342 MARINE FISHERIES OF NORTH CAROLINA 



fisheries to celebrate Thanksgiving on Tuesday. A detailed study of holidays 

 in a perpetual calendar would probably show a direct adverse effect of the 

 fixed Friday on the sales of fish. 



Even if one day must be chosen for fish, Friday is a poor day, because 

 unsold goods may have to be carried over Sunday. By Monday, even if they 

 are still good, they are always looked upon with suspicion. Dealers are 

 therefore careful not to order more than they feel sure they can sell, for 

 the profit, if any, is made on the last few pounds sold. 



Friday fish day also has the effect of concentrating the work of distribu- 

 tion, so that all trucks, help, store space and facilities, and other overhead 

 items of expense must be adequate to handle peak loads in a short time 

 with little to do the remainder of the week. This effect would not be serious 

 if the distributive mechanism were the same as that used for the meats 

 which are displaced by fish on Fridays. The trucks, etc., would merely 

 shift from meats to fish. Fish are for the most part moved by their own 

 distributive system, partly because the odors, etc., may be imparted to other 

 foods. Prior to 192 1 the "Big Five" meat packers distributed fish, but were 

 restrained from handling fish by a Consent Decree in the Federal District 

 Court of the District of Columbia in that year under proceedings in an 

 anti-trust case. The Decree was reaffirmed in 1929 on petition for rehearing 

 by the packers. It is easily shown that meat packers could deliver fish locally 

 along with meats (sales of one being down when the other is up) at a much 

 lower cost per pound than an independent and separate fish distributing 

 system could, with smaller volume and all overhead items taken into account. 



Expense of Distribution. It was shown in the section on Production that, 

 on the whole, fish are produced at first cost considerably lower than that of 

 meat animals. It is a question for future investigation whether, or to what 

 extent, this differential carries through to the consumer. Such information 

 as we have suggests that most of the initial advantage is lost. The costs 

 between the seacoast and the inland consuming markets are undoubtedly 

 higher for fish than the corresponding costs of, and with fewer compensa- 

 tions than, meat products, in a number of details, among which are: 



a. Value of By-products. At the source, meats gain an immediate advan- 

 tage over fish in the greater number and value of the by-products derived 

 from the animal. (See below, section on Manufacturing.) 



b. Labor in Manufacture. Meats also gain an immediate advantage in the 

 larger size of the individual animals, requiring less labor for butchering or 

 any other manufacturing preparation than the very large number of indi- 

 vidual fishes that must be handled for the same quantity and purpose. 



c. Cost of Distribution of Small Volume. Since the per capita consump- 

 tion of fish is small, all the overhead items of cost must be absorbed by a 

 smaller total volume for a given community. In towns of 50,000 to 100,000 



