20 Years of Age Per Household in a Specific Group of 335 Households, Cleveland, Ohio, 1955 - 1958 ...... 97

56 Changes in Number of Individuals 10-20 Years of Age Per Household in a Specific Group of 296 Households, Dayton, Ohio, 1955 - 1958 ...... 97 57 Changes in Number of Individuals 21-50 Years of Age Per Household in a Specific Group of 335 Households, Cleveland, Ohio, 1955 - 1958 ...... 98

58 Changes in Number of Individuals 21-50 Years of Age Per Household in a Specific Group of 296 Households, Dayton, Ohio, 1955 - 1958 ...... 98

59 Change in Number of Individuals over 50 Years of Age Within A Specific Group of 335 Households in Cleveland, Ohio, 1955 - 1958 ...... 99

60 Change in Number of Individuals over 50 Years of Age Within A Specific Group of 296 Households in Dayton, Ohio, 1955 - 1958 ...... 99 61 Relationship of Changes in Household In­ come and Changes in Total Milk Purchases Per Household, Cleveland and Dayton Metro­ politan Areas, 1955 to 1958 ...... 100

62 Relationship of Changes In Total Milk Pur­ chases Per Household and Changes In House­ hold Size, Cleveland and Dayton Metropoli­ tan Areas, 1955 to 1958 ...... 101

ix LIST OP TABLES (cont.)

Table Pape

63 Relationship Between Changes In Household Income and Changes In Per Capita Milk Purchases for Household, Cleveland and Dayton Metropolitan Area, 1955-1958 .... 102

6I4. Summary of Selected Averages for Cleveland and Dayton Households Having Changes as Indicated Per Household Income, Household Size and Dally Per Canita Milk Purchases Per Household, 1955 to 1958 ...... 103

65 Summary of Selected Averages for Cleveland and Dayton Households Having Changes as Indicated Per Household Income, Household Size and Dally Per Capita Milk Purchases Per Household, 1955 to 1958 ...... 101*

66 Summary of Selected Averages for Cleveland and Dayton Households Having Changes as Indicated Per Household Income, Household Size and Daily Per Capita Milk Purchases Per Household, 1955 to 1958 ...... 105

67 Selected Information for 335 Households Having an Increase, Constant or Decrease in Total Milk Purchased Per Week, Cleve­ land Metropolitan Area, 1955 to 1958 .... 106

68 Selected Information for 296 Households Having an Increase, Constant or Decrease in Total Milk Purchased Per Week, Dayton Metropolitan Area, 1955 to 1958 ...... 108

69 Selected Information for 335 Households Having an Increase, Constant or Decrease in Household Income, Cleveland Metropoli­ tan Area from 1955 to 1958 ...... 110

70 Selected Information for 296 Households Having an Increase, Constant or Decrease in Household Income, Dayton Metropolitan Area, from 1955 to 1958 ...... 112

71 Selected Information for 335 Households Having an Increase, Constant or Decrease in Per Capita Milk Purchased, Cleveland Metropolitan Area, from 1955 to 1958 .... 114 x LIST OF TABLES (cont.)

Table Page

72 Selected Information for 296 Households Having an Increase, Constant or Decrease in Per Capita Milk Purchased, Dayton Metropolitan Area, from 1955 to 1958 .... 116

73 Selected Information for 335 Households Reporting Increased, Consuant, and De­ creased Household Size, Cleveland Metro­ politan Area, from 1955 to 1958 ..... 118 7k Selected Information for 296 Households Reporting Increased, Constant and De­ creased Household Size, Dayton Metropoli­ tan Area, from 1955 to 1958 ...... 120

75 Selected Information for 335 Households Having an Increase, Constant or Decrease in Quantity of Milk Purchased by Home De­ livery, Cleveland Metropolitan Area, 1955 to 1958 ...... 122

76 Selected Information for 296 Households Having an Increase, Constant or Decrease In Quantity of Milk Purchased by Home Delivery, Dayton Metropolitan Area, 1955 to 1958 ...... 12k

77 Selected Information for 335 Households Having an Increase, Constant or Decrease in Quantity of Milk Purchased from Stores, Cleveland Metropolitan Area, 1955 to 1958. 126

78 Selected Information for 296 Households Having an Increase, Constant or Decrease in Quantity of Milk Purchased from Stores, Dayton Metropolitan Area, 1955 to 1958 ... 128

79 Selected Information for 335 Households Re­ porting Increased and Decreased Purchases of Milk in Gallon Jugs from Stores, Cleve­ land Metropolitan Area, 1955 to 1958 .... 130

80 Selected Information for 296 Households Having an Increase, or Decrease In Purchases of Milk in Gallon Jugs from Stores, Dayton Metropolitan Area, from 1955 to 1958 .... 132

xl LIST OP TABLES (cont.)

Table Page

81 Selected Information for 335 Households Having an Increase or Decrease in Milk Purchased in £ Gallon Glass from Store Cleveland Metropolitan Area, from 1955 to 1958 ...... 134 82 Selected Information for 296 Households Having an Increase or Decrease in Milk Purchased in £ Gallon Glass from Store Dayton Metropolitan Area, 1955to 1958 ... 136

83 Selected Information for Households Re­ porting Milk Price Per Quart as Less than 20^, 20j^ and Over, and Data for All Households, Cleveland Area, 1958 ...... 138

81| Selected Information for Households Re­ porting Milk Price Per Quart as Less than 20^, 20j^ and Over, and Data for All House­ holds, Dayton Area, 1958 ...... llj.0

85 Households Using Various Containers Com­ pared with Their Stated Container Pref­ erence, 335 Households, Cleveland Area, 1958 ...... 142

86 Households Using Various Containers Com­ pared with Their Stated Container Pref­ erence, 296 Households, Dayton Area, 1958 ...... 143

xii INTRODUCTION

In 195h a project entitled "An Analysis of Milk Dis­

tribution Systems" was initiated by the Ohio Agricultural

Experiment Station. Preliminary findings pertaining to

eight Ohio Markets have been published^ and analysis of

the original findings is continuing. The basic hypothesis

in the study was that consumer milk purchases in the ag­

gregate do not vary significantly between markets using

different milk distribution systems. Some differences

considered were the source of purchase (store purchase or

home delivery), the size of container used (fractional

quart, quart or multi-quart), and the retail pricing of

milk.

The resulting analysis indicated that there was a

significant difference in per capita milk consumption

^■The eight markets included in the study are Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton, Ironton, Toledo and Youngstown. Published results appear in:

aMitchell, Glen H. and Baumer, Elmer P., An Interim Report on Milk Marketing Distribution Systems In Ohio. ftesearcE”Circular 29, Onio Agricultural Experiment 3ta- tion, Wooster, Ohio, March, 1956. ^Mitchell, Glen H. and Baumer, Elmer F., A Progress Report on Selected Aspects of Four Ohio Milk Distribution flyaterns, Research Circular Ij!?, Ohio Agricultural Experi­ ment Station, Wooster, Ohio, March, 1957. cMitchell, Glen H., Consumer Preference Toward Vari­ ous Milk Containers in Eight Ohio Markets. Mimeo. A.fe. 2H9# Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster, Ohio, April, 1958.

1 between the various Ohio markets,2#^ The highest per capita purchase of the eight markets existed In Youngstown with 1.009 pints per capita per day whereas the lowest was found In Ironton with .763 pints per capita per day. It

Is Important to note however that Irontbn's per capita con­ sumption was still 3*0 percent above the national average.

Cleveland and Dayton were practically identical with .915 pints, respectively.

Not only did differences exist between markets but also within the Individual markets. Recognition and analy­ sis of the intra-market differences with appropriate inter­ market comparisons Is continuing as a phase of the origin­ al study.

Since the original survey was completed in 1955# many changes have occurred both in the markets and within the individual consuming units. For example# the availability and use of the gallon Jug has become more widespread and milk has been made available at a wider range of retail prices. Competitive action called "milk price war" by the newspapers developed in some of the markets under study.

p ^Mitchell, Glen H. and Baumer# Elmer F«# An Interim Report on Milk Marketing Distribution Systems Tn 6hio. nesearcE""Circular 29# Ohio Agricultural Experiment &ta- tlon# Wooster# Ohio# March# 1956# p. 11.

^Mitchell, Glen H. and Baumer# Elmer F.# A Progress Report on Selected Aspects of Four Ohio Milk Distribution ays terns THReaearch Circular Ij2, Ohio Agricultural Experi­ ment Station# Wooster# Ohio# March# 1957# p* 9* 3

In view of the fact that the household may be consid­

ered as a living organism, the age composition within each household will have changed since 1955* Also, during this period many households may have shifted to a different in­

come status* The emphasis given to source of milk pur­

chase by consumers may have altered. In general therefore,

adjustments and shifts either endogenous or exogenous may have occurred within Individual households or else external

to the household but within the Individual market* With

this in mind, the question to be answered Is "What influ­ ence did these changes have upon consumer milk purchases?"

Thus, this Investigation of the milk consumption habits of a specific group of consumers at two points in time was originated*

Importance to the Dairy Industry

Marketing is a dynamic process. In the oligopolistic structure In which dairy firms operate, innovations are continually being made In order to attract new customers and in order to hold the firms relative position in the market* In the long run, innovations will be adopted by marketing agencies only if they are acceptable to consumers and are profitable to the firms*

Competition forces continued evaluation of decisions and practices by management of the marketing agencies. As more facts and dependent relationships are Identified, k management decisions may become more refined and thus

savings occur to be ultimately shared either with the

consumer and/or the producer, depending upon the supply-

demand relationship at the given time. Ultimately, the consumer is the main beneficiary. One of the goals of the study presented here is to assist in identifying the factors important to the dairy industry in its efforts to maximize consumption when the factors are allowed to change with time. 5 REVIEW OP PREVIOUS STUDIES

Numerous studies have been devoted to identifying and analyzing factors which affect the demand for dairy products. Swope^ in 1956 summarized findings of research reported in J4.I different publications. Results which

Swope identified as "dealing with the human consumption of fluid milk, with emphasis on consumption of milk as a bev­ erage ."

In his presentation Swope divided his material into three basic divisions:

I Level of Fluid Milk Consumption

II Levels of Fluid Milk Consumption Among Population Groups

III Reasons for Individual Variations in Milk Con­ sumption

The pertinent results stripped of superflous material were handled in a way which allows the reader some chance to judge for himself.

In summary, Swope wrote,

"Average per capita consumption of fluid milk In the United States was 299 pounds per year, or 0.76 pints per day, in 1951;. About one-half of the people fifteen years and over drank milk on an average day, according to the most recent national survey; however, the proportion of people who drink milk has been shown to vary greatly by dif­ ferent surveys.

^Swope, Daniel A., Factors Associated with Level of Fluid Milk Consumption. A. E. and R, S. #3 , Agricultural Experiment Station, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, March, 1956. "About three-fourths of the fluid milk pur­ chased by the average family is used for drinking More of the men than of the women are milk drink­ ers and men drink a larger quantity of milk than that consumed by women. Milk consumption is greater among children than among adults; however many children abandon the habit of milk drinking between the ages of 10 and 15 years, and are not likely to resume. Over one-fourth of the adults believe that adults need less milk than children need.

"Milk drinking is less prevalent among negro people than amohg white people. This accounts, in part, for the fact that milk consumption is lower among people in the South than among the population of the North and Vest. People who live in the open country drink more milk than do the small town and urban residents.

"Milk consumption increases rapidly from the lowest Income to low-middle income families but varies little among the higher Income families.

"Persons of higher educational levels con­ sume more milk than those with less education.

"Per capita milk consumption is lower In large families than in small families among the low Income group, but family size has little relationship to milk consumption in higher in­ come groups.

"People drink milk mostly because they con­ sider it to be a health aid or because they like it. Most of those who are not milk drinkers dislike milk or prefer some other beverage.

- - - "Some non-drinkers abstain from milk drinking because of some physiological intoler­ ance. Many people, particularly women, restrict milk drinking because they believe milk Is fattening. - - -

"Most people drink the amount of milk they desire, and do not greatly change the amount con­ sumed if the price of milk changes. Low income families adjust milk consumption more readily to changes in price than do medium or high income families. 7

"It appears that milk is not so readily available as are most other beverages commonly used. People drink more milk where it is more available, as in the home, school cafeterias, and factories where milk vending machines are installed.

"Many unexpressed reasons for drinking milk or for not drinking It may possibly be traced psychological, sociological, or cultural factors. Some people drink milk as a habit; others do not drink it because they have established a habit of drinking a competing beverage. Persons who were compelled to drink milk in their childhood are frequently among the non-drinkers of milk.

"More women than men select their beverages, including milk, according to the beverages used by other family members and friends in social groups.

"Undoubtedly there are other Influences that bear upon Individual milk drinking habits; however, this report has been limited to those variables that have undergone investigation In the past."

Another review of research findings prior to 1950 is found in a bulletin by Collins.^ Swope and Collins have basically reviewed the literature up to 195^. Specific references from the literature covered by them will be cited later in the text as they apply. Also, the complete bibliography from both Swope and Collins Is included in the bibliography of this study to aid readers who may be

Interested in references not specifically cited in this study.

'’Collins, W.E., Factors Affecting the Demand for Fluid Milk, AE 2770, College of Agriculture, University of Illi­ nois, Urbana, Illinois, December, 1950. 8

Several other studies which the author has reviewed

were not Included by either Swope or Collins, A brief

summary of these are Included here.

Rinear^ Interviewed 1*013 families In metropolitan

New Jersey during March* April and May* 191+1 - It was

found that

" - - - there Is a direct relation between the amount of fresh milk and other dairy prod­ ucts consumed and the family Income* The con­ sumption of fresh milk tends to increase as the family income Increases from $*>00 to $2 *5 0 0 ,

"On the average* adults In families without children consume more fresh milk than adults In families with children. In general, the Informa­ tion obtained In this study indicates that grow­ ing children of families with low Incomes are not consuming enough milk to maintain satisfactory standards of nutrition.

"When the consumers were questioned regarding the desirability of quantity discounts and larger store differentials* a large proportion of those who were In favor of these methods had Incomes below $1*500. Also* they estimated that they would Increase their consumption of fresh milk more than any of the other groups.n

During the years 1914-7* 1914-8 and 191*9, Brlnegar? stud­

ied the effect of changes in Income and price on milk con­

sumption. The data were obtained from a community in

^Rinear, Earl H., Consumption of Milk and Some Other Dairy Products in Metropolitan New Tersev. Bull.etin 7(52, Hew Jersey Agricultural Experiment fetation* Rutgers Uni­ versity* New Brunswick* New Jersey* October* 19i*2. ?Brlnegar, Oeorge K., Effect of Changes In Income and Price on Milk Consumption, bulletin 2«b, Storrs Agricul­ tural Experiment fetation* University of Connecticut* Storrs* Connecticut* July* 1951* 9

eastern Connecticut, Checks were made to verify Its suit­

ability for a study emphasizing short-run and long-run con­

sumer response to Income change.

Changes In consumption of fluid milk were studied on

the basis of amounts of milk purchased in the four-week periods before and after a change in the price of milk.

Milk sold from stores was priced at the same level as home delivered during periods of the study. Data on pur­

chases were obtained by interview with 123 households sup­ plemented with data obtained from route books of the milk dealers.

The price of milk changed on the following dates:

April 1, I9I4.8 - prices Increased from 21^ to 22^ per quart

September 16, 19^8 - price Increased from 22^ to 2 3 *5^ par quart

March 1 , 191+9 - price decreased from 23«5^ to 2 2 .5^ per quart

The response in milk consumption to a change In price in all three periods is summarized in Table 1, 10

Table 1

Estimated Short-Run Price Elasticity of Demand for Fluid Milk in a Community in Eastern Connecticut for Three Periods in 191*8 and 191*9

Price Elasticity Period Price Change of Demand

(1) April 1914-8 A.of • 72 (2 ) September 19I4-8 A.si .38 (3) March 191*9 -1 .0 < • 32

Source: George K. Brlnegar, Bulletin 260# Storrs Agri­ cultural Experiment Station, Storrs, Connecti­ cut,

Brlnegar states :

"Reasons why the consumption response follow­ ing the increase in price on April 1, 191*8 was greater than the response to the Increase In price on September 16, 191*8 were not apparent. Neither was there any apparent reason for Increases In price to curtail consumption to a greater degree than decreases in price Increased milk consumption.

"The short-period response to price found in this study in eastern Connecticut suggests a considerable range of variation in the consumer response to a price change.

"In summary, this study reports a somewhat greater short-run response of milk consumption to price than has usually been found in other studies. Of the people interviewed, 53 percent knew the price of milk, 23 percent thought they knew but stated an Incorrect price, and 21* per­ cent did not profess to know the price. The groups which knew the most about price adjusted their purchases of fluid milk following price changes by a greater amount than the group know­ ing the least about price. When the price changed, most households did not change their milk order but those that did made drastic ad­ justments. Following a one-cent-per-quart price Increase on April 1, 191*8, for example, 89 per­ cent of the households did not change their milk purchases, but the 11 percent that did, decreased 11

their orders by an average of 25 percent. Thus appears that individual households tend to either make a major or no response to price change•"

Estimates of the Income elasticity of demand were com­ puted for two-person households with the result of a .1+2 for the long-run Income elasticity of demand. Attempts te estimate the Income elasticity of demand for fluid milk by the following procedures were unsatisfactory:

1 . all households by per capita Income groups

2 . all households by household Income groups

3 . households consisting of three, four, five and

six persons.

"The failure of these procedures to yield in­ come elasticities within the expected range, ex­ cept for two-person households, is explained on the basis of the positive correlation between milk consumption and number of children and the negative correlation between Income and number of children. Because of these facts, larger samples would not be expected to give meaningful results with the groupings used. If a sufficient number of schedules had been obtained to set up additional sub-classes of households, positive relationships between milk consumption and Income would have been expected. "6

Additional sections in Brlnegar are devoted to appli­ cation of the findings to milk pricing and economic analy­ sis .

8 Ibid. 12

o Helmberger and Koller studied quantity discount

pricing for fluid milk In a survey of 1 , 198 Minneapolis

housewives* They found that 70 percent of the consumers

favored a 10^ per quart quantity discount. Opposing It

were 12 percent while 18 percent were Indifferent. The

survey Indicated that the number of home delivery customers

would Increase about I4. percent and the volume of home de­

livery sales would Increase about 15 percent In response

to a larger discount. In this way the cost of service

would be more equitably distributed to the customers and

larger deliveries encouraged which should result In great­

er efficiency in home delivery service.

^Helmberger, John D. and Koller, E. Fred, Quantity Discount Pricing of Fluid Milk. Bulletin I4.3 3 , Agricultural Ebcperlment Station, flnlversiiy of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, March, 1956. OBJECTIVES

The broad objective of this study was to determine

the effect of changes in various marketing programs and

procedures on the retail sales of fluid milk.

The following sections will lay out precisely the

nature and magnitude of many of these changes from the

original survey in 1955 to the survey in the latter part

of 1958 in the Cleveland market and early 1959 for the

Dayton market.

Data were also analyzed to determine what factors

were related to changes in consumption patterns. The pri­

mary factors examined in this analysis were: retail milk

prices, household income, family size and age composition,

and possible Interrelationships of these factors.

Some data were also collected and analyzed relating

to consumers stated preferences for various types and

sizes of milk containers and the changes that occurred in

these preferences with the introduction of lower priced, multiunit containers in the markets.

13 PROCEDURE

The original survey schedules were available for the

7,1*15 households surveyed In 195? In eight Ohio markets.

In order to keep the current project within manageable

limits considering the time and funds available, it was

decided to study two metropolitan areas, Cleveland and

Dayton. These two areas were chosen for several reasons.

First, the per capita consumption figures as determined

by the 1955 survey were not significantly different. Sec­

ond, the marketing practices in these markets had changed

rather drastically: gallon containers had been introduced

and promoted quite vigorously In each market; half-gallon

containers had been used to a greater extent; and relative­

ly low priced milk was readily available. The original

random samples for Cleveland and Dayton, 2,003 and 1,000

households respectively, were stratified by census Income.

Rlehl had Indicated a much smaller sample would have been

sufficient and still yield meaningful results.10 Since the

objective In this case was not to be representative of the

entire metropolitan population but to be representative of

John Gordon Rlehl, Methodology and Statistical Analysis Employed in the Akron Market Milk distribution &tudy. fa. 3. Thesis. The Ohio State University, dolumbus, SHIoT 1955.

Ik 15

the sample households available from the previous study,

approximately three hundred households were drawn at ran­

dom from each of the original samples. New telephone num­

bers and street addresses were secured from the most re­

cent directories. Whenever one of the new samples could

not be located, a replacement was drawn from the original

sample.

With the emphasis placed upon changes of Internal household composition and external actions and reactions,

the sample was not required to be truly representative of

the metropolitan area population. In fact It could not

be considered representative of the market since house­ holds formed following the 195U-55 survey would, by the

nature of this study, be eliminated.

The basic reason for randomly choosing households from the 1955 schedules was to provide a cross-section of households and then obtain comparative lnforamtlon from this group for 1956. The Cleveland households were tele­ phoned during the first week of November 1958» while the

Dayton households were interviewed by telephone during the first week of February 1959. Throughout this thesis the former study will be known as the 1955 study and the later one as the 1958 study. The same telephone Interview pro­ cedure was used as during the prior survey and with the exception of changing a few questions at the end of the 16

interview, the survey questions were the same. A more

complete analysis of the reliability of this method of

data collection may be found in Telephone Interviewing,^

The interviewer was cautioned not to remind the re­

spondent of the prior contact three or four years earlier.

The information was available for the prior period and all

that was desired from the interviewee was the current an­

swer to questions asked. Comparison of answers for the

two periods was basic to this analysis.

In addition to the 335 questionnaires completed in

Cleveland and 296 completed in Dayton, an entirely new

sample of three hundred households was drawn from the

Dayton metropolitan area street address telephone direct­

ory to be representative of the area population. This new

sample is compared with the 1953 results of the sample drawn from the previous survey.

The results obtained in this study should be reviewed

in light of the marketing practices and prevailing milk and dairy product prices within the markets studied. Whether or not other markets would experience similar changes might be dependent upon several factors such as previous as well as present price levels of dairy products, amount of publicity given changes in prices, intensity of compe­ tition, employment and income levels and many other factors.

llMitchell, Glen H,, Telephone Interviewing. A. E. Mimeo Bulletin 279, Agr. Exp. Sea., Wooster, Ohio, Nov., 1957. DESCRIPTION OP MARKETS

Markets as used In the study includes the city proper

and the populated area surrounding the city. It does not

include all areas considered as the marketing area for fed­

eral milk marketing orders. For the Cleveland market this

Included the city proper and suburban cities, villages and

communities comprising the area known as Metropolitan

Cleveland. The Dayton survey Included the city proper

plus suburban villages and communities which make up Metro­

politan Dayton. Springfield was not Included as part of

the Dayton market In this study.

Using this definition of a market, the original

Cleveland survey represented over one and one-third million

population while the original Dayton survey represented

about three hundred fifty thousand. ^ A relatively high

level of employment in a diversified industry existed in

both areas during both studies. Federal milk marketing

orders have been in existence in Cleveland since 19i|6 and

in Dayton since 19^5* No State dairy marketing regulations were in effect during either period of study. Quality of milk was regulated In both markets by local health depart­ ments and Grade A ordinances were in effect in both cities.

12U. S. Census, 1950.

17 18

In the Cleveland market in November 1958, there were

75^9 producers who sent 127»509#'651f pounds of milk into the market (as defined by the Federal Order). In the Day­ ton marieet in February 1959# there were 2,050 producers sending 27#211j.,8l6 pounds to the market. Class I price to producers for the month of the survey was $3*87 in 1955 and in 195$# in Cleveland. The Dayton Class I price to producers for the month of the survey was $ij..09 in 1955 and $lj..l8 in 1958. Premiums were not generally in exist­ ence in either of these markets except that milk from bulk tanks netted producers a premium of approximately ten cents per hundred weight.

