Paperboard containers for the food and apparel industry : a manufacturing opportunity in Georgia

ent of Commerce Jack Minter, Director

Project B-140-16

P AP E RB0 ARD C0 NT AI NE RS for the Food and Apparel Industry

A Manufacturing Opportunity in Georgia

I

I

I

Prepared for The Georgia Department of Commerce

I

[

I

by
J. R. P eterson

Industrial Development Branch Engineering Experiment Station Georgia Institute of Technology
December, 1958

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sununary

1

I. Southeastern Markets

3

II. Present Location of Paperboard Container

Plants

3

III. A Market Without Plants

6

Size of the Market Area

6

IV. Special Food Board Products

11

v. Forecast

12

VI. New Paperboard Products

16

Appendices:

A. Methodology

17

B. Supplementary Tables and Charts

19

TABLES AND MAPS

Table 1

Manufacturing Employment in Five Southeastern States

4

for Selected Indust~ies--1954 (Food, Textiles, and

Apparel)

Table 2

Retail and Manufacturing Consumption Estimates,

7

Folding Boxes and Food Board, Five State Area--1956

Table 3

Southern Cities in Order of Total Retail Sales 1957

8

Map 1

Location of Manufacturers of Folding Paper Boxes,

5

Food Containers and Trays in the Southeast

Map 2

Important Food and Apparel Processing Counties on the

9

Lower Coastal Plain

Chart 1

Trend of Income Payments for United States, for Five

13

Southeastern States and Trend of U. s. Bending Board

Production

Appendices

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5

Quantity and Value of Products Shipped by Manufactur-

20

ing Establishments 1954 and 1947

Paperboard Production by Regions of U. s. in Thousands

21

of Short Tons 1947-56

Paperboard Production by Regions in U. s. in 1956

22

Production in u. s. and Georgia of Types of Paperboard

23

1947-1956

Calculation of Indices of U. s. Income Payments and

24

Bending Board Production (1954 = 100)

Table 6

Income Payments for Five Southeastern States and Con-

25

tinental U. S. 1947-1957

Table 7

Calculation of Trend Line for Income Payments for Five

26

Southeastern States 1947-1957

Table 8

Table of Values for X & Y Based on Trend Line Calcula-

27

tion for 1947-1957--Five Southeastern States

Chart 1

Eleven Years Income Payments Indices

28

Five Southeastern States versus Total u. s.

Chart 2

Index of U. S. Bending Board Production versus

29

Index of u. s. Income Payments in Constant Dollars

The Southeast is still an importer of folding paper boxes and food board items despite the establishment of several plants in the area in the past few years. Manufacturers from Boston to Chicago f~nd it profitable to keep representatives in each of the southeastern states, despite the fact that this industry is generally market oriented.
Major southern consumers of folding boxes are the apparel and textile industries, but there is an exceptionally good market in food processing, an activity that consumes 35 per cent of all folding paper boxes. Georgia is the Southeast's leading food processor; Florida is second.
Most of the large population centers now have folding paper box plants. The southern part of Florida and the Piedmont area of Alabama, Georgia, and Carolina are very good market areas, but there are already several competitors established in both sections. On the other hand, a rather wide area without either large cities or folding box plants, but with a large market for folding boxes still exists.
A plant located so as to serve this area, encompassing southeast Alabama, northwest Florida and south Georgia, would find little local competition. Although this section of the state lacks population centers, a substantial portion of the food processing for three states is done here. A plant located in this section would therefore find substantial concentrated consumption of folding paper boxes as well as food board items. Thirty-six per cent of Georgia's considerable meat packing industry is concentrated in a cluster of four south Georgia counties. Other meat packing centers are a short distance away across the Alabama and Florida state lines.
Another advantage is that bleached sulphate board is manufactured at several plants within the prescribed market area. Therefore, there would be more than one source of supply of the raw material for several items less than a day's shipping time distant.
A paperboard container factory established to serve a market area of no more than 250 miles radius would find a location in south Georgia ideal. A large company, planning to serve a five state area, would probably need to locate at Atlanta for the transportation facilities and the central location.
The future market is even more favorable to south Georgia than the present one. During the 10 years following the Second World War Florida remained
-1-

