PHOTO CREDITS

Cover photo and Figures 1, 2, 7 and 8, Seymour Foods, Inc., Topeka, Kans.; Figures 9and 16, Nebraska Egg Co., Inc., David City, Nebr.; Figures 10 and 11, Tranin EggProducts Co., Kansas City, MO.; Figure 12, Institute of American Poultry Industries,Chicago, Ill.; Figure 13, Schneider Bros., Inc., Chicago, Ill.; Figure 14, Armour and Co.,Springfield, MO.; Figure 15, Sam L. Austin, Chicago, Ill.

Cover photo:broken-out eggs.

The “pour-off test” for yolks is a regular part of daily inspection ofContents of several cans are poured into other cans before the product

is placed into a freezer. This test assures that no breaks have developed that permitpieces of shell and chalazae to pass through the straining equipment.

THE EGG PRODUCTS INDUSTRY OF THEUNITED STATES

PART I HISTORICAL HIGHLIGHTS, 1900-59

BULLETIN 423

AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE

AND APPLIED SCIENCE, MANHATTAN

NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL POULTRY MARKETINGTECHNICAL COMMITTEE, NCM-14

ADMINISTRATIVE ADVISOR

H. J. SLOAN, Director........ Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station

STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONREPRESENTATIVES

J. R. ROUSH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IllinoisR. L. KOHLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IndianaG. W. LADD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IowaJ. W. KOUDELE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KansasJ. B. ROBERTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KentuckyH. E. LARZELERE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MichiganR. W. COX and D. F. FIENUP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MinnesotaJ. D. MILLER, L. D. BENDER, and L. A. VOSS. . . . . . . . . MissouriE. FEDER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NebraskaF. R. TAYLOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North DakotaR. E. CRAY and P. C. CLAYTON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OhioWM. KOHLMEYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . South DakotaW. P. MORTENSON. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wisconsin

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE REPRESENTATIVES

N. T. PRITCHARD. . . . . . . . . . . . . Agricultural Marketing ServiceJ. J. SCANLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farmer Cooperative ServiceR. J. SAVILLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State Experiment Stations Division

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A regional subcommittee was responsible for the initial planning of this studyand, along with other members of the Technical Committee of NCM-14, re-viewed and approved the manuscript before publication. Members of the sub-committee were: E. Feder, Wm. Kohlmeyer, G. W. Ladd, N. T. Pritchard,J. B. Roberts, J. J. Scanlan, L. A. Voss, and J. W. Koudele, chairman.

The authors also express appreciation to the following persons who criticallyreviewed the manuscript, or certain sections thereof, and made constructivesuggestions:

G. F. Stewart, University of California, Davis; J. L. Fry, Kansas State Uni-versity; A. Axelrod, University of Nebraska; O. A. Day, Wilson and Co., Chi-cago; B. W. Kempers, H. G. F. Hamann, and F. E. Blood, Poultry Division,AMS, USDA; Mrs. Anne Finlay Brink, Topeka; A. C. Keith, J. M. Gorman, andH. A. Perry II, Seymour Foods, Inc., Topeka; F. L. Faber, Marketing Eco-nomics Research Division, AMS, USDA; H. A. Stamper, F. M. Stamper Co., St.Louis; O. J. Kahlenberg, University of Missouri; H. I. Henner, Uhlmann GrainCo., Chicago; M. W. Weinberg, Weinberg Bros. and Co., Chicago; W. H.Kowalski, Chicago Mercantile Exchange; and F. B. Knaup, Armour and Co.,Chicago.

Thanks are due to Mrs. Christine Bossler, Topeka, and P. H. Dunbar, Win-chester, Mass., for obtaining and verifying certain historical information.

FOREWORDThe research on which this report is based was undertaken as a part of the

North-Central Regional Poultry Marketing Project, NCM-14. The projectwas supported by funds made available under the Research and MarketingAct of 1946, and by state funds.

This is the second report in a series studying various aspects of the eggproducts industry. The first was by Raymond, D., A. Axelrod and E. Feder,“Federal and State Laws and Regulations Applicable to Egg Products Plantsin the North Central Region (as of September, 1957),” Dept. Agr. Econ.,Progress Report 13, Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station, January 1958.

Future reports will cover economic trends, operations of commercial eggbreaking and/or drying plants in the North Central Region, legal-economicaspects, and integration of egg production and processing.

To H. J. Keith and Mary E. Pennington

Many individuals contributed to the early development of the egg products

industry. However, two names stand out--H. J. Keith (1857-1923) and Dr.

Mary Engle Pennington (1872-1952). Keith founded the industry. Miss

Pennington, a scientist with the Department of Agriculture, conducted basic

research on the principles of sanitation and refrigeration. Application of this

research revolutionized the industry.

[ 2 ]

TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5SOURCES OF INFORMATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5EARLY GROWTH PERIOD: 1900-20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Founding of the Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Significance of the Egg Separator and Other Techniques. . . . . . . . . . . 6Early Drying Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Imports of Frozen Eggs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Legal Battles Over Liquid and Frozen Eggs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Sanitary Requirements Established for Egg Breaking Plants. . . . . . . . . . 9Government Inspection Requested by the Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Use of Dried Eggs in World War I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

HEAVY IMPORTS OF EGG PRODUCTS FROM CHINA: 1921-31. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Industry Trends in the United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Imports of Frozen and Dried Eggs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13The Chinese Egg Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Tariffs on Egg Products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Early Methods of Packing Frozen Eggs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

THE REVIVAL OF EGG DRYING IN THE UNITED STATES: 1932-40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Factors Favorable to Re-establishment of Egg Drying. . . . . . . . . . . . . 17The Demand for Yolks and Whites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19The Spray Dryer and Other Technological Developments . . . . . . . . . . 19Types and Quantities of Dried Eggs Packed, 1938-40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

EXPANSION DURING WORLD WAR II: 1941-46. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Egg Production Stimulated by Price Supports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21The Increase in Egg Drying Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Government Purchases of Egg Solids. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Continuous Inspection Program for Egg Products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shelf Life Problems with Whole Egg Solids. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2323

Contributions of USDA’s Mobile Laboratory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lessons from Feeding Dried Eggs to Undernourished People. . . . . . . .

2525

POSTWAR TRANSITION: 1947-50. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Reduction of Egg Drying Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Influence of Price Supports and the Egg Drying Program on Egg

Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Research on Egg Products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Industry Laboratory for Egg Products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Implications of Reduced Imports of Dried Egg Yolk. . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

[3]

EXPANDING DOMESTIC USE OF EGG PRODUCTS AND AUTOMATION IN EGG PAGE

BREAKING: 1951-59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Dried Eggs Officially Renamed Egg Solids. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Increased Demand for Egg Products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Use of Egg Solids by Schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31The Demand-Supply Situation for Yolks and Whites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Automation in Egg Breaking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Contract Egg Production and the Egg Products Industry. . . . . . . . . . . 33Trading in Frozen Egg Futures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Technological Advances in Albumen Solids for Angel Food Cake

Mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41APPENDICES:

Appendix A-Tables 1-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Appendix B-Egg products: Specifications and principal uses. . . . . . . . . . 46Appendix C-Chronology of, and Persons or Firms Responsible for,

Significant Technological Developments in the EggProducts Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

[4]

The Egg Products Industry of the United StatesPart I. Historical Highlights, 1900-591

BY

JOE W. KOUDELE AND EDWIN C. HEINSOHN2

PURPOSE OF THE STUDYSince its humble beginning in 1900 events, and technological develop-

the egg products industry has under- ments that have shaped the industry’sgone many significant changes which history and to serve as backgroundprobably will be accelerated in the for the new generation which isfuture. The purpose of this study is gradually assuming the direction ofto provide a brief but authentic re- this industry.cording of the major economic forces,

SOURCES OF INFORMATIONPart of this history is based on associated with the industry in various

observations, personal experiences, capacities. In addition, valuableand knowledge of one of the authors

3 reference material was drawn fromwhose major life work has been spent various industry and governmentalin the egg products industry. Other sources, in particular certain periodi-valuable information was obtained cals and research publications of thethrough consultation and correspond- Department of Agriculture.ence with various persons directly

EARLY GROWTH PERIOD: 1900-20Founding of the Industry and soiled shells, he conceived the

In the late 1890’s, H. J. Keith, a idea of removing the egg meats andyoung ex-schoolteacher from Maine, freezing them. In his first attempt towas engaged in the shell-egg business pack frozen whole eggs the productin St. Paul, Minn. Distressed by in- was frozen before mixing the yolksability to market eggs with checked and whites. Upon thawing, the prod-

1. Contribution No. 326, Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas Agricultural ExperimentStation, Manhattan.

2. Associate agricultural economist and instructor, respectively.3. E. C. Heinsohn holds a B. S. degree from Cornell University (1915) with a major in poultry

marketing. From 1915-19, he worked under Dr. Mary E. Pennington in the Food Research Laboratory,Bureau of Chemistry, USDA. He helped conduct research to improve the performance of railroad re-frigerator cars for shipments of perishables, particularly poultry and eggs. During 1919-22, he was incharge of branch egg buying stations for a plant of the Amos Bird Company (Boston) in Shanghai,China. While associated with Seymour Foods, Inc. his responsibilities included sales representative(shell eggs, frozen eggs, and poultry) at Albany, New York (1923-42); supervision of egg drying opera-tions (1942-46) and sales work in egg products (1947-57) at Topeka, Kansas. Since 1957, he hasbeen employed as a Cooperative Field Agent by the North-Central States Poultry Marketing Research

[5]Committee.

uct consisted of whites containinggummy lumps of yolks, and a co-oper-ating baker experienced considerabledifficulty in using the product. Next,Keith thoroughly mixed the yolks andwhites before freezing and the resultswere much more satisfactory. Laterexperiments indicated that addingsmall quantities of sugar and salt re-sulted in a smooth product whenthawed.

Convinced that the idea of freez-ing eggs had real possibilities, Keithmoved his operations from St. Paul toBoston. There he raised the necessarycapital and established the first egg-breaking room shortly before 1900.The new business, the H. J. KeithCompany, prospered and grew rap-idly. Previously each bake shop, largeor small, had broken its own shelleggs. When bakers began usingfrozen eggs and learned that theircakes were fully equal in quality tothose made from freshly-broken eggs,acceptance of the new product wasrapid. Soon egg-breaking operationsbegan not only in large cities likeNew York, Philadelphia and Chicago,but also throughout the egg-produc-ing areas of the Midwest.

Significance of the Egg Separatorand Other Techniques

From the beginning some whitesand yolks were packed separately, butthe process was slow and inefficient.In early breaking operations, girlsmanually flipped the yolks back-and-forth between halves of the shells untilthe whites drained off__the methodcommonly used by housewives. In1912, the hand separator was invented

by Harry A. Perry. Its use greatlyimproved the efficiency and speed ofbreaking and contributed to the devel-opment of large-scale breaking opera-tions.

While this invention significantlyaffected the production side, anothertechnique was of major importance instimulating consumption. A charac-teristic of plain frozen yolks whenthawed is heavy viscosity which makesit somewhat difficult to mix with otheringredients in food manufacturing. Inthe early 1900’s it was discovered thatadding 10 percent sugar, by weight, tothe yolks before freezing would pre-vent gelation. Consequently, it waseasier for food manufacturers to usefrozen yolks and consumption in-creased. Later it was learned that theaddition of salt or glycerin to yolksaccomplished the same purpose as didthe sugar.

Larger supplies of separated prod-ucts, made possible by the egg sep-arator, led to an expanding demandfor frozen eggs, particularly yolks.While noodle makers continued to use plain yolks, bakers and icecream manufacturers demanded sug-ared yolks and mayonnaise manu-facturers switched to salted yolks.Frozen whites already were in gooddemand for white and angel foodcakes, meringue, and candy.

Early Drying Operations

In the United States, egg dryingpreceded the freezing of eggs on acommercial basis. Records indicatethat in 1878, a St. Louis, Mo., firm was“transferring egg yolk and albumen,by a drying process, into a light

brown, meal-like substance."4 From1895 to 1905 a number of plants be-gan operations and dried eggs wereshipped to Alaska and even to Chinato be used by the United States Armystationed there.5

Early driers were the rotary drumtype. In 1907, the belt-type dryerwas perfected and produced “flake”whole eggs and yolks. Flake-driedwhole eggs were especially likedby pie bakers for custard, cocoanut,pumpkin, and cream pies.

Imports and Frozen Eggs

The idea of breaking and freezingeggs for bakers and other food manu-facturers spread rapidly not only inthe United States but also to otherparts of the world--notably China--before World War I. Square cansholding 44 pounds of frozen eggspacked in China began to appear onthe American scene and undersold thedomestic pack. At the same timeChinese dried eggs began to be im-ported.

When the United States enteredWorld War I, prices rose on all foodsincluding eggs and trade interest inthe cheaper Chinese frozen and driedeggs increased. As a consequence,activities of the egg-drying industryof the United States decreased mark-edly. Some belt-type drying equip-ment, already operating in the UnitedStates, was dismantled and shipped toShanghai, China, for installation.