In November 1955# 79 percent of milk received from producers was classified as Class I in Cleveland and for

Dayton in February 1955# 7ij- percent of milk from producers was Class I. In November 1958# 72 percent was Class I in Cleveland and In February 1959# 86 percent was Class I in Dayton.

There were 72 handlers selling milk both wholesale and retail in the Cleveland market and 22 handlers in the

Dayton market in 1955* In 1958 there were $6 handlers in

Cleveland and 20 in Dayton.

During the period 1955 to 1958 some significant changes were made in the mode of milk distribution and milk pricing in both of these markets. Increased emphasis 19 was placed on the sale of milk through stores and the use

of multi-unit containers, principally the gallon and half

gallon.

In the Cleveland market ohe significant change from

1955 was the availability of milk In gallon containers In

Cleveland proper. In 1955* gallon containers were availa­ ble only in the suburbs and at that time only about 5 per­

cent of the milk was sold In gallon jugs. By 1953 this container was available throughout the market as a unit priced competitively with the gallon containers. In other words, dairy stores sold milk In gallon containers but chain and independent food stores were competing by sell­ ing milk in the half gallon at near the gallon price. It should be noted that although prices per unit increased from 1955 to 1956, prices to consumers might well have been lower in 1956 due to the availability of the relative­ ly low-priced gallon unit. 20

Table 2

Range of Published Prices During Week of the Surveys for Homogenized Standardized 3*5^ Milk in Two Ohio Markets According to Size and Type of Container and Source of Purchase 1955 and 1958

Market Container Cleveland "Carton Size Type. Source i « j :. 1955...

Gallon Glass Home 69-73* Gallon Glass Store 68* 58* 5U-67* Half Gal. Glass Home U3* 37* ^0-1*2 * Half Gal. Glass Store 39* 31-38* Half Gal. Paper Home -- 37* Half Gal. Paper Store 31-38* JL 3 ^ 1 * Quart Glass Home 20-21* z\i Quart Glass Store 19-22* 1 9 - 2 V Quart Paper Home — 20-21* 2 U Quart Paper Store 20-22^ 19-22*

Source: U.S.D.A. Fluid Milk and Cream Report. Quantity discount programs were In effect In the

Cleveland market but some variations existed In the pro­

grams used by various handlers. Discounts of one cent per

quart for home-delivered customers were generally availa­ ble to those who used 75 quarts or more per month. In

some Instances additional quantity discounts were being made, however evidence pointed to a general lack of knowl­

edge of such extra discounts by consumers.

Promotional activity in this market was generally directed toward the low-priced products available at the stores. Little if any mention was ever made in advertise­ ments of the price of milk for home delivery or quantity 21

discounts on home delivered milk. Pull page newspaper ad­

vertisements purchased by some milk processors generally

pointed out the relatively low price of milk in stores in

Cleveland and surrounding markets. There were few front page articles referring to the retail price of milk during

this period. The usual type of radio and television spot

advertisements were purchased by various processors and

producers during the period under study.

Milk in Cleveland was delivered to homes on an e very- other-day basis (including Sunday) principally in glass

containers. Paper containers were being discouraged on home delivered routes. Union contracts with deliverymen

called for higher commission on milk in paper containers

than for milk in glass containers. There was a de­ posit required on gallon containers. With the introduc­ tion of the gallon container at dairy stores, other food stores encouraged the purchase of milk in half gallon glass containers. These facts help explain the relatively low volume of milk in paper in Cleveland.

In Dayton, milk was available home delivered In gal­ lon jugs. One firn set up a special delivery system for the gallon jug milk. Under this system, milk was deliv­ ered to the consumers only twice a week. Gallons were available from dairy stores at an extremely low price for milk in Ohio. Chains and other food stores were 22 generally competing with the gallon container price by pricing their half gallon paper containers at two for the price considered to be competitive with the price of a gallon jug. More emphasis seemed to be placed on the fact that milk In gallon quantities was being sold rather than to compete strictly on price. Another low-fat dairy prod­ uct (2/o btf.) was priced at 3 for $1.00, i.e. 3 half gal­ lon paper.

The use of glass containers was not receiving primary

emphasis In Dayton. It appeared that each distributer was attempting to use his milk bottling or packaging equip­ ment to best advantage. Paper containers provided strong competition for the gallon jugs In the market. Milk prices had dropped to extremely low levels, falling to lj.9^ per gallon at one time between the two surveys.

News had been published relative to the "milk price war" in Dayton but no front page headlines were found.

The normal kind of radio and television programs were also

sponsored by various dairy firms in the Dayton market. DAYTON SAMPLES COMPARED

As was mentioned previously, in addition to inter­

viewing the 296 households who had been contacted in 1955#

a new sample of three hundred households was drawn and in­

terviewed. This was done for one primary reason. It was

known that the requirements of a household to be included

in the survey of those previously contacted limited the

application of the findings to some degree. Thus, a new

sample was drawn in order to determine if there was any

significant difference between the results of the survey

in which the opportunity for a household to be selected

was highly restricted and one in which each household in

the Dayton metropolitan area had an equal opportunity to

be included.

In Table 3, the total milk purchases per week for

the two groups are listed. Mere inspection of the data presented is enough to indicate that the differences are

rather small. With the standard deviations greater in magnitude than one-half the value of the means and a

difference between the two means of only .ij.2, it was not necessary to apply a statistical test to see that the means were not statistically different. For total milk purchases then, the old group basically was representa­ tive of the market.

23 24

Table 3

Comparison of Selected Statistical Measures of Weekly Milk Purchases per Household for 296 Old Survey and 300 New Survey Households, Dayton Metropolitan Area, 1958

Measure 1958 (Old) 1958 (new)

Number of Households 296 300 Range 0-46 quarts 0-37 quarts Median 6 quarts 8 quarts Mode 4 and 6 quarts 4 quarts Mean 10.1622 9.7400 Standard Deviation 8.4025 7.1053

Source: Original data and computations.

Another comparison of results of the old and new sam­ ples was made for dally per capita purchases per household

(Table 4). The same comments are appropriate here as In the case of total milk purchases per household. There were only minor differences in the results from the two groups and even without applying a test it can be said with con­ fidence that the arithmetic means are not significantly different. 25 Table I4.

Comparison of Selected Statistical Measures of Dally per Capita Purchases of Milk per Household for 296 Old Survey and 300 New Survey Households, Dayton Metropolitan Area, 1958

Measure______1958 (Old)______1958 (New)

Number of Households 296 300 Range 0.00-2.29 pints 0.00-2.86 pts< Median 0.76 pints 0.86 pints Mode 0.57 pints 0.57 pints Mean 0.62720 0.83557 Standard Deviation 0. Ij.2862 0.14-3559 Source: Original data and computations.

A check of Income group status reported by the two

groups reveals that the 296 old survey respondents had an

average household income of $5*686 In 1958 and the three

hundred new sample respondents had an average household

Income of $5*631 In 1958. This difference of only $57 or

approximately one percent between the two groups does not

appear significant.

Other comparisons of the two samples are shown In

Tables 5*6,7 and 8.

Table 5 Comparison of Weekly Milk Purchases by Source of Purchase for 296 Households (Old) and 300 Households (New), Dayton Metropolitan Area, 1959

29^ (Old) 300 (New) Source of Purchase Quantity Parent Quantity Percent

Store 1132 37.63 911 31.18 Home Delivery 1876 62.37 2011 68.82 Total 3008 100.00 2922 100.00 Source: Original data and computations. 26

A larger percent of the milk purchased by the (new) sample was home delivered than of the (old) sample.

Table 6

Comparison of Weekly Milk Purchases by Type of Container for 296 Households (Old) and 300 Households (New) Dayton Metropolitan Area, 1959

296 (Old) 300 (New) Type of Container Quantity Percent Quantity Percent

Glass 2,061 73.32 2,082 71*.33 Paper 750 26,68 719 25*67 Total 2,811 100.00 2,801 100.00 Source: Original data and computations.

Table 7

Comparison of Weekly Milk Purchases by Size of Container for 296 Households (Old) and 300 Households (New), Dayton Metropolitan Area, 1959

296 i01dj_ 300 (New) Size of Container Quantity Percent Quantity Percent

Gallon 992 35.29 1,032 36.61i Half-Gallon 883 31.Ill 982 35.06 Quart 936 33.30 787 28.10 Total 2,811 100.00 2,8 0 1 100.00 Source: Original data and computations. 27

Table 8

Compariaon of Weekly Milk Purchased by Type and Size of Container for 296 Households (Old) and 300 Households (New) Dayton Metropolitan Area, 1959

Type and Size a- -f # (Old) 300 (New) of Container Quantity Percent Quantity Percent

Gallon, glass 992 35.29 1,032 36.8k Half Gallon, glass 391 13.91 k30 15.35 Half Gallon, paper 1*92 17.50 552 19.71 Quart, glass 676 2k.12 620 22.1k Quart, paper 258 9 .1 8 167 5.96 Total 2,811 100.00 2,801 100.00 Source: Original data and computations.

With the exception of the difference between store and home deliveries In Table 5 the magnitude and relation­ ship of Items are quite congruous In nature. Closer In­ spection of the data Indicates a possible source of the variation In home delivery. Of the 1,032 quarts reported as purchased In gallon containers, some 606 or 59 percent were home delivered.

With such small differences In the results from the two samples, the general findings of this study assume more significance. It can now be said with more confidence that the findings not only represent a specific group In the population, but that they also seem to represent the popu­ lation. FINDINGS

This section Is primarily a presentation of summary

Information. Detailed analysis of these data will follow

in subsequent sections.

Two sets of tabulations are presented for each city.

The first set Is designed to show aggregative results of

the data from both cities. The second set is intended to

provide some Insight into the lntrs-household changes which

have occurred in the two markets from 1955 to 1958.

Total Milk Purchases Per Household

Average weekly milk purchases per household did not

vary significantly from 1955 to 1958 in either Cleveland

~ or Dayton. Tables 9 and 10 present certain statistical

measures of weekly milk purchases for the two areas. The

most significant observation may be that the range and

standard deviation for Dayton was larger in 1958 than in

1955 indicating that a few households become larger users

from 1955 to 1958. However, there is also an Indication

in the tables that a greater number of households were pur-

chasing less milk as indicated by the mode changing from

six to two for Cleveland and from six to a bi-model four

and six for Dayton. A frequency distribution of weekly

milk purchases is provided in Table 11 which also illus­

trates the increase in number of households at both the

28 29

upper and lower levels of total milk purchases. No de­

tailed analysis was carried out to explain this tendency

but it can be deduced that new households were restricted

by the nature of the sample in 1953 which means that gen­

erally either the houaeholds which were Included were still

Increasing in size or else they were decreasing. This

would result In the Increase in numbers at opposite ends

of the table.

Table 9

Selected Statistical Measures of Weekly Milk Purchases, 335 Households, Cleveland Ohio, 1955-1958

1950 ---- R 5 5 ----- Measure Lauarts) (quarts)

Range °-U5 0-1+8 Median 8 8 Mode 2 6 Arithmetic Mean 10.6567 10.561+2 Standard Deviation 8.7321+2 8.0573 Source: Original data and computations.

Table 10 Selected Statistical Measures of Weekly Milk Purchases, 296 Households, Dayton, Ohio 1955-1958

1958 , 1955 Measure (auarts) (auarts)

Range 0-1+6 0-33 Median 8 9 Mode 1+ and 6 6 Arithmetic Mean 10.1622 10.2331 Standard Deviation 8.1+025 6.7855 Source: Original data and computations• 30

Table 11

Distribution of 333 Cleveland and 296 Dayton Households, by Quantity of Milk Purchased Per Week for Use at Home, 1953-1958

Quantity of Cleveland Dayton Milk Per Week 1258 125S, 1 2 2 L (Quarts) No. % No. % Nol %

0-1 13 3.9 10 3.0 13 l*.l* 5 51 15.1 1*3 12.8 1*0 13.5 38 12.8 5-5 51 15.1 h 12.8 1*0 13.5 1*1 1 3 .9 6-7 56 13.7 52 15.6 15.2 1*9 16.5 8-9 29 8.7 37 11.0 1*1 13.9 30 10.1 10-11 20 6.0 17 5.1 5*1 21 7.1 12-13 16 h.8 31* 10.1 29 9 .8 27 9.1 1U-15 27 3.1 39 11.6 9 3 .0 25 8.1* 16-17 21* 7.2 8 2.1* 18 6 .1 15 5.1 18-19 7 2.1 8 2.U 7 2 .1* 12 !*.l 20-21 11 3.3 1*.2 10 3 .1* 12 l*.l 22-23 1 0.3 5 1*5 0 0 6 2.0 2k-25 11 b ? 6 1.8 11 3 .7 5 1.7 26 and over 28 8.5 19 5.7 19 6.1* 10 3.1* Total 335 100.0 335 1 0 0 .0 296 100.0 296 1 00 .0 Source: Original data and computations.

Per Capita Milk Purchases Per Household

Average dally per capita milk purchases did not change

significantly in either area from 1955 to 1958. In Cleve­

land for example, the average was .88 pints in 1955 and .89

pints in 1958. In the Dayton market the per capita con­

sumption was .85 in 1955 and .83 in 1958. It should be

noted that the per capita consumption figures used in these

tables refer to the milk used at home by the sample house­ holds in both periods. This explains the variation be­

tween the .914 or .915 average per capita consumption 31

computed from the original 1955 data and the .85 or .88

computed in this study. In both studies it was found that

additional milk amounting to approximately 5 percent of

total milk used at home was purchased outside the home

either at school, at work or when eating In a restaurant.

Table 12

Selected Statistical Measures of Per Capita Dally Purchases* 335 Households, Cleveland Ohio, 1955-1958

1958 1955 Measure (nlnts) (pints)

Range .00-1+. 00 .00-3.71 Median .86 .86 Mode .57 .57 Arithmetic Mean .890 .882597 Standard Deviation .523586 .516771+ Source: Original data and computations.

Table 13 Selected Statistical Measures of Per Capita Dally Milk Purchases, 296 Households, Dayton Ohio, 1955-1958

1958 1955 Measure (Dints) (pints)

Range 0.00-2.29 0.00-1.05 Median 0.76 0.86 Mode 0.57 0.86 Arithmetic Mean 0,827196 0.81+7531+ Standard Deviation 0.1+2862 0.1+31+77 Source: Original data and computations.

More than 60 percent of the households in both areas purchased less than one pint of milk per person per day during both time periods. More than one-third used less

than six tenths of a pint per person per day. Since one- 32 half pint is approximately equivalent to one glassful, this indicates the rather low utilisation of fluid milk within a sizeable number of households in the markets.

Table II4.

Distribution of 335 Cleveland and 296 Dayton Households by Dally Per Capita Per Household Milk Purchases, 1955-1958

t a a a a i

Capita 1958 1955 1958 T955 ' (pints) No. $ No. No. No. % 35 0.00-0.29 % 13.1 1 0 .14. & 1 1 .1 26 8 .8 0.30-0.59 68 2 0 .3 86 25.7 83 28.1 7k 21*. 9 0.60-0.89 83 21^.7 88 26.2 70 23.7 86 29.0 0.90-1.19 73 21.8 62 18.5 59 19.9 60 20.3 1.20-1.14-9 29 8.7 28 8,k 27 9.1 27 9.1 1.50-1.79 22 6.6 16 i*.a 16 5.1* 15 5.1 1.80-2.09 5 1.5 9 2.7 7 2.k 1* l.l* 2.10 & over 11 3.3 11 3.3 1 0.3 1* i.l* Total 335 100.0 335 100.0 296 100.0 296 100.0 Source: Original data and computations.

In the aggregate the households from the t wo areas did not change significantly In either average weekly milk purchase or average daily per capita milk purchases from

1955 to 1958. Source of Purchase

The 296 households in the Dayton area purchased

3*008 quarts of milk for home use in 1959 compared with

3,0114- In 1955* Purchases of milk for home use Increased from 3*539 quarts in 1955 to 3*570 quarts in 1958 for 335 households in the Cleveland area. Tables 15 and 16 show 33 the relationship between quantities store purchased with home deliveries for the two areas.

Table 1$

Weekly Milk Purchases by Source of Purchase, 296 Households, Dayton, Ohio, 1955 *nd 1956

1958 1955 Source of Purchase Quantity Percent Quantity Percent (qts.) (qts.)

Store 1132 37.633 595 19.714 Home Delivery 1876 62.367 2l\19 80.259

Total 3006 100.000 3014 100.000 Source: Original data and computations.

Table 16

Weekly Milk Purchases by Source of Purchase, 335 Households, Cleveland, Ohio, 1955 1956

1958 1 9 f E Source of Purchase Quantity Percent Quantity Percent (qts.) (qts.)

Store 1677 1*6.97 1356 38.32 Home Delivery 1893 53.03 _ 2163 61.68 Total 3570 100.00 3539 100.00 Source: Original data and computations.

Analysing these data from another approach the 296

Dayton households increased their purchases of milk from stores by 90 percent while at the same time home delivery purchases were decreased by 22 percent. For the Cleveland 3U market the respective figures were a 21+ percent Increase

in store purchases and a 13 percent decrease in home de­ livery. It is important to note that a corresponding decrease

in home delivery and Increase in store purchase occurred

in both areas and that a larger proportion was home de­

livered in both years In Dayton than in Cleveland. This

difference in source of purchase between the two cities may be partially explained by the fact that some dealers

In Dayton, in order to meet competition, were promoting such items as home delivered gallons on a twice-a-week schedule at a reduced price of 69 cents per gallon. This would tend to slow the shift from home delivery to store purchases.

T£>e of Container

Tables 17 and 18 present the relative quantities of milk purchased in paper and glass containers. In Dayton the quantity sold In paper and glass maintained the same proportion between the two periods while in Cleveland the quantity in glass increased while paper decreased. Al­ though no specific reason for this difference is identi­ fied here, it is suggested that in Cleveland the price competition was keenest for milk bottled in glass while

in Dayton the price competition was not restricted to the glass container. In Cleveland 61+.8£ of all store sales in 1958 were in glass while 63.5# of all store sales In Dayton were In glass. However for home delivered milk, only ap­ proximately 3# of the sales in Cleveland were In paper while in Dayton approximately 25# was sold In paper. Also significant here was the fact that In 1958, 21.5# of all milk home delivered was In gallon glass containers and 52# of all store sales were In this container. In Cleveland, only 19.1# of all store sales were sold In this container.

Table 17

Weekly Milk Purchases by Type of Containers, 296 Households, Dayton, Ohio, 1955 *nd 1958

1958 1955 Type of Container Quantity Percent Quant1tyiy Fe F« rcent (qtsYJ (qts.)

Glass 2061 73.319 2051*. 73.858 Paper 750 26.681 727 26.142 ______Total 2811 100.000 2781 100.000 Source: Original data and computations.

Table 18 Weekly Milk Purchases by Type of Container, 335 Households, Cleveland, Ohio, 1955 and 1958

1958 1955 Type of Container Quantity Percent Quantity Percent (qts.)(qts.) Glass 2856 83.78 2332 69.14-9 Paper 553_____16.22_____ 102li 30.51 Total 31*09 100.00 3356 100.00

Source: Original data and computations 36

Size of Container

Multiple unit containers Increased In use to a great­ er extent and represented a larger share of the milk pur­ chases In Dayton than In Cleveland, Tables 19 and 20 com­ pare quantity of milk purchased by size of container.

Table 19

Weekly Milk Purchases by Size of Container, 296 Households, Dayton, Ohio, 1955 and 1956

;y^Percent Quantity^! < tqts,) (qts.) Gallon 992 35.290 1.151 Half Gallon 883 31.412 d ! 19.633 Quart 936 33.298 2 ,2 0 3 79.216 Total 2,811 100.000 2,781 100.000

Source: Original data and computations e

Table 20

Weekly Milk Purchases by Size of Container, 335 Households, Cleveland, Ohio, 1955 and 1958

1958 1955 Size of Container Quantity Percent Quantity Percent (qts.) (qts,J

Gallon 320 9.39 116 3.46 Half Gallon 1,726 50.63 1,017 30.30 Quart 1,363 39.98 2 ,2 2 3 6 6 .2 4

Total 3,409 100,00 3,356 100.00

Source: Original data and computations An extreme change occurred In Dayton, where about 35

percent of milk purchases for home use were in the gallon

size container. Since gallons were home delivered in Day­

ton and not in Cleveland, this may partially explain the

differences between the two areas. Inspection of the data

seems to indicate many households in Dayton were using

gallon containers home delivered, while Cleveland consumers

did not have this alternative and therefore purchased rela­

tively more milk in half-gallons. Of the 992 quarts sold

in gallons in Dayton, ij.01* quarts or lj.1 percent was home

delivered. Another factor which had some Influence on the proportion in gallons was the price relationships in the

two areas. Gallons were 69 or 73 cents home delivered and

cents at the store In Dayton, while in Cleveland this

container was priced at 66 cents at the store only. Half- gallons were 1+2 or I*3 cents home delivered and from 32 to lj.0 cents from stores in Dayton, while in Cleveland they were generally I4.3 cents home delivered and from 2If to I4.3

cents from stores. Quarts in both areas were priced from

22 to 2lf cents.

In Tables 21 and 22 container type and size are com­ bined for comparisons. 36

Table 21

Weekly Milk Purchases by Type and Size of Container, 296 Households, Dayton, Ohio, 1955 *nd 1956

Size and Type 1956_____ 1955 of Container______Quantity PercenF Suantity Percent qts,(qts.) Gallon Glass 992 35*289 32 1.151 Half Gallon Glass 391 13*910 214 7*695 Half Gallon Paper 492 17.503 332 11.938 1 Quart Glass 678 24*120 1,906 65.012 1 Quart Paper 258 9.178 395 14*204 Total 2,811 100.000 2,761 100.00 Source: Original data and computations.

Table 22

Weekly Milk Purchases by Type and Size of Container, 335 Households, Cleveland, Ohio, 1955 and 1958

Size and Type _ 1958 1955 of Container Quantity Peroent Quant1ty Percent (qts.) (qts.)

Gallon Glass 320 9.39 116 3.46 Half Gallon Glass 1,410 41.36 379 11.29 Half Gallon Paper 316 9.27 638 19.01 1 Quart Glass 1,126 33.03 !,837 54.74 1 Quart Paper 237 6.95 386 11.50

Total 3,409 100.00 3,356 100.00 Source: Original data and computations•

Other than the Increases In multi-unit containers the basic difference between the two areas Is the Increased use of half-gallon paper containers In Dayton, while their use decreased In Cleveland. Again this Is probably due to more emphasis by some handlers In Dayton In promoting 39

their paper container to meet competition. Paper half-

gallons were being advertised at three units for one dol­

lar or 33/1 /3 cents per half-gallon previous to and during

the period of this survey.

Size of Household

Size of household is a factor which may influence the

quantity of milk purchased. Table 23 provides information

relative to changes in household size within the sample

households from 1955 to 1958* The most significant shift

occurred in the relative increase in the number of house­

holds having only one member. However, these households

in 1958 still comprised a small percent of the total num­

ber of persons in both markets. Decreases occurred in household size three and four In both cities and these

changes counterbalanced each other. In Cleveland the

average household size was 3.3 9 persons in 1955 and 3.26

persons in 1958. Dayton households averaged 3.39 in 1955

and 3.33 in 1958. k O

Table 23

Number of Households by Size, 296 Dayton Area and 335 Households, Cleveland Area, 1955 and 1958

Cleveland Household 1958 ---- F355— T 5 9 . "125 p. Size No. % No. % No. % No.