a tourist and commercial state, with Georgia obtaining the factories. Lately, Florida has been obtaining its share of plants, too. Moreover, major growth in the apparel and food processing industries is taking place in south Georgia. In the long run there is room for more than one new plant on the coastal plain.
By 1965, consumption of products packaged in folding board will increase by an estimated 40 per cent in the five state area. Investment in facilities to produce these packaged products, and therefore to use paperboard boxes for packaging will probably be highest in Georgia, almost as high in Florida. Therefore, the market in the operating area of a south Georgia producer will probably increase by over 50 per cen: by 1965.
-2-

I. SOUTHEASTERN MARKETS
Despite the fact that the number of folding box plants in the Southeast has increased considerably in the past few years box manufacturers in Illinois, Ohio, and New York still find it profitable to have representatives in all of the southeastern states. Manufacturers in this area still purchase large quantities of folding boxes in the North.
Table 1 shows manufacturing employment in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee for food, textiles and apparel in 1954. By 1957 Georgia had added approximately 5,000 employees in these three categories, while Florida had added 4,000. These three industries are large consumers of paper boxes; food processing alone accounts for 35 per cent of folding paper box consumption.l/ Georgia is the leading food processing state in the Southeast; Florida ranks second.
A new branch plant of an established manufacturer could quite successfully locate where it could be near markets, yet have relatively little competition.
II. PRESENT LOCATION OF PAPERBOARD CONTAINER PLANTS
Map 1 shows the location of paperboard container manufacturers in the Southeast at present. With but two exceptions the plants are located at or near sizable cities. Most of them are located in the Piedmont area, roughly the plateau running from Raleigh to Birmingham. There are almost none on the Coastal Plain, a fairly wide strip southeast of the Piedmont Plateau and running parallel to it.
On first analysis it would seem that the reason there are no box plants in this area is that there is no business in the area. However, this impression derives from the tendency to analyze single cities and to examine individual towns rather than geographical groups of towns. An individual city in an area may not offer a large market, but a group may. Actually, a substantial amount of manufacturing is done in south Georgia, south Alabama, and north Florida. Clusters of plants in this area offer substantial markets for folding boxes, especially in food processing.
l l Containers and Packaging, November 1956, U. S. Department of Commerce.
-3-

Table 1
MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT IN FIVE SOUTHEASTERN STATES FOR SELECTED INDUSTRIES, 1954

FOOD

State

1954

Alabama Florida Georgia South Carolina Tennessee
Total

16,073 30,391 34,595
9,062 27,362
117,483

TEXTILES

Alabama Florida Georgia South Carolina Tennessee
Total

46,440 471
103,079 129,091
33,365
312,446

APPAREL

Alabama Florida Georgia South Carolina Tennessee
Total

18,351 5,847
36,552 19,777 27,303
107,830

FOOD, TEXTILES , AND APPAREL

Alabama Florida Georgia South Carolina Tennessee
Total

80,864 36,709 174,226 157,930 88,030
537,759

Source: Census ~Manufactures, 1954.