Legal Battles Over Liquidand Frozen Eggs

Meanwhile, the infant egg productsindustry was having real troubles ofits own. The Food and Drug Actpassed in 1906 had established federalresponsibility to insure that whole-some food supplies reached the public.Notices of Judgment by the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture forcases involving egg products under theFood and Drug Act began to appearin 1909 and by 1910 there were nofewer than 14 such judgments.6

Two cases in particular had an im-portant influence on the early devel-opment of the egg products industry.Details of one case 7 follow:

The government seized 50 cans of wholeeggs preserved with 2 percent boric acid ongrounds of "adulteration." The companydid not contend that the eggs were not adul-terated, but it did contend that the Foodand Drug Act was inapplicable to egg prod-ucts, the principal argument arising fromthe fact that egg products were raw materialsfor other food products. Several nice legalpoints were made by the company from thisfactual foundation, but the Supreme Courtopinion made it perfectly clear that the eggproducts industry was subject to the fullcoverage of the Food and Drug Act.8

In another case,9 443 cans of frozeneggs packed with 10 percent sugarwere seized in November, 1910, andcondemnation was sought under thePure Food Law on grounds of “de-composition.” The H. J. Keith Com-pany, for whom the eggs were packedby a reputable firm in Kansas, decidedto fight the case. Because the case

4. Termohlen, W. D., E. L. Warren, and C. C. Warren, “The Egg-Drying Industry in the UnitedStates,” AAA, U. S. Department of Agriculture, PSM-1, 1938, p. 2.

5 . Loc. c i t .6. Loc. c i t .7. Hipolite Egg Co. v. U. S., 220 U. S. 45 (1911).8. Letter, November 2, 1959, to the authors from Allen Axelrod, professor of law, University of

Nebraska.9. U. S. v. 443 Cans of Frozen Egg Products.

[7]

was tried in the District Court atTrenton, N. J., it became known there-after as “The Battle of Trenton.”

This case aroused a great deal ofinterest both within the industry andamong the public. “Expert testimony”on both sides and “lay testimony” asto odor, taste, appearance, and bakingqualities of the frozen eggs were pre-sented. At that time very little was known

about the proper method of thawingfrozen eggs--a fundamental point inthe case. Labels placed on these cansby the packer stated, “Slow thawinggives best results.” By this instruc-tion, the packer meant thawing in coldwater or in a refrigerator.l0 Underthis method, the eggs remained coldand bacterial growth was retarded asthe product thawed progressively fromthe outside to the center of the can.To others who testified, “slow thaw-ing” meant thawing at room tempera-tures.11

Testimony on both sides indicatedthat when the eggs were removedfrom the freezer no off-odor was de-tected. But evidence was also pre-sented showing that some of the eggshad a very high bacterial count and,when thawed at room temperatures,off-odors indicative of decompositionwere noticeable. The defendantscontended that eggs thawed in this

manner were not handled properlyand were allowed to deteriorate be-fore being tested. Judge Cross’ deci-sion was in favor of the packer.

In October, 1911, the governmentappealed the case and it was arguedbefore the Circuit Court of Appealsat Philadelphia. Judge Buffington’sopinion reversed the decision of theDistrict Court. He directed that adecree of condemnation be enteredin favor of the government.12 In De-cember, 1912, the Keith Company ap-pealed the case to the United StatesSupreme Court which decided ontechnical grounds that the CircuitCourt had no jurisdiction in the mat-ter13 and reversed the judgment ofthe lower court.14

By action of the Supreme Court theeggs were now released from federalauthorities. However, the eggs couldnot be removed from cold storage andsold for food without a certificatefrom the New Jersey State Board ofHealth. In July, 1913, after reviewingall court testimony and conductingfurther investigations concerning thequality of the frozen eggs, the Boardreleased the eggs after specified la-beling requirements were met.15 Theeggs were then sold in interstate com-merce and used for baking.

During the period of litigation,much was learned from actual experi-

10. H. J. Keith, “The Battle of Trenton,” Boston: H. J. Keith Company, 1914, p. 34.11. Loc. cit.12. U. S. v. 443 Cans of Frozen Egg Products, 193 Fed. 589, (C. A. 3rd. 1912).13. 443 Cans of Frozen Egg Products v. U. S., 226 U. S. 172 (1912).14. In writing the Food and Drug Act, Congress had a choice--to spell out in detail the judicial

procedure to be used in condemning food or to borrow a procedure from other types of condemnations.They decided on the latter and Section 10 of the Food and Drug Act specified that Food and Drugcondemnations were to be as like admiralty condemnations as practical.whether admiralty procedure or standard procedure was to

The Act did not say, however,govern in appeals from condemnations. The

government guessed wrong in using an admiralty type appeal in the Trenton case. (Letter, November 2,1959, to the authors from Allen Axelrod, professor of law, University of Nebraska.)

15. Keith, op. cit., pp. 69-70.

ments concerning the alleged decom-position and fitness of frozen eggs forfood. Because the eggs were packedby a Kansas firm, the State Board ofHealth of Kansas requested that testsbe conducted in the bacteriologicallaboratory of the University of Kansas.Frozen eggs, equivalent to 31/2 eggs perday per student, were used in variouscooked foods eaten by six men stu-dents for 17 days. Tests indicatedthat none of the men had any disorderof the digestive tract, a type of ail-ment that generally accompanies theingestion of decomposed or putridfood.16

The Supreme Court decision pos-sibly saved the infant frozen egg in-dustry from an abrupt closing. More-over, the case was significant in an-other respect--evidence introduced atthe trial showed that bacterial countsof some frozen eggs were very high17

and leaders of the industry, as wellas government officials, recognized theneed to correct this situation.

Sanitary Requirements Establishedfor Egg Breaking Plants

The Food Research Laboratory, Bu-reau of Chemistry, was created in1907 by the Department of Agricul-ture to conduct technological studiesprimarily in egg and poultry process-ing. Initially most of its activitiescentered on poultry meat and shelleggs. But the legal cases over frozeneggs clearly indicated how little wasknown about the sanitary and re-

frigeration requirements of egg prod-ucts. Therefore, after the trial atTrenton, the Laboratory was spe-cifically assigned the task in 1911 toconduct investigations on liquid,frozen, and dried eggs.

A group of scientists under the di-rection of Dr. Mary E. Pennington be-gan conducting basic research regard-ing the preservation of egg products.As information became available, Dr.Pennington, in line with her Labora-tory’s motto of "Clean, Cool, Co-operate," helped the industry improveits physical facilities and technology.Sparkling white egg-breaking rooms,models of sanitation, began to appear.Improved techniques in breaking eggsand handling liquid eggs wereadopted to minimize bacterial counts.According to Dr. Pennington:

The laboratory findings practically revo-lutionized the apparatus used and the rou-tine followed in the breaking room. In-stead of the haphazard collection of oddpieces of china, glass, and tin there wereevolved machines accurately adapted to thework to be done; and the careless, inconse-quent methods of cracking and emptyingthe shells were replaced by a standardized,definite routine, making for both qualityand efficiency.18

The improved quality which re-sulted from adopting the new tech-nology was largely responsible for theready acceptance by food manufac-turers of frozen eggs and subsequentincreased demand for them. In 1910,the press and public had little knowl-edge of the egg products industry ex-cept vague knowledge of the seizuresof condemned products. But as a re-

16. Ibid., pp. 50-51.17. As a matter of interest, two of the 443 cans of frozen eggs were held in a freezer in Topeka,

Kan., for 41 years. Occasional examinations showed a constant reduction in the number of bacteria,and the eggs retained their ability to make cakes. The cans were destroyed in the flood of 1951.

18. M. E. Pennington, et al., “A Study of the Preparation of Frozen and Dried Eggs in the Pro-ducing Section,” Bureau of Chemistry, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bulletin 224, 1916, p. 6.

[9]

sult of the scientific investigations bythe Food Research Laboratory, publicsentiment and knowledge of the in-dustry changed rapidly. In 1914, thefounder of the industry wrote, “Webelieve i t is now pretty generallyunderstood that this line of business isnot only a legitimate one but also bothuseful and important.” 19

Government Inspection Requestedby the Industry

Industry leaders early realized theadvantages of government inspection

and endeavored to have the Meat In-spection Law of 1906 extended tocover frozen and dried eggs. A bill to this effect was introduced into theUnited States Senate by SenatorHenry Cabot Lodge as a rider to theAgricultural Appropriation Bill of1911.20

The bill and rider passed the Senatebut the rider was defeated in confer-ence.21 While this legislation wasunder consideration, the Iowa Whole-sale Butter and Egg Dealers Associa-

19. Keith, op. cit., p. 73.20. Ibid., p. 72.21. Reasons for defeating the rider are not known, but it was the opinion of “old timers” that those

who would have been responsible for setting up the program felt that trained personnel to supervise thebreaking operations were not available. This type of service was inaugurated 31 years later, in 1942.

FIG. 1. An egg-breaking room in 1904. Very little was known about sanitary require.ments for handling fresh-broken eggs at that time.

FIG. 2. The egg-breaking room of Figure 1 as it appeared in 1912 after recommenda-tions of the Food Research Laboratory, U. S. Department of Agriculture, to improvesanitation and technology had been adopted.

tion sent the following telegram toSecretary of Agriculture Wilson:

At our annual convention which was heldtoday, motion to endorse Lodge amendmentto House amendment 31596 providing forfactory inspection of canned and dried eggswas unanimously carried. We request yourhearty cooperation in support of this motionwhich is of vital importance to Iowa pro-ducers and egg dealers.22

Use of Dried Eggs in World War I

Some efforts were made duringWorld War I to interest the ArmedServices in using dried whole eggs.A demonstration breakfast, in whichflake-dried whole eggs were used tomake scrambled eggs, was held at theWhite House. It is said that Presi-dent Woodrow Wilson, along with

other high officials, participated.While this event paved the way forsome use of small sample packages ina few army camps, the product wasnot used extensively. The best in-formation available indicates that theuse of whole egg solids by the Armyat this time was first suggested byHenry Hahn, a distributor of frozenand dried eggs in New York City, whoar ranged wi th the Army for thedemonstration breakfast.23 While theArmy was not prepared to use driedeggs during World War I, the sound-ness of the idea was later confirmedby developments during World WarII.

22. Termohlen, et al., loc. cit.23. Letter, September 13, 1958, to the authors from Anne Finlay Brink. Mrs. Brink was associated

with H. J. Keith Company, Borden and Company, and Seymour Packing Company in frozen and driedegg sales during 1907-50.

[11]

HEAVY IMPORTS OF EGG PRODUCTS FROM CHINA: 1921-31

Industry Trends in the United States

During 1921-31, significant changeswere taking place in the poultry in-dustry. Domestic production of eggswas gradually increasing. Farm pro-duction rose from 30.8 billion eggs in1921 to 38.5 billion eggs in 1931.24

The commercial hatching industrywas growing rapidly, thus graduallyreducing the necessity for farmers tohatch their own chicks. This advance,in turn, removed the need to producefertile eggs on every farm, and re-duced the quantities of heated fertileeggs reaching market. Before this de-velopment, marketings of eggs fromfarms during the hot summer monthscontained an average of 10 to 20 per-cent inedible eggs.25 Increasing em-phasis on quality egg programs by ex-tension specialists helped to improvethe general quality of eggs marketedand to decrease the percentages ofundergrade and inedible eggs.

Meanwhile, demand for frozen eggswas growing and the annual volumepacked rose from 46,000,000 poundsin 1921 to 185,000,000 pounds in1930.26 This increase absorbed allavailable undergrades and breakersbegan using “current receipt” 27 eggsfor additional supplies. About 1927,a change occurred in the seasonalityof breaking and storing eggs. It wasreported:

Prior to 1927, eggs were broken from theshell in all the months of the year and a

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

POU

-T C

FIG. 3. Egg Products: Total annualsupply from domestic production and im-ports, United States, 1923-58.

24. The Poultry and Egg Situation, AMS, USDA, November, 1958, p. 24.25. A. G. Phillips, The Marketing of Eggs, Kansas State Agricultural College, Fanner Bulletin 162,

1909, p. 245.26. Department of Agriculture Poultry Committee, Eggs and Egg Products, USDA, Circular 583,

1941, p. 62.27. Nest-run eggs sold by fanners to buyers without regard to size or grade.28. James H. Radabaugh, “Economic Aspects of the Frozen Egg Industry in the United States.”

Proceedings, Seventh World's Poultry Congress and Exposition, 1939, p. 364.

[12]

Annual dried egg production in theUnited States during 1927-31 wassmall. In terms of liquid equivalent,production ranged from only 500,000to l,5OO,OOO pounds (Fig. 3).

Imports of Frozen and Dried EggsWhen domestic egg breakers began

using current receipt eggs, their costsadvanced. This put domestic frozeneggs at a greater competitive disad-vantage with the lower cost frozenand dried eggs being imported fromChina. The opening of the PanamaCanal in 1914 also made possible di-rect shipments from China to New

York City at relatively low rates.During the 1920’s, imports of Chinesefrozen and dried eggs were heavy(Fig. 3).

The Chinese Egg Industry

Large poultry flocks were almostunknown in China. Chinese farmersdid not live on individual farms butcongregated in small villages sur-rounded by outlying fields. This cus-tom undoubtedly developed becauseit afforded some measure of protectionagainst bandi ts who roamed thecountry.