1 27 8.1 17 5.1 16 1+ i.l+ 2 119 35.5 108 32.2 97 32. S ioli 35.2 3 55 16.£ 65 19.1+ 59 19.0 61 20.6 k ?8 17.3 77 2 3 .0 65 22.0 70 23.6 5 kS 13.fc 1+5 13.1*. 33 11.1 33 11.1 6 19 5.7 11 3-3 4 1+.7 11+ 1+.7 Over 6 12 3.6 12 3.6 12 14-. 1 10 3 4 Total 335 100.0 335 100.0 296 100.0 296 100.0 Source: Original data and computations.

Individuals by Age Groups

The age composition of the household is another Im­ portant factor influencing per capita consumption. In order to determine the shifts which occurred In age of In­ dividuals In the two san^les, the distribution of Individ­ uals by age groups is presented in Table Changes gen­ erally occurred at the same points and in the same direc­ tions in both cities from 1955 to 1958.

Individuals under 10 years of age accounted for about one-fifth of the sample populations in both years. Those between 10 and 20 years of age Increased in number slight­ ly, moving from Ilf. to 16 percent of the total. Those be­ tween 21 and 50 decreased from 50 to Ifif. percent, while those over 50 Increased as a percent of the total In both 1*1

areas* The number of Individuals represented In Cleveland

had declined 3*5 percent from 1,137 In 195$ to 1,097 in

1956* In Dayton this same change amounted to only 1*2

percent from 1,002 In 1955 to 990 persons in 1958.

Table 2!+

Number of Individuals by Age Groups, 296 Dayton Area and 335 Cleveland Area Households, 1955-1958

Cleveland Dayton 1958 1955 1958 . 1 Ace Group Vo, No. % No. _ No. Under 10 216 19.7 230 20.2 200 20*2 198 19.8 10 - 20 176 16*0 151* 13.5 I61i 16.6 139 13.9 21 - 50 1*75 1*3.3 578 50.9 1*1*0 !*!*.!* 510 50.8 Over 50 230 21.0 175 15.1* 186 18.8 155 15.5

Total 1097 100.0 1137 100*0 990 100.0 1002 100.0

Source: Original data and computations*

Household Income

Each respondent was asked to select the income group­

ing which represented the aggregate take-home pay of mem­ bers of the household. Assistance was provided where necessary to convert weekly or monthly information to the annual Income group classification* For some unexplained

reason, the response to the question was much better in

Dayton with only about 8 percent not answering for both

interviews, while in Cleveland approximately 20 percent of

the respondents did not know or would not answer the U2

Income question. Inspection of Table 25 yields one gen­

eral observation that household Incomes increased from

1955 to 1956 in both areas although about the same number

remained in the lower two groups.

Table 25

Number of Households by Income Groups, 296 Dayton Area and 335 Cleveland Area Households, 1955-1956

Cleveland Davton Group . FT5T % HoT" % HST" Ho. % #1000-2500 10.1 30 9.0 16 5.1* 19 6.k 2501-1*000 56 16.7 61 18.2 26 12.2 31* 11.5 Uooi-5500 61 18.3 62 2k .5 81 27.3 100 33.8 5501-7000 55 16.1* 61 18.2 7? 21*. 7 61* 21.6 7001& over 60 17.9 12.8 66 22.3 57 19.3 Not Given 69 20.6 58 17.3 21* 8.1 22 7.1* Total 335 100.0 335 100.0 296 100.0 296 100.0 Source: Original data and computations,

Using a mid-point value of $8,500 for the 7,001 and over group in computing an arithmetic mean of income gives

the following results.

Mean Annual Income Percentage Per Household Change 1958 1955 1955 to 1958

Cleveland Area ♦5,207 #5,007 lOlt.. o< Dayton Area 5,688 5,1*86 103.7*

It appears that the relative increase in income was approximately the same in both areas although the actual U3

level of household Income was higher in Dayton than in

Cleveland.*3

Container Preference

In 1958 one out of each eight households In Dayton

answered "gallon Jug" when asked what container they would prefer If the price of milk was the same in all containers.

This was by far the most extreme change apparent in Table

26. At the other extreme was the uniformity displayed in preference for the sIngle quart paper container which was

selected by approximately one household out of five in both cities. Single quart glass was chosen less frequent­ ly in both markets in 1958 than in 1955 while two-quart glass gained In preference. Preferences for two-quart paper decreased in Cleveland, but remained rather constant

In Dayton.

It should be pointed out here that the proportion of households preferring various containers might be quite different from the proportion of fluid milk sold in these containers due primarily to the varying sizes of the con­ tainers. Presumably, those households who prefer gallon jugs use more milk per household than those who prefer single quart containers.

^3This checks closely with Income as given in Sales Management for 1958. This shows Cleveland Income as $5,561 and Dayton to be $5*614.0 per Consumer Spending Unit. 44

Table 26

Number of Households by Cohtalner Preference Reported In 296 Dayton Area and 335 Cleveland Area Households, 1955 and 1958

Cleveland Dayton Container 1958 1 1958 _ 1 Preference NoT % tio. _ * NO. % No. r Gallon 10 3.0 5 1.5 38 12.8 6 2 .0 &Gal. Glass 91 27.2 8.7 44 14.9 16 ♦Gal. Paper 36 10.7 68 20.3 ko 13.5 1 4 .5 1 Qt. Glass 125 144 42.9 107 36.1 164 5 5 .4 1 Qt.Paper 53 15.8 57 1 7 .0 57 19.3 60 2 0 .3 No Response 20 6 .0 32 9.6 10 3.4 7 2 .4

Total 335 100.0 335 1 0 0 .0 296 100 .0 296 100.0 Source: Original data and computations.

Reasons for Buying Milk from a Store When respondents indicated during the Interview that they had purchased all or a portion of their milk from a store, they were asked why they purchased milk from a store. While "run out," indicating the store was used to supplement home delivery, was the most Important reasons given in 1955* it appears that in 1958 store purchases were more planned as the source of purchase since "economy" and "convenience" were the two most important reasons given in both cities in 1958. Such reasons as "work,"

"buy small quantity," "cash payment" and "irregular pur­ chase" were given with about the same frequency in 1958 as they were in 1955* 1+5

Table 27 Households by Reported Reason for Buying Milk from a Store, 296 Dayton Area and 335 Cleveland Area Households, 1955 and 1956

Reason for Purchasing Cleveland Dayton

Milk from 1950 V 1950 . _ 1955.

Store Nof _ No. % No. Q * No.

Convenience 1+1+ 13.1 73 21.8 31+ 11.5 1+5 15.2 Work 7 2.1 1+ 1.2 3 1 .0 11 3.7 Run Out 28 8.1* 83 21+.8 29 9.6 91 30.7 Buy Small Quantity 28 8.1+ 11+ 1+.2 17 5.7 21+ 8.1 Economy 55 16.1+ 23 6.7 37 12.5 9 3.0 Cash Payment 11 3.3 12 3.6 2 .7 5 1.7 Irregular Purchase 10 3*0 19 5.7 15 5.1 12 l+.l No Response 152 1+5.3 156 1+7.2 159 53.7 11+1 1+7.6 Total Households 335 100.0 335* 115.2 296 100.0 296* lll+.l

*3um of individual reasons does not equal total since some households gave more than one reason in 1955* Source: Original data and computations. ANALYSIS

In the previous section, some summary tables were pre­

sented to show the change or lack of change, as the case

might be, for various factors considered. In this section

attention is focused on the individual households and the

changes which occurred therein.

In this section a detailed analysis will be made of

the aggregate data already presented as well as signifi­

cant factors affecting the purchase patterns o£ individ­ ual households.

Since in this study, the household is the basic unit for which milk purchases are made, it Is logical to in­

spect changes as they occurred in these units. When aver­ age milk purchased per week per household was compared in

Table 9 and 10, it was found that no major changes had come about for the sample as a whole from 1955 to 1953 in either city.

This might lead to the conclusion that once house­ holds develop a pattern of milk purchases, they are rigid in maintaining a rather consistent usage of milk in the home. However, further analysis reveals that many individ­ ual households changed their patterns of consumption and many other features of their milk buying program during the period under study. The following will be an evalua- 1*7 tlon of the principal characteristics which are most often identified with theae changes.

Per Capita Consumption A principal objective in this study was an evaluation of the effect of changes in distribution systems on per

capita consumption. There were several important changes

In the distribution system, namely:

1. A significantly lower price for milk. This is

not to say that all milk prices at retail were

lowered by the same amount, but low priced milk

was readily available in both the Cleveland and

Dayton markets. Actual prices are listed on

page 20,

2. The introduction of multiple unit containers on

both retail and wholesale routes.

3. A significant increase in the amount of milk sold

through stores.

One or all of these factors are often given as being significant in changing per capita consumption. It is recognised also that such Important factors as income, family size, family age group composition would also change over time. A sizeable portion of this analysis will deal with the effect of all these factors on per cap­ ita consumption. w

No adjustment was made In per capita consumption to

allow for seasonal fluctuations in sales. For the Dayton

market, both studies were made during the same month of

the year. For the Cleveland market, the 1955 survey was

made during the month of March while the 1958 survey was

made during November. An analysis of sales data in Cleve­

land reveal a net seasonal difference between these two

months of less than 1 percent.

Table 28

Changes in Per Capita Milk Used at Home Within a Specific Croup of 335 Households Cleveland, 1955-1958

P.r Capita. 1958 Dally nEHi Per Capita 57W> d . j r K W T T . W Y . H J 1.56 l.TO 2.1S&" 1955 0.29 0.59 0.89 1.19 l.li9 1.79 2.09 Over Total

0.00-0.29 0.30-0.59 0.60-0.89 10 0.90-1.19 1.20-1.14,9 1.50-1.79 1.80-2.09 2.10 $ Over

Total 68 83 73 29 22 5 11

Source: Original data and computations 1*9

Table 29

Changes in Per Capita Milk Used at Home Within a Specific Group of 296 Households Dayton, 1955-1958

Per Capita. 1958 Daily (pints) Per Capita OffTi".56"(6.W"6.96 1 . 5 5 ' T.56 1.86' ----- 1955 0.29 0.59 0.89 1M. 1.1*9 1.79 2,09 Over Total

0.00-0.29 0.30-0.59 0.60-0.89 0.90-1.19 1.20-1.49 1.50-1.79 1.80-2.09 2.10 tc Over Total 33 83 70 59 27 16 7 1 296 Souroe: Original data and computations.

For the Cleveland sample of households, the per capi­

ta consumption in 1955 was .88 pints and in 1958 it was

.89 pints purchased for home consumption. For the Dayton

market, the respective figures were found to be .85 pints

and .8 3 pints.

Although aggregate data reveal no significant changes

in per capita consultation in these two cities over this

time period, a closer observation reveals some significant changes took place. Tables 28 and 29 show changes by in­ dividual household in per capita consumption. As is read­

ily evident, many changes took place within the market; but, for the most part, they compensate each other. 50

Attention Is called to the diagonal lines drawn from

the upper left to the lower right corner of the table.

Those households which are between the two lines were con­ stant (within three-tenths pint interval) In their dally per capita purchases of milk during the week prior to the two Interviews. Those to the feeft of the diagonal had de­ creased their household purchases per capita and those to the right had Increased their purchases per capita.

In Cleveland 36 percent of the households had an in­ crease in per capita consumption, }8 percent remained the same, and 36 percent decreased. In Dayton 32 percent of the households Increased, 28 percent remained the same and

I4.O percent decreased. Many households have evidently made substantial changes In per capita purchases of milk during this time period as evidenced by the extremes In this table. Additional data were collected from these house­ holds at both extremes and the analysis of these data can be found on page 78 of this thesis.

Inoome

During the four year period under study Incomes as re­ ported per household increased from #5007 to #5207 In

Cleveland and from #51^86 to #5686 In Dayton. This was an increase of approximately Ij. percent for each market. 51

Considering income changes associated with per capi­

ta consumption changes reveals very little relationship.

Table 30 indicates changes in income for the respective

groups according to changes in per capita consumption.

In this table the 1958 Income was adjusted to the 1955

level. This analysis falls to show any significant rela­

tionship between consumer Incomes and per capita consump­

tion during this period.

Table 30

Average Household Income of Households Increasing, Remaining Constant and Decreasing Per Capita Milk Purchases from 1955 to 1959# Cleveland and Dayton Areas (1958 Incomes adjusted to 1955 level)

Cleveland Dayton Per Capita Household Income Household Income Change Percent Percent 1958 1958 Chaiuc. 1255.-135,8 - 1325- _ Change. 1955 Increase tk.esz Ik.805 99* •5.51* 15,509 99* Constant 5.250 5.302 101 5,575 5,779 10£ Decrease i*,968 It-. 916 99 5.375 5,271 98 All 5,997 5,006 100 5,1*86 5,1*85 100 Source: Original data and computations.

Still another approach to the question of income and

Its effect was pursued. All households Indicating an in­

crease In Income were compared to those indicating a de­

crease in Income. In Cleveland 62 households showed an

Increase in Incomes, 97 remained the same and 60 decreased. 52

For Dayton the respective figures ware 96, 97 and 59.

Sea appendix tables 6-9 and 50*

An analysis of this breakdown reveals some associa­ tion between income and per capita consumption. In table

31 when incomes decreased in both cities, per capita con­ sumption also decreased. With an Increase in Income how­ ever, the Dayton respondents Indicated a slight decrease

In purchases.

Table 31

Average Per Capita Purchases by Households Increasing, Remaining Constant or Decreasing in Household Income from 1955 to 1956, Cleveland fie Dayton Metropolitan Areas

Household Per Capita Purchase Income dleveland Dayton Change Percent Percent 1955-1956 1956 1955 Change 1956 1955T Change (pts.} CptsTJ % i p t s T J ( p t s .) %

Increase 0.989 0.930 106 0.866- 0.895 97 Constant 0.96k 0.928 106- 0.906- 0.879 103 Decrease 0.778 0.86.1 93 0.712 0.791 90

Source: Original data and computation*.

The magnitude of the changes in Income are also of significance especially as they are a factor in determin­ ing coefficient of elasticity. Table 32 indicates the percentage Increase or decrease in each category of house­ hold income. Using a simple formula (percentage change in per capita purchases divided by percentage change in 53

Income) to compute an estimation of income elasticity. It

is found that the coefficient for the households decreas­

ing in household Income is +.23 for Cleveland and 4.25

for Dayton. On the other hand, the households which in­

creases their Income had a coefficient of*H10 for Cleve­

land and -.06 for Dayton. These data indicate that con­

sumers did tend to reduce their milk consumption when In­

come declined but did not purchase much, if any, addition­

al milk when Income Increased.

Table 32

Changes in Income Per Household for Respondents in Cleveland and Dayton from 1955 to 1958

Household Income Cleveland Dayton Changes Percent Percent 1955-1958 1958 1955 Chanse 1958 1955 Chanse

Increase #6,^88 #4.110 585 #6,711 5i5 Constant 0 5,786 0 ?*33g 5,330 • M 8 Decrease 4.138 5,975 -315 4,114 6,860 -4o5

Average ♦5,207 •5,007 45 #5,688 ♦5,486 45 Source: Original data and computations.

Attention is again called to Table 49 In the appendix

Indicating a significant number of households had Incomes changes during this period both up and down. As was re­ ported by Swope there appears to be some degree of assocla- 5k

tion between Income and consumption but the magnitude of

It as found In this study would be smallHere again the

data pertain only to a period of rather high and a some­

what Increasing trend in the level of employment and in­

come in these two cities.

Household Site and Age Group

Another factor generally associated with changes In

per capita consumption has been the size of the household.

It Is often stated that as household size Increases so

does per capita consumption and vice versa.

Table 33 la * comparison of changes in per capita

consumption as related to changes In household size. No

relationship was found to exist between these two factors

In attempting to explain reasons for shits in per capita

consumption among the respondents.

Table 33 Average Dally Per Capita Milk Purchases Per Households by Changes in Household Size, Cleveland and Dayton Metropolitan Areas 1955 to 1956

Dally Per Capita Milk Purchases Per Household ______Household Size Cleveland ~~ Payton ~ 1955 tojL.258 195* Iggl -1958 ,i9gl (pts.) (pts.) (pts.) (pts.) Increase 1.035 1.071 0.929 0.911 Constant 0»8k7 0.851 0.785 0.8k5 Decrease______0.865 0.799 0.825 0.790 Source: Original data and computations. ^-kswope, op. clt. It should be noted that this does not indicate the

relationship between size and per capita consumption when both are held constant at a particular time. Analysis

of data from other studies related to this one does indi­

cate that as household size increases, per capita consump­ tion Increases until size 1; Is reached after which it de­ creases.^ The data In this specific study indicate that no relationship existed between changes in per capita con­ sumption and changes in size of family. On the other hand,

In this analysis the relative size of Individual house­ holds was hidden within the change categories and thus it does not refute the aforementioned findings. Limitations of the data prevented comparable analysis.

An analysis of Table 3I4- reveals that for the Cleveland market 20.6 percent of the households Increased in size while 36,1; percent increased per capita purchases. On the other hand 26.0 percent of the household decreased in size while 35.6 percent decreased per capita purchases. Asso­ ciating these two factors reveals that little or no rela­ tionship exists. In other words, although families In­ creased in size, they were not necessarily the families who increased in per capita consumption. The reverse is also true. The same general relationship exists for the

l^Data being prepared for publication by Mitchell and Ware, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Depart­ ment, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 56

Dayton market. Applying the chi-square test they were not found to show significant relationship at the 99 percent confidence level.

Table 3k Relationship between Change in Household Size and Change in Per Capita Milk Purchase Per Household, Cleveland and Dayton Metropolitan Areas, 1955 to 1956

Change in Per Capita Milk Purchase Change in per Household Household Size 1555 to 195B 1955 to 1958 Increase Constant Decrease ^otaY (Percent of Households, Cleveland)

Increase 7.8 k.2 8.7 20.6 Constant 19.U 15.2 1 8 .8 53.1* Decrease 9.3 8.1* 8.1* 26.0 Total 36.1* 27.8 35.8 100.0

(Percent of Households, Dayto n)

Increase 10.1 5.1 7.8 2 3 .0 Constant 12.5 18.9 22.3 53.7 Decrease 9.5 l*.l* 9.1* 23.3 Total 32.1 28.1* 39.5 100.0

Source: Original data and computations.

The sample was found to be inadequate for associat­ ing changes in family age groups with changes in per capi­ ta. The information in Appendix Tables 61*, 65, and 66 are based upon small numbers of households indicating at best that weak relationships exist between these two fact­ ors. 57

Changes in per capita purchases were found to be most

closely related to total milk purchases per household*

Table 35 reveals that this relationship exists. When tot­

al purchases per household Increase, per capita also in­

creases and vice versa. This holds true for both Cleveland

and Dayton. Chi-square reveals a value of 211.93 for

Cleveland and 198.90 for Dayton which is significant at

the 99 percent level. The contingency coefficient is .62 for Cleveland and .63 for Dayton. These values Indicate that a strong relationship exists between the two factors.

Table 35

Relationship Between Change in Total Milk Purchased per Household and Change in Per Capita Milk Purchased Per Household, Cleveland and Dayton Metropolitan Area, 1955 to 1958

Change in Total Change in Per Capita Milk Purchases Milk Purchase per Household Per Household 1955 to 1950 1955 to 1958 Increase Constant Decrease Total (Percent of Households, Cle veland)

Increase 29.9 6.3 1.1 37.3 Constant k-$ 11.6 6.6 22.7 Decrease 2.0 9.9 28.1 1*0.0

Total 36.1* 27.8 35.8 100.0 (Percent of Households, Dayton)

Increase 25.0 7.1 2.1* 3ll.5 Constant £.7 13.2 5.1* 23.3 Decrease 2.1* 8.1 31.7 1*2.2 Total 32.1 28.1* 39.5 100.0 Source: Original data and computations. Relation of Changes in Income to Changea In Family Size

It must be recognized that a relationship exists be­

tween family size and family Income. Generally speaking as family size increases so does Income and vice versa.

This may be largely the result of an Increase In the number of wage earners although for this study it was difficult

to isolate the effect of either one of these factors on

changes in milk consumption. This relationship was found

to be significant at the 95 percent confidence level. Ad­ ditional data is needed on this point to definitely estab­ lish the effect of either one of these factors on milk consumption principally because of the change In the num­ ber of wage earners In Individual households. Table 3& indicates the changes which took place in size and income from 1955 to 1958 In both areas. The contingency coeffi­ cient for Cleveland Is .29 and for Dayton It Is .21+.

These coefficients Indicate a moderately strong relation­ ship between changes In size of household and changes in

Income. 59

Table 36

Relationship of Changes in Household Size and Changes in Household Income, Cleveland and Dayton Metropolitan Areas, 1955 to 1958

Change in Household Size Change in Household Income, 1955 to 1958 1955 to 1958 Increase Constant Decrease Total (Percent of Households, Cleveland) Increase 11*7 6.3 1+.6 22.6 Constant 17.6 25.9 10.5 51+.0 Decrease 5.0 8.1+ 10.0 23.1+ Total A . 3 1+0.6 2 5 .1 100.0 (Percent of Households, Dayton) Increase 8.7 9.5 2.1+ 20.6 Constant 21+.2 20.6 11.1 56.0 Decrease 5.2 8.7 9.5 23.1+ Total 38.1 38.9 23.0 100.0 Source: Original data and computations.

Milk Containers Used

Shifts in the size and type of container used by con­ sumers was one of the changes which was most apparent from review of the findings. In general, larger size glass containers Increased in use while paper and glass quart containers decreased in use. See Tables 19 and 20.

It has been suggested by many people that the adoption of larger size containers in a market tends to result in

Increased milk consumption,^ However, it appears from the analysis in this study that consumers who use multl-

^ op. cit.. Mitchell, Bulletin 1+2. 60

quart milk containers are the households which use large

quantities of milk. The use of containers larger than

quart size does not seem to be the cause of consumers us­

ing more milk but rather the effect of more milk being

used and the availability of the larger size containers.

As was seen In the previous section, there is a positive

relationship between the amount of milk used by a house­ hold and the per capita purchase In that household. Thus

It should be expected that households which find It con­ venient to use larger size containers because of the amount of milk, consumed, would also tend to be the same house­ holds which have larger per capita consumption. This seems

to be supported by the fact that even though multiple quart

containers Increased In use In both markets from 1955 to

1956 the total amount of milk used by the households did not change nor did the average per capita purchase In the markets change. It might be argued, however, that had It not been for the Increased use of larger-than-quart con­ tainers by households In this study, the average per capi­ ta consumption would have decreased.

The data Indicate that In Cleveland seventeen house­ holds either started using or Increased their use of gal­ lon milk containers from 1955 to 1958. Their average purchase per household per week was Uj..06 quarts In 1955 and 20.16 quarts In 1958. Knowing that a purchase of 61

one gallon at a time, three times a week Is equal to 12

quarts, It Is apparent that many of these households were

using too little milk per week in 1955 to Justify the use

of the gallon size container at that time. On the other

hand, gallon containers may not have been conveniently

available in 1955* Nine Cleveland families in the survey

decreased or curtailed their purchases of milk In gallon

jugs from 1955 to 1958* These nine had an average pur­

chase per week of 11,00 quarts in 1955 and 8,11 quarts In

1958. Their average per capita dropped from .800 pints per day in 1955 to .687 pints per day in 1958. Using

twelve quarts per week as a minimum quantity which consum­

ers would seem to find necessary for the continuous use of gallon containers it can be seen that the average for these nine was less than twelve in 1955 while In 1956 they would have had to purchase only one gallon twice a week to equal their average of eight quarts. From comments of respond­ ents during the survey, it seems that even though milk from stores and that delivered to the house will maintain its quality under refrigeration for five days or more, there is a strong feeling among consumers that milk should be purchased fresh at least every three days. Some still believe they should buy fresh milk dally. As long as con­ sumers do not reduce their frequency of purchasing milk, no matter what the reason, larger-than-quart containers 62

have limited value for those who use small quantities of

milk. For Instance If it Is assumed that no flexibility

In container combinations were possible and that three

times per week Is the fewest purchases that would be ac­

ceptable, then twelve quarts would be the minimum quantity

purchased per week by those using gallon containers. Us­

ing half gallons, six quarts would be minimum weekly and

of course with single quart containers, only three quarts would need to be used. In Table 11 It can be seen that

in Cleveland, under the above criteria, all but 19 percent

of the households could have used quarts effectively in

1958* Sixty-six percent could have used half gallons but only 37 percent of the households could have used gallons.