-4-

MAP 1 LOCATION OF MANUFACTURERS OF FOLDING PAPER BOXES, FOOD CONTAINERS
AND TRAYS IN THE SOUTHEAST - 1958
-5-

III. A MARKET WITHOUT PLANTS
The four shaded Georgia counties which are farthest south on Map 2,-Grady, Lowndes, Thomas, and Glynn--account for 13 per cent of Georgia's food processing. Looking at a particular section of the food industry it is discovered that one concentrated four county area in south Georgia has eight per cent of Georgia's food processing and 36 per cent of the state's meat packing. Other meat packing centers are just a short distance away across the state line. Baked goods, chickens, sausage, and eggs are also packed in this same area. In addition, Swift and Company has recently chosen Coffee County as the center for a complete chicken industry to complement the one which now exists in north Georgia. Armour and Company has chosen the same county for an egg distribution system. Another very large company is promoting the egg industry in Grady County. Consequently, although the population density in this area is not great, the market is.
Therefore, a plant in south Georgia would find substantia.l food and apparel centers nearby. Competition would be fairly distant, however. Map 2 shows the locations of those food and apparel manufacturing centers)../ In addition, most of the other counties in the area have some food and apparel manufacturing. Many have textile plants. The food industry in the prescribed concentrated area could be covered thoroughly and easily, since the area is only 100 miles wide and 200 miles long. But a new folding box manufacturer in this section could cover a much wider territory.
Size of the Market Area
From a point in south Georgia--with a marketing radius of 250 miles--all of Georgia and approximately half of Alabama, South Carolina, and Florida could be served. This market area accounted for an estimated 89,580 tons of folding box consumption in 1956. (See Table 2 for consumption estimates.) Because certain industries do n0t have plants in the Southeast, however, we do not believe that more than 80 per cent of this quantity is used by manufacturers here, despite the heavy uses in apparel, textiles and food. Although competitors are few in this restricted area, two are well entrenched. One company in Atlanta competes quite successfully on a national scale. The other has
ll Based on established plants, those announced, or being built.
-6-

Table 2

RETAIL CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES, FOLDING BOXES AND FOOD BOARD, FIVE STATE AREA--1956

Per Cent
of u. s.
Income

Quality Index

Quantity Index

(per cent of U. s. Estimated Retail

Income Multiplied Consumption Folding

by Quality Index

Boxes (tons)

Estimated Retail Consumption Food
Board (tons)

Total Retail Folding Boxes and Food Board
(tons)

United States

Alabama.

1. 2365

73

Florida

2.0623

100

Georgia

1.6949

83

South Carolina

0.8705

71

Tennessee

1.4829

79

.90 2.06 1.41
.62 1.18

2,843,000
25,587 58,566 40,086 17,627 33,547
175,413

1,256,000
ll,304 25,874 17 J 710
7,787 14,820
77,495

I "'-J I
MANUFACTURING CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES, FOOD BOARD,
FIVE STATE AREA--1956

4 1 099 1 000
36,891 84,440 57,796 25,414 48,367
252,908

United States
Alabama. Florida Georgia South Carolina Tennessee

Food Production
E~loxees ~19542
1,647,204
16,073 30,391 34,595
9,062 27,362
117,483

Per Cent
of u. S.
0.9758 1.8450 2.1002 0.5501 1.66ll 7.1322

Estimated Manufacturing Consumption
Food Board ~tons2
1,256,000
12,256 23,173 26,379
6, 909 20,863
89,580

Source: Quality Index--Sales Management U. S. Consumption--United States Department of Commerce

Table 3 SOUTHERN CITIES IN ORDER OF
TOTAL RETAIL SALES 1957
Atlanta. Miami New Orleans Memphis Birmingham Jacksonville Tampa Nashville St. Petersburg Mobile
-8-

MAP 2 IMPORTANT FOOD AND APPAREL PROCESSING COUNTIES ON THE LOWER COASTAL PLAIN
~ FOOD AND/OR APPAREL
~ FOOD AND/OR APPAREL
~AND MEAT PACKING
I
I
I
-9-