FIG. 4. Eggs for breaking being unloaded from a native junk at the American-ownedplant of the Amos Bird Company on the Whangpoo River in Shanghai, China, 1920. Eggswere packed loosely in bamboo baskets, each containing 700 to 900 eggs. Surprisingly,egg breakage was small with leakers ranging from only 3 to 6 ercent. Despite occasionallarge river waves, caused by passing steamers, a coolie seldom lost his balance whenwalking down the narrow gang plank carrying eggs.

[13]

FIG. 5. Egg-breaking room of the Amos Bird Company,candling, eggs were carried in square pails to the breakers who separated the whites

Shanghai, China, 1920. After

from yolks with hand separators. The floor was constructed like a ship s deck to minimizeslipping. Many of the Chinese women had “bound feet.” When these women were firstrequired to wear white aprons and caps, they resisted because white indicates mourningto the Chinese.

Most families kept a few henswhich ranged for food and layedeggs in or around their owners’ homes.Periodically an egg collector, withbamboo pole and attached egg bas-kets, would walk from village tovillage and purchase eggs from eachhouse. Egg sales provided farmersone way to obtain a little money.When the collector’s baskets were full,he walked to a larger village or smallcity and sold the eggs to dealers in-side the city walls. A sizeable volume

of eggs was collected in this manner.Egg dealers shipped their accumula-tions in baskets, each holding 700 to900 eggs, by canal boats to large citieslike Nanking and Shanghai. Therethe eggs went either to an egg break-ing plant for freezing or drying or toexporters who packed them in ricehulls for further shipment to Japanand Europe. Surprisingly, the break-age of eggs in transit was quite small.

All frozen eggs shipped from Chinato the United States were packed by

[14]

FIG. 6. Belt-type egg dryers in the Amos Bird Company, Shanghai, China 1920.Three of these units originally had been used in Topeka, Kans. A continuous tin belt,1 yard wide, revolved on two drums set about 25 feet apart. Liquid whole eggs oryolk was spread in thin layers on the belt which passed through a heated duct. Aftersufficient moisture was removed, the flakes of dried eggs were scraped off, spread onwire-mesh frames to be cooled at 35o F. and then packed in tin-lined boxes for shipmentto the United States and Europe. In the foreground the foreman is weighing samples todetermine moisture content.

either American or British companiesand their plants were operated understrict Western sanitation standards.The quality of Chinese frozen eggs, ingeneral, was considered equal to thatof the American product packedlargely from undergrades at the time.In contrast, the Chinese product waspacked from the usual run of eggsproduced during the spring monthswhen quality was generally good.

During 1921-31, a prime reason forthe relatively heavy imports of

Chinese dried eggs into the UnitedStates was their low cost comparedwith the American product. Anotherreason, particularly in regard to albu-men, was the super ior i ty o f theChinese product.

Drying of eggs in China had begunwhen German engineers built dryingequipment there just prior to 1900.29

During World War I, practically allGerman nationals left China and theChinese took over the drying oper-ations.

29. Termohlen, et al., op. cit., p. 3.

[15]

The Chinese dried albumen wassuperior to the American product in“shelf life” and “whipping qualities”because of one important step inprocessing. Liquid white was allowedto ferment spontaneously before dry-ing with the effective agents being pri-marily bacteria derived fortuitouslyfrom shells during egg breaking.30

At the time, it was unknown whythe Chinese were able to produce abetter product than the Americanscould. But years later, Americanscientists discovered (1941) the im-portant role played by bacterialfermentation. The process improvedshelf life by removing the glucosenaturally present in egg whites and,in addition, improved the product’swhipping qualities by removing yolkcontamination and the protein mu-cin.31

One early attempt was made to dryunfermented whites in China underAmerican supervision and the flakeproduct 32 was shipped to the UnitedStates. However, by the time itarrived in this country, the product

had turned pink and was insoluble.Chinese albumen driers were awareof the superior performance of theiralbumen and tried to keep theirmethods secret.33 Persons visitingtheir drying plants were not permittedto see certain phases of processing.

Tariffs on Egg Products

Egg producers in the United Statesviewed the heavy imports of Chinesefrozen and dried eggs with increasingconcern. As it became evident thatthe domestic industry had sufficientproductive capacity to supply thisnation’s normal requirements of shell,frozen, and dried eggs, cries grewlouder for higher tariffs.

Since the early 1920’s import dutieson egg products have varied con-siderably.34 The Tariff Act of 1922established import duties of 18 centsa pound on dried eggs and 6 cents apound on frozen eggs. These dutieswere raised to 27 cents and 11 cents apound, respectively, on dried andfrozen eggs, under the Tariff Act of

30. J. Brooks and D. J. Taylor. Eggs and Egg Products, Department of Scientific and IndustrialResearch, Food Investigation Report No. 60, London, 1955, p. 59.

31. Letter, December 28, 1959, to the authors from G. F. Stewart.32. The method of drying flake albumen has remained virtually unchanged over the years. Liquid

egg is poured into pens in drying cabinets. On drying, fragile thin sheets form and, when scraped fromthe pan, break into small flakes.

33. An incident in the early 1920’s illustrates how valuable the Chinese regarded their secret. Oneday, J. G. Halpin of the poultry department at the University of Wisconsin, was visited by a Chinesebusinessman representing the “North China Farming Federation,” a group of promoters. He hadpictures of large tracts of gently-rolling land in North China which, at that time, could not be farmedbecause of bandit activity. The promoters had visions of building roads and, aided by the Chinese Army,restricting bandit activity thus making possible the settlement of this area. It was proposed that farmers would produce eggs to be dried and shipped to the United States and Europe.

The Chinese offered young Halpin a professorship at the University of Peking. His job was to trainmen who, in turn, would demonstrate to Chinese farmers the modern methods of incubation, brooding,and egg production. He was offered a five-year contract, a year’s leave in the United States at full pay,a pretentious house and a house staff of four men and one serving woman. Halpin knew that Americanshad been trying, but without success, to learn the Chinese secrets in drying eggs, particularly albumen.So he asked his Chinese visitor, “If I should take this job, I would learn all about your egg-dryingoperation. What would there be to prevent me from coming back to the Unitesd States and usingthis secret information?” “You could ," his Chinese visitor replied blandly and frankly, "but notlive.” (Letter, February 13, 1959, to the authors from Professor Halpin.)

34. C. F. Wells, United States Tariff Rates on Agricultural Products (Revised), U. S. Departmentof Agriculture, May, 1951, p. 35.

[16]

1930. In 1948, the General Agree-ment on Tariffs and Trade led toappreciable reductions in tariff bar-riers. The United States gave andreceived significant concessions. As aresult of the agreement, U. S. importduties were lowered to 17 cents apound on dried eggs and 7 cents apound on frozen eggs. However,after China withdrew from the pro-gram, the United States terminated itsconcessions to China in late 1950 andduties effective under the Tariff Actof 1922 were restored.

Inflationary pressures resulting inhigher prices in the late 1920’s madeit possible to import both frozen anddried eggs despite the high tariffs.However, during the depression ofthe 1930’s low domestic egg pricesgreatly diminished the quantities im-ported. After 1929, frozen egg im-ports practically stopped althoughsmall quantities of dried eggs con-tinued to come in (Fig. 3, page 12).

THE REVIVAL OF EGG DRYING

Factors Favorable to Re-establish-ment of Egg Drying

Several factors were responsible forstimulating the resumption of egg dry-ing on a commercial scale in theUnited States. First, the outbreak in1927 of the Chinese Civil War tendedto curtail exports of dried eggs. Sec-ond, during the early 1930’s prevailinglow shell egg prices in the UnitedStates resulted in a more favorablecompetitive relationship with Chineseprices. Third, higher import duties

Early Methods of PackingFrozen Eggs

Up to the late 1920’s, cans of frozeneggs were packed with varyingweights. The weight per can was 31pounds for whites, 32 pounds forwhole eggs, and 34 pounds forsugared yolks. Although egg canswere all the same size, differentweights were used to fill the canscompletely.

The cans were filled in three stages,to freeze the liquid egg as rapidly aspossible. The weight of each fill, byproducts, was :

1st fill 2d fill 3d fillWhites . . . . . . . . . . 10 lbs. 11 lbs. 10 lbs.Whole eggs . . . . . . 10 lbs. 12 lbs. 10 lbs.Sugared yolks . . . . 10 lbs. 14 lbs. 10 lbs.

When “sharp freezers” becameavailable, this practice was discon-tinued. By 1930, all frozen eggswere being packed 30 pounds to thecan because food manufacturers hadfound the different weights con-fusing.

IN THE UNITED STATES: 1932-40

were established in 1930 on frozen anddried eggs.

A fourth factor was research. Up tothis time Chinese albumen generallyhad been preferred to the domesticproduct because of its greater “whip-ping qualities.” But American scien-tists directed their research effortstoward improving the Chinese methodof bacterial fermentation. Probablythe first advance was to take startercultures from a vat that had good fer-mentation and inoculate subsequent

[17]

FIG. 7. An egg-breaking room in 1930. Eggs were brought to the breaking tables in30-pound cans, instead of egg cases, and girls stood while breaking eggs. Funnels wereplaced on toppieces of

of the cans of liquid egg at the breaking table in an attempt to keep outshell. Each cup was smelled individually before it was emptied into the liquid egg

can. To double check, each full can was smelled before it was emptied into the churn.These precautions were taken to keep eggs with off-odors, particularly musty eggs, fromgetting into the product.

vats.35 It was also discovered that oneof the predominant organisms in a sat-isfactory fermentation was “Aerobac-ter aerogenes,” which is found in soiland quite readily available. The nextimprovement was to use this organismin a pure culture. The process wascalled “controlled bacterial fermenta-tion."36 These developments made

possible the production of domesticalbumen solids fully equal in perform-ance to the Chinese product.

In 1936, there were 15 egg-dryingplants in the United States. A fewwere on the Pacific Coast but mostwere located in the Midwest, with sixin Texas.37 This small group of dryingplants laid the ground work and fur-

35. R. H. Forsythe, "Sugar Removal from Egg White Solids,” Poultry Processing and Marketing,March, 1953, pp. 23-24.

36. Ibid., p. 24.37. Termohlen, et al., op. cit., p. 8.

nished the nucleus for the tremendousexpansion in egg-drying operationsduring World War II.

The Demand for Yolks and WhitesPrior to the invention of the egg

separator in 1912, there had been gooddemand for whites by bakers and con-fectioners, but relatively small sup-plies of yolks had restricted their use.As a consequence, the price of whitesat times was higher than that of yolks.However, use of the egg separatorgreatly improved the efficiency of eggbreaking and resulted in much largersupplies of separated products. Bak-ers, and mayonnaise, noodle and ice-cream manufacturers began usingfrozen yolks in increasing quanti-ties and doughnut-mix manufacturersfound dried yolks very convenient.Thus demand for yolks increased butthe demand for whites did not expandproportionately, and the industry wasfaced with the difficult problem ofkeeping the consumption of whitesand yolks in relative balance. Thisproblem continues to trouble the in-dustry intermittently. In 1938, thefollowing statement was made:

Expansion of market outlets for egg albu-men appears to be particularly desirable.The demand for frozen albumen is consid-erably more inelastic than the demand forfrozen yolk, and in many years prices offrozen albumen have had to be materiallyreduced in order for the large supplies ofthis product, occasioned by an expandingdemand for yolk, to be consumed. Frozenalbumen is therefore in the nature of a “byproduct” of the production of frozen yolk.Further research resulting in the develop-

ment of new uses for albumen in any formshould result in a reduction in the sellingprice of both frozen and dried yolk, withoutlowering prices paid for shell eggs. Thiswould benefit the poultry industry by en-couraging an increased use on the part offood manufacturers.38

The Spray Dryer and OtherTechnological Developments

During the mid 1930’s the spraydryer, which had been used for dryingmilk, was adapted to dry whole eggsand yolks. In this dryer, liquid eggis forced under pressure of approx-imately 3,500 pounds per square inchthrough fine nozzles into the dryingchamber. In the chamber heated fil-tered air, forced through the dryer bya powerful blower, comes in contactwith the fine spray of liquid egg caus-ing it to dry instantly and fall as a finegolden powder. Widespread use ofthis relatively efficient dryer was asignificant technological factor in therapid expansion of dried egg produc-tion during World War II. This typeof dryer, with improvements in design,is still used extensively. Around 1939,it was adapted to dry whites as wellas whole eggs and yolks.

During the late 1930’s, equipmentwas developed to remove all pieces ofegg shell and chalazae from the liquidegg. This innovation further enhancedthe product’s acceptability by bakersand other users. About this time proc-essors also began to provide labora-tory facilities for quality control workrelated to egg breaking and dryingoperations.

38. Ibid., p. 63.

[19]

clusively that removal, by the bacterialfermentation technique, of glucosefrom liquid albumen before dryingresulted in albumen solids with re-markable stability.40 This discoverywas one of the major contributions ofresearch efforts near the outbreak ofWorld War II.

FIG. 8. The “pour-off test” for whitesis made to be certain that no holes arepresent in the strainers. All liquid eggspass through a fine screen with holes .024inch in diameter that remove pieces of shelland chalazae. Holes of the screen aresmaller than openings of nozzles used inspray drying, thus clogging of nozzles isminimized.