The same relative percentages existed for Dayton.

This seems to suggest that multiquart containers have a barrier to their Increased use which may be overcome by merchandizing methods which demonstrate the keeping quali­ ty of fluid milk. As a result, less frequent purchases might be made by consumers buying small quantities. The twlce-a-week delivery system for gallon jug milk in Dayton is an example of making gallons conveniently available to those who use only eight quarts of milk per week. 63

Another finding which deserves mention is that while in the aggregate, purchases of milk in quart containers decreased there were a number of consumers who increased their purchases in one-quart containers. In Cleveland,

62 households increased their purchases of milk home de­ livered in one quart glass from 1955 to 1958 and 125 de­ creased. In Dayton, 39 Increased and 152 decreased. This provides additional proof that consumers in purchasing their milk tend to use the container size which best fits their individual requirements. If they use large quanti­ ties of milk, they use large containers whereas if they use small quantities, the quart container is found desir­ able (Tables 37 and 3 8 ).

No clear cut association was found to exist between

Income and the use of gallon containers. In both markets the cheapest milk available to consumers was that sold from stores in gallon jugs. It would be assumed that some association would exist between family Income and the fre­ quency of purchase from stores. In the Cleveland market, the average family income for gallon Jug users was $5>536

(average for all households, $5*207). In Dayton, the aver­ age income in 1958 for all users of gallon Jugs from the store was $5*615 (average for all households this market,

$5*666). Those receiving gallon jugs home delivered in 64 Table 37 Comparison of Average Quantity of Milk Used Per Week By Households Using Various Size and Type of Containers, 335 Households Cleveland, Ohio, 1955 - 1958

Source Weekly and Houa.holds Average Per Container Year Using Quant i tv Household (number) (qta•) (qts•) HOME DELIVERY: i gal, glasa 1958 1*9 656 1 3 .2 J gal, glass 1955 20 266 1 3 .0 i gal, paper 1958 1 * * t gal, paper 1955 1 e «

1 qt. glass 1958 122 1,082 8.9 1 qt, glass 1955 185 1,771 9.6

1 qt, paper 1958 7 36 5.1 1 qt. paper 1955 3 * *

Total H.D, 1958 173 1,879 10.9 Total H.D. 1955 206 2,113 10.3

STORE PURCHASE:

Gallon Jug 1958 22 321 1 4 .6 Gallon Jug 1955 13 11*4 11.1

| gal, glass 1958 77 7^4 9.7 f gal. glass 1955 9 68 7.6 i gal. paper 1958 1*3 292 6.8 t gal. paper 1955 65 646 9.9

1 qt. glass 1958 9 29 3.2 1 qt. glass 1955 11* 73 5.2

1 qt. paper 1958 1*1* 201 4.6 1 qt. paper 1955 72 386 5.4 Total Store 1958 192 1,549 7.9 Total Store . 168 1,317 2 ‘8 .. Source: Original data and computations. 65 Table 38 Comparison of Average Quantity of Milk Used Per Week By Households Using Various Size and Type of Contalners# 296 Households Dayton, Ohio, 1955 * 1958

Source Weekly and Households Average Per Container Year Using Quantity Household (number) (qts.) (qts.) HOME DELIVERY:

Gallon Jug 1958 26 1+01+ 15.5 Gallon Jug 1955 — — J Gal. Glass 1958 25 322 13.3 t Gal. Glass 1955 11+ 178 12.7 4 Gal. Paper 1958 19 21+2 12.7 f Gal. Paper 1955 U+ 161+ 11.7 1 Qt. Glass 1958 91+ 616 6.6 1 Qt. Glass 1955 191 1,810 9.1+ 1 Qt. Paper 1958 25 178 7.1 1 Qt. Paper 1955 23 171 7.1+ Total H.D. 1958 186 1,876 10.1 Total H.D. 1955 225 2,323 10.3

e STORE PURCHASE e Gallon Jug 1958 1+1 588 11+.3 Gallon Jug 1955 3 # * J Gal. Glass 1958 6 69 11.5 * Gal. Glass 1955 5 36 7.2 1 Gal. Paper 1958 39 250 6.1+ } Gal. Paper 1955 26 21+2 9.3 1 Qt. Glass 1958 62 1+.1+ 1 Qt. Glass 1955 8 18 2.2 1 Qt. Paper 1958 33 80 2.k 1 Qt. Paper 1955 61 219 3.6 Total Store 1958 11+2 1,132 8.0 Total Store 1955 99 525 5.3 «Less than five households thus average was not computed. Source: Original data and computations. Dayton averaged #5* 3^ 4-* In the Dayton market evidence of

some association between the use of gallon containers and

low income is obvious. However, the data lend much sup­

port to the idea that the gallon container has general

appeal in a market. Somewhat different shifts occurred

in the two markets from 1955 to 1956 as to what income

group of consumers changed their purchase pattern from home delivery to the store. In Cleveland, those consumers

kho discontinued home delivery and purchased milk at the

store had lower than average Incomes. For example, the

average income for the home delivery customers increased from #5*166 in 1955 to #5*552 in 1958 while those purchas­

ing at the store had incomes of #lf.,7 2 6 in 1955 and #ij.,7 5 6

In 1958. In Dayton, on the other hand, where the gallon container was available on home delivery routes, the in­ come Increase in both these categories was approximately equal to the I4. percent rise in the Income levels In the city.

In both oities, there was evidence that some higher income families were buying extra milk at the store. Al­ though the number of households buying milk, both home delivered and at the store, did not change significantly their average household income Increase from #5 ,2 8 6 to

#5*799 in Cleveland during this period and from #5,125 to

#5*710 in Dayton. 67 Milk Price Reported by Consumer*

The last question asked consumers In the 1956 survey was, "How much did you pay for milk the last time you bought It?" In Clevelahd, 215 households, representing 6^ percent of the respondents, answered this question while the other 36 percent did not know the milk price. In Day­ ton, 195 households, representing 66 percent of the respond­ ents, answered while the other 3J4. percent did not know the price they paid for milk. The prices reported by consum­ ers In both markets were In most cases excellent estimates

If not actual prices paid. Of most Interest In this study

was a comparison of the household characteristics of those who reported that they p aid less than 20 cents per quart with those who reportedly paid 20 cents or more per quart of milk.

Of the 215 households In Cleveland reporting a milk price, 66 were under 20 cents per quart and 129 were 20 cents or more. In Dayton, of the 195 reporting a price, the corresponding figures were 62 and 133. It Is Import­ ant to note that consumers, In order to have a milk price of less than 20 cents per quart In either area, had to be using half gallon or gallon containers. Quarts of milk were not available at less than 20 cents In either market.

In Cleveland the per capita purchase of both the group paying less than 20 cents and the group paying 20 cents or 66

mope was .92 pints dally. In Dayton, the "less than 20

cents" group averaged .96 pints per capita dally while the

"20 cents and over" group averaged .79 pints per capita

dally. Data were not available to explain why the two

groups differed In per capita In Dayton and not In Cleve­

land. It Is suggested that the opportunity for large

quantity consumers In Dayton to have milk home delivered

In gallon containers at less than 20 cents per quart while

In Cleveland no milk was available on home delivery routes

at less than 20 cents per quart could be a reason for the

difference. This would force the consumers using large quantities of milk In Cleveland who wanted home delivery

service to remain In the "20 cents and over" group while

In Dayton they could use the gallon container home de­ livered and be Included In the "less than 20 cents" cate­ gory. Average 1956 household Income for the "less than 20 cents" group was Hi,659 In Cleveland and $5,449 In Dayton.

The "20 cents and over" group had an average Income of

$4,664 In Cleveland and $5,4^7 In Dayton. With the 1956 average Income for all households at 15,207 for Cleveland and $5,666 for Dayton It is apparent that the lower In­ come groups were at least more price conscious. In both areas, the average income of the groups reporting a price was less than the average for the market. Also, the aver­ age Income of the groups reporting less than 20 cents was 69 lower in both areas than the income of those who paid 20 cents or more per quart for milk but not significantly.

Container Preference

Of the 631 households in Cleveland Dayton responding to the question, "If the price was the same, what contain­ er type and size would you prefer?", only 21+7 or 39 per­ cent gave the same answer in 1956 as in 1955. Comparison of preference responses obtained from households in the two areas for the two periods of time appear in Tables 39 and 1+0. Stated preference for gallon jugs Increased from five to ten responses in Cleveland and from six to thirty eight responses in Dayton. Perhaps an explanation for the much greater Increase in Dayton Is the fact that handlers there had offered gallons on home delivery routes in 1956 while they had not In Cleveland. In fact, twenty-six households from the sample In Dayton were actually having milk home delivered in gallons. The preference pattern had shifted from single quart containers to multi-quart containers in both areas. It is interesting to note that about the same number indicated one quart paper both times even though only about one-third of the households stating them as their choice in 1955 still gave the same response in 1956, in both areas. 70

Table 39

Comparison of 195? Container Preference with 1956 Container Preference, 335 Households, Cleveland Area

Container Container Preference 1956. Preference Sal. * Gal.* Gal. 1 Qt. 1 Qt. No 1955 Jug Glass Paper Glass Paper Pref. Total

Gallon Jug 0 1 3 1 0 0 5 4 Gal. Glass 3 12 2 9 1 3 30 } Gal. Paper 2 23 16 8 Ik 3 67 1 Qt. Glass 2 38 8 75 Hi- 7 Ikl* 1 Qt« Paper 2 10 5 16 22 2 57 No. Pref. 0 7 2 16 2 5 32

Total 10 91 36 125 53 20 335 Source: Original data.

Table 1^0

Comparison of 1955 Container Preference with 1958 Container Preference, 296 Households Dayton Area

Container Container Preference 1958 Preference Gal. * Gal* t Gal. 1 Qt. 1 Qt. No 1955 Jug Glass Paper Glass Paper Pref. Total

Gallon Jug 2 1 1 2 0 0 6 1 Gal. Glass 3 5 0 5 3 0 16 t Gal. Paper 13 8 8 6 7 1 1 Qt. Glass 16 25 15 79 23 6 165 1 Qt. Paper k k lit 12 23 3 60 No Pref. 0 1 2 3 1 0 7 Total kk U0 1*7 57 10 296 Source: Original data. 71

Preferences for half gallon glass had Increased 300

percent In Cleveland and 275 percent In Dayton. The numb­

er choosing half gallon paper and one quart glass declined

In both areas.

One explanation of the change In preference related

to size of container might be a change In size of house­

hold. A tabulation of the households changing their size

of container preference was done by size of household.

Table l+l provides a summary of this information. Although

Table 1+1 doesn't show any radical shifts In household size,

it does provide a basis for some deduction. It should be

noted that In both areas the size of the household Is

smallest for those which either maintained a constant pref­

erence for single quart units or else had changed their preference from a larger container to single quart size.

For those who change their preference from single quart to multiquart units, the increase In size Is apparently not as Important as the fact that they had larger than average size households In 1955* This then would make them poten­

tially larger users of milk and logical households to use larger size containers. Apparently they tried larger size units and found them acceptable as indicated by 1956 re­ sponse, but in 1955 they were partially victims of habit

In the use of the single quart unit. 72

Table lj.1

Average Size of Household in Cleveland and Dayton for All Households Changing their Stated Preference for Container Size 1955 to 1958

Change in Container AverageAverag Household Size Size Preference, ClavelandCleveland Dayton 1955 to 1956 I B M W B Chance T b Chance Quart, no change ih preference 3 .2 2 3 .1 0 - .1 2 2 .9 3 2 .8 2 - .1 1 Quart to multiquart 3*86 3*71 .05 3.68 3 .7 8 .10 Multiquart, no change in preference 3 .7 9 3*73 - .0 6 I4..IO 1+.10 0 Multiquart to quart 3 .18 2.91 -.27 U.Olj. 3.65 -.39 Source: Original data and computations.

It must be recognized that the responses are probably

somewhat biased by the relative pricing situation at the

time even though the respondents were specifically asked

to Ignore price as a factor when giving their answer.

Tables 1 and I4.3 showing the relationship between household size and container preference in 1956 are pre­ sented as a matter of record. Of most Importance In these tables la the indication, as would be expected, that larger households tend to prefer larger containers and smaller households, smaller containers.

Why Respondents Bought Milk at the Store

Respondents in both cities were asked why they pur­ chased milk at the store. The rather large category giving no response is made up mostly by households buying milk home delivered. Thajnost significant changes in 73

Table 1+2

Number of Households by Size Indicating Preference for Specified Milk Containers, Cleveland Area, 1953

Container Preference Household Sal . * Gal. * Qal. 1 Qt. 1 Qt. ho Size Jug Glass Paper Glass Paper Pref. Total

1 0 k 1 12 7 3 27 2 1 26 11* 1*6 21* 6 119 3 2 19 3 16 9 6 55 k 1* 19 7 21 k 3 58 5 0 12 5 20 6 2 45 Over 5 3 11 6 8 3 0 31 Total 10 91 36 125 53 20 335 Source: Original data.

Table 1+3

Number of Households by Size Indicating Preference for Specified Milk Containers, Dayton Area, 1958

Container Preference Household Gal. * Gal. ft Gal. 1 Qt. 1 Qt. No Size Jug Glass Paper Glass Paper Pref. Total

1 0 3 1 6 1* 2 16 2 1* 7 H* 39 3 3 97 3 13 7 23 11 2 59 10 14 11 22 7 1 65 1 10 1+ 0 Over 5 11 3 « I 2 u Total 38 1*1+ 1*0 107 57 10 296 Source: Original data. 71*

answers from 1955 to 1958 Is the decrease In those answer­

ing "ran out” and the Increase In those answering "econo­ my."

The group stating they went to the store because they

ran out of milk was made up largely of home delivered cus­

tomers that did not buy milk from the store at the time of

the 1958 interview. These are listed In the "no response" group In Tables 1*1* and 1*5 for the latter survey.

"Economy" was a significantly more Important reason

for going to the store to buy milk in both cities In the latter survey. In Dayton, where milk In gallon containers was available to home delivered customers the number giv­

ing this reason was not as large as It was in the Cleveland market. Of the 37 respondents In Dayton giving this rea­ son, 23 bought milk in gallon containers and 11 bought In half gallon containers. Of the 55 Cleveland respondents giving this answer, 11 bought milk In gallons and 1*0 bought

In half gallons. The introduction of the lower priced milk and the publicity surrounding it, no doubt increased the number of consumers conscious of price differences. This should not be interpreted as representing the only respond­ ents in these two cities that were economy minded in their milk purchases. Relatively low priced milk was also avail­ able in certain containers and in certain volumes on home delivered routes. This no doubt affected the purchases of Table

Change In Reasons for Buying at Store Within 335 Households Cleveland, Ohio, 1955 - 1958

Store Purchase Store Purchase Reasons. 19558 Reasons Run Buy Small Cash 1Crregular No tfotal 1955 _ Convenience Work Out Quantity Economy Payment Purchase Response 1955

Convenience 19 3 5 9 15 3 2 17 73

Work 1 1 1 1 If

Run Out 5 11 1 16 1 U9 83 Buy Small Quantity 3 3 1 1 1 5 Ilf

Economy Ur 2 1 9 7 23

Cash Payment 3 1 3 1 1 1 12 Irregular Payment 2 5 2 2 3 5 19

Ho Response k 11 8 20 5 If 92 158 Total, 1958 1*4 7 28 28 55 11 10 152 335*

*3um of individual reasons does not equal total since some households gave more than one reason in 1955. Source: Original data. Table 45 Change in Reasons for Buying at Store Within 296 Households, Dayton, Ohio, 1955 - 1958

Store Purchase Store Purchase Reasons. 19SB— Reasons Run Buy Small Cash Irregular No •total 1955 Convenience Work Out Quantity Economy Payment Purchase Response 1955

Convenience 13 3 8 4 1 16 45

Work 4 2 1 k 11

Run Out 7 14 2 10 2 3 53 91 Buy Small Quantity 6 k 3 k 7 24

Economy 1 2 3 1 2 9

Cash Payment 1 1 1 1 1 5 Irregular Purchase 1 2 2 5 2 12

Ho Response 13 3 11 6 18 7 83 141 Total, 1958* 34 3 29 17 37 2 15 159 296

Sum of Individual reasons does not equal total since some households gave more than one reason in 1955* Source: Original data. 77

some home delivered customers. It does, however, reflect

the rather poor knowledge held by consumers of the price

of milk or that within this range of prices, milk has lit­

tle price elasticity.

The broad category "convenience" was important In

both surveys. This category might be combined with "work"

(usually where one or both members of the household are

employed), "buy In small quantities," "cash payment" and

"irregular purchases." All these answers relate more or

less to convenience. The total number of households giv­

ing one or more of these five reasons changed from 122 in

1955 to 100 In 1958 in the Cleveland market and changed

from 97 in the 1955 survey to 71 in the 1958 survey in the

Dayton market. This would Indicate that approximately 25

to 35 percent of the customers in these markets are regu­ lar store customers preferring these convenience features.

For the Cleveland market in 1958, the average family size for this group was 2.63# their average income was $14.,537 and their average per capita consumption daily was .6 1 3 pts. This same group in the Dayton market in 1958 had an average family size of 2 .6 9, an average Income of $5#327 and their per capita consumption dally was .715 pints. THE FOLLOW-UP SURVEY

Since many households changed their average per capi­

ta purchase of milk between 1955 and 1958 and since the

data obtained by the telephone interviews explained only

a small portion of the shifts which had occurred, It was

decided to probe deeper* This was done by using a mall

questionnaire. A short, simple questionnaire was prepared

and mailed to all households in which the per capita pur­

chases in 1958 were greater or less than their per capita

purchases in 1955 by one-half pint or more per person per

day. Out of a total of 170 questionnaires which were mailed, $6 or about 33 percent were returned. Each ques­

tionnaire was personalized by Including a cover letter ad­

dressed directly to the respondent and each questionnaire

Included specific Information for the household which was

to be verified or corrected If In error. The specific

Items were total milk purchases for the week in 1955 and for the week In 1958, and the household size and ages represented In 1955 as well as 1958. Respondents were also asked to explain why their milk purchases increased or decreased and secondly, space was provided for general comments related to milk distribution in their area. The primary purpose in using the follow-up survey was to sub­ mit specific Information to the consumers in order to get their reaonns for the large changes in per capita consurap- 78 79 tion. It was not expected that the respondents would re­ call specifically how much milk they used during a specif­ ic one-week period four years previously nor even six months before. It was* however* expected that they would generally know how many persons were in the household at the specified times and that this would provide a means of Identifying actual errors which might have existed In the data. It was also anticipated that the respondent would either be forced to call the provided data In error or else explain the change In the space provided. Response from 33 percent of the households was greater than expected and In all cases there was indication that some thought had been given to the answers* although all the answers did not specifically explain the change which had occurred.

Following Is a summary of the type of reasons given by those households In which consumption had increased.

Twenty-eight responses were received from this group. The most common reason given by seven out of 28 was that their children's consumption had Increased. One of these seven specifically stated that her son had been allergic to cows milk and had used a soybean formula until he was four years of age. Two others said only that their child had changed from formula to milk, vftille the four others Indicated only that their children were drinking more milk. Another six responses concerned more general reasons for Increase such 80

as "higher quality milk," "using more milk for baking,

custard, and cereal," "most important food item on menu,"

and "like to drink milk." These did not help to explain

the Increase but they did indicate attitudes toward milk.

If the consumers' attitudes had changed since 1955 then

they would be a basis for Increased use. In four more

cases, special diets requiring milk were given as reason

for the increase. Two respondents mentioned lower price,

while another one said his Income had increased, in addi­

tion to recognizing the lower price of milk. The balance

of the reasons given for Increasing were of a miscellaneous

nature including such things as "house guests," and one

even reported that his wife had died and since he was not

a good cook, he used more milk. That an error had occuxrsd

somewhere in the original telephone survey was apparent in only two of the twenty-eight responses.

Of the twenty-eight responses from households which had shown decreases of one-half pint or more per capita per day, nine gave reasons which can be summarized as "one

or more milk-consuming members left the household." One factor which should be noted is that the milk-consuming member who left the household was not always a young per­ son, but in some cases was an older member. Another logi­ cal explanation given In three cases was that children had previously come home for lunch, but at the time of the 81 last survey they were staying at school for lunch and used less milk. Two others reported that special diets had re­

stricted use of milk while another one said that ulcers of

a family member had been cured and milk was no longer re­ quired. In direct opposition to some reasons given for

Increased use of milk, some said that their children were older so they needed less milk. Other miscellaneous rea­ sons for decreases were, "death of pet dog," and ttchanged from quarts to gallons for lower price -- price still too high." Prom the responses, it appears that errors proba­ bly existed In the original information for three of the

26 households.

The results of the mall questionnaire are helpful in explaining the lack of relationship between change In quantity of milk purchased per person and changes in size of household, age of household members, household Income or other factors which were included in the original two surveys. It tends to direct attention to the possibility that while such factors as age, number in household, in­ come, milk price and the like may have some relationship to the relative level of per capita consumption in a mar­ ket at a given time, they are not especially helpful in explaining the shifts which occur within a specific group of households over a period of time. The reasons given 82

by £6 consumer units for their increase or decrease in use

of milk included only one mention of income and only four

mentions of milk price and in one of the four mentioning

price, consumption declined when they changed to gallon

Jug to get the price advantage. The age factor was men­

tioned both as a reason for increasing and decreasing use

of milk. For those who did not give a specific reason

for their change, the statement of one who sold, "I can­

not explain an increase or decrease in taking milk only

that In some weeks we use more milk than in other weeks,1* portrays their apparent attitude that they use milk when

they want to without asking many questions. SUMMARY

It is assumed throughout the study that the dairy In­ dustry Is Interested In maximizing profits through the sale of fluid milk. It Is also assumed that some profit maximizing activities will Increase fluid milk purchases.

During the period from 1955 to 1958 major changes in pack- aping and pricing were introduced into certain Ohio mark­ ets. Many questions have been asked concerning the affects of these changes and the adoption of various practices on per capita milk purchases within households.

Two metropolitan areas, Cleveland and Dayton, were selected for study. Data on household characteristics and milk purchase habits for a sample of households were ob­ tained in both markets during 1955* Milk retailing had become extremely competitive in the two markets and situa­ tions which might best be described as "milk price wars'* had existed at times in both markets. The approach was one of selecting households for which 1955 data were avail­ able and obtaining comparable information from these same households for 1958 so as to determine what the effects of marketing changes were on individual households. Compara­ tive data for approximately three hundred households in each market were obtained for analysis. In addition, a new sample of approximately three hundred households was

83 61* drawn In the Dayton market to check the representativeness

of the previous sample. It was found that the data ob­

tained from the old sample was comparable with that ob­

tained from the new sample. Therefore, It may be Inferred

that the findings and analysis ire representative for the marks ts s tudl e d.

Between 1955 and 1956 the number of persons repre­

sented by the survey declined less than 5 percent in both

cities, namely, from 1,137 to 1,097 in Cleveland and from

1,002 to 990 in Dayton.

The arithmetic mean of household Income Increased ap­ proximately I4. percent in both areas.

