20 BULLETIN 1442, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
was 1.12 per cent, for the limited-delivery class, 0.93 per cent, and 
for the unlimited-delivery class 0.96 per cent. In all classes refrig- 
eration expense in profit stores was less than in the loss stores, al- 
though the wide variations noted in the refrigeration expense per- 
centages of the smaller-sized stores in the loss groups of the carry 
and limited-delivery classes rendered the conclusions regarding dif- 
ferences between profit and loss stores in these classes less definite 
than in the case of some of the other expenses which did not tend 
to show such variations. 
Stores with smaller sales volumes usually showed greater refrig- 
eration expense in relation to sales. This probably indicated more 
incomplete utilization of refrigeration facilities.. The tendency 
toward a decreased refrigeration cost percentage with an increased 
volume of net sales was marked. 
LIGHT AND POWER 
The average light and power expense for the 129 individual retail 
meat markets in 1923 was 0.33 per cent of sales. This item did not 
include power for refrigeration, which was added to refrigeration 
expense whenever an ice machine was used. But little variation 
in light and power percentages was noted among the various classes- 
of stores. For the most part, however, there was a decrease in light 
and power expense percentage as volume of sales increased. In all 
three classes of stores, the profit-store group had a smaller light 
expense percentage than the loss group. 
DEPRECIATION 
Depreciation as shown in Table 4 was exclusive of depreciation 
on delivery equipment and on refrigeration equipment. The average 
depreciation figure for the 129 individual retail meat markets was' 
0.42 per cent. In the carry group the average was 0.46 per cent, 
in the limited-delivery group, 0.44 per cent, and in the unlimited- 
delivery group, 0.38 per cent. A slightly higher depreciation ex- 
pense percentage was to be expected in the carry stores, in which 
the investment in shop and office equipment was slightly greater 
than that of the unlimited-delivery class. The carry stores depended 
not only upon location, but upon appearance, to a much greater 
extent for their attraction of trade than unlimited-delivery stores. 
As depreciation expense was based on the investment in shop and 
office equipment, its percentage relation should have been greater 
in carry stores than in unlimited-delivery markets. 
OTHER EXPENSE 
It was necessary in analyzing and compiling the data to combine 
the remainder of the miscellaneous expense items into a general 
" other-expense " group. This condition arose either because all 
stores did not incur all items of expense, or because the various 
items could not be segregated. For example, since the proprietors 
of some stores did not advertise, any averages based on the total 