By 1938, pasteurization of liquidwhole eggs was practiced on a com-mercial basis for the purpose of im-proving the keeping quality of eggproducts.

39 The process was used ex-tensively during World War II, whenthe Armed Services required that allwhole eggs prepared for them be pas-teurized before being dried.

In 1941, scientists showed con-

A new frozen egg product--wholeegg, enriched by additional yolks,found increased acceptance. It be-came known as “fortified whole egg.”Also, about this time, the “Irish sucker”so named for its inventor, J. C. Irish,made its appearance in egg-breakingoperations. This suction device re-covered any remaining edible albu-men, previously wasted, from the eggshells.

About 1935, the industry beganmaking “technical albumen.” Spentshells were taken directly from thebreaking room, crushed and runthrough a centrifugal extractor whichsalvaged the remaining nonedibleliquid albumen. This liquid was thendried for sale as technical albumen, aproduct used to fasten cork inserts inbeverage bottle caps.

Types and Quantities of Dried EggsPacked, 1938-40

At the outbreak of World War II,a relatively high proportion of theeggs dried in this country consistedof separated products, albumen andyolks, while only a small amount ofdried whole egg was packed. (Table

1.)The 15 drying plants then in oper-

ation actually had had little experi-

39. Committee on Foods, National Academy of Sciences--National Research Council, “Stability ofDehydrated Eggs__A Symposium,” September, 1954, p. 62.

40. Brooks and Taylor, loc. cit.

[20]

TABLE l.-Dried eggs: 1 Annual production, United States, 1938-40.(Number of pounds)

YEAR Whole eggs Albumen Yolks

1938. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700,000 11,300,000 9,500,0001939. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700,000 1940. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,400,000

17,300,000 16,600,00014,400,000 11,400,000

1. Liquid weight equivalent.Source: “Poultry and Eggs: Liquid, Frozen and Dried Egg Production, 1938-49.” Revised estimates,

USDA, September, 1953. p. 24.

ence in drying whole eggs. The prod- under refrigeration than without it.uct packed usually had a moisture Since the "leavening abili ty" hadcontent of 8 percent or more. Little been reduced by the drying process,was known about its shelf-life except bakers were not interested in usingthat quality was preserved better dried whole eggs.

EXPANSION DURING WORLD WAR II: 1941-46

Egg Production Stimulated byPrice Supports

In the spring of 1941, plans wereinaugurated for agricultural productsto be included under the lend-leaseprogram. At the same time a programwas set up by the U. S. Departmentof Agriculture to encourage increasedproduction of eggs for the next twoyears. Expansion was to be stimu-lated by government purchases ofeggs in the open market at supportedprices. The purpose was to providefor export requirements under provi-sions of the lend-lease program whilemaintaining about normal levels ofper-capita consumption in the UnitedStates.4l Other details of the govern-ment program were:

In addition to the uses in the lend-leaseprogram, supplies of eggs acquired throughDepartment purchases will be available fordirect distribution in this country throughState relief agencies to needy families and

for free school lunches; for release on themarket in case of unwarranted speculativeprice increases; and to meet requests fromthe Red Cross for shipment to war refugeeareas.42

Fortunately, unlike World War Idays when feed for poultry produc-tion was scarce, ample supplies offeed were available. Total produc-tion of eggs in the United States in-creased from 41.9 billion eggs in 1941to 56.0 billion eggs in 1946.43

Prior to 1941, the Department ofAgriculture had purchased only shelleggs in its price-support activities.But in May, 1941, it began purchas-ing dried and frozen egg products inaddition to shell eggs.

The Increase in Egg Drying Facilities

As the war progressed, the demandsfor ocean-shipping space multiplied.This situation was further compli-cated by the damage inflicted by

41. The Poultry and Egg Situation, BAE, USDA, April, 1941, p. 3.42. Loc. cit.43. The Poultry and Egg Situation, AMS, USDA, November, 1958, p. 24.

[21]

enemy submarines starting in late1941. Because of the tight shippingsituation, dried eggs were extremelyimportant to the lend-lease program.Drying of eggs for lend-lease startedin May, 1941, and drying facilities inthe United States increased rapidly.Prior to 1941, peak annual productionof dried eggs by 15 drying plants wasabout 10 million pounds. “On thebasis of a 20-22 hour day and 300days’ operation, plants in existence inearly 1941 probably had the capacityto produce 50 million pounds of dried(whole egg) product.” 44 With gov-ernment encouragement and somegranting of priorities, additional plantswere erected in 1941. It was ex-pected that, by January, 1942, the in-dustry’s total capacity, on an annualbasis, would be "between 130 and 140million pounds." 45 However, pro-duction greatly exceeded expectationsand, in the first six months of 1942alone, totaled about 130 millionpounds.46

In August, 1942, the drying capac-ity of plants then in operation wasabout 315 million pounds, based on300 days’ operation of 20-22 hours perday, and the Food RequirementsCommittee recommended a furtherexpansion of egg-drying facilities by110 million pounds.47 In September,

1943, domestic egg-drying capacitywas estimated at 420 million pounds,on an annual basis.48 The peak num-ber of drying plants during WorldWar II was “in the neighborhood of 135.” 49

Government Purchases of Egg SolidsDuring the period 1941-45, pur-

chases of eggs and egg products bythe Department of Agriculture totaledabout 88 million cases, which repre-sented 12.5 percent of the total num- ber of eggs produced on farms duringthose years. About 90 percent of the purchases were in the form of spray-dried whole eggs. During the sameperiod military purchases were“equivalent to about 57 million cases,or 8 percent of total farm egg out-put.” 50 Purchases by the Departmentof Agriculture during this period werelargely for lend-lease requirements.

Most of the egg solids purchased bythe government were packed in 150-and 200-pound barrels. “For somepurposes, the Department of Agricul-ture contracted with firms to packageconsiderable quantities of the driedproduct previously purchased in con-sumer-size packages of 5 ouncesnet.” 51 Egg solids purchased by theArmed Services were packed in 3-pound sealed cans.

44. The Poultry and Egg Situation, BAE, USDA, September, 1941, p. 12.45. Loc. cit.43. The Poultry and Egg Situation, BAE, USDA, August, 1942, p. 4.47. Ibid., pp. 4-5.48. The Poultry and Egg Situation, BAE, USDA, September, 1943, p. 16.49. Letter, August 29, 1958, to the authors from B. W. Kempers, Grading Branch, Poultry Division,

AMS, USDA.50. The Poultry and Egg Situation, BAE, USDA, April-June, 1946, p. 5.51. The Poultry and Egg Situation, BAE, USDA, May, 1942, p. 6.

[22]

Continuous Inspection Program forEgg Products

In 1942 the Department of Agricul-ture began inspecting on a continuousbasis, in breaking and drying plants.When the service was inaugurated,an inspector was available at all timesto make the official check weighingand sampling of products for labora-tory analysis. Later the inspector’sduties were broadened to includeother specific requirements, particu-larly with respect to candling eggsand the removal of loss (inedibleeggs) .52

Also, during 1942 the first minimumsanitary requirements applicable toplants operating under federal inspec-tion were prepared. Resident inspec-tors first began working under a pro-gram of minimum sanitary, operating,and facility requirements in Augustthat year.53

Shelf Life Problems with WholeEgg Solids

At the outbreak of World War II in1939, very little was known about thekeeping quality of dried whole eggs.Nevertheless, stimulated by strong de-

52. Letter, August 29, 1958, to the authors from B. W. Kempers, Grading Branch, Poultry Division,AMS, USDA.

53. Ibid.

FIG. 9. Packing egg solids in 3-pound, hermetically sealed cans.

mand, production of whole egg solidsexpanded almost a thousand fold from1940 to 1944. (Table 2 and Fig. 3,page 12). This expansion occurreddespite a wartime shortage of stra-tegic metals to manufacture new dry-ing equipment and the lack of trainedpersonnel by industry and the gov-ernment for its inspection program.

TABLE 2.__Whole egg solids: Annual pro-duction, United States, 1940-44

(1,000 pounds)

Year Production

1940 3921941 31,2411942 226,1271943 252,9031944 311,369

Source: "Poultry and Eggs: Liquid Frozenand Dried Egg Production, 1938-49." Revisedestimates, USDA, September, 1953, p. 24.

During packing, the powder hadto pass rigid government inspectiontests for palatability and other qual-ity criteria before it was accepted forshipment. However, it was seldompossible to store the product undercontinuous refrigeration until it wasconsumed and objectional off-flavorsdeveloped which seriously affected itsusefulness. An objective appraisal ofthe quality and shelf life of most of

the dried whole eggs produced duringWorld War II follows:

The initial quality . . . was good.The bad reputation given to dried eggs dur-ing the War was justified because theproduct deteriorated seriously between thetime it was prepared and the time it wasoffered for consumption.54

During World War II, scrambledeggs made from dried whole-eggpowder was a rather common item inthe daily menu of our armed services.Therefore, product deterioration pre-sented a knotty problem.55

To determine causes of quality de-terioration, a broad research programwas undertaken in which the effortsof industry and government were co-ordinated.56 Joint efforts of collabora-tive laboratories resulted in the pro-duction of whole egg powder withimproved “stability.” Modificationsin processing and packaging methodsincluded: More sanitary handling ofliquid melange; pre-heating or pas-teurization before drying; rapid cool-ing of the product after drying or re-drying; production of low-moisture (2%) powders; and packaging thepowder under inert gases in hermeti-tally-sealed containers.57

Laboratory findings were quicklyadopted in commercial practice.“Some plants were producing prod-

54. H. Lineweaver, and R. E. Feeney, "Improving Frozen and Dried Eggs," 1950-51 Yearbook ofAgriculture, p. 654.

55. An incident related by an Army officer indicates the ingenuity of one mess sergeant.“One of my duties as batallion mess officer in Germany was to check the daily menu against the

cook’s work sheet.“One day when scrambled eggs were on the breakfast menu, the cook’s work sheet listed powdered

eggs followed by the note, 'Add one broken eggshell.' Perplexed, I asked the mess sergeant why he was feeding the troops eggshells with their scrambled eggs.

" 'Just using a little psychology, sir.’ he replied. "The boys don't go for these powdered eggs at all,and when they bite into a piece of eggshell they think they're eating the real McCoy. There's hardly any waste nowadays.’ " (By permission of Reader's Digest, September, 1959, pp. 17-18, story by K. D. Bigelow.) 56. The program became known as the "Coordinated Dried Egg Research Program." Funds were

supplied by Federal agencies, state research institutions, individual companies and the National Egg Products Association.

57. Western Regional Research Laboratory, USDA, “A Report on the Status and Significance ofGlucose-free Whole Egg Powder." 1950, p. 2.

[24]

ucts of superior initial quality andshelf-life only a few months after thenecessary basic information was madeavailable by the collaborators.” 58

The improvement in initial productquality and in the shelf life of com-mercially-dried whole egg was verymarked. The coordinator of the “Co-ordinated Dried Egg Research Pro-gram,” stated:

Whereas the product of a year ago was,in numerous cases, poor in sanitary qualityand initial palatability, with a shelf-life ofonly a very few weeks at 100o F. and a fewmonths at 70o F., it can now be preparedwith low bacteria count, excellent flavor,and with a shelf-life of several months at100o F. and about a year at 70o F.59

Contributions of USDA’s MobileLaboratory 60

During the early years of WorldWar II, many new egg-breaking anddrying plants were established overthe country. In the interest of pro-moting more efficient production ofquality egg products vitally neededfor the war effort, the government setup a mobile laboratory unit headed byDr. H. E. Goresline and Dr. V. H. Mc-Farlane. This unit used commercialegg and poultry plants as field labora-tories to collect information and todevelop improved methods of proc-essing, sanitation, and quality con-trol. Studies were made of incomingraw materials, handling and process-ing methods, and the quality of finalproducts.

The laboratory unit was of serviceto industry members by providingdemonstrations of “approved” plant

techniques and by training plantpersonnel. It also helped to pointout and correct specific weaknesses inexisting plant operations or tech-niques, particularly in relation toefficiency of production and productquality. When a plant failed to meetgovernment product specifications, atechnologist was sent to investigatethe matter and make necessaryrecommendations to correct thetrouble.

When the war ended, the MobileLaboratory was continued as a partof the research and development pro-gram of the U. S. D. A. Many plantscooperated by making their facilitiesavailable for full-scale experiments.For example, pasteurization of liquidwhole egg for drying, on a commercialbasis, was studied and techniques de-veloped are in use today.

Lessons from Feeding Dried Eggs toUndernourished People

During World War II, use of aspecial diet resulted in almost miracu-lous speedups in recovery of manywar-wounded and starving victims ofconcentration camps. The diet con-sisted of water plus a mixture ofpowdered egg and powdered milkwhich tasted like eggnog or ice cream.It was reported that:

Of 92,000 soldiers liberated from Ger-man prison camps and treated with thisbland diet, only eightpercent of them suffered from severe mal-

died, although 40

nutrition and at least 80 percent were under-nourished.

At Recovered Allied Military Prisoners’58. G. F. Stewart, coordinator, “Coordinated Dried Egg Research Program,” Report No. 2, December

10, 1944, p. 63.59. Loc. cit.60. Based on letter, January 13, 1960, to authors from H. E. Goresline.