Aggregate totals for various factors were first com­ pared. The total amount of milk purchased by all house- holcs Included in the study changed less than 1 percent in both cities. The arithmetic mean of weekly milk pur­ chases per household changed from 1 0 .5 6 quarts in 1955 to

1 0 ,6 6 quarts in 1956 in Cleveland. The corresponding data for Dayton was 10.23 quarts in 1955 and 10.16 quarts in 1956. These changes were not significant. The change

In average dally per capita milk consumption was also in­ significant in both markets.

Major changes did occur from 1955 to 1956 in both cities relative to the size and type of milk container used and source of milk purchases. There was a decided 85

Increase In the quantity of milk purchased In multiple

quart containers changing from 34 percent to 60 percent In

Cleveland and from 21 percent to 67 percent in Dayton. In

Cleveland the change was generally In favor of glass but

in Dayton where the half-gallon paper container was priced

to compete, paper half-gallon maintain about an equal re­

lationship to half-gallon glass. A relatively large shift

in source of purchase from home delivery to the store was

evident In both markets. Store purchases Increased from

38 percent to 1+7 percent of the total milk sales In Cleve­

land and from 20 percent to 38 percent In Dayton.

The proportion of consumers expressing a preference

for single quart paper or glass container and half gallon

paper containers decreased while the proportion preferring

half gallon glass and gallon jugs increased in both mark­

ets. The number preferring one quart glass dropped from

144 to 125 in Cleveland, and from 164 to 107 In Dayton.

Preference for half gallon glass increased from 30 to 91

in Cleveland and from 16 to 44 in Dayton.

Of the reasons given for purchasing milk at the store,

economy was the one which was mentioned more frequently In

1958 than in 1955 In both cities. Those households which gave economy as their reason for buying milk from a store were consistent in that they purchased one of the lower priced containers available at stores. Convenience and 86 closely related reasons for buying milk from a store were given by smaller than average households purchasing less than average quantities of milk per capita.

When the Identity of each household was maintained relative to household characteristics and milk purchased, major changes between the two periods In total milk pur­ chases, per capita purchases, size and type of container used, source of purchase, household size and Income were found In both populations. Some households had increased, some had not changed and others had decreased relative to the foregoing factors, A positive relationship was found between changes In total milk purchases per household and per capita milk purchases per household. No significant relationship was found between changes In household Income and change In per capita purchases or changes In household size and changes In per capita purchase. However, a sig­ nificant positive relationship between changes in household size and changes In household income was found to exist.

These households which utilized large quantities of milk were found to be the households making most use of larger size containers. Users of gallon Jugs average ap­ proximately 15 quarts per week, whereas, users of quart containers averaged between five and nine quarts per week depending upon source of purchase. No relationship was 87 found between Income and the type of container purchased*

The families knowing the price of milk had an average income less than that of the families not knowing the price of milk*

A follow-up survey was made of those households having changes In dally per capita purchase greater than plus or minus one half pint per day. The results revealed that the changes were valid and for the most part associated with non-economlc factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The use of multi-quart containers, especially the gal­

lon container and to a lesser degree the half gallon

container, la closely associated with the total amount

of milk used In a household. This is based somewhat

on the desire of consumers to have fresh milk In the

home at all times which often results In several pur­

chases during the week. In other words, a household

using only four quarts of milk per week does not pur­

chase milk in a gallon Jug once a week. This may

indicate a need for Informing consumers relative to

the keeping qualities of today's milk supply. In many

instances, consumers would be able to purchase milk at

lower prices If they used multi-quart containers. It

Is also indicated that there is a limit to the percent

of total milk sales which might be expected to be sold

In the larger containers.

The quantity of milk sold In multi-quart containers

through stores varies depending upon whether the same

containers are available on home delivery routes.

Consumers are apparently willing to pay a nominal price Increase for the home delivery service.

Increased use of multi-quart containers at the accom­ panying lower prices has a limited effect on changes 89

In per capita milk sales. This Is somewhat opposite

to the effect found In the recent Cornell study where

It was found that as prices Increased, per capita

sales decreased,^ Further need for study of the re­

sponse of consumers to changes In milk prices, both

up and down, Is Indicated.

I;. Decreases in household income were found to be more

significant with respect to changing per capita con­

sumption than were increases in household Income.

Within the Income and employment range in which this

study was conducted, a tendency for milk purchases

to decrease with a decrease in Income was found but

milk purchases did not increase with increased in­

come.

5. After relatively lower prices had been in effect for

a period of time, little effect of this change was

evident on per capita consumption. Considering the

amount of publicity associated with the changes in

milk price in the Cleveland and Dayton markets, the

total volume of milk sold changed very little. No

data were available on the effects which more or less

17Jeffry, Arthur D. and Feldman, E. Paul, Consumption Response to a Large Increase in the Retail Price of ffluld~ Milk. Bulletin 951. Cornell Agricultural Experiment Sta­ tion, Ithica, New York, June 1959* 90

publicity or changes in prices from a different base

might have on per capita milk sales. It is recom­

mended that whenever such a situation should arise

in a market, data should be collected and analyzed

to determine the significance of these two factors

on per capita sales.

6. Future efforts to isolate the changes that occur

within households and their effects on milk pur­

chases should be developed with more detailed in­

formation with respect to the household. Perhaps

a case study approach would be fruitful since so

many non-economic factors seem to be Involved. APPENDIX

91 92

Table h 6

Distribution of 355 Cleveland and 296 Dayton Area Households by Habitude of Chance in Per Capita IJllk Purohase for Use at Home frwi 1°55 to 1950

Site of Per Capita ^rohase Change Number of Households (Daily Pints) Cleveland Dayton -.90 and over 18 8 -.70 to -.09 15 19 -.50 to -.69 18 19 -.30 to -,i|9 28 20 -.10 to -.29 59 61 .09 to -.09 60 57

.10 to .29 55 b5 .30 to ,Z;9 30 29 .50 to .69 20 19 .70 to .69 12 9 .90 and over 20 10 535 *96

Source: Original data. Rate of .20 pints per day » l.k pints per week or 1;.? pints per week for household site 3» This is sli$vtly over 2 quarts per week chance per averace household for each group represented. 93 Table 47 Changes In Total Milk Purchased at Home Within a Speoifio Group of 333 Households, Cleveland Ohio 1955 - 1958

Total Hi Ik 1958 (quarts) Total Hilk "IS* T ?‘T4‘'T5 ' VS 20 an

Table 48 Changes in Total Milk Purchased at Hone Within a Specific Group of 296 Households, Dayton Ohio 1955 - 1958 Total Milk 1958 Total Milk 12 14 116 18 and 1955 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 6-9 11 13 15 17 19 over Total 0-1 1 2 1 1 5 2-3 5 15 7 4 5 1 1 38 4-5 6 10 11 7 3 1 1 2 4l 6-7 9 7 14 7 3 4 2 3 49 8-9 l 2 8 10 3 1 2 2 1 30 10-11 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 21 12-13 2 5 6 1 6 1 6 27 14-15 5 1 2 l 7 2 2 5 25 16-17 3 2 4 2 1 3 15 I8-19 1 1 2 1 1 2 4 12 20 and over 1 1 2 1 ? 1 6 2 * Total 13 46 46 4S 41 2?_ _9 16 6 T*6 .2?S Source: Original data. 9 k Table 1*9 Changes Reported in Household Inoome Within a Speoifio Group of 335 Households, Cleveland Ohio 1955 - 1958

Inoome 1958 1000 2501 1*001 5501 7001 over Mo. ' Inoome 1955 2500 Uooo 5500 7000 10,000 10,000 Ans. Total

1000-2500 13 6 3 3 5 30 25004*000 k 22 6 h 11 61 1*001-5500 5 13 20 25 7 1 11 82 5501-7000 k 7 17 13 9 1+ 7 61 7001-over 3 2 5 16 13 h 1+3 no answer 8 5 5 6 2 1 31 58 Total 31+ 56 61 55 38 22 69 335 ■ m ■ m m m« * m * m * m Souroe: Original data.

Table 50 Changes in Household Inoome Within 296 Speoifio Households Dayton Ohio, 1955 - 1958

Inoome 1958 1000 2501 1*001 5501 7001 over No Inoome 1955 2500 1*000 55oo 7000 10,000 10,000 Ans. Total ♦1000-2500 6 6 2 1 1 3 19 2501-1+000 2 11 9 7 1 1 3 31+ 1+001-5500 3 8 32 36 10 3 8 100 5501-7000 2 1 17 20 16 3 5 61+ 7001-over 1 5 15 5 12 16 3 57 no answer 2 5 6 1+ 2 1 2 22 Total 16 36 81 73 1+2 21+ 21+ 296 Souroei Original data. 95 Table 51

Change in Household Sice Within a Speoifio Group of 335 Households, Cleveland, Ohio, 1955 " 1958

Household Household Sice, 1958 Site “i* n r 1955 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 over Total 1 11 5 1 17 2 10 83 10 1 1 2 1 108 3 5 19 26 11 5 1 65 h 3 8 15 32 15 3 l 77 5 h 3 9 20 9 6 l 1 3 3 11 7 1 1 1 3 8 2 2 U 9 1 1 2 10 & over 1 1 1 3 Total 27 119 55 58 Ii5 19 8 2 2 0 335 Souroet Original data.

Table 52 Change in Household Sice Within a Speoifio Group of 296 Household, Dayton, Ohio, 1955 - 1958

Household Household Size, 1958 Sice ' ITT 3fe" '' 1955 1 2 3 k 5 6 7 8 9 over Total 1 2 1 l U 2 13 72 11 8 10/+ 3 1h 51 15 1 61 U 1 5 13 33 16 1 1 70 5 h 2 6 13 5 2 1 33 6 1 3 6 3 1 1/i 7 1 l 1 3 8 1 1 2 l 1 6 9 1 1 10 & over Total i£ 97 59 * 33 ll+ 7 3 2 296 Souroe: Original data. 96

Table 53

Changes In Number of Individuals Under 10 Years of Age Per Household in a Speoifio Qroup of 535 Households, Cleveland, Ohio, I955 - 1958

Individuals Individuals Ubder 10 Yrs. of Age, 1958 Ufader 10 Yrs. 5 * of Age-1955 0 1 2 3 k Over Total (No, In Household) (Number of Households) 0 191 10 8 1 210 1 25 1k 9 h 52 2 12 8 17 9 3 U9 3 2 2 7 7 2 1 21 U 1 1 5 * over 2 2 Total 230 3h fa 23 5 2 335 Souroet Original data.

Table Changes in Number of Individuals Under 10 Years of Age Per Household in a Speoifio Qroup of 296 Households, Dayton Ohio, 1955 - 1958

Individuals Individuals Uhder 10 Yrs., of Age, 1958 Under 10 Yrs. of Age-1955 0 1 2 3 h S4r Total (No. in Household) (Number of Households) 0 162 6 11 1 0 0 180 1 20 27 11 2 0 00 60 2 h 13 9 10 1 0 37 2 2 2 5 2 1 H* I 0 0 1 1 2 0 U 5 A over 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Total TBBmamT3Bm 35 19 5 1 296“ Souroe1 Original data. 97

Tfcble 55 Changes in Number of Individuals 10-20 Tears of Age Per Household in a Speoifio Croup of 355 Households, Cleveland Ohio, 1955 - 1956

Individuals Individuals 10-20, 1958 1 0 - 2 0 5 * 1955 0 1 2 3 u over Total (No. in Household) (Number of Households) 0 202 32 6 1 21*3 1 16 20 12 h 52 2 7 6 10 1 1 25 3 1 1 5 1 1 9 h 1 1 2 1 5 5 4 over 1 1 Total 22? 60 35 8 3 2 335 Souroet Original data.

Table 56 Changes in Number of Individuals 10-20 Tears of Age Per Household in a Speoifio Croup of 296 Households, Dayton Ohio, 1955 - 1958 o 8 Individuals Individuals i 1958 1 0 - 2 0 5 4 1955 0 1 2 3 1* over Total (No*, in Household) (Number of Households) 0 177 22 9 1 0 0 209 1 17 18 10 3 1 0 49 2 2 9 12 3 0 0 26 3 1 3 2 3 0 1 10 k 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 5 4 over 0 Total 197 52 33 11 2 1 296 Souroei Original data. 98 Table 57

Change* In Number of Individuals 21-50 Year* of Age Per Household in a Speoifio Qroup of 359 Households, Cleveland Ohio, 1955 - 1958

Individuals Individuals 21-50, 1958 21 - 50 5 ft 1955 0 1 2 3 k over Total (No. in Household) (Number of Households) 0 50 2 5 2 59 1 10 12 13 35 2 32 16 H*5 5 1 1 200 3 3 2 16 6 1 26 k 1 1 k 1 3 10 5 A over 3 3 Total 96 33 186 ll* 2 U 335 Souroei Original data.

Table 58 Changes in Humber of Individuals 21-50 Years of Age Per Household in a Speoifio Qroup of 296 Households, Dayton Ohio, 1955 - 1958

Individuals Individuals 21-50, 1958 21 - 50 1955 0 1 2 3 U Total (No. in Households) (Number of Households) 0 h5 3 5 0 0 51 1 9 6 7 0 0 22 2 16 18 11*9 9 1 193 3 h 2 11 3 1 21 k 0 0 3 3 1 7 5 « over 0 0 2 0 0 2 Total 72 29 177 15 3 296 Souroei Original data. 99

Table 59

Chang* in Amber of Individuals over 50 Tears of Age Within a Speoifio Group of JJ$ Households in Cleveland, Ohio 1959 - 1998

Individuals Individuals Over 50» 1998 Over 50 9 & 1999 0 1 2 3 1*. over Total ^No. in Households) (Number of Households) 0 U k 18 32 3 227 1 16 20 9 2 1 1*1* 2 11 6 1*2 2 61 1 1 1 3 I 5 & over Total 202 U5 60 7 1 339 Souroei Original data.

Table 60 Change in Number of Individuals over 5° YearB of Age Within a Speoifio Group of 296 Households in Ebyton,, Ohio 1955 - 1998

Individuals Individuals Over 50, 1998 Over 50 1999 0 1 2 3 1*. Total (No. in Household) (Number of Households) 0 171 26 lU 2 0 213 1 7 7 3 1 0 18 2 6 7 Ul 1* 0 60 3 0 1110 3 1* 0110 0 2 Total 186 1*2 60 8 0 296 Souroe: Original data. 100

Table 61

Relationship of Changes in Household Inoome and Changes in Total Hilk Purohases per Household, Cleveland and Dayton Metropolitan Areas, 1955 to 1958

dhange in Change in Total Milk Purohases per Household Household Inoome 1955 to 1958 1955 to 1958 Inorease Constant Deorease TotaT (Psroent of Households, Cleveland)

Inorease 15.1 8.8 10.4 34.3 Constant 16.3 9.2 15.1 4o.6 Deorease 5.9 5.4 13.8 S5.1

Total 57.3 23.1; 39.3 100.0

(Psroent of Households, Dayton)

Inorease U.9 9.1 17.1 38.1 Constant 15.1 9.9 13.5 38.5 Deorease 7.1 4.0 12.3 23.4

Total 34.1 23.0 42.9 100,0

Souroet Original data and computations. 101

Table 62 Relationship of Changes In Total 10.1k Purohases per Household and Changes In Household Size, Cleveland and Dayton Metropolitan Areas, 1955 to 1958

Changes in Changes in Total Milk Puroltases per Household, Household Inoane 1955 to 1958 1955 to 1958 Inorease Constant Deorease Total (Peroent of Households, Cleveland) Inorease 12.5 5.1 3.o 20.6 Constant 19.7 13.1 20.6 53.4 Deorease 5.1 4.5 I6.ii 26.0

Total 37.3 22.7 1*0.0 100.0 (Peroent of Households, Dayton)

Inorease 15.2 3.1* k.b 25.0 Constant 13.9 16.2 25.6 53.7 Deorease 5.3 3.7 1U.3 23.3

Total 3U.1* 23.3 1*2*3 100.0 Souroet Original data and computations. 102

Table 6? Relationship Between Changes in Household Inoane end Changes in Per Capita Milk Purohases for Household, Cleveland and Eejrton Metropolitan Area, 1955 to 1958

Changes in Changes in Per Capita Milk Purohases Per Household Inoane Household, 1955 to 1958 1955 to 1958 Inoreas e donstent decrease Total (Peroent of Households, Cleveland) Inorease 12.1 8.8 13.1* 3U.3 Constant 15.9 11.7 13.0 1*0.6 Deorease 7.9 6.3 10.9 25.1 Total 36.0 26.8 37.2 100.0

(Peroent of Households, Dayton) Inorease 9.9 12.3 15.9 38.1 Constant H*.3 9.5 li*.7 38.5 Deorease 7.5 6.0 9.9 23.1 Total 31,7 27,8 1*0.5 100.0

Souroei Original data and computations, Table 61; Sunmary of Selected Averages for Cleveland and Enyton Households Having Changes as Indicated Per Household Inoane, Household Site and Daily Per Capita Milk Purohases Per Household, 1955 to 1958

No, of Milk/ Per Cap./ Households Household Household Cleveland Dayton % * Under Under Par Capita Inoone Site Tear Cleve. Day. Cleve. Day. Cleve. Day. Size 20 Sice 20

Inorease Inorease Inorease 1958 11 8 2k.b5 21.88 1.1*7 11.18 1*. 73 50* 5.00 58* 1955 11 8 8.73 11.50 0.76 0.85 3.09 35* 3.38 33*

Inorease Increase Constant 1958 1h 13 12.1*3 19.92 1.18 1.50 2.93 29* 3.77 1*3* 1955 1h 13 6.00 12.15 0.58 0.88 2.93 29* 3.77 1*3* Inorease Constant Constant 1958 21 12 15.29 13.25 1.25 1.08 3.38 1*2* 3.17 37* 1955 21 12 9.2U 7.1*2 0.73 0.62 3.38 39* 3.17 37* Inorease Constant Decrease 1958 10 H* 12.10 11.79 1.26 1.23 2.70 26* 2.79 31* 1955 10 H* 11.70 9.71 0.80 0.62 U.50 30* 1*.29 37* Inorease Decrease Decrease 1958 10 6 11.60 9.50 1.20 0.97 3.00 20* 2.83 21** l$55 10 6 10.20 7.83 0.63 0.1*9 1*.90 27* M 3 31*

Source: Original data and computations. Table 65 Sumnary of Selected Averages for Cleveland and Layton Households Saving Changes as Indicated Per Household Income, Household Size and Daily Per Capita Mill Purchases Per Household, 1955 to 1958

Number of Milk Per Per Capita Per Households Household Household Cleveland Dayton % % Under Under Per Capita Inoone Site Tear Cleve. Day. Clove. Day. Cleve. Day. Size 20 Size 20

Constant Inorease Increase 1958 7 15.50 ll*.00 0.75 O.76 5.50 5952 5.U* 1*7# 1955 k 7 7.75 8.86 0.75 0.78 3.00 1*2# 3.29 cD/0 Constant Inorease Constant 1958 11* 21 8.57 8.00 0.86 0.78 2.71 31*# 2.86 27# 1955 11* 21 8.79 8.05 0.89 0.78 2.71 31*# 2.86 23# Constant Constant Constant 1958 17 17 5.88 8.21* 0.73 0.69 2.23 11# 3.12 31*# 1955 17 17 5.82 8.1*1 0.72 0.70 2.23 11# 3.12 36# Constant Deorease Constant 1958 9 7 6.78 6.71 0.57 0.69 3.22 28# 2.71 21# 1955 9 7 7.11 7.oo 0.60 0.70 3.22 31# 2.71 21# Constant Deorease Deorease 1958 5 8 5.60 6.50 0.60 0.51 2.1*0 25# 3.38 la# 1955 5 8 8.1*0 8.50 0.57 0.1*5 3.80 32# 5.00 28#

Souroe: Original data and computations. Table 66 Sumnary of Sole cted Averages for Clove laud and Dayton Households Having Changes as Indicated Bar Household Inoane, Household Size and Dally Per Capita Milk Purchases Per Household 1955 to 1958

Ifunber of Milk Per Per Capita Per Households Household Household Cleveland ifcyton % * Under Under Per Capita Inc cme Size Year Cleve. Day. Cleve. Day. Cleve. Day. Size 20 Size 20

Deorease Inorease Inorease 1958 13 7 19.85 11.57 1.03 0.66 5.38 56* 5.00 51** 1955 13 7 22,00 13.86 1.60 1.06 4.oo 50* 3.57 1*1** Deorease Inorease Constant 1958 11* 27 8.07 7.26 0.66 0.58 3.14 41* 3.52 38* 1955 11* 27 13.1*3 12.00 1.11 0.96 3.14 39* 3.52 40*

Decrease Constant Constant 1958 2 k 22 9-1*6 8.11* 0.73 0.74 3.42 39* 2.91 27* 1955 24 22 15.17 12.68 1.21* 1.20 3.1*2 39* 2.91 2?* Deorease Decrease Constant 1958 n 13 6.55 5.77 0.57 0.58 3.oo 33* 2.62 21** 1955 11 13 12.61* 10.00 1.19 1.02 3.oo 30* 2.62 21** Decrease Decrease Decrease 1958 9 10 4.89 5.60 0.60 0.54 2.33 19* 2.1*0 21* 1955 9 10 14.56 16.50 1.08 1.15 3.78 32* 3.80 37*

Source: Original data and camputations. o vn 106

TaLle 67 So looted Information for 335 Households laving an Inorease, Constant or Deorease in Total Milk Purchased Per Week Cleveland Metropolitan Area From 1955 to 1958

Change in Total Milk 1955 to 1938 Item Inorease Constant Deorease Total

Number of Households 125 76 13h 335 Average Per Householdt Milk Per Week, 1958 (Qts.) 15.35 9.39 6.99 10.66 Milk Per Week, 1955 (Qts.) 8.21 9.88 13.15 10.56 Daily Per Capita, 1958 (Pints) 1.176 0.850 0.61+7 0.890 Daily Per Capita, 1955 (Pints) 0.695 0.899 1.01+9 0.883 Sise, 1958 3.71 2.95 3.01 3.26 Sise, 1955 3.36 2.96 3.67 3.39 Number tinder 10, 1958 0.96 0.55 o.l+o 0.61+ Number tfoder 10. 1955 0.77 0.62 0.65 0.69 Number 10 to ao. 1958 0.51 0.1+5 0.58 0.53 Number 10 to 20, 1955 0.38 0.29 0.63 0.1+6 Number 21 to 50, 1958 1.62 1.21 1.35 1.1+2 Number 21 to 50. 1955 1.74 l./»5 1.87 1.73 Number Over 50, 1958 0.61+ 0.75 0.69 0.69 Number Over 5 0 , 1955 0.79 0.61 0.51 0.52 Horae Delivered, 1958 (Qts.) 8.86 1+.17 3.1+9 5.65 Change Home Del, 1955-1958 (Qts.) 3.21 -0.95 —1+.62 -0.87 Store Purchase, 1958 (Qts.) 6.1+9 5.22 3.50 5.01 Change Store 1955 to 1 9 5 8 (Qts.) 3.65 0.66 1.1+7 0.92 Home Del, \ Gal. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 3.39 1.16 1.Q7 1.96 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 2.86 0.3*1 -0.22 1.06 Home Del. 1 Qt. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 1+.66 2.8/+ 2.22 3.27 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -0.28 -1.32 -3.96 -1.99 Store Gallon, 1958 (Qts.) 1.60 0.95 0.36 0.96 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 1.50 0.1+2 -0.12 0.61 * * • * ^ Continued 107

Table 67(contd.)