five small plants in Georgia and Flor1da,l1 although none of them are in
south Georgia. Plants outside the area are selling there now. A conservative figure for penetration of this limited market area would probably be 10 per cent, or about 7,000 tons based on 1956 figures.
If a company attempts at the outset to cover a much wider territory, it might very well find itself no better off. In fact, the operation might prove less profitable, at least initially. If a new folding box manufacturer were to attempt to service the entire five state area, a location in Atlanta would be more centrally located and would offer the best transportation facilities. A market radius of 400 miles would include every major southeastern city except Miami (Table 3), and Miami could be served anyway because of its location at the end of the peninsula. It is estimated (see Table 2) that 175,000 tons of folding boxes were consumed in 1956 in these five states, approximately 80 per cent of which were used for articles manufactured in this area. During the last two years the volume has grown. But the new plant serving the larger area would have at least 14 competitors. Some of these are specialists and would offer very little competition. On the other hand, some of the box manufacturers are vigorous competitors and one, already mentioned, is selling successfully on the West Coast. A new branch of a company of national stature might very well distribute over a wide area, but a smaller company, in order to spread its sales efforts over a wider territory, might find it necessary to concentrate less on individual points. It would be wise, therefore, not to estimate more than a five per cent market penetration for this much wider area, or 7,000 tons. This sales figure would be no larger than for the smaller area.
It is quite possible, of course, that a new plant could sell standard items over a rather restricted area, and push a specialty over a much wider area. For example, a box manufacturer might sell the meat processors in five states, but restrict his sales coverage to 150 miles on other items. Such a policy would likely increase a producer's share of the available market.
Opportunities now exist for obtaining a coDsiderable portion of the market that formerly was controlled by northern manufacturers. No clay coated boxes are made in this part of the country. Therefore, such business could not formerly be obtained by Georgia producers. The new bleached sulphate
1/ The plants are located in Atlanta, Columbus, and Cochran, Georgia; Jacksonville and Maitland, Florida.
-10-

board (see section on new products) makes an excellent printing surface at considerably less cost than the clay-coated board which has been used in the past. As a consequence, the sulphate board is competing with claycoated boxes for many display purposes.
The raw material for these new boxes is produced in Georgia as well as other nearby states. Most of the sources are within the market area proposed for a south Georgia location. In fact, trucks delivering a load of boxes could return with a load of board.
IV. SPECIAL FOOD BOARD PRODUCTS
In addit1on to the folding box tonnage a company could sell food board items. Since no company is likely to sell a complete line, no estimate can be made of the quantity that might be sold by an individual company. Nevertheless, it is estimated that Georgia and Florida manufacturers alone use 50,000 tons of food board a year (Table 2).
In the South the food board market is growing most rapidly in two states, Georgia and Florida. Georgia is growing relatively rapidly in manufacturing, while Florida is growing more rapidly in distribution uses, such as the super markets where large packages are broken up into smaller portions and placed on paper plates, trays, and cups for sale to the housewife.
Continued growth of the food board industry, combined with the rate at which per capita income in the South is gaining on that of the nation, indicates a substantial increase in the use of special food board at the consumer level in the Southeast. Confirmation of the growing food market comes from the decision of one of the largest meat processors to establish a complete chicken industry in south Georgia. Another very large company is promoting the egg industry in the same city. Grady County, wh1ch is already a food processing county, is likely to become a food freezing center (see Map 2).
The frozen chicken industry is due to expand rapidly in Georgia along With the chicken industry as a whole. While the freezing of chickens creates a market for food board at the processing point, the packing of chickens in ice also creates a market at the retailing points. The location of this new expansion is such that there can be little doubt but that the orientation is toward the growing southern retail market, primarily Florida. Therefore, the
the need for both frozen food boxes and for nested tray stock.
-11-