[25]

camps, daily sick call rate averaged morethan 20 percent when the men were fed an

The egg and milk mixture sped Army

ordinary Army ration. About four-fifths ofwounded and post-operative patients in Eu-

the complaints were due to stomach andrope back to duty in about one-third the

intestinal disturbances. One week after theaverage time. The high protein content of

bland diet was introduced, the sick call ratethe mixture, together with its high calorie

dropped to 4 percent. There were no casesvalue from the fat and carbohydrate, and itslack of irritation to the stomach and in-

of nausea and vomiting, and only 15 per-cent of the complaints

testines constitute its advantages. Prolongedwere due to intestinal

disturbance.convalescence will be a rarity when this warlesson is applied.61

POSTWAR TRANSITION: 1947-50The poultry industry now faced the armed forces had to be supplied until

task of readjusting egg production brought home and demobilized, andand the manufacture of egg products shipments for foreign relief had to befrom the high war-time levels to continued until war-torn nationsnormal peace-time requirements. could rebuild their own sources ofHowever, the transition was made food supplies.easier by the fact that the nation’s As late as the spring of 1951, large

61. Science News Letter, October 19, 1946 (based on a report by Dr. Herbert Pollack, Mount SinaiHospital, New York. During World War II, Dr. Pollack was chief medical consultant for the United StatesArmy in the European Theater. )

FIG. 10. These egg-drying facilities consist of two cone-type spray dryers (on the left)for drying whole eggs, yolks, or special products. On the right is a pan dryer for flake-type whites.

[26]

quantities of whole egg solids werestill being exported, including 25 mil-lion pounds sold to the United King-dom from stocks that had been pur-chased by the Department of Agri-culture for price support purposes in1950.62 So high level egg productionof the war period continued. Underthe price support program, the De-partment of Agriculture made the fol-lowing purchase of whole egg solidsduring 1948-50.63

Year Million pounds

1949 691950 82

Reduction of Egg Drying CapacityAfter the war many drying plants

closed but a number of firms that hadestablished breaking rooms to supplytheir own dryers continued to breakand freeze eggs. In 1950, the Depart-ment of Agriculture supported theprice of eggs and bought the surplusproduction in the form of dried wholeeggs. This government programprobably helped to ease the industry’stransition to a peacetime economy. Atthat time about 60 egg-drying plants,64

considerably fewer than the wartimepeak of 135, were in active operationin the United States.

Influence of Price Supports and theEgg Drying Program on Egg Quality

During the postwar transition, an-other problem facing the egg industrywas the re-establishment of qualityegg programs. During the war, heavydemands for eggs to be frozen and

dried had played havoc with graded-egg buying programs. Witness thisstatement:

Influence of the vast lend-lease procure-ment program was felt in all quarters, andpatterns of the industry were greatly altered.Government buying at country points short-circuited the movement to central marketsand the emphasis on frozen and dried eggsvirtually wiped out quality distinctions.

With the government paying liberal pricesto encourage egg drying, values of currentreceipts and undergrade breaking stock werealmost on a par with graded shell eggs.65

It was this situation at the end ofthe war that prompted many states ofthe North-Central Region to pass newegg laws with the primary objectiveto improve egg quality.

Research on Egg ProductsDuring 1947-50, a broad program

of research on egg products was car-ried on by both government and in-dustry laboratories. The detection ofSalmonellas in dried whole egg im-ported into the United Kingdom fromthe U.S.A. during World War IIstimulated considerable research onthe problem. The attention of scien-tists centered on the proper method ofthermal pasteurization, that is, theexact holding time and temperaturefor the control of Salmonella, withoutappreciably affecting the functionalqualities of the product. Researchconducted over several years was suc-cessful and the government finallyissued specifications concerning thepreparation of whole egg solids thatit would purchase. As of 1958, theDepartment of Agriculture specified,“the strained or filtered liquid egg

62. The Poultry and Egg Situation, BAE, USDA, March, 1951, p. 13.63. The Poultry and Egg Situation, BAE, USDA, November-December, 1950, p. 9.64. Ibid., p. 8.65. Dairy-Produce Year Book, 1941, pp. 99-100.

[27]

1948 28

FIG. 11. A modern “hand-operated” breakroom with three complete lines of breakingconveyors. There are 104 breaking positions in this installation.

shall be flash-heated to not less than sugar, glucose (1.2% of egg solids),140o F. and held at this temperature and the lipid constituent, cephalin.for not less than 3 minutes and not Removing glucose before drying be-more than 4 minutes.” 66 came the most direct way to eliminate

An important discovery showed that palatibility loss.67

a principal cause of the loss in palata- A simple method of removing glu-bility of whole egg solids during stor- cose by yeast fermentation before dry-age was due to reaction between the ing was perfected and resulted in

66. Poultry Division, AMS, USDA, Regulations Governing the Grading and Inspection of EggProducts, effective December 1, 1958, p. 14.

67. Western Regional Research Laboratory, USDA, op. cit., p. 18.

[28]

whole egg solids with greatly im-proved shelf life.68 It was also demon-strated that pre-acidification of liquideggs before drying retarded the glu-cose-egg protein reactions that arelargely responsible for solubility andtexture changes in the egg.69

Research continued on methods ofprocessing albumen solids that wouldmake angel food cakes comparable intexture and fluffiness to those usingfresh or frozen whites. The effortswere successful and led to the nowpopular angel food cake mix.

Ways to improve the lifting abilityof whole egg and yolk solids in cakemaking also were developed and en-couraged bakers to substitute eggsolids for frozen eggs.

Industry Laboratory for Egg ProductsThe National Egg Products Asso-

ciation in 1947 established a labora-tory to assist plants in maintainingquality controls for egg products.When the NEPA became part of theInstitute of American Poultry Indus-tries in 1953 the Institute agreed tocontinue the laboratory services. Itstesting services include: “Control serv-ices and analysis for percent solidscontent, percent sugar, salt and fattests, NEPA color, bacteria count,coliform counts, yeast and mold countsand solubility tests."70

The Institute’s Egg Products Labor-atory has been particularly useful tofirms that do not have laboratory fa-cilities. The laboratory also providesa “referee” service for other firms, tocheck or confirm tests on egg products,

and it conducts an annual trainingschool for plant personnel. In addi-tion, many requests are handled fromplants for information relating toequipment, operating procedures, andquality and sanitation problems en-countered in the breaking, freezing,and drying of eggs.

A noteworthy contribution of theLaboratory was its development of astandard procedure, the NEPA colortest, to determine color of yolks. Be-fore the industry officially adopted thismethod considerable confusion existedarising from the use of different colortests. In 1959, a new color test, theB-carotene method, was approved bythe Laboratory and probably willgradually replace the original NEPAcolor test.

Implications of Reduced Imports ofDried Egg Yolk

Trade between Red China and theUnited States was stimulated by tariffreductions under the General Agree-ment on Tariffs and Trade in 1948.But the outbreak of the Korean Warin 1950 cut off U. S. imports of Chi-nese dried eggs into this country. Thisdevelopment caused industry leadersto foresee possible difficulties arisingfrom changes in relative supplies ofalbumen and yolk. The possible sig-nificance of these events was analyzedin 1951 as follows:

In December, 1950, the United States“froze” the American dollar balances ownedby Red China or by her nationals, and theRed Chinese Government declared an em-bargo on exports to the United States.. . . Of the 7.4 million pounds of dried

68. Ibid., p. 19.69. Loc. cit.70. Institute of American Poultry Industries, Annual Report, May 1, 1955--April 30, 1956, p. 10.

[29]

[30]

yolk imported into the United States in 1950,7.2 million pounds or 97 percent was fromChina. The quantity of dried yolk importedfrom China in the year was equal to the yolkfrom 982,000 cases of eggs. Imports ofdried albumen from all sources during thesame period were 192,000 pounds, equiv-alent to the albumen from on y 68,000 caseslof eggs. . . . If the potential decreasein Chinese imports is to be offset by an in-creased domestic production of egg products

separated to yolk and albumen components,there will be an increased supply of albu-men available from domestic production.. . . Yolk and albumen separately fromwhole egg or mixed egg products comprisean important proportion of the trade infrozen and dried egg products. Accordingly,changes in the proportions of albumen andyolk available in the U. S. market might beexpected to alter the price relationships be-tween the two components of the egg.71

EXPANDING DOMESTIC USE OF EGG PRODUCTS ANDAUTOMATION IN EGG BREAKING: 1951-59

Dried Eggs Officially RenamedEgg Solids

Unfortunately, reasons for the off-flavors (loss in palatability) of driedwhole eggs were not discovered untilnear the end of World War II. Dur-ing the war a certain stigma becameattached to the term "dried eggs" bythe nation’s armed forces. This was achallenging problem that the industryknew it must overcome if dried eggswere to be acceptable to the generalpublic.

In 1952, domestic dryers organizedthe Egg Solids Council to improveand promote the use of egg solids.Since research had now corrected theproblem of off-flavors and had greatlyimproved the product’s stability, itwas decided to drop the term "driedeggs” and to adopt the term “eggsolids.”

Increased Demand for Egg ProductsResearch after World War II period

now began to bear fruit. The use offrozen yolks in baby food expandedrapidly. The cake mix industry be-came a large user of eggs, both shelland egg solids, particularly albumen

solids for angel food and white cakemixes. The doughnut-mix industrycontinued to require large quantitiesof yolk solids, and egg solids graduallybegan to replace frozen eggs in bakeshops.

Use of Egg Solids by Schools

In 1943, the Department of Agri-culture began buying whole egg solidsfor distribution in the National SchoolLunch Program. By May, 1959, 37million pounds had been purchasedfor this purpose.72 In the beginningsome schools were slow to use theproduct. Therefore, considerable ef-fort was made to acquaint schoollunch personnel with approved meth-ods of storing and using egg solids inan attempt to overcome their preju-dices and to obtain satisfactory re-sults. Instructions for reconstitutingwhole egg solids and for determiningquantities to use in recipes calling forshell eggs were sent to state schoollunch agencies. In addition, manyrecipes using whole egg solids weresent to these agencies to use in theirworkshops.

In general, the state school lunch71. The Poultry and Egg Situation, BAE, USDA, January-February, 1951, p, 16.72. Letter, May 11, 1959, to Henry G. F. Hamann from H. D. Rorex, Chief, School Lunch Branch,

AMS, USDA. A copy of this letter was given to the authors.

[31]

officials have been favorably im-pressed with the stabilized whole eggsolids used in the school lunch pro-gram. The Department of Agricul-ture has had many requests for namesof packers of this product. Excellentreports on the acceptability of wholeegg solids in schools have been re-ceived.73

In 1959, 12 million children wereeating lunches in schools that tookfull advantage of the National SchoolLunch Program.74

The Demand-Supply Situation forYolks and Whites

During 1951-59, the uses of yolks inboth old and new products continuedto expand. When the cake-mix in-dustry began to absorb sizeable quan-tities of whites, it was hoped that thisdemand would correct the excess sup-ply of whites relative to yolks.

By 1953, interest in the new angelfood cake mix and white cake mixhad developed a good demand forwhites. However, this created a prob-lem for egg breakers who separated asubstantial part of their eggs. Marketoutlets had to be found to use theyolks. But this particular problemwas only temporary since the food in-dustry soon developed new uses foryolks. Then consumption of whitesby the cake mix industry and otherusers was insufficient to absorb all thewhites produced while packing therequired yolks. As a result, in 1958and 1959, burdensome supplies ofwhites depressed the price of albumensolids while the price of yolks was

relatively high. Thus history repeateditself, and the market situation be-came similar to that of 20 years earlier.

The unbalanced demand-supply sit-uation for yolks and whites aroselargely from the expanded use ofyolks, necessitating increased produc-tion of whites for which demand isnot so great. To sell the whites, itwas necessary to price them at a lowlevel.

Automation in Egg Breaking

Almost since its beginning in 1900the egg-breaking indust ry haddreamed of mechanizing the breakingof eggs. One of the first breaking ma-chines was invented in 1928 but couldbreak only whole eggs. However, itwas used relatively little until WorldWar II when a strong demand devel-oped for whole egg solids. During1944, the machine was put into activeoperation. Because it was compli-cated and required constant attention,it was soon discarded. After the war,efforts to develop a breaking machinethat not only “broke out” whole eggsbut also separated whites and yolkswere successful.

In hand breaking and separatingeggs, a girl usually breaks 2 to 21/2

cases an hour. But a girl operatingan egg-breaking machine can breakand separate 15 or more cases an hour.The breaking machine became thefirst major technological change inegg-breaking operations since the in-vention of the yolk-white separatorin 1912. Now more plants are install-ing egg-breaking machines each year.

73. Ibid.74. The Poultry and Egg Situation, AMS, USDA, March, 1959, p. 5.

[32]

Modern breaking machines make itpossible to wash and sanitize all shelleggs before breaking and significantlyreduce bacterial counts of the liquidraw material. Some breaking ma-chines are equipped with a manually-operated device to enable the operatorto select yolks according to color. By1959, several firms had completelymechanized their egg processing oper-ations. Also, use of insulated tanktrucks to transport liquid eggs fromthe breaking room to a dryer at somedistant point was increasing.