...... Cha’ngY Tn YoTal ¥lllc *1955 t7T$£fT Item Increase Constant Deorease Total

Store £ Oal. Glass, 1958 (Qts.) 2.1$ 2.39 1.99 2.25 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 2.1*1 2.08 1.62 2.02 3tore | Gal. Paper, 1958 (Qts.) 1.20 1.29 0.33 0.87 Change. 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -0.01 -1.17 -1.91 -1.03 Store 1 Qt. Paper, 1958 (Qts.) 0.93 0.30 O.J46 0.60 Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -0.01 -0.70 -0.?^ -0.1*6

Home Del.(peroent of total), 1958 58 bh 50 53 Home Del.(percent of total), 1955 69 52 62 62 Store (peroent of total), 1958 1*2 56 50 1+7 Store (percent of total), 1955 31 1*8 38 38

Souroe: Original data and computations. 108

Table 68 Seleoted Information for 296 Households Having an Inorease, Constant or Deorease in Total Milk Purohased Per Week Dayton Metropolitan Area, Prow 1955 to 1958

j ■ ■■ ■ i ws i-eim e s Change in Total Milk 1955 toJL958 _ Item Inorease Constant Deorease^ JTotal Number of Households 102 69 125 296 Average Per Household: Milk Per Week, 1958 (Qts.) 14*95 8.33 7.2 6 10.16 Milk Per Week, 1955 (Qts.) 8.91 8.04 12.52 10.23 Daily Per Capita, 1958 (Pints) 1.100 0.755 0.61+4 0.827 Daily Per Capita, 1955 (Pints) 0.705 0.751 1.017 0.848 Site, 1958 3.86 2.93 3.13 3.33 Site, 1955 3.45 2.96 3.57 3.39 Number Under 10, 1958 0.91+ 0.47 0.57 0.68 Number Dbder 10, 1955 0.67 0.49 0.77 0.67 Number 10 to 20, 1958 0.75 0.38 0.50 0.55 Number 10 to 20, 1955 0.59 0.23 0.50 0.47 Number 21 to 50, 1958 1.71 1.20 1.46 1.49 Number 21 to 50* 1955 1.82 1.43 1.80 1.72 Number Over 50, 1958 0.50 0.87 0.60 0.63 Number .Over 50* 1955 0.37 0.80 0.50 0.52 Home Delivered, 1958 (Qts.) 8.35 5.78 5.00 6.34 Change Home Del.1955-1958 (Qts,) 1.33 0.04 -5*46 -1.83 Store Purchase, 1958 (Qts.) 6.6o 2.55 2.26 3.82 Change Store 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 4.41 0.65 0.54 1.82 Home Del. Gal. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 1.04 1.42 0.94 1.09 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qte.) 1.00 1.22 -0.34 0.49 Home Del. 1 Qt. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 2.48 2.26 1.66 2.06 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -2.91 -2.64 -5.56 -3.97 Store Gallon, 1958 (Qts.) 4.04 0.93 0.90 1.99 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 3.84 0.93 0.80 1.88 Continued 109

Table 68 (contd.)

Change In Total MllJc 1955 to 1958 Item Inorease Constant Deorease Total Store & Gal. Glass, 1958 (Qts.) 0.1)5 0.22 0.06 0.23 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 0.37 0.07 -0.08 0.11

Store J- Gal. Paper, 1958 (Qts.) 1-29 0.1)8 0.68 0.81) Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qta.) 0.59 0.01 -0.16 0. 1!)

Store 1 Qts. Paper, 1958 (Qts.) 0.1U 0.55 0.22 0.27 Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -0.61 -o ja -0.39 -0.1)7 Home Del,(peroent of total), 1958 56# 69 69 62 Homo Del.(peroent of total), 1955 79% 71 81 80

Store (peroent of total), 1958 W 31 31 38 Store (peroent of total), 1955 21% 29 19 20

Souroe: Original data and computations• 110

Table 69

Selected Information for 335 Households Having an Increase, Constant or Deorease in Household Income, Cleveland Metropolitan Area Fran 1955 to 1958

Change in Household Inoome 1955-1958 Item Inorease Constant Deorease Total

Number of Households 82 97 60 335* Average Per Household:

IttUc Per Week, 1958 (Qts.) 13.18 12.08 9.30 10.66 Milk Per Week, 1955 (Qts.) 11.44 U.75 10.50 10.56 Daily Dsr Capita, 1958 (Pints) 0.989 0.96k 0.778 0.890 Daily Per Capita, 1955 (Pints) 0.930 0.926 0.841 0.883

Size, 1958 3.70 3.36 3.30 3.26 Site, 1955 3.4o 3.51 3.68 3.39 Number Under 10, 1958 1.02 0.71 0.57 0.64 Number Uhder 10, 1955 0.88 0,81 0.63 0 .6 9 Number 10 to 20, 1958 0.59 0.59 0.55 0.53 Number 10 to 20, 1955 0.46 0.47 0.45 0.46 Number 21 to 50, 1958 1.52 1.41 1.60 1.42 Number 21 to 50, 1955 1.67 1.69 2.05 1.73

Number Over 50# 1958 0.59 0.65 0.58 0 .69 Number Over 50, 1955 0.38 0.53 0.55 0 .5 2 Home Delivered, 1958 (Qts.) 7.60 7.19 4.00 5.65 Change Home Del. 1955-1958 (Qts.) 0.21 -0.47 -1.52 -0.87 Stare Purchase, 1958 (Qts.) 5.59 li.90 5.30 5.01 Change Stare 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 1.59 0.76 - 0.30 0.92 Home Del. & Gal. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 2.73 3.11 1.27 1.96 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 1.71 2.03 0.60 1.06 Home Del. 1 Qt. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 4*48 3.44 2.67 3.27 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -1.76 -2.54 -1.88 -1.99

Store Gallon, 1958 (Qts.) 1.80 1.03 0 .67 0.96 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 1.22 0.87 -0.13 0.61

Continued Ill Table 69(oontd.)

^n‘ ^waeh^TTaeoma 1^55-1^8 Item Inoreaso Conetant Decrease Total

Store £ Gal. Glass, 1958 (Qts.) 2.5h 2.06 2.53 2.25 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 2J|6 1.8J* 1.88 2.02 Stcro £ Gal, Paper, 1958 (Qta.) 0.80 0.95 1.2? 0.87 Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -1.28 -0.99 -0.67 - 1.03 Store 1 Qt. Paper, 1958 (Qts.) 0.20 0.57 0.60 0.60 Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -0.56 -0.81 -0.68 -0J46 Home Del.(peroent of total), 1958 58 59 U3 53 Home Del.(peroent of total), 1955 65 65 53 62 Store (peroent of total), 1958 1+2 57 1+7 Store (peroent of total), 1955 35 35 1+7 38

*Inoludee 96 households whioh did not hare inoome data for one of tiro years. Souroei Original data and computations. 112 Table 70

Selected Information for 296 Households Hexing an Inorease, Constant or Deorease in Household Inoane, Deyton Metropolitan Area, From 1955 "to 1950

Change in Household Inoome 1955-1958 Item Inorease Constant Deorease Total Number of Households 96 97 59 296* Average Per Household: Milk Per Week, 1958 (Qts.) 11.27 11.39 7.69 10.16 Milk Per Week, 1955 (Qts.) 10.97 10.73 9.51 10.23 Daily Per Capita, 1958 (Pints) 0.86 h 0.901+ 0.612 0.827 Daily Per Capita, 1955 (Pints) 0.895 0.879 0.791 0.8l*B Sire, 1958 3.61 3.3** 2.88 3.33 Sire, 1955 3.1+5 3.1+3 3.1+2 3.30 Number Under 10, 1958 0.83 0.85 0.31 0.68 Number Under 10, 1955 0.75 0.80 0.1+6 0.67 Number 10 to 20, 1958 0.65 0J4B 0.51 0.55 Number 10 to 20, 1955 0.52 0.1+5 0.1+9 0.1+7 Number 21 to 50* 1958 1.61 1.56 1.36 1.1+9 Number 21 to 50, 1955 1.78 1.73 1.85 1.72 Number Over 50, 195° 0.52 0.51 0.71 0.63 Number Oxer 50, 1955 0.38 0.55 0.63 0.52 Home Delivered, 1958 (Qts.) 6.76 7.69 I+.29 6.31+ Change Home Del. 1955-1958 (Qts .) -2.19 -0.13 -3.56 -1.83 Stare Purchase, 1958 (Qts.) 4.51 3.70 3.1+1 3.82 Change Store 1955 to 1958 (Qts. ) 2.57 0.87 1.75 1.82 Hone Del. & Gal. Gl., 1958 (Qts .) 1.73 0.68 0.75 1.09 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 1.25 0.19 -0.11+ 0.1+9 Home Del. 1 Qt. Gl., 1958 (Qts. ) 2.30 1.93 2.03 2.08 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 4+.30 -3.29 -1+.08 -3.97

Store Gallon, 1958 (Qts.) 2.63 2.10 1.29 1.99 Change 1955 to 1958 2.50 1.90 1.29 1.88 Continued 113 Table JO (oontd.)

Change In Household Inoome 1955-195^ Item Inorease Constant Deorease Total

Store £ Gal. Glass, 1958 (Qts.) 0.51 0.02 0 .0 0 0.23 Chance 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 0.30 0,00 -o.a!+ 0.11

St

Store 1 Qt. Paper, 1958 (Qts.) 0.10 0.33 0 .I42 0.27 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -0.U7 - 0.60 -0.29 -O.1+7

Home Del,(peroent of total), 1958 60 68 56 62 Home Del.(percent of total), 1955 82 73 83 80

Store (peroent of total), 1958 i+o 32 1* 38 Stare (percent of total), 1955 18 27 17 20

♦Includes UU households whioh did not have income data for one of the tiro years, Souroet Original data and computations. 114 Table 71 Selected Information for 355 Households Haring an Inorease, Constant or Decrease in Per Capita Milk Purchased, Cleveland Metropolitan Area, From 1955 to 1958

Change in Per Capita Per Household Item Tnc'rease (Tori tant "Deo re as o" Yotal Number of Households 122 95 120 335 Average Per Household:

Milk Per Week, 1958 (Qts.) 14.67 7.90 8.71 10.66 Milk Per Week, 1955 (Qts.) 8 . 3 2 8.17 14.70 10.56

Daily Per Capita, 1958 (Pints) 1.236 0.677 0.890 o o o (-■ l-J (-■ . . . Daily Per Capita, 1955 (Pints) 0.669 •pro 1.231 0.883

Size, 1958 3.41 2.90 3.38 3 . 2 6 Size, 1955 3.57 3.15 3.4i 3.39

Number Under 10, 1 958 0.82 0.35 0.69 o . 6 4 Number Under 10, 1955 0 . 8 2 o.44 0 . 7 4 0.69

Number 10 to 20, 1958 oJi4 0.52 0.62 0.53 Number 10 to 20, 1955 0.35 0.54 0.51 0 . 4 6

Number 21 to 50, 1958 1.52 1.28 1.42 1.42 Number 21 to 50, 1955 1.84 1.56 1.73 1.73

Number Over 50, 1958 0.64 0.77 0.67 0.69 Number Over 50, 1955 0.55 o.6i 0.43 0 . 5 2

Home Delivered, 1958 (Qts,) 8 .17 3.63 4.65 5 .65 Change Home Del., 1955-1958 (Qts.) 3 .09 -1.25 - 4.59 -0.87

Store Purchase, 1958 (Qts,) 6.50 4 . 2 7 4 * o 6 5.01 Change Store 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 2 .99 1.13 - 1 .34 O.92

Home Del. & Gal. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 3 .34 0.56 1.63 1.96 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 2.80 0.19 -o.o4 1.06

Home Del, 1 Qt. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 3.96 2.83 2.93 3 . 2 7 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -0.39 - 1 . 4 4 -4.o4 -1.99

Stare Gallon, 1958 (Qts.) 1.44 0.99 0.43 0.96 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 1.21 0.86 -0.20 0 .61 Continued 115

Table 71 (oontd.)

Change In Per Capita Per Household Item Inorease Constant Decrease Total

Store £ Gal. Glass, 1958 (Qts*) 2.51 1.1*6 2.60 2.S5 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 2.5U 1.13 2.38 2.02 Store Gal. Paper, 1950 (Qts.) 1.25 I.05 0.35 0.87 Change, 1955 to 195® (Qts.) -0.12 -0.1*0 -2.145 -1.03 Stare 1 Qt. Paper, 1958 (Qts.) 0.93 0.55 0.1*5 0.60 Change, 1955 to 1950 (Qts.) - 0.19 -0.1*7 -0.72 -0.1*6 Home Del.(percent of total), 1958 56 ll6 53 53 Home Del.(percent of total), 1955 61 60 63 62 Store (percent of total), 1950 1*1* 5k 1*7 1*7 Stare (peroent of total), 1955 39 1*0 37 38

Source: Original data and computations 116 Table 72 Seleoted Information for 296 Households Haying an Inorease, Constant or Decrease in Per Capita MiIk Purohased, Dayton Metropolitan Area, Frcm 1955 to 1958

Change in Per Capita Per Household Item Inorease Oonstant De or ease Total

Humber of Households 95 a!* 117 2 9 6 Average Per Household*

Milk Per Week, 1 9 5 8 (Qts.) m . 7 8 8 .3 9 7.68 10.16 Milk Per Week, 1 9 5 5 (Qts.) 8.87 8.18 12.81 10.23 00 CO 3 £ 0 Daily Per Capita, 1958 (Pints) 1.157 0.713 0.61*1 . . 0

Daily Per Capita, 1955 (Pints) 0.657 0 . 7 1 2 1 .099

Size, 1958 3.57 3 . 2 U 3.21 3.33 Sise, 1955 3.63 3.23 3.29 3 .39

Humber Under 10, 1958 0.75 0.65 0.63 0.68 Humber ttader 10, 1955 0.68 0.68 0.65 0.67

Humber 10 to 20, 1958 0.77 0.1)1* 0.1*6 0 .55 Humber 10 to 20, 1955 0.63 0.29 0.1*7 0.1*7

Humber 21 to 50* 1958 1.63 1.58 1J 1U 1.1*9 Humber 21 to 5°, 1955 1.93 1.61 1.61* 1.72

Humber Over 50, 1958 0.1i5 0.76 0 .68 0.63 Humber Over 50, 1955 0 . 3 9 0.67 0.53 0 . 5 2

Home Delivered, 1958 (Qts.) 7 . 8 2 6.1*0 5 . 0 9 6.31* Change Home Del. 1 9 5 5-1958 (Qts.) 1.19 - 0 . 0 2 -5.59 -1.83

Store Furohase, 1958 (Qts.) 6 .9 6 1.90 2.60 3 .82 Change Store 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 1*.69 0.23 0.61 1.82

Home Del. £ Gal. 01., 1958 (Qts.) l.U* 1.2t| 0 . 9 U 1.09 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 1.09 0 .69 -0.15 0.1*9

Home Del. 1 Qt. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 2.5I+ 2 . 2 0 1.62 2.08 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) - 2 . 7 1 -2.73 -5.85 -3.97

Store Gallon, 1958 (Qts.) U .29 0.52 1.16 1.99 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) l*.o8 0.52 I .06 1.88

Continued 117 Table 72(cantd.)

Change In Per Capita Per Household Item Inorease Constant Decrease Total

Store ^ Qal* Glass, 1950 (Qts.) 0.29 0.31 0.15 0.23 Change 1955 to 195® (Qts.) 0.21 0.19 - 0.05 0.11

Store ^ Gal. Paper, 195® (Qts.) 1.26 0.52 o .7 t o.ak Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 0.59 - 0 .1 9 0.01 o .lk

Store 1 Qt. Paper, 1958 (Qts.) o.ko 0.29 0.15 0.27 Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -o .iii - 0.62 -0.1*7

Home Del.(percent of total), 1958 55 76 66 62 Home Del.(peroent of total), 1955 75 79 85 80

Store (peroent of total), 1958 k7 2k 31* 38 Store (peroent of total), 1955 25 21 17 20

Souroe: Original data and computations 118

Table 73

Selected Information for 333 Households Reporting Increased, Constant, and Dsoreased Household Size, Cleveland Metropolitan Area, From 1933 to 1956

Change in Household Size 1955*-1958 Item Increase Constant Decrease Total Number of Households 69 179 87 335 Average Per Households Milk Per Week, 1953 (Qts.) 17.57 9.18 8.22 10.66 Milk Per Week, 195? (Qts.) 12.33 9.26 11.84 10.56 Daily Fer Capita, 1958 (Pints) 1.035 0.847 0.865 0.890 Daily Per Capita, 1955 (Pints) I.071 0.851 0.799 0.883 Size, 1958 4.70 2.98 2.69 3.26 Size, 1955 3.29 2.98 4.33 3.39 Number Utader 10, 1956 1.61 0.51 0.15 0.64 Number Under 10, 1955 0.91 0.63 0.6? 0.69 Number 10 to 20, 1958 0.77 o.ia 0*56 0.53 Number 10 to 20, 1955 0.53 0.26 0.97 0.46 Number 21 to 50, 1958 1.87 1.26 1.39 1.42 Number 21 to 5°# 1955 1.70 1.54 2.14 1.73 Number Over 50, 1958 0.45 0.86 0.61 0.69 Number Over 50, 1955 0.35 0.54 0.6? 0.52 Home Delivered, 1958 (Qts.) 11.28 4.78 2.98 5.65 Change Home Del. i955-1958 (Qts.) 3.25 -1.21 -3.43 -0.87 Stcre Purchase, 1958 (Qts.) 6.29 4.40 5.24 5.01 Change Store 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 1.77 1.11 -.13 0.92 Home Del. & Gal. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 4.26 1.63 0.80 1.96 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 3.80 0.55 - 0.07 1.06 Home Del. 1 Qt. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 6.58 2.73 1.77 3.27 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -0.74 -1.74 -3.49 -1.99 Store Gallon, 1958 (Qts.) 1.39 0.69 1.15 0.96 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 0.81 0.49 0.69 0.61 Continued 119

Tablo 73 (oontd.)

Change in Hous eho id~5I z e I65*?-1958 Item Inorease Constant Deorease Total Store J Gal* Glass, 1958 (Qts.) 3.7 4 1.96 1.68 2.25 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 3.54 1.67 1.11 2.02 Store ^ Gal. Paper, 1958 (Qts.) 0.49 0.79 1.33 0.87 Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -2.09 -0.83 -0.61 -1.03 Store 1 Qt. Paper, 1958 (Qts.) 0.59 0.63 0.71 0.60 Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -0.35 -0.25 -0.98 -0,46 Home Del .(peroent of total), 1958 52 36 53 Home Del.(peroent of total), 1955 65 65 54 62 Store (peroent of total), 1958 36 48 64 47 Store (peroent of total), 1955 35 35 46 38 Inoome 1958 #5*765 #4,906 #4,567 #5.007 Inoome 1955 4,979 4,923 5,204 5.007

Change inoccie 1955“1958(peroent) 116?C 10c# 88% IOC#

Souroe: Original data and computations. 120

Table 7h

Selected Information for 296 Households Reporting Inoreased, Constant and Deoreased Household Size, Dayton Metropolitan Area, Prom 1955 to 1958

Change in Household 31re 1955*1958 Item Inorease Constant Decrease Total

Number of Households 68 159 69 296 Average Per Household:

Milk Per Yfeek, 1958 (Qts.) 15.26 9.00 7.81 10.16 l!ilk Per Week, 1955 (Qts.) 11.03 9.50 11.13 10.3 Daily Per Capita, 1958 (Pints) 0.929 0.785 0.825 0.827 Daily Per Capita, 1955 (Pints) 0.Q11 0.81+5 O.790 o.el+B Size, 1958 U.71 3.06 2.61 3.33 Size, 1955 3.1+0 3.06 1+.12 3.39 Number Under 10, 1958 1.68 O.lilt 0.23 0.68 Number Under 10, 1955 0.97 0.56 0 .6 2 0.67

Number 10 to 20, 1958 0.7h 0.50 0.51 0.55 Number 10 to 20, 1955 0 .3 2 0.1+0 0.78 0.1+7 Number 21 to 50, 1958 1.96 1.1+2 1.19 1.1+9 Number 21 to 50, 1955 1.87 1.59 1.88 1.72

Number Over 50, 1958 0.38 0.71 0.68 0.63 Number Over 50, 1955 0.2k 0.51 0.83 0.52

Horns Delivered, 1958 (Qts.) ll.Clk 5.39 3.88 6.3k Change Home Del. 1955-1958 (Qts.) 2.15 -2.1+0 -1+.1+5 -1.03 St ere Furehase, 1958 (Qts.) 1+.22 3.61 3.93 3.82 Change Store 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 2.k9 1.90 0.96 1.82

Home Del. £ Gal, Gl., 1958 (Qts*) 2.2k I .03 0.09 1.09 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 2.2k 0.27 *0.75 0.1+9 Home Del. 1 Qt. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 3.26 1.77 1.61 2.08 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -2.10 -1+.08 -5.19 -3.97 Store Gallon, 1958 (Qts.) 2.59 1.99 1.39 1.99 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 2.59 i.al+ 1.27 1.88 Continued 121

Table 7U(oontrl,)

...... Change in Houb eh old Size Item Inorease Content Decrease Total

Store & Gal* Glass, 1956 (Qts*) 0.57 0.09 oJi3 0.?3 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts*) 0,27 -O.Gl* 0.29 0.11

Store £ Qal* Paper, 1958 (Qts.) 0.53 o.eij. 1.17 o.aii Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) - 0.26 0.35 0.06 o.rlj Stcre 1 Qt. Paper, 1958 (C*ts.) o.oU 0.31 O.ljl 0.27 Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -0.63 -0.38 - 0.52 -o.l(7 Heme Del.(peroent of total),1958 72 6o 50 62 Home Del.(percent of to ta l),1955 81 76 75 80 Store (peroent of total), 1958 28 ho 50 38 Store (peroent of total), 1955 19 2J| 25 20 Inocme 1958 *5.7 h5 $5,658 &.S65 $5.1(85 Inoome 1955 5.205 5.U26 5,926 5.1(86 Change Inoome 1955-1958(peroent) 110^ loltf 82?! 100?! Source: Qri$-nal data and oamputations. 122

Table 75

Selected Information for 535 Households Ffe-ving an Increase, Constant or Deorease in Quantity of Milk Purchased by Home Delivery, Cleveland Metropolitan Area, 1955 bo 1958

Change Home Delivery Item Inorease Constant Deorease fco'fcal Number of Households 90 124 121 335 Average Per Householdi Milk Per Week, 1958 (Qts.) 14. 81* 8.W 9.82 10.66 Milk Per Week, 1955 (Qts.) 9.11 8.99 13.26 10.56 Daily Per Capita, 1958 (Pints) 1.097 0.813 0.816 0.890 Daily Per Capita, 1955 (Pints) 0.763 0.840 1.015 0.883 Sire, 1958 3.78 2.84 3.30 3.26 Sire, 1955 3.40 3.06 3.74 3.39 Number Under 10, 1958 i.o4 0.40 0.60 0.64 Number Under 10, 1955 0.90 0.41 0.81 0.69 Number 10 to 20, 1958 0.54 0.43 0.61 o.53 Number 10 to 20, 1955 0.33 0.43 0.59 0.46 Number 21 to 50, 1958 1.60 1.32 1.38 1 Number 21 to 50, 1955 1.67 1.70 1.79 1.73 Number Over 50# 1958 0.61 0.72 0.71 0.69 Number Over 50, 1955 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.52 Home Delivered, 1958 (Qts.) 13.96 1.35 3.88 5.65 Change Home Del.,1955-1958 (Qts.) 7.93 0.00 -8.30 —0.87 Store Puroiiase, 1958 (Qts.) 0.89 7.09 5.93 5.01 Change Store 1955-1958 (Qts.) -2.21 -0.62 4.83 0.92 Home Del.^ Gal, Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 5*64 0.00 1.22 1.96 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 5.24 0.00 -0.97 1.06 Home Del. 1 Qt. Gl., 1958 (Qtw,) 7.18 1.22 2.48 3.27 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 1.83 -0.97 -6.77 -1.99 Store Gallon, 1958 (Qts.) 0.09 1.29 1.26 0.96 Change 1955 to I958 (Qts.) -0.04 0.52 1.19 0.61 Continued 123

Table 75(oontd.)

Change* Bone tiol Ivory Item Inorease Constant Deorease Total Store Gal. Glass, 1958 (Qts.) 0.22 2.63 5.57 2.25 Change 1955 to 195® (Qts.) 0.02 2.23 3.29 2.02 Store Gal. Paper, 195® (Qts.) o.ho 1.69 0.38 0.87 Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -1.50 - 1.60 0.11 - 1.03 Store 1 Qt. Paper, 105® (Qts.) 0.13 0.Q8 0.56 o.6o Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -o.5li -1.09 0.26 -0.1(6 Home Del,(peroent of to ta l),1958 9l+ 16 l+o 53 Home Del.(percent of to ta l),1955 66 15 92 62 Store (percent of total), 1958 6 81+ 60 1+7 Store (peroent of total), 1955 3h 85 6 38

Souroet Original data and computations. 121+ Table 76

Selected Information for 296 Houbeholda Having an Inorease, Constant or Deorease in Quantity of Milk Purchased by Home Delivery, Dayton Metropolitan Area, 1955 to 1958

Change-All Containers-Home Delivered Item Inoreas e Constant Deorease Total Number of Households 78 75 XU3 296 Average Par Household: Milk Per Week, 1958 (Qts.) H+.76 7.69 8.95 10.16 Milk Per Week, 1955 (Qts.) 10.58 7.08 11.70 10.23 Daily Per Capita, 1958 (Pints) 0.999 0.796 0.71+9 0.827 Daily Per Capita, 1955 (Pints) 0.801+ 0.688 0.955 0.8i|8 Site, 1956 1+.08 2.72 3.25 3.33 Site, 1955 5.53 2.92 3.55 3.39 Number Under 10, 1958 1.22 0.25 0.60 0.68 Number Under 10, 1955 0.92 0.35 0.70 0.67 Number 10 to 20, 1958 0.73 0.37 0.55 0.55 Number 10 to 20, 1955 0.1+9 0.35 0 .5 2 0.1*7 Number 21 to 50, 1958 1.72 1.32 1.1+5 1.1+9 Number 21 to 50* 1955 1.82 1.59 1.71+ 1.72 Number Over 50, 1958 o .ia 0.77 0.67 0.63 Number Over 50, 1955 0.29 0.61+ 0.59 0.52 Home Delivered, 1958 (Qts.) 13.73 2.75 1+.19 6.31+ Change Home Del.,1955-1958 (Qts. ) 6 .0 9 0.00 -7.12 -1.83 Store Puroh&se, 1958 (Qts.) 1.03 1+.95 1+.76 3.82 Change Stcre 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -1.1+3 0.23 1+.1+2 1.82 Gallon H.D. 1958 (Qts.) l+.lo 0.27 0.1+5 1.36 Home Del. J Gal. Gl., 1958 (Qts. ) 1.95 0.69 0.83 1.09 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 1.72 0.59 -0.2*4 .1+9 Heme Del. 1 Qt. 01., 1958 (Qts.) 3.62 1.16 1.73 2.08 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -I.I46 -1.39 -6.69 -3.97 Store Gallon, 1958 (Qts.) 0.56 2.13 2.69 1.99 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) o.ia 1.87 2.69 1,88 Continued 125 Table 76 (contd.)

~cKmge-ATIl ContaYn~er~a-1 kmTe~ TSellrorVif ~ Item Inorease Constant Deorease Total Stcre J Gal. Glass, 195® (Qts.) 0.00 0.57 0.18 0.23 ChanCe 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -0.05 0.32 0.18 0.11 Store ^ Gal, Paper, 1958 (Qts.) 0.31 1.09 1.01 0.81+ Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -1.00 -0.21 0.9U O.II4 Store 1 Qt. Paper, 1958 (Qts.) 0.01 0.53 0.27 0.27 Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -O.7I+ -1.20 0.06 -0.1+7 Hone Del.(peroent of total),1958 93 36 U7 62 Home Del.(peroent of total),1955 72 39 97 80 Store (peroent of total), 1958 7 61+ 53 38 Store (peroent of total), 1955 28 61 3 20

Source: Original data and conputatiais. 126

Table 77

Saleoted Information far 335 Households Having an Inorease, Constant or Decrease in Quantity of Milk Purchased from 3tares, Cleveland Metropolitan Area, 1955 to 1958

Changs in Store Milk Purchases Item Inorease Cons tant Deorease Total

Number of Households 112 123 100 335

Average Per Household:

Milk Per TTeek, 1958 (Qts.) 12.ll* 10.19 9.57 10.66 Milk Per Tfeek, 1955 (Qts.) 10.L.9 8.82 12.79 10.56

Daily Per Capita, 1956 (Pints) 1.021 0.653 0.791 0.690 Daily Per Canita, 1955 (Pints) 0.859 0.798 1.013 0.883

Sire, 1958 3*33 32 J: 3.20 3.26 Sire, 1955 3.39 3.11 3.75 3.39

Number Uhder 10, 1958 0.55 0.70 0.68 0.61* Number Under 10, 1955 0.63 0.70 0.73 0.69

Number 10 to 20, 1958 0.66 0.36 0.58 0.53 Number 10 to 20, 1955 0.52 0.2lt 0.66 0.1*6

Number 21 to 50* 1958 1.1|6 l,/i.0 1.1:0 1.1*2 Number 21 to 50, 1955 1.81 1.52 1.88 1.73

Number Over 50* 1958 0.66 0.79 0.59 0.69 Number Over 50, 1955 0.1*3 0.63 0.1*9 0.52

Home Delivered, 1958 (Qts.) 1.68 9.15 5.58 5.65 Change Home Del. 1955-1958(Qts.) -5.81 1.36 1.91* -0.87

Store Purchase, 1958 (Qts.) 10.57 i.oU 3.99 5.01 Change 3tore 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 7.71* 0.00 -5.58 0.92

Home Del, J-Gal. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 0.55 2.1*2 2.96 1.96 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -0.69 1.72 2.20 1.06

Home Del. 1 Qt.. 01., 1958 (Qts.) 1.15 5.88 2.1*5 3.27 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -1*.70 -0.83 -0.32 -1.99

Store GallAn, 1958 (Qts.) 2.25 0.36 0.2/* 0.96 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 2.18 0.03 -0.1 jl* 0.61 Continued 127 Table 77 (oontd.)

C hange I nStore Milk P u rp h a s e s Item Inore*3e Constant Deorease Total

Store £ Gal. Class, 1950 (Qts.) U.75 0.37 1.76 2.25 Change 1955 to 1950 (Qts.) U.75 0.29 1.09 2.02 Store \ Gal. Paper, 1950 ( Q t s . ) 1.30 0.16 1.18 0.87 Change, 1955 to 1^58 (Qts.) 0.18 -0.31 -3.h2 -1.03 Store 1 Qt, Paper, 1950 (Qts.) 1.30 0.00 0./;5 0.60 Change, 1955 to 1950 (Qts.) 0.38 -0.10 -1.8!* - 0J46 Home Dol.{peroont of to ta l),1950 15 90 38 53 Home Del.(percent of total), 1955 73 88 28 62

Store (peroent of total), 1950 85 10 te hi Store (peroont of total), 1955 27 12 72 38

Source: Original data and computations. 120 Table 76 Selected Information for 296 Households Having an Increase, Constant or Decrease in Quantity of Milk Puroliased from Stores, Dayton Metropolitan Area, 1955 “to 1958

Change In Store Milk Puroliases Item Increase Cons tant Decrease T o t a l Number of Households 105 127 61* 296 Average Per Household: Milk Per Tfeel:, 1958 (Qts.) 11.22 9.99 8.77 10.16 I/dlk Per ’.Tee!', 1955 (Qts.) 9.75 10. 9/+ 9.63 10.23 Daily Per Canitn, 1958 (Pints) 0.909 0.807 0.733 0.027 Daily Per Capita, 1955 (Pints) 0.798 0.910 O.8OJ4 0.8l*B Size, 195Q 5.52 3.37 3.28 3.33 Size, 1955 3.57 3.38 3 .1*2 3.39 Number Under 10, 1958 0. 5G 0.7/4 0.70 0,68 Number Under 10, 1955 0.58 0.71 0.73 0.67 Number 10 to 2D, 1958 0.68 0.1*6 0.53 0.55 Number 10 to 20, 1955 0.50 0.1*1* 0.1*8 0.1*7 Number 21 to 50, 1958 1.50 1.1*5 1.55 1.1*9 Number 21 to 50, 1955 1.75 1. 6/4 1.88 1.72 Number Over 50, 1958 0.60 0.72 0.50 0.63 Number Over 50, 1955 0.56 0.59 0.33 0.52 Home Delivered, 1958 (Qts.) 2.19 9.57 6.73 6.31* Change Home Del. 1955-1958 (Qts.) -5.70 -0.9*4. 2.73 -1.83 Store Purohase, 1958 (Qts.) 9.03 o.l*3 2.03 3.82 Change Store 1955-1958 (Qts.) 7.50 0.00 -3.92 1.82 Home Del. Gallon, 1958 0.57 1.1*2 2.56 1.36 Home Del.J Gal.01., 1950 (Qts.) 0.29 2.06 0.1*7 1.09 Change 1955 to 1956 (Qts.) - 0.23 1.20 0.25 0.1*9 Home Del. lQt. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 1.19 2.55 2.61 2.08 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -5.22 —*4*79 -0.28 -3.97 Store Gallon, 1958 (Qts.) 4.80 0.22 0.88 1.99 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) k.72 0.22 0.50 1.88 Continued 129 Table 79 (oonfcd.)

Change In Store Milk Rrrohaaea Item Inorease Cons tent Deorease Total

Store \ Gal. Glass, 1959 (Qts.) 0 .6 6 0.00 0.00 0.23 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts•) 0.58 -0.06 -0.51 0.11

Store ^ Gal. Paper, 1958 (Qts.) 1.85 0.05 0.78 0 .8 U Change, 1955 to 1 ^ 8 (Qts.) 1.96 -0 .09- -1,23 O.U4

Store 1 Qt. Paper, 1958 (Qts.) 0.53 0.09 0.20 0.27 Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -0.08 0.00 -2.05 -0./+7

Home Del.(peroent of total),1958 20 96 77 62 Home Del,(percent of total),1955 81 96 U2 80

Store (peroent of total),' 1958 80 h 25 58 Store (percent of total), 1955 19 h 58 20

• « ^ ■ m

Source; Original data and oonputations. 130

Table 79

Selected Information for 335 Households Reporting Inoreased and Deareased Purchases of Milk in Gallon Jugs from Stores, Cleveland Listropolitan Area, 1955 to 1958

Change in Use of Gallon 1955-1958 Item Increase Decrease Total

Number of Households 17 9 335

Average Per Household:

Milk Per Week, 1958 Uts.) 20.18 8.11 10.66 Milk Per Week, 1955 U t s . ) 14.06 11.00 10.56

Daily f’er Capita, 1958 (Pints) 1.313 0.687 0.990 Daily Per Capita, 1955 (Pints) 0.923 0.800 0.883

Sire, 1958 4.71 3.33 3 .2 6 Sire, 1955 4.71 4.33 3.39

Number Under 10, 1958 1.00 1.00 0.64 Number Under 10, 1955 1.12 0.89 0.69

Number 10 to 20, 1958 1.38 0.44 0.53 Number 10 to 20, 1955 1.24 0.33 0,46

Number 21 to 50$ 1958 2.00 1.44 1.42 Number 21 to 50, 1955 2.00 2.89 1.73

Number Over 50, 1958 0.35 o.44 0.69 Number Over 50, 1955 0.35 0.22 0.52

Home Delivered, 1958 (Qts.) 2.71 3.00 5*65 Change Home Del. 1955-1958 Uts) -5.71 0 .6 7 -0.87

Store Purohase, 1958 (Qts.) 17 • 4? 5.11 5.01 Change Stare 1955-1958 (Qts.) 11.82 -3.56 0 .9 2

Home Del, i Gal. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 0.82 1.56 1.96 Change 1955 to 1950 (Qts.) -0.82 1.56 1.06

Home Del. 1 Qt. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 1.88 1.44 3.27 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -4.88 -0.89 -1.99

Store Gallon, 1958 (Qts.) 16.00 0.89 0.96 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 16.00 -7.56 0.61 Continued Table 79(contd.)

Change in Use of Gallon Item Increase Decrees e Total

Store ^ Gal. Glass. 1953 (Qts.) 0 .1 2 2.89 2.25 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -1.05 2.56 2.02

Store ^ Gal. Paper, 1958 (Qts.) 0.55 0.89 0.87 Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -O.Jtf 0 .8 9 -1.03

Store 1 Qt. Piper, 1958 (Qts.) 0.12 ■»«* 0 .6 0 Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -3.00 — -0 ./j6

Home Del.(peroentof total), 195® 13 37 53 Home Del. (percent of total), 1955 60 33 62

Store (peroent of total), 1958 87 63 hi Store (percent of total), 1955 1*0 67 38

Source: Original data and computations. 1 3 2

Table 80

Seleoted Information for 296 Households Having an Inorease, or Decrease in Purohases of Milk in Gallon Jugs from Stores, Dayton Metropolitan Area, Pram 1955 to 1958

Change In Gallon Jug-Storo 1955~1958 Item Inorease Deorease *Total

Number of Households 40 2 296 Average Per Householdj

Milk Per Week, 1958 (Qts.) 17.50 10.16 Milk Per Vfeek, 1955 (Qts.) 15.67 10.23

Daily Per Capita, 1958 (Pints) 1.155 0.827 Daily Per Capita, 1955 (Pints) 0.956 0.843

Site, 1958 4.58 3.33 Site, 1955 4.55 3.39

Number Under 10, 1958 0.90 0.68 Number Under 10, 1955 1 .0 2 0.67

Number 10 to 20, 1958 1.30 0.55 Humber 10 to 20, 1955 0.95 0.47

Number 21 to 50# 1958 I .83 1.49 Number 21 to 50, 1955 1.92 1.72

Number Over 50, 1958 0 .4 2 0.63 Number Over 50, 1955 0.45 0 .5 2

Home Delivered, 1958 (Qts.) 2.62 6.34 Change, Home Del. 1955*1958 (Qts. -6.00 -1.83

Store Purchase, 1958 (Qts.) 14.88 3.82 Change Store 1955 to 195O (Qts.) 10.10 1.82 Home Delivered Gal. 1958 (Qts.) 1.40 1.36 Home Del, J Gal. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) *— 1.09 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) — 0.49

Home Del. 1 Qt. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 0.88 2.06 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -6.10 -3.97

Stare Gallon, 1958 (Qts.) 14.50 1.99 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 14.30 1.88 Continued 133

Table 80 f'ontd.)

Change' in’ Gallon jVg-'sVdrV Item Inorease Deorease Total

Store \ Gal, Glass, 1958 (Qts.) 0.23 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -0.70 0.11

Store £ Gal, Paper, 1958 (Qts.) 0.10 0 .81+ Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -1.95 0 .U+

S t o r e 1 Q t. Paper, 1958 ( Q t s .) _ _ 0.27 Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -0 .I+2 -o.J+7

Home Del.(peroent of total),1958 15 62 Hone Del.(peroent of total),1955 61+ 80

Store (peroent of total), 1958 85 38 Store (percent of total), 1955 36 20

Source: Original data and computations. 13k Table 81

Soleoted Inf or mat ion for 335 Households Having an Inorease or Deorease in Hilk Purchased in £ Gallon Glass From Store Cleveland Metropolitan Area, From 1955 to 1958

Change in \ Gallon Glass - Store Item Inoraaae Deorease Total

Number of Households 7k 10 335

Average Per Household:

Milk Per Week, 1958 (Qts.) 11.20 7.30 10.66 Milk Per Week, 1955 (Qts.) 12.7/+ 10.70 10.56

Daily Per Capita, 1958 (Pints) 0.908 0.687 0.890 Daily Per Capita, 1955 (Pints) 0.992 0.75k 0.883

Size, 1958 3.59 3.00 3 .2 6 Sizo, 1955 3.58 k .60 3.39

Number Under 10, 1958 0 .6 2 0.20 0 .6k Number Under 10, 1955 0 ,6 2 0.70 0.69

Number 10 to 20, 1958 0 .7 0 0.70 0.53 Number 10 to 20, 1955 0.58 1.10 o,k6

Number 21 to 50, 1958 1 .1*6 2.00 l.k2 Number 21 to 50, 1955 1.96 2.20 1.73

Number Over 50, 1958 0.61 0 .10 0 .6 9 Nunfcer Over 50, 1955 0.1*3 0 .60 0.52

Home Delivered, 1958 (Qts.) O .76 2.20 5.65 Change Home Del, i955-1958 (Qts.) -5.59 0.10 -0.87

Store Purchase, 1958 (Qts.) 10,/1.5 5.10 5.01 Change Store 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) k.26 -3.50 0 .9 2

Home Del. & Gal. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 0.22 1.20 1.96 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) - 1.12 1.20 I .06

Home Del. 1 Qt. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 0.1*6 1.00 3.27 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) - k.05 -1.10 -1.99

Store Gallon, 1958 (Qts.) 0.11 1.60 0 .9 6 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -0 .5k 1.60 0.61 Continued 135 Table 01 (oontd.)

1 ******** • Change in £ Gallon Glass - Store Item Inorease Deorease Total

Store £ Gal* Glass* 1958 (Qts*) 9*95 1.00 2.25 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 9.89 -5 .6 0 2.02

Store Gal. Paper, 1958 (Qts*) 0.11 0.60 0.87 Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts*) -3 .6/4 0.20 -1.03

Store 1 Qt. Paper, 1958 (Qts.) 0.03 0 .H0 0*60 Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -1.16 o.Uo -O.J46

Home Del,(peroent of total), 1958 7 30 53 Home Del.(percent of total), 1955 50 20 62

Store (peroent of total), 1958 93 70 hi Stare (peroent of total), 1955 50 60 38

Sources Original data and computations. 136

Table 82

Selected Information for 296 Households Ilaving an Increase or Deorease in LUlk Purchased in £ Gallon Glass Fran Store Dayton Metropolitan Area, 1955 to 1958

^ Gallon Glass - Store Item Increase Deorease Total

Number of Households 6 5 296

Average Per Household:

Milk Per Week, 1958 (Qts.) 11.83 8.80 10.16 Milk Per Week, 1955 (Qts.) 10.00 9.80 10.23

Daily Per Capita, 1958 (Pints) 0.895 0.662 0.827 Daily Per Capita, 1955 (Pints) 0.905 0.654 0 .8/48

Sire, 1958 3.67 3.80 3.33 Sire, 1955 3.50 4.20 3.39

Number Under 10, 1958 0.83 0.80 0.68 Number Under 19, 1955 0.50 0.80 0.67

Number 10 to 20, 1958 1.00 1.20 0.55 Number 10 to 20, 1955 0.67 1.00 0.47

Number 21 to 50, 1958 1.33 1.80 1.49 Humber 21 to 50, 1955 1.83 2.00 1.72

Number Over 50# 1958 0 .5 0 0.00 0.63 Number Over 50# 1955 0.50 o.4o 0.52

Hone Delivered, 1958 (Qts.) 0 .0 0 2.40 6.34 Change Hone Del. 1955-1958 (Qts.) -5.33 o.ho -1.83

Store Purohmse, 1958 (Qts.) 11.83 6. 4o 3.82 Change Stbre 1955 to I958 (Qts.) 7.17 -1.4o 1.82 Home Del. Gallon 1958 (Qts.) 0.00 2.4o 1.36 Home Del. §■ Gal. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 0.00 0.00 1.09 Change 1955 to 1950 (Qts.) 0,00 0.00 0.49

Home Del. 1 Qt. Gl., 1958 (Qts.) 0.00 0.00 2.08 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -4 .6 7 - 2.00 -3.97

Stare Gallon, 1958 (Qts.) 0.00 4.00 1.99 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 0.00 4 .0 0 1.88 Continued 137 Table 82 (oontd^

Change In ^ Gallon Glass - Store Item Inorease Deorease Total

Store £ Gal, Glass, 1958 (Qts,) 11.50 0 .0 0 0.23 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 11.50 -7.20 0.11

S t c r e £ Gal, Paner, 1958 ( Q t s .) 0.00 2.00 0.8l* Change, 1955 to'1958 (Qts.) -3.33 2.00 O.U*

Store 1 Q t, Paper, 1958 (Qts,) 0.00 0.00 0.27 Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -0.83 -0.1*0 -oJ+7

Hone Del,(peroent of total), 1958 0 2? 62 Home Del.fperoont of total), 1955 53 20 80

Stare (peroent of total), 1958 100 73 38 Store (peroent of total), 1955 hi 80 20

Souree j Original data and computations. 138

Table 63

Selected Information for Households Reporting Milk Price Per Quart as Less than 2 0 / , 2 0 / and Over, and Lata for All Households, Clersland Area, I958

Reported* Prioe Per^ Quart m ---- Item ___ Under 20/ 20/ and Over Households

Number of Households 86 129 335

Average Per Household!

Milk Per Week, 1958 (Qts.) 12.37 10.36 10.66 Milk Far Week, 1955 (Qts.) 12.68 9.81* 10.56

Daily Per Capita, 1958 (Pints) 0,92 0.92 0.89 Daily Per Capita, 1955 (Pints) 0.97 0.67 0.88

Site, 1958 3*65 3.17 3.26 Size, 1955 3.81 3.26 3.39

Number Under 10, 1958 O .76 0.59 0.61* Humber Under 10, 1955 0.81* 0.67 0 .69

Number 10 to 20, 1958 0.76 0 .1*8 0.55 Number 10 to 20, 1955 0.65 0.1*3 0 .1*6

Number 21 to 50# 1958 1.60 1.32 1 .1*2 Number 21 to 50, 1955 I.87 1.60 1.75

Number Over 50, 1958 0.53 0.79 0.69 Number Over 50, 1955 o.i[6 0.57 0.52

Home Delivered, 1958 (Qts.) 1.72 6.91 5.65 Change Home Del, 1955-1958 (Qts.) -5.09 0.76 -0.87

Store Puroliase, I95O (Qts.) 10.66 3.1*6 5.01 Change Store 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 1+.83 -0.51+ 0.92

Heme Del. J Gal. 01., 1950 (Qts.) 0.86 2.87 1.96 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -0.9*+ 1.91 I .06

Home Del. 1 Qt. 01., 1950 (Qts.) 0 .81* 3.1(6 3.27 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -3.70 -1.1*6 -1.99

Store Gallon, 1958 (Qts.) 2.37 0 .2 2 0.96 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 1.35 0.12 0.61 Continued 139

Table 83(contd.)