Contract Egg Production and the EggProducts Industry

Contract production in broilers,turkeys, and eggs for shell use caughtthe imagination of some breakers.While several reasons explain their

interest in contracts, the need for adependable supply of eggs for break-ing was the principal motivation.

In certain important egg-breakingstates of the North Central Region,notably Kansas and Missouri, egg pro-duction has declined since World WarII. This decline, coupled with the ex-panding use of egg products, forcedsome breakers to go longer distancesfor supplies and increased their rawcost. The “drying up” of traditionalprocurement areas has caused increas-ing concern to many large breakers,and considerable thought has beendirected to this problem.

One possible solution is “contractegg production” whereby large break-ers contract with sizeable producersto take their entire year’s productionof eggs. The producers provide hous-

FIG. 13. Automatic egg-separating machines. At this plant, 12 machines break up to1,500 cases of eggs per 8-hour shift.vidual cup.

The machine operator inspects each egg in an indi-

[33]

FIG. 14. A tank truck used to transport liquid eggs from an egg-breaking plant to adrying plant, sometimes located a considerable distance away. A 35,000-pound load ofliquid whites is being pumped into tanks at the receiving plant.

ing, equipment, and labor while theegg breakers furnish feed, medica-tions, ready-to-lay pullets, and neces-sary supervision. The producer andbreaker sign an agreement covering agiven period of years. A specifiedamount per dozen eggs produced ispaid to the producer for his labor andthe use of his buildings and equip-ment . Al l eggs p roduced a re theproperty of the breaking plant.

Under contract production, it isbelieved that a concentration of largeegg-producing units in a relativelysmall area would result in a steadysupply of eggs, at lower costs of pro-curement, and of better quality. Agrowing demand for higher quality

eggs by egg-breaking plants reflects,in turn, the constant efforts of foodmanufacturers to improve the qualityof their products.

Although seasonal egg productionhas leveled out in recent years, eggbreaking activity is still largely con-centrated from January through June.However, demand for egg products isfairly steady each month and a rela-tively stable source of eggs for break-ing the year ‘round would be advan-tageous to the industry. Better sea-sonal distribution of supplies wouldreduce the size of inventories whichfirms pack and store during the springto meet customers’ requirements dur-ing the fall and winter. Thus the

[34]

speculative risk, which breakers prefernot to bear, of possible lower eggprices during the fall is lessened. Also,year ‘round breaking probably wouldresult in greater utilization of break-ing facilities, improved plant effi-ciency, and perhaps solve some laborproblems. Many breakers feel that,with sources of supply on a year‘round contract basis, the cost of rawmaterial would depend more on theactual cost of labor and feed to pro-duce eggs than is true today.

Some state egg laws now requirethat all eggs be bought on a gradedbasis. Egg breakers contend that theadditional expense of candling andgrading eggs that are destined for thebreaking room simply adds to the costof raw material without any compen-sating advantages. They also con-tend that, in states with compulsorygrading laws, exemptions might begranted to breakers who have con-tracts with producers because, tech-nically, the breakers and producersare partners in the egg enterprise.

This new development in procure-ment may have other impacts on theegg products industry. It could pro-vide an opportunity for controlledfeeding that would produce yolks ofdesired color. Also, breeders mightdevelop a strain of layers to produceeggs with other characteristics mostsuitable for breaking purposes, inparticular, eggs with a higher per-centage of yolk.

In early 1959, contract productionof eggs for breaking was being con-sidered seriously in some areas. Butwhen egg prices fell to unusually lowlevels, interest by egg breakers in suchplans waned. However, the basicproblem of procuring ample suppliesfor breaking in these areas still re-mains and will have to be solved.

Trading in Frozen Egg Futures

Rules and procedures for trading infutures contracts in frozen eggs 75 wereestablished on the Chicago MercantileExchange 76 in 1945. While the prod-uct possessed all inherent character-istics necessary for futures trading,very little occurred prior to 1957.77

There were several reasons. First,technical differences exist in manu-facturing processes of individual firms.Therefore, the products of competingfirms had slightly different specifi-cations. Brand names for frozen eggproducts were emphasized and thelargest firms resorted to aggressiveselling of brand-name products. Sec-ond, in the pricing of frozen eggs be-tween buyers and sellers, contractswere frequently used. A 1949 studyestimated that “quality packers” offrozen eggs sold 75 percent of theirpack by contracts.78 Under such anarrangement, the processor contractedto supply food manufacturers with thequantity of egg products neededduring the ensuing year. Frozen eggswere sold based on prices paid during

75. Standard grade frozen whole eggs, whites, plain yolks, sugared yolks and salted yolks.78. Trading in frozen egg contracts is governed by rules of the exchange and is not regulated by the

Commodity Exchange Authority.77. Practically all trading has been confined to frozen whole eggs. A few cars of frozen egg whites

were traded in 1959. There has been no trading in plain yolks, sugared yolks and salted yolks.78. G. C. Kleiman, “The Role of the Frozen Egg Industry in the Marketing of Eggs,” unpublished

M. S. thesis, University of Illinois, 1949, p. 52.

[35]

TABLE 3.--Frozen whole egg futures: Volume of trading and contracts settled by delivery,Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 1956-60.1

(Number of carlots)2

YEAR3

Volume of trading, by contractsContractsdelivered

October November December January Allcontracts

1956-57. . . . . . . . . . . . 43 1 . . . . . . . . 4 48 201957-58. . . . . . . . . . . . 2,114 310 114 1,551 4,089 3261958-59. . . . . . . . . . . . 861 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910 751959-60 4 . . . . . . . . . . . 2,335 143 74 645 3,197 262

1. 1960 includes only the January contract.2. The trading unit of 30,000 pounds of one uniform pack, from one regularly-established egg-

breaking plant in the United States.3. Because most trading in the January contract of a given year occurs during the year immediately

preceding that of the delivery month, the January contract was grouped with the October, November, andDecember contracts of the previous year.

4. Preliminary.Source: Chicago Mercantile Exchange Year Books, 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59 and unpublished

data for 1959-60 furnished by W. Kowalski, exchange statistician.

the breaking season for shell eggs plusallowances for processing costs andcarrying charges. The contract pro-vided definite market outlets, thus re-ducing uncertainty both on the sellingand buying sides. Services of thefuture market were not essential,particularly for hedging protection.Third, prior to 1956, frozen eggs de-liverable on futures contracts werenot required to bear the USDA shield.

In 1956, the Board of Governors ofthe Mercantile Exchange announceda significant change in specificationsfor frozen egg contracts applicable toall contracts beginning with the “Oc-tober 1956” contract. “To constitutegood delivery, each can of frozen eggsmust bear the USDA shield.” 79 Thequality of such eggs, packed underUSDA supervision by different firms,was relatively uniform and depend-

able, thus instilling greater confidencein the product by the trade. Thischange in rules probably resulted inincreased willingness to accept de-livery of the product. In addition,another change related to a specificrequirement for standard grade frozenwhole eggs. “They shall contain aminimum of 25.5% egg solids.” 80 Thiscompares with 25% solids content in 1955.

During 1945-56, there was relativelylittle trading in frozen whole eggfutures. During four years (1945,1951, 1952, and 1955) no tradingoccurred. In the other years thevolume of trading, on a calendar-yearbasis, ranged from only 3 cars in 1948to 48 cars in 1947.81 The smalltrading volume during 1945-56 com-pared with the relatively large volumesince 1957 (see Table 3) shows the

79. Chicago Mercantile Exchange Year Book, 1956-57, p. 45.80. Loc. cit.81. Data were furnished by Michael H. Weinberg of Weinberg Bros. and Co., Chicago. (Letter, De-

cember 14, 1959, to the authors.)

[36]

FIG. 15. Since 1957, the futures market for frozen whole eggs on the Chicago MercantileExchange has assumed greater significance.

increasing role played by the futuresmarket in recent years.

Whereas the peak volume of trad-ing in the earlier period was 48 carsin 1947, during 1957-58 it totaled 4,089cars, representing 123 million pounds,with interest centered on the “Oc-tober 1957” and “January 1958” con-tracts (Table 3). During 1958-59,there was less speculative activity andthe volume of trading dropped to 910cars, still a rather substantial quantity.In 1959-60, trading activity again in-creased and 3,197 cars were traded.

The first year of any appreciableactivity in the frozen egg futuresmarket was 1957. Trading was of

such volume and importance that abrief review 82

of the market situationand other contributing factors, as wellas the trading itself, is warranted.

Egg production during the springof 1957 was heavy and, despite gov-ernment purchases of both shell anddried eggs, springtime egg priceswere sharply lower than in 1955 and1956. A relatively small hatch forlaying flock replacement and heavycullings of layers indicated reducedegg supplies and prospective highershell egg prices during the fall. Thusthe opportunity for large-scale com-mercial production of liquid egg atthat time would be limited. Rela-

82. Certain details regarding futures trading in 1957 were obtained by interviewing plant managersor central office personnel in a regional field survey of the operations of 64 commercial egg breaking and/ordrying plants in the North Central Region in 1957-58 by the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station.

[37]

tively high storage stocks of frozeneggs on February 1 (the normal startof the main breaking season) tendedto discourage egg breaking, while lowegg prices encouraged it. High pricesof futures in relation to the cashmarket, particularly during Marchand April, encouraged many breakersto step up operations, store frozeneggs, and hedge their inventories inthe futures market.

In early 1957, cold storage ware-houses in Chicago had considerableunused storage space after govern-ment-owned stocks of butter were re-moved. Moreover, one broker, an in-vestment counselor, recommended tohis clients the purchase of frozen eggcontracts because of “the possibilityof long-term capital gains tax-wise.” 83

One large warehouse in Chicago be-gan purchasing frozen eggs in largevolume during March and soon otherwarehouses did the same. To earnstorage charges, warehouses boughtfrozen whole eggs for their own ac-count or financed purchases by eggdealers and then hedged the com-modity.84

During 1957, there was active trad-ing in four contracts. Trading openedin the October contract in late Febru-ary and in the other three contractsin March. As trading progressed, theprospect of high egg prices during thefall resulted in active buying, by

speculators, egg dealers, and actualusers of frozen eggs, to lend broadsupport to the market.

By September 1, storage reserves offrozen eggs, particularly yolks, weresmaller than a year earlier. Duringthe delivery month of the Octobercontract many breakers, who hadplaced hedges during the spring,chose to deliver. Others, includingwarehouses, “bought in” their Octobercontracts and rehedged by selling inthe January contract since the spreadwas sufficient to pay for carryingcharges from October to January andperhaps provide an opportunity forprofitable merchandising.

During 1957, for the first time in thebrief history of trading in frozenwhole egg futures, the market pro-vided a fair degree of liquidity. Manyegg breakers reported that they tookadvantage of the seller’s deliveryprivilege. A total of 326 cars 85 wasdelivered in 1957-58 (Table 3). Themarket provided an important, im-mediate outlet for the sale of frozeneggs during the spring. Several coun-try egg breakers reported that theyused the futures market during 1957to hedge forward sales as well asstorage stocks and were afforded someprotection. Some plants reported thatthe futures market governed the pricepaid for eggs to break during thespring. A few plants let their sales in

83. H. I. Henner, Weekly Commodity Letter, Uhlmann Grain Company, Chicago, March 29, 1957.84. They hedged by selling October contracts, hoping at least to break even or possibly to make a

small profit after paying for carrying charges (warehousing, interest and insurance) plus brokerage fees.One source stated that most of the time a small profit was made because the “spring” pack commanded aslight premium from users over the “current” pack.

85. Seventy-eight cars and 219 cars, respectively, in the “October 1957” and “January 1958” contracts.

[38]

the futures market govern thequantity of frozen whole eggs theypacked.

Technological Advances in AlbumenSolids for Angel Food Cake Mixes

In 1944, it was discovered that glu-cose could be removed from eggwhites by “yeast fermentation.” Inthe process, yeast cells feed on glu-cose, producing alcohol and carbondioxide which passes into the air. Thismethod was a decided advance overearlier methods including “naturalfermentation” and “seeding with aero-bacter aerogenes." The yeast fer-mentation method was more easilycontrolled, faster, and produced glu-cose-free liquid whites having betterbacterial quality and flavor thanother known methods.

From a commercial standpoint, theyeast fermentation method repre-sented a major “breakthrough” in thedevelopment of albumen solids suit-able for use in an angel food cakemix. The first mixes to appear on themarket were manufactured using thistype of albumen solids.

During the early 1950’s the “en-zyme method” of removing glucosewas perfected. Under this process,glucose is changed to gluconic acid, astable product. The development isconsidered by several authorities asone of the most spectacular techno-logical advances in the history of theegg products industry. Today, thismethod has been adopted quitewidely by albumen driers.

Success also crowned the industry’sefforts to dry egg whites with the

spray-type drier. Prior to 1939, onlythe pan method of drying was usedand produced “flake” albumen. Whenpowdered albumen is desired, flakesare then ground. In 1935, the processof “fluff drying” was developed toproduce powdered albumen. Liquidalbumen “is whipped into a foam thatis extruded onto a stainless steel belttraveling through a drying oven. Thedried foam is then powdered to uni-form mesh size.” 86

Around 1939, spray driers beganusing "bag collectors" to recover moreof the fine albumen powder. This de-vice made spray drying of albumenpractical because it saved valuablepowder which previously was lost.With the successful development ofangel food cake albumen and the needfor powdered albumen by cake-mixmanufacturers, demand increased forthe spray-dried product. Today,some packers mix ground flake al-bumen with spray-dried albumen forbetter control of quality and uni-formity.

Stimulated by advertising and pro-motion, consumer demand expandedfor angel food cake mixes. Cake mixmanufacturers required a regularsupply of albumen solids with a lowyolk content in order to producemixes with uniformly-high cake vol-ume. It is well known that any ap-preciable quantity of yolk in albumenadversely affects "lifting ability" ofwhites. About 1955, the “mono-molecular film test,” a highly-sensitivemethod of testing egg whites for yolkcontamination, was perfected. This

86. J. V. Ziemba, “Egg Solids to Forefront,” Food Engineering, September, 1955, p. 70.

[39]

test not only is quick and accurate but to obtain uniform supplies of whitesalso enables egg breakers to obtain having adequate “lifting ability” cul-whites with a very low fat content minated in the development of aby running regular tests during the chemical additive for whites whichbreaking and separating process. partially overcomes the problem of

During the mid 1950’s another step yolk contamination.

FIG. 16. A modern, cabinet-type spray dryer which can be used to dry whole eggs,yolks, or whites. Usually a machine that dries whites is used only for that product. Alter-nate drying of yolks and whites is not practical. When yolks are dried, some fat isdeposited on the sides of the drier and, unless completely removed, will be picked up bywhites during drying. That would adversely affect the lifting ability of albumen solids.

[40]

National Committee on Poultry ProductsResearch, Coordinated Dried Egg Re-Search Program, Report No. 2, Mimeo-graphed, December, 1944, 64 pp.

L I S T O F R E F E R E N C E S

Agricultural Marketing Service, UnitedStates Department of Agriculture, ThePoultry and Egg Situation, June, 1941;September, 1941; May, 1942; August,1942; September, 1943; April-June, 1946;November-December, 1950; January-Feb-ruary, 1951; March, 1951; November,1958; March, 1959.

Anonymous, “Mixture Speeds Recovery,”Science News Letter, Science Services,Inc., Volume 50, No. 16, October, 1946,p. 244.

Brooks, J., and D. J. Taylor, Eggs and EggProducts, Department of Scientific andIndustrial Research, Food InvestigationSpecial Report No. 60, London, 1955,

Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Year Books,1956-57, 1957-58, and 1958-59.

Committee on Foods, Advisory Board onQuartermaster Research and Develop-ment, Stability of Dehydrated Eggs__ASymposium, National Academy ofSciences__National Research Council,September, 1954, 98 pp.

Dairy Produce Publishers, Inc., Chicago,Dairy-Produce Year Book, 1941.

Department of Agriculture Poultry Com-mittee, Eggs and Egg Products, UnitedStates Department of Agriculture, Cir-cular 583, January, 1941, 91 pp.

Forsythe, R. H., “Sugar Removal from EggWhite Solids,” Poultry Processing andMarketing, March, 1953, p. 17 +.

Hipolite Egg Co. v. U.S., 220 U.S. 45

Institute of American Poultry Industries,Annnual Report, May 1, 1955-April 30,

Keith, H. J., The Battle of Trenton, Boston:H. J. Keith Company, 1914, 73 pp.

Kleiman, G. C., The Role of the Frozen EggIndustry in the Marketing of Eggs. Un-published M. S. Thesis, University ofIllinois, 1949.

Pennington, M. E., Practical Suggestions forthe Preparation of Frozen and DriedEggs, Food Research Laboratory, Bureauof Chemistry, United States Departmentof Agriculture, Circular 98, July 1912,12 pp.

Pennington, M. E., et al., A Study of thePreparation of Frozen and Dried Eggsin the Producing Section, Bureau ofChemistry, United States Department ofAgriculture, Bulletin 224, April, 1916,99 pp.

Phillips, A. G., The Marketing of Eggs,Kansas State Agricultural College, FarmerBulletin 162, 1909, 16 pp.

Poultry Division, Agricultural MarketingService, United States Department of Ag-riculture, Regulations Governing theGrading and Inspection of Egg Products,effective December 1, 1958, 14 pp.

Radabaugh, J. H., “Economic Aspects of theFrozen Egg Industry in the UnitedStates," Proceedings: Seventh World’sPoultry Congress and Exposition, 1939,pp. 364-367.

Termohlen, W. D., E. L. Warren and C. C.Warren, The Egg-Drying Industry in theUnited States, Agricultural AdjustmentAdministration, United States Depart-ment of Agriculture, PSM-1, 1938, 80 pp.

U. S. v. 443 Cans of Frozen Egg Products,193 Fed. 589 (C. A. 3rd. 1912).

Wells, C. F., United States Tariff Rates onAgricultural Products (Revised). Bureauof Agricultural Economics, United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, May, 1951,152 pp.

Western Regional Research Laboratory, AReport on the Status and Significance ofGlucose-free Whole Egg Powder, Bu-reau of Agricultural and Industrial Chem-istry, Agricultural Research Administra-tion, United States Department of Agri-culture, Mimeographed, 1950, 22 pp.

Ziemba, J. V., “Egg Solids to Forefront,”Food Engineering, September, 1955, pp.

Lineweaver, H., and R. E. Feeney, “Improv-ing Frozen and Dried Egg," The Year-book of Agriculture, 1950-51, UnitedStates Department of Agriculture, pp.642-647. 77-80.

[41]

104 pp.

(1911).

1956.

YE

AR

1914

...

....

....

....

.

6,

1822

...

....

....

....

....

.. .

....

....

. ..

....

....

...

....

.. .

....

....

. ..

....

....

....

....

...

1915

...

....

....

....

.

9,

4802

.

....

....

. ..

....

....

...

....

...

....

....

.. .

....

....

...

....

...

....

....

.. .

....

....

.19

16 .

....

....

....

...

1

6,34

52

.

....

....

. ..

....

....

...

....

...

....

....

.. .

....

....

...

....

...

....

....

.. .

....

....

.19

17 .

....

....

....

...

1

6,69

22

..

....

....

...

....

...

....

....

.. .

....

....

. ..

....

...

....

....

....

....

....

. ..

....

....

1918

...

....

....

....

.

12,

0382

....

....

.. .

....

....

. ..

....

....

...

....

...

....

....

. ..

....

....

...

....

...

....

....

..

1919

...

....

....

....

.

33,

0482

....

....

.. .

....

....

. ..

....

....

...

....

...

....

....

. ..

....

....

....

....

...

....

....

..19

20 .

....

....

....

...

3

6,65

72

..

....

....

...

....

...

....

....

.. .

....

....

. ..

....

...

....

....

.. .

....

....

. ..

....

....

1921

....

....

....

....

23,

9282

....

....

.. .

....

....

. ..

....

....

...

....

...

....

....

. ..

....

....

...

....

...

....

....

..19

22..

....

....

....

..

18

,034

2

..

....

....

...

....

...

....

....

.. .

....

....

. ..

....

...

....

....

....

....

....

. ..

....

....

1923

...

....

....

....

. .

....

....

....

1,10

6

1

,210

636

2

,952

5

,964

3,4

16

19,8

99

29,0

09

1924

....

....

....

....

..

....

....

...

1926

....

....

....

....

..

....

....

...

1927

. ...

....

....

....

..

....

....

...

1928

....

....

....

....

..

....

....

...

1929

....

....

....

....

..

....

....

...

9,82

4

3,4

75

9

55

14,

254

5

,264

1

2,02

2

2

9,00

6

46,2

92

1931

....

....

....

....

..

....

....

...

2

4

43

0

445

7

,385

1

2,51

6

1

8,10

8

38,0

0919

32..

....

....

....

..

....

....

....

.

3

4

03

0

403

79

1,5

98

9,3

13

10,

990

1933

....

....

....

....

..

....

....

...

8

1

3

08

0

389

37

3,5

94

6,3

81

10,

013

1934

....

....

....

....

..

....

....

...

5

1,0

06

0

1,

011

4

5,1

03

2,9

38

8,0

46

1935

....

....

....

....

..

....

....

...

0

6

66

3

6

66

2,1

49

8

,696

13,

695

24,

540

1937

....

....

....

....

..

....

....

...

1

8

87

3

888

2

,144

1

1,93

8

2

0,76

2

3

4,84

4 19

38..

....

....

....

..

....

....

....

.

3

1

68

0

16

8

41

0

580

5,

081

6

,071

APP

END

IX A

TABL

E I.-

-Egg

pro

duct

s: 1 U

nite

d St

ates

impo

rts,

191

4-58

Dri

ed

froze

neg

gs2

Froz

en e

ggs

Who

leeg

gs

Yol

k (l,0

00 p

ound

s)

Alb

umen

Tota

l

.

8,75

1

4,15

1

1,10

6

1

4,00

8

5,67

5

8,

835

21,

512

36,

021

12,6

47

5,6

62

5,6

62

23,4

28

9,0

00

12,

301

22,

993

44,

293

8,11

4 4,

601

3

,967

16

,682

5

,624

1

2,01

5

2

5,24

2

4

2,88

161

1

1,2

29

5

53

2,3

93

3,1

41

7

,060

24

,586

34

,786

12,6

16

4,5

81

6

10

17,8

07

3,0

43

9

,616

20

,090

32

,749

Eggs

sol

ids

Who

leeg

gs

Yol

k

(1,0

00 p

oun

ds)

Alb

umen

Tot

al

or

1925

....

....

....

....

..

....

....

...

1930

....

....

....

....

..

....

....

...

113

1,05

2

2

1,

167

4

,740

1

3,62

0

2

5,19

9

43,5

59

1936

....

....

....

....

..

....

....

...

2

5

1,4

99

0

1

,524

1

,903

1

0,78

3

1

7,21

4

2

9,90

1

(1,0

00 p

ound

s)

YE

AR

1939

4..

....

....

....

. ..

....

....

....

3

0

0

0

209

3,

310

2

,628

6

,147

19

404..

....

....

....

. ..

....

....

....

3

12

0

12

47

5

,751

2,12

4

7,92

219

414..

....

....

....

. ..

....

....

....

...

....

...

....

....

.. .

....

....

.

0

162

3

,980

2,10

2

6,24

419

424 .

....

....

....

.. .

....

....

....

. ..

....

....

...

....

....

....

....

..

42

32

630

1943

4 ...

....

....

....

...

....

....

...

....

....

.. .

....

....

....

....

....

.

1944

4 ...

....

....

....

...

....

....

...

....

....

.. .

....

....

. ..

....

....

47

0

63

19

454 .

....

....

....

.. .

....

....

....

. ..

....

....

...

....

...

....

....

..

2

19

464 .

....

....

....

.. .

....

....

....

. ..

....

....

...

....

...

....

....

..

2

4

0

1948

4 ...

....

....

....

..

....

....

....

...

....

...

....

....

....

....

....

.

4

1949

...

....

....

....

. ..

....

....

....

...

....

...

....

....

....

....

....

.

1950

...

....

....

....

. ..

....

....

....

...

....

...

....

....

....

....

....

.1

95

1..

....

....

....

.. .

....

....

....

. ..

....

....

...

....

....

....

....

..19

52..

....

....

....

.. .

....

....

....

. ..

....

....

...

....

...

....

....

..19

53. .

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

..

1954

....

....

....

....

...

....

....

....

....

....

.. .

....

....

. ..

....

....

1955

...

....

....

....

. ..

....

....

....

...

....

...

....

....

....

....

....

.19

56..

....

....

....

.. .

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

...

....

....

..19

57..

....

....

....

.. .

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

..19

58..

....

....

....

.. .

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

..1.

L

iqui

d eq

uiva

lent

.

Dat

a fo

r eg

g so

lids

fo

r 19

38-5

7 w

ere

conv

erte

d fr

om

dry

wei

ghts

on

th

e ba

sis

of

1 po

und

who

le

egg

soli

ds

equa

led

3.6

poun

ds l

iqui

d; 1

pou

nd y

olk

soli

ds e

qual

ed 2

.25

poun

ds l

iqui

d; a

nd 1

pou

nd a

lbum

en s

olid

s eq

uale

d 7.

3 po

unds

liq

uid.

2.

Pro

duct

s w

ere

not

show

n se

para

tely

bef

ore

1923

.

TA

BLE

I.--

Egg

prod

ucts

: 1 U

nite

d St

ates

im

port

s, 1

914-

58--

CO

NC

LUD

ED

Dri

ed

froz

eneg

gs2

(1,0

00 p

oun

ds

1947

4 ...

....

....

....

...

....

....

...

....

....

.. .

....

....

....

....

...

6

0

0

854

854

3. L

ess

than

500

pou

nds.

4. F

isca

l ye

ar b

asis

.

)

Fro

zen

eggs

E

ggs

solid

s

Wh

ole

eggs

Y

olk

(1,0

00 p

oun

ds)

-

Alb

um

enT

otal 0

473 13

4

68

0

Wh

ole

eggs

Y

olk

A

lbum

en

Tot

al

4 7

104

335

40

529

32

0

137

32

4

0

0

7

8

4

0

(1,0

00 p

oun

ds)

035

0 71,

012

11

236

520

635

69

878

8

1,03

115

19

394

1

,018

4,07

5

3

50

16,5

76

1,4

014,

760

155

503

18,5

06 662

121

1,89

856

3,3

512,

019

3,43

9

105 0 0

467

182

66 155

150

572

182

66 363

65

.