Reported }Yioe Ter Quart ------m — Item Under 2

Store ^ Gal. Glass, 1958 (Qts.) 7.h2 0.2(3 2.25 Chance 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 7.03 0.31 2.02

Store ^ Gal, Paper, 1958 (Qts.) 0.26 1.2(6 0.87 Chance, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -2.25 -0.55 - 1.03

Store 1 Qt. Parer, J950 (Qts.) 0.07 1.10 0.60 Chance, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -1.06 -0.1? -0.2(6

Home Eel,(percent of total), 1958 litf 6r/> 53% Home Del.(percent of total), 1955 55 61 62

Store (percent of total), 1958 86 33 2*7 Store (percent of total), 1955 hi 39 38

Source* Ordinal Date and computet lens. 1U0

Table 8l*

Selected Information fcr Horneholds Reporting Milk Pride Per Quart as I-ess than 20/, 2 0 / and Over, end Data for All Households, Dayton Area, 1958

Reported Pri ce Per Quart — nr™* Item Under 20/ 20/ and Over Households

Number of Households 62 133 296

Average Per Households

Milk Per 'week, 1958 (;'ts.) 15.76 8.58 10.16 Milk Per Week, 1955 (Qts.) 12.92 8.81 10.23

Daily Per Capita, 1958 (Pints) 0.90 0.79 0.83 Daily Per Capita, 1955 (Pints) 0.86 0 .8 ] 0.85

Size, 1958 1*.39 2.99 3.33 Size, 1955 1*.1*2 3.03 3.39

Number Under 10, 1958 0.97 0.61 0.68 Number Under 10, 1955 1.02 0.56 0.67

Number 10 to 20, 1958 1.27 0.52 0.55 Number 10 to 2 0 , 1955 1.00 0.29 0.1*7

Number 21 to 50, 195G 1.76 I .30 1.1*9 Number 21 to 50, 1955 2.00 1.6 ? 1.72

Number Over 50, 1958 0.1*5 0.67 0.63 Number Over 50, 1955 0.1*0 0.56 0,52

Home Delivered, 1958 (Qts,) 5.50 6.31* 6.3lj Change Ilome Del, i955-1958 -3.05 -0.83 -1.83

Store Purclase, 1958 ( 0.ts,) 10.26 2.25 3.82 Change Stare 1955 to 1958 (Qts,) 5.82 0.73 1.82

Home Del, & Oal. Gl., 1958 (Qts,) 0.39 0.99 I.0 9 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts,) 0.16 0,68 0.1*9

Home Del, 1 Qt, Gl,, 1958 (Qts,) 0.52 3.05 2.08 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts,) -6.11 -2.93 -3.97 Store Gallon, 1958 (Qts,) 8.32 0.09 1*99 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) 7.9U 0.09 1.86 Continued Table 8/; (oontd J

lTeportecf frloe far ~£uart~ ITT"" Item Under 20/ 20/ and Over Households

Store $ Qal. Glass, 1956 (Qts.) 0*61 0.23 0.23 Change 1955 to 1958 (Qts#) 0.13 0.18 0.11 Store ^ Gal# Paper, 1958 (Qts.) 0.82 0.98 0.81; Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -1.11 0.62 o.ik Store 1 Qt, Paper, 1958 (Qts.) 0.00 0.26 0.27 Change, 1955 to 1958 (Qts.) -0.69 -0.77 -0.1-7 Home Del#(percent of total), 1958 55/* W 62^ Home Del#(percent of total), 1955 66 82 80

Store (peroent of total), 1958 65 26 38 Store (peroent of total), 1955 3u 18 20

Souroe: Original data and computations. Table 85 Households Tiling Various Containers Compared With Their Stated Container Preference, 335 Households, Cle-veland Area, 1958

Container Container Preferred 1958 Used 1 Quartt 1 Quart So 1958 Gallon £ Gallon Glass \ Gallon Paper Glass Paper PTeferenoe Total

Gallon 5 5 6 3 1 2 22

| Gallon Glass 5 73 8 20 10 7 123 £ Gallon Paper 0 9 18 4 12 1 44 1 Quart Glass 0 7 6 98 14 5 130

1 Quart Paper 1 5 4 15 21 3 49

Ho Hill Used 2 1 2 5

Total 10 91 36 125 53 20 335

Souroe: Original data. Table 86 Households Using Various Containers Compared .Tith Their Stated Container Preference, 296 Households, Dayton Area, 195®

Container Container Preferred 1958 TJsed 1 Quart 1 Quart Ho 1958 Gallon £ Gallon Glass ^ Gallon Paper Glass Paper Prefers noe Total

Gallon 35 6 5 7 7 3 63

£ Gallon Glass 2 21 3 h 0 1 31

£ Gallon Paper 1 11 27 7 6 1* 56

1 Quart Glass 1 7 2 85 6 2 105

1 Quart Paper 1 3 h 1U 35 0 57 Ho Milk 1 1 2 1*

Total 38 Ui 1*0 107 57 10 296

Source: Original data.

•P* 11* EXHIBIT 1

Juno 16, 1959

Dear Consumer:

Analysis Is currently tinderway In an Ohio Agricul­ tural Experiment Station Study concerned with changes in consumer milk purchases for home use In Cleveland and Dayton areas.

Your household was contacted by telephone in March, 1955 and again in early November, 1958. A similar series of questions was asked both times. Upon summar­ izing the two questionnaires which were completed for your household, a much larger-than-average change has occurred In the amounts of milk purchased by your house­ hold during the seven day period preceding each inter­ view. We may have errored In recording the Information.

Thus, will you kindly assist us again In our re­ search effort by

(1) Checking the attached sheet for accuracy of the information pertaining to your household..

(2) Pro/iding corrected Information wherever errors are found.

(3) Answering one other question on the sheet.

(I4.) Returning the material In the enclosed stamped self-addressed envelope.

Your cooperation and assistance is appreciated.

Yours truly,

Ronald H. Pollock Instructor U*5 EXHIBIT 1 (cont.)

d u o AGKE CULTURAL EX PERI KE J-T STATION DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND RURAL SOCIOLOGY Verification Form — Consumer Milk Purchase Study Questionnaire Number ALL INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL, kindly com­ plete and return in the enclosed self- addressed envelope I. Total quantityoof milk purchased for home use in a 7-day period: Our Information Your Correction if Needed a. Maroh, 1955 (qts) b. November, 1956 (qts) o. Change (qts) ______

II. Household size (normal number of per3onsoating together at home): Our Information Your Correction if Needed a. Mar oh, 1955______b, November, 1956______o. Change______III. Age composition of household: (number in each group in household):

Our Information Tour' (Torrection if Needed Mar. Wov\ ’ Mar. Nov. Age Groups '55 * 50 Ch. '55 *58 Change a. Under 10 Yrs. Old b. 10 to 20 o. 21 to 50 d. Over 50 Yrs. Old e. Total ______"''' ' IV. If the quantity of miIV purchased for use at home increased or deoreased in answer (I.e.) above, what led you to make this change ? ______

V. Do you have apy comments relative to milk distribution in the Cleveland area?

(Use baok of sheet if necessary) Thanks for your assistance. llj.6

EXHIBIT 2

a study of milk buying behavior — Cleveland, 1958 No No. Wrong Refua sd Am . Changed Buay No. W. Y . H. Move d Other l>.to oalled ______8-12 1-5 6*9 Name ______Telephone ______Address Tract No. 1, Hear much milk did you buy last week and in whnt type and a ire of oontainer? No. of Heme Bought Converted Unite Delivery at Store to Quarts Type and Size *5B '55 fli. '*} & 'ChY f5B »55 CH. Gallon jug ______i- Gal., g la s s ______& Gal,, paper ^______1 qt., g l a s s ______1 qt. # paper ______Other ______Total

2. Did you buy any other milk products exoept whole milk last week? If yos, what and how much? 1958 1955 1958 1955 Cream _____ Evaporated milk ______Skim milk ______Dried akim ______Buttermilk ______Dried milk ______Chocolate ______Other______Note to Interviewer: The amount of akim milk, buttermilk, and ohooolate milk should be inoluded in question one under "other." 3. Did any member of your household buy milk outside the home last week auch as at school or at work? If yes, ask how much? 1958 Amount ______Dont know_____ None_____ 1955 Amount Don't knew None 11*7

EXHIBIT 2(cont.) U. How often last week did you buy (receive) milk? 1958 1955 5. (If milk is purchased at a store in question $1) ask, Why do you buy milk at the store? 1958 1955 1958 1955 a) convenience g) oash payment b) work h) irreg. purohase o) run out 1) other d) buy small j) never buy at quantity store e) economy Ifnever buy at store, skip to question -£6. 5. (a) When buying milk at a store, do you always buy the same brand? Yes No (Cirole) What is this brand? _ _ _ 6. Did you change your place of purchase during the past year? Yes No (Cirole) (If yes,) why? ______

7. If the price per quart was the same, what type and size of con­ tainer would you prefer? (Read categories) 1958 1955 1958 1955 a) Gallon, glass ______d) 1 quart, glass ___ _ b) gal., glass ______e) 1 quart, paper _____ o) & 6*1-# paper ______f) other ______8. If the price per quart was the same, would you prefer to have your milk delivered or purohased at a store? Delivered Store Purohased 9. How many members are there in your household? ______1958 ______1955 How many in each of following age groups? Age Group 1958 1955 (1°) How many members of your Under 10 household wtrk? 10 • 20 1, 2, 3, U, 5, 6 {*58)(Circle) 21 - 50 1( 2> 3< ht 3t 6 (t55)( circle) OV9r 50 ___ __—_ What type of work, such as aoeountant, truck driver, etc. ______1958 1955 114-8 EJCf'IHIT 2(oontd.)

11. In order to scientifically relate milk consumption with income, we would like to knew what income group you would be part of. This information will be kept strictly confidential. Your data is recorded only as a number with no referenoe to you.

Usually there are six income groups.

Group A. Annual family income $1,000 to $2,500 Group B. Annual family income $2,501 to 5/4., 000 Group C. Annual family income $1|.,001 to §5*500 Group D. Annual family inoome $5*501 to $7*000 Group E, Annual family income §7*001 to §10,000 Group F. Annual family income $10,000 and over Wow which group would you be in A, 3, C, D, E, or F. 1958 A B_ C D E F______1955 A____ B_ C D E F______If necessary, repeat categories. After person gives oategory, state that is the group whioh includes family Inoome of ______t o ______• If respondent gives exaot salary, please list hero. ______1958 ______1955 12. How much did you nay for milk the last time you bought it? j per qt. 1958 f per qt. 1955 Was it homogenised or rogular? H R (oirole) 1958 H R (oirole) 1955

13. Did your milk prioe change during the past year? Yes N o ___ (If yes) How much did it change? ______cents up. ______oents down.

Thank respondent for time and help. Any interviewer comments. 349

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bartlett, R.V., The Milk Industry. The Ronald Press Com­ pany, 1945.

Baum, E.L. and Corbrldge, J.L., Economic Study of Dairy Products Consumption. Seattle. Washington. Technical Bulletin d, Washington Agricultural Experiment Sta­ tion, State College of Washington, 1953*

Belky, W. J., "The Vector Hypothesis of Consumer Behavior," Journal of Marketing. 16:233-21*1, 1951.

Blakley, L. W., McMullln, L. D., and Boggs, K. B., Con­ sumer Preferences for Dairy Products and Services In Oklahoma fllty. TBclahoma Agricultural Experiment Sta­ tion Bulletin B-l*61*, 1955.

Blanford, C. J., The Demand for Milk and Cream as Revealed by Consumer Purchasesat Retail Stores lr Hew York City. Bulletin 7 6 5 . Cornell University~Igricultural Experiment Station, 191*1.

Blewett, G. W., and Schuck, C., "A Comparison of the Pood Consumption of Men and Women College Students," Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Volume £6, Jtuly7"i956. Brassier, R. G,, Jr., Efficiency of Milk Marketing in Con­ necticut (10. Consumer Demands and PreferencesTh Ml Ik Delivery).Bulletin 25t.Storrs Agricultural Experiment station, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, April, 19i*&.

Brinegar, George K., Effect of Changes in Income and Price on Milk Consumption. BuTTetIn zttO.^torra Agricul­ tural Experiment Station, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, July, 1951.

Clow, Bertha, Food Preference in Pour Areas of Montana. MimeographedReport, Montana State College.

Coles, Jessie V., Consumption of Dairy Products by Urban Families In California. Bulletin 767. California AgriculturalHBcperlment Station, University of Cali­ fornia, Berkeley, California, April, 1959. i5o

BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)

Coles, Jessie V.t "Consumption of Dairy Products," Cali­ fornia Agriculture . Series of eight articles: Octob­ er, 1552; November, 1952; December, 1952; January, 1953; February, 1953; March, 1953; January, 1954# February, 1954* Collins, W. E., Factors Affecting the Demand for Fluid Milk, AE 2770, College of Agriculture, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, December, 1950*

Cotton, Valter P., Consumption of Dairy Products In Urban North Carolina. Bulletin 3TT, toorth Carolina~Xgricul­ tural fixperlment Station, August, 1950.

Cowden, T, K. and Sturgea, Alexander, The Consumption of Fluid Milk and Other Dairy Products in Philadelphia, Mimeographed Report, Pennsylvania State College, June, 1954* Croxton, F. E. and Cowden, D. J., Applied General Statist­ ics. Prehtlce-Hall, Inc., Second Edition, 1955"!

Dickens, Dorothy, "Food Patterns of White and Negro Fami­ lies, 1936-1948#" Social Forces, Volume 27# May, 1949. Drake, P. F., Roach, E. and Watson, E. S., Use of Milk by Rural Families. South Carolina 1953# SouthUarolfna Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 431# 1955.

Dwoskin, P. B., Changing Patterns of Milk Consumption In Memphis■ Tennessee. Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Marketing Research Report ©9# 1954*

Ellenberger, H. B. and Stearns, J. T., The Consumption of Dairy Products in Burlington. Vermont. 1935-36. Bulletin h33# Vermont Agricultural Experiment Sta­ tion, May, 1938.

Eppright, E, S., Food Habits and Preferences: A Study of Iowa People in j|wo"lge Groups (Youth and fn Midale Age). Research Bulletin 3Vf># Iowa Agricultural Ex- periment Station, 1950.

Glass Container Manufacturerers1 Institute, "Latest News Reported on Milk Distribution," The Glass Milk Bot 151

BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)

Goulden, Cyril H., Methods of Statistical Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Second Edition, 1 9 5 2 .

Greenberg, Pearl, Milk Drinking Habits Young People. New York Milk Research Council and University of Newark Research Centre, 1938.

Hadary, G., "The Relationship of Chocolate Milk to Total Fluid Milk Consumption, Journal of Fara Economics. Volume XXVII, Number 1 , February, "T9I4.5 •

Hall, I. S. and Hall, C. S., "A Study of Disliked and Un­ familiar Foods,” Journal of the American Dletetlo Association. Volume ,^1^59.

Hawes, R. L., "Containers for Retailing Fresh Fluid Milk" Agricultural Marketing. United States Department of Sgriculture, r:1 6 -1 7 * 1958.

Helmberger, John D. and Roller, E. Fred, Quantity Discount Pricing of Fluid Milk. Bulletin I4.3 3 , Agricultural ExperimenF Station, University of Minnesota, Minne­ apolis, Minnesota, March, 1958.

Howell, L. D., "Some Phases of Consumer Preference and Demand," Journal of Farm Economics. 36:614.1-653* 195k • Jones, H. R. and Beeman, J., "Why People Buy Milk," The Milk Dealer. Volume 39* Number 10, July, 1950.

Journal of the American Dietetic Association (abstract), Volume 25* April, l9k9^

Luke, H. A., Consumer Use of Dairy Products In Portland. Maine. Bulletin 14-77* Rain Agricultural Experiment Station, 19I4.9 .

McKaln, Jr., Walter C., Stockwell, Edward G., and Nichols, Ralph R., Milk Consumption by Older Persons. Bulletin 339* Storrs Agricultural Experiment Station, Uni­ versity of Vermont* Burlington, Vemont, February, 1958.

Mead, Margaret, "Cultural Patterning of Nutritionally Relevant Behavior," Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Volume 25* August, 152

BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)

Melssner, P., Structure of the Paper Milk Container In- due try. Crovn-2ellerEackCorporation, MlmeograpEed bulletin, San Francisco, 1955.

Methods and Techniques for Study In Decision Making in Regard to Use of k*iry ProduoTs. Mississippi StaTe CollegeTgrlcurFural Experiment Station, Series 1, 1957. Mitchell, Glen H., Consumer Preference Toward Various Milk Containers in Blaht Ohio Markets. Mlmeo• A.E. 269, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster, Ohio, April, 1958.

Mitchell, G. H. and Baumer, E. F., A Progress Report on Selected Aspects of Four Ohio Hilk Marketing Systems. Ohio Agricultural“Experiment Station besearch Clr- cular 52, 1957.

Mitchell, G. H. and Baumer, E. P., Milk Marketing Distribu­ tion Systems In Ohio. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Circular 29# 1956.

Naim, J., Waananen, M. V,, and Harrington, A. H., Home pellyery and Store Purchases of Dairy Products lh Spokane/ Washington, Bullotln~~596. Washington Agrlcul- tural Experiment Station, Pullman, Washington, Octob­ er, 1958.

The National Grange, Barriers to Increased Consumption of Fluid Milk. January, 1955"T~

New York Milkshed Price Comlttee, Report, February, 1959.

Nonnamaker, F. "Does Price Sell Multiple Quarts," Milk Plant Monthly. 56:57-14.8, 1957.

Nygreen, M. S., (Abstraot) Journal of the American Dietet­ ic Association. Volume 36, April*, 1955.

"Paper Versus Glass Competition Intensified," American Milk Rerlcw. 2:31-36, 1950.

Park, C, W., ed.. Milk Packaging for Retail yid Distribu­ tion. The A. H. Pugh Printing Company, Cincinnati, CETo, 1956. 153

BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)

Alfred PolIts Research, Inc., Highlights from a Study of Public Attitudes Toward Dairy products. Report to”the American Dairy Association, Pall 1953*

Alfred Polltz Research, Inc., Highlights from a Study of Public Attitudes and Uses o? Produces. Report* to the American Dairy AssocTation. Study Number 2, Spring 1954* Alfred Polltz Research, Inc., Highlights Study Number 3, Public Attitudes and Uses of Dairy Products. Pall 1 9 5 5 :------Alfred Polltz Research, Inc., Highlights Study Number 6 , Public Attitudes and Uses of Dairy Products. Report for Arnerican Dairy Association, F^all 1956.

Psychological Corporation, A Study of Psychological Fact* ors Influencing the Drinking oF~Plain Milk by Adults. Study made for Milk Researcn Council, IHJ7.-T935:—

Purcell, Joseph C., Analysis of Demand for Fluid Milk and Fluid Milk Substitutes In thetfrVan South.Technical Bulletin N.S. 12, Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station, Experiment, Georgia, Ootober, 1957*

Ramstad, P. E., "Vending Machines - Will They Increase Milk Consumption?" Farm Research. New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, January, 1951*

Rlehl, J. G., Methodology and Statistical Analysis Bn- ployed In Akron Market Milk Distribution Study. unpublisEed to.ic. thesis, The 6hio State (Tniveraity, 1953. Rlnear, Earl. H., Consumption of Milk and Some Other Dairy Products In Metropolitan New ^erseyT Bulletin 702, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, October, 19U2.

Ross, H. A., The Demand Side of the New York Milk Market. Bulletin k59, Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station, 1927.

Siegel, Sidney, Nonparametric Statistics, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1956. 151* BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued) Southvorth, H, M., "Progress In Developing a Set of Princi­ ples in the Area of Consumer Behavior," Journal of Farm Economics. 36:1071-1062, 1956-*

Spindler, Hubert G., Effects of Sales of Milk in Multiple Quart Containers, Experiment fetation Bulletin k95. university ot Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, June, 1957.

Swope, Daniel A., Fac to rs As so elated with Level of Fluid Milk Consumption. I.E. and R.3. WTT ~Agricultural Experiment Station, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, March, 1956.

Tompkins, Enoch H., Market for Dairy Products - A Study of Three Vermont Urban Centers. Bulletin 600. Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station, Burlington, Vermont, June, 1957.

Trulson, M., Hegsted, D. M., and Stare, F. J., "A One-Day Study of Food Intake of Adults," New York State Nutrition Survey II. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Volume 25* August, l91*9.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Adjustment Administration, Consumers' Counsel Division, A Survey of Milk Consumption in Cities in the United States TOne, 19J6.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Adjustment Administration, "Some Problems Involved in Establish­ ing Milk Prices," by E. V. Gaumnltz and 0, N. Reed, Marketing Information Series DM-2. 1937.

U. S. D. A., Agricultural Marketing Service, Changing Patterns of Milk Consumption in Memphis. Tennessee, fey K b. Bwoskln and others, Marketing Research Re- port Number 69# June, 1951*.

U. S. D. A., Agricultural Marketing Service, The Dairy Situation, DS-21^5, 1955 Outlook Issue, October lo,

U. 3. D. A., Agricultural Marketing Service, The Demand and Price Structure for Dairy Products. Technical Bulletin1168, by Anthony fe, Rojko, 1957. 155

BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)

U. 3. D. A., Agricultural Marketing Service, "Household Practices in the Use of Milk and Butter," by Corlnne LeBovit and Faith Clark, The Dairy Situation. DS-2k3» June 17# 195k*

U. S. D. A., Agricultural Marketing Service, Non-Fans Con­ sumption of Fluid Milk and Cream, by P. E , D 1Donnell, Marketing”!?#search Report Number 72, May, 1954*

U. S. D. A., Agricultural Marketing Service, Regulations Affecting the Movement and Merchandising or MlllcT Marketing feesearch Report #98, June, 1955*

U. S. D. A., Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Consumption of Fluid Milk and Cream in Northeastern Marketing Ireas. by P. E. O'PonnelTT March, 1950.

U. S. D. A., Bureau of Agricultural Economics, High Level Food Consumption in the U . S.. by Willard W. Cochrane, Rise. Publlcation*T8 l, December, 19k5*

U. 3. D. A., Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Milk Prod­ ucts. Consumer Purchase Patterns and Use. Memphis. Tennessee, byP. fe. Dwoskin, Marketing Research Re­ port NumFer 3 9, May, 1953*

U. S. D. A., Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics, Agricultural Research Administration, Dairy Products in^Clty Diets, Commodity Summary Number 6 , February,

U. S. D. A., Low-Priced Milk and the Consumption of Dairy Products Among Low Income Families. Washington. b.A~ I S P T ' E y S T B T STCaKeTTng and other.'," 7 . 0 . A', c T r ^ cular 645* 19^2.

Waite, W, C. and Cox, R. W., A Study of the Consumption of Dairy Products in Minneapolis. "T9 Ik. bulletin 3 1 1 , RTnnesota Agricultural ^Experiment Station, 193k*

Welllnghoff, E. F., "What's New in the Milk Bottle In­ dustry," American Milk Review. 2:288, 19k0*

What Makes the Market for Dairy Products?. Bulletin k77* University of Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Sta­ tion, North Central Regional Publication Number 10, September, 19k6* 156

BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)

Wilhelm, R. B., "Trends in Milk Packaging Glass Bottles." Unpublished paper presented at tne international Association of Milk Control Agencies, Victoria, British Columbia, June 18, 1953*

Williams, J. R . . Consumer Acceptance and Practices of Purchasing Fluid ^ftk in g i f BpTTles and Paper Containers In the"hetropolltan dolumbus Area. Unpubllshed'TT. Sc. thesis, Itfhe oiiio State University, 1953. AUTOEIOGRAPHY

I, Ronald Howard Pollock, was born near Watervllle,

Ohio, May 30* 1923. X received my secondary school educa­ tion in the public school at Grand Rapids, Ohio, graduat­ ing from high school in I9I4.I*

My college undergraduate training was taken at The

Ohio State University which granted me the Bachelor of

Science degree in Agriculture in 1 9I4.8 * Between my second and third years of academic training, I served in the

United States Army for three years, entering in I9I4.3 and being discharged in I9I4.6 .

While employed as a Research Assistant in Agricultur­ al Economics and Rural Sociology at The Ohio State Uni­ versity, I completed the requirements for the Master of

Science degree which was granted to me In 19l*9.

In 1951* After teaching vocational agriculture for two years in Pettisville, Ohio, I received a joint appoint­ ment from The Ohio State University and the Ohio Agricul­ tural Experiment Station as Instructor in the marketing area of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural

Sociology* Studies leading toward completion of require­ ments for the Doctor of Philosophy degree were undertaken.

In 1955* while continuing my position as Instructor in the

Department, I became a part-time counselor in the College of Agriculture office. Two years later my title was changed to Coordinator of Student Personnel.

157