5.

Dat

a fo

r eg

g so

lids

im

port

ed

in

1957

-58

did

not

indi

cate

ty

pes

of

prod

ucts

.

All

ocat

ions

w

ere

base

d on

in

form

atio

n ob

tain

ed

from

th

e

64

for

egg

soli

ds,

1923

-37;

A

gric

ultu

ral

Stat

isti

cs,

US

DA

, 19

41,

p.

492

for

drie

d or

fr

ozen

eg

gs,

1914

-22

and

for

froz

en

eggs

, 19

23-3

9;

for

Sou

rces

: T

erm

ohle

n,

W.

D.,

E.

L.

War

ren

and

C.

C.

War

ren,

T

he

Egg

D

ryin

g In

dust

ry

in

the

Uni

ted

Stat

es,

AA

A,

US

DA

, P

SM

-1,

1938

, p.

and

froz

en e

ggs,

Sep

t.,

1953

, pp

. 14

-15

for

1948

-52;

Sep

t.,

1957

, p.

14

for

1953

-56;

and

Sep

t.,

1959

, p.

9 f

or 1

957-

58.

both

egg

sol

ids

and

froz

en e

ggs,

194

7, p

. 45

1 fo

r 19

38-4

5; a

nd 1

949,

p.

551

for

1946

-47:

For

eign

Agr

icut

ural

Cir

cula

r, U

SD

A,

for

both

egg

sol

ids

or

6

0

trad

e.

TA

BLE 2

.--L

iqu

id e

gg:

An

nu

al p

rodu

ctio

n a

nd

disp

osit

ion

, U

nit

ed S

tate

s, 1

921-

58 1

Fin

aldi

spos

itio

nF

inal

per

cent

age

Ori

gina

l

Tot

aldi

spos

itio

n

liqu

id

For

Dri

ed

sum

ptio

n

e

ggs

Use

d fo

r

imm

edia

te

from

Tot

al

U

sed

aspr

oduc

tion

Fro

zen

dryi

ng

c

on-

f

roze

n

dri

ed

f

roze

n

46,0

00

46,0

00

...

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

49,0

00

49,0

00

...

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

1923

.

71,0

00

71,0

00

...

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

57,0

00

57,0

00

...

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

79,0

00

79,0

00

...

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

.

(1,

000

pou

nds

)

disp

osit

ion

con

sum

ptio

n

Tot

al u

sed

Use

d as

as f

roze

n

U

sed

fro

zen

and

for

for

an

d fo

rim

med

iate

d

ryin

g

imm

edia

teco

nsu

mpt

ion

YE

AR

1921

.19

22.

1924

.19

25.

92,0

00

92,0

00

...

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

131,

000

129,

000

149,

000

148,

000

500

.

....

....

....

....

....

.

500

156,

000

155,

000

187,

000

185,

000

1931

. 15

3,00

0

15

2,00

0

1,0

00

...

....

....

....

....

..19

32.

145,

000

138,

000

7

,000

.

....

....

....

....

....

7,

000

1933

. 18

7,00

0

17

1,00

0

1

6,00

0

...

....

....

....

....

..19

34.

215,

000

198

,000

1935

. 21

4,00

0

2

06,0

00

1936

.19

37.

23

3,00

0

22

5,00

0

8,0

00

...

....

....

....

....

...

1938

.19

39.

1940

.

213,

000

208,

000

4

,500

.

....

....

....

....

....

.

148,

800

116,

100

220,

233

177,

144

229,

274

189,

578

1941

.

4

21,9

1919

42.

1

,011

,106

1943

.

1,2

21,0

1219

44.

1

,554

,037

1945

.

6

81,5

71

(Per

cent

) 100.

010

0.0

237,

182

257,

631

112,

615

7

82,0

8051

1,79

119

7,58

0

46,0

00

...

....

....

.49

,000

.

....

....

...

71,0

00

...

....

....

.57

,000

.

....

....

...

79,0

00

...

....

....

..

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.

010

0.0

100.

0

1,50

0

1,50

0

92,0

00

...

....

....

.12

9,00

0

...

....

....

.14

8,00

0

...

....

....

.15

5,00

0

...

....

....

.18

5,00

0

...

....

....

.

0.0

10

0.0

1.2

98

.80

.49

9.6

0.4

99

.60

.89

9.2

1,00

0

16,0

0017

,000

7,50

0

20

6,00

0

...

....

....

..

152,

000

.

....

....

....

138,

000

.

....

....

....

171,

000

.

....

....

....

198,

000

.

....

....

....

0.7

99

.34

.995

.19

.69

0.4

7.9

92.1

3.7

96

.3

8,00

022

,300

31,0

0027

,050

4,50

0

2

08,0

00

..

....

....

...

225,

000

.

....

....

....

116,

000

1

26,5

0017

7,00

018

9,57

8

97

.8

189,

233

202,

224

2.2

3.9

9

6.1

15.0

14.0

11.8

85

.08

6.0

88

.2

165,

972

237,

182

255,

947

39.3

60

.784

6,79

814

1,87

916

4,30

88

3.7

16.3

941,

426

253,

269

77.0

23

.01,

188,

548

332,

645

279,

586

365,

489

76.5

23

.538

7,45

4 27

5,41

3 29

4,11

7 5

6.8

4

3.2

10,4

00

...

....

....

12,0

89

..

....

....

.12

,646

....

....

...

18,7

65

..

....

....

.22

,429

26,3

1732

,844

18,7

04

1,

500

.

....

....

....

....

....

.

500

.

....

....

....

....

....

.

500

1,50

0

...

....

....

....

....

...

17,0

00

. .

....

....

....

....

....

7,50

0

...

....

....

....

....

..

22,3

0031

,000

27,0

50

165,

972

731,

046

1,00

9,40

226

5,28

7

115,

752

159,

346

179,

146

122,

167

egg

TA

BLE

2.-

-Liq

uid

egg

: A

nn

ual

pro

du

ctio

n a

nd

dis

posi

tion

, U

nit

ed S

tate

s, 1

92

1-5

8 1

--C

ON

CLU

DE

D

YE

AR

Tot

alli

quid

prod

uct

ion

Fro

zen

1946

.

1947

.19

48.

19

49.

1950

.

788,

194

392,

218

37

5,94

5

682,

480

502,

141

587,

656

696,

663

1951

.19

52.

1953

.19

54.

1955

.

411,

274

465,

931

453,

435

3

14,5

14

78,

768

33,1

53

31,4

78

1956

. 46

4,85

519

57.

474,

730

3

33,8

23

103

,413

1958

.

4

80,7

98

35

0,88

6

98,

578

Ori

gin

aldi

spos

itio

nF

inal

disp

osit

ion

For

D

ried

Use

d fo

r

im

med

iate

from

Tot

al

U

sed

asdr

yin

g

co

n-

fr

ozen

drie

d

f

roze

nsu

mpt

ion

egg

s

371,

096

29

5,56

734

5,19

2

140,

048

16,

901

25,

311

165

,359

31

9,88

1

336

,782

32

.9

67.

131

8,22

7

250,

601

18,

828

32,

395

282

,996

28

5,83

2

304,

660

48.

2

51.

835

4,14

8

322,

400

20,

115

32,

134

354

,534

32

2,01

4

342,

129

50.

9

49.1

408,

654

3

39,5

37

50,

777

18,

340

23,

220

73

,997

31

6,31

7

3

34,6

57

18.7

81

.938

2,39

4

320

,352

4

3,63

8

1

8,40

4

3

2,40

0

76,0

38

287,

952

306

,336

343,

064

4

7,11

636

1,18

4

73,

716

349,

085

82,6

59

(1,0

00 p

oun

ds)

20,0

31

84,2

19

4

60,1

64

3

07,9

99

328,

030

58.

415

,817

20

,538

316

,105

350

,558

36

6,37

5

4

6.3

53

.7

21,0

94

3

4,68

431

,031

28,

681

102

,397

33

2,50

3

3

63,5

34

22.

0

7

8.0

38,

111

18,

901

101

,560

33

0,18

4

3

63,2

95

21.

8

7

8.2

37,4

94

24,3

69

1

27,7

82

309,

454

346

,948

26

.9

73.1

31,3

34

16,1

31

81,8

00

308,

380

329

,474

110,

246

310

,036

343

,189

2

4.3

75.

7

114,

709

334

,755

366

,089

23

.9

76.1

Tot

al u

sed

U

sed

asas

fro

zen

Use

d

froz

enan

d fo

r

for

a

nd

for

imm

edia

te

dry

ing

im

med

iate

con

sum

ptio

n

co

nsu

mpt

ion

19.9

19.9

Fin

al p

erce

nta

gedi

spos

itio

n

(Per

cen

t)41

.6

80.1

80.1

1. D

ata

wer

e un

avai

labl

e fo

r ye

ars

not

show

n.So

urce

s: E

ggs

and

Egg

Pro

duct

s, U

SD

A,

Cir

c. 5

83,

Jan.

, 19

41,

p. 6

2 fo

r 19

21-3

7; P

oult

ry a

nd E

ggs_

_ Liq

uid,

Fro

zen

and

Dri

ed E

gg P

rodu

c-ti

on,

1938

-49,

Rev

ised

est

imat

es,

BA

E,

USD

A,

Sept

., 19

53,

p. 1

9 fo

r 19

38-4

2; E

gg P

rodu

cts_

_ Liq

uid,

Fro

zen,

Sol

ids

Pro

duct

ion

(mon

thly

), U

SDA

,19

53-5

8 fo

r 19

43-5

8.

egg

1942__Methods and equipment developed to produce low loisture, whole egg powder.(G. F. Stewart, R. Conrad, J. W. Greene and others).

1943__Determination of the adverse effects of oxygen on the low-temperature deteri-oration of dried whole eggs and yolks (J. Brooks and E. C. Bate-Smith).This discovery caused the U. S. armed forces to specify that whole egg powderfor them be packed in inert gases, nitrogen and carbon dioxide.

1943__Discovery that adding sugar to whole egg liquid before dying greatly helpedretain the “lifting ability” of the dried product (J. Brooks and J. R. Hawthorne).Confirmation by R. Conrad, et al.

1944__Discovery that glucose in whole eggs could be removed by yeast fermentation(J. R. Hawthorne and J. Brooks). Confirmed by workers at Armour and Co.

1946__Observations that a diet of reconstituted dried milk and dried whole eggs re-markably accelerated the recovery of undernourished and wounded soldiers.(H. Pollack).

1946__Acidification of liquid whole eggs to pH 5.5 prior to drying and neutralizationof powder by adding sodium bicarbonate (M. M. Boggs and H. L. Fevold).In 1947, the U. S. armed forces designated use of this process in their productspecifications.

1948__Discovery that a principal cause of loss in palatability of dried whole eggs andyolks during storage is reaction between glucose and the lipid constituent, cephalin. Therefore, removal of glucose prior to drying is the most directmeans of eliminating a principal source of palatability loss. (L. Kline, H.Hanson, R. E. Feeney, and H. Lineweaver).

About 1950__Discovery that glucose can be removed from yolks and whole eggs by use of anenzyme (B. Sarett, T. Rector, and H. Slosberg).

Albumen solids production

About 1900__Albumen was dried in China using methods probably developed by the Germans.Liquid whites first were fermented and a "flake" product produced by pan dry-ing in a cabinet dryer.

Early 1930’s__“Controlled bacterial fermentation” was developed in the United States.(A. K. Epstein and S. Tranin). Continued research on this problem by H.Goresline, L. S. Stuart and workers at Armour and Co. and Swift and Co.

1935__Development of powdered egg whites by “fluff drying” process (L. D. Mink).1935__The conversion of nonedible liquid egg whites, extracted from egg shells, to

“technical albumen.” (G. F. Stewart and H. Drews).Mid 1930’s__Drying of whites for some uses, by means of a cyclonic-type spray dryer was

demonstrated to be feasible commercially.1941__Discovery that removal, by bacterial fermentation, of glucose from liquid

whites prior to drying assures the stability of albumen solids (G. F. Stewartand R. W. Kline).

1944__A yeast fermentation method developed to remove glucose from whites priorto drying. (J. R. Hawthorne and J. Brooks). Confirmed by J. Ayres, et al.,Armour and Co.

About 1949__Tilbest, Inc., of Milwaukee, Wisc., probably was the first concern in the UnitedStates to market a retail package of angel food cake mix. The Blair MillingCompany, Atchison, Kan., introduced its mix in 1949. By 1953, many largecake-mix manufacturers were marketing such a mix which met with good con-sumer acceptance.

About 1950__Enzyme method developed to remove glucose from whites prior to drying(B. Sarett, T. Rector and H. Slosberg).

1953__Discovery of a chemical additive to partially overcome yolk contamination inwhites, thus insuring the "lifting ability" of whites (H. J. Kothe).

1955__Monomolecular film method developed to detect trace quantities of yolk inwhites (D. Berquist and F. E. Wells).