It is not expected that there will be much expansion in frozen vegetables for a year or so. The frozen food industry is still in a shakedown period;l/ it may still be some months before the readjustment is complete and expansions are resumed. When the freezing industry's readjustment period ends, the freezing of the so-called southern vegetables is expected to increase more rapidly than any other item. Southwest Georgia should gain much from this expansion, which in turn will create additional demand for food board.
The expansion of food board consumption in this area should be steady but not explosive. The great growth in the frozen food industry is over, and the big changeover from glass milk bottles to paper containers has already taken place. Although the market growth will not be spectacular, it ~-1ill nevertheless be important. The growth in the market for food board items should be accelerated in the Southeast by several factors. Both Georgia and Florida are rapidly increasing their importance as livestock states. Meat processing is certain to increase as well. Chicken freezing is almost certain to take place in the new chicken processing center selected by Swift and Company. The market for cups, nested containers, dishes, trays, and ice cream containers will continue to grow with the expanding population and the expanding tourist trade.
V. FORECAST
The accompanying charts show that for the years 1947 through 1957, income payments in constant dollars in the United States, income payments 1n the five southeastern states, and United States bending board production have been following approximately the same trend. The charts suggest that bending board production is rising faster than United States income payments, and that income in the five southeastern states is rising slightly faster than national income. However, there is nothing to indicate that these are long term trends; therefore, a one-to-one ratio is assumed in each case.
ll "A Frozen Food Plant for the Pavo, Georgia Area -A Feasibility Study,"
Industrial Development Branch, Engineering Experiment Station, Georg1a Institute of Technology, September 1957.
-12-

CHART 1 TREND OF INCOME PAYMENTS FOR UNITED STATES, FOR FIVE SOUTHEASTERN
STATES AND TREND OF U. S. BENDING BOARD PRODUCTION
(1954 = 100)

150
-
140

Vz> 130

-0
1-
z 120
0
u1-
::::> 110
0 0 0::: 0..
LL. 100 0
z 0
<(
V> 90
0::: <(

-- v L ..........:::~

~ ~ /

1/-,-,","/,,

'
- ... '~

......

p /

--_....

----- " _J

_J
0 0
1z -

80 ~ ~--....-..

~ II/ I

<(
1-

70

z1/)

g0 60

1/)

1z -

UJ

:>:E- 50

<(

0..

LEGEND

UJ

::E
0uz

40

U.S. INCOME PAYMENTS - - - - INCOME PAYMENTS 5 SOUTHERN STATES

I

LL.
0 30
><
UJ
z0 20

--------- U.S. BENDING BOARD PRODUCTION

10
0 1947 1948 1949. 1950 1951

SOURCE: Facts for Industry,

I Survey of Current Business

_l_

_l_

1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957

-13-

Since bend:l.ng board consumption and production are approximately the
sa~el/ we have assumed a direct correlation between s~utheastern income pay-
ments and bending board consumption at the retail leveL A straight least squares trend line extrapolated to 1965 for income payments from a 1947-1957 base gives a 37 per cent increase over 1956 in consumption of bending board in the five states.
The Office of Business Economics of the Department of Commerce has approached the same problem on a national basis, correlating bending board consumption and national income on a gO!Ometric scale. The analysis, however, separated special food board from the balance of bending board and projected consumption in 1965 separately. The calculations indicate that consumption of bending board except for food board g;~ows at a slightly faster rate thar. real income. On a logarithmic scale the Office obtained a national increase of 31 per cent over 1956 consumption for this segment of the industry. There is much to be said for the separate calculation of the future of special food board, since its pattern and rate of growth are entirely different from those of folding boxes. However, it is felt that deriving the trend from past experience is unsafe. As indicated else\vhere, the food board industry has grown explosively, either by almost completely displacing another product (i.e., glass milk bottles) or by expanding with a fast growing industry (i.e., frozen food). The extremely rapid growth has leveled off and future growth should be rapid but not spectacular.
Therefore, we feel that the Office of Business Economics' forecast of growth for food board consumption of 10.5 per cent per year is too high. Nevertheless, the method cannot be completely dismissed, since even though the charts suggest an arithmetic increase over the range of the data, there is population increase factor in an income trend. A straight line projection will not, therefore, reflect the progression over a long period.
The straight line projection indicates an increase in all bending board consumption of 37 per cent. The geometric method gives 56 per cent, and it is felt that this figure should be reduced to not more than 45 per cent, for reasons already mentioned. This still leaves a range of possible consumption in 1965 of something between 5,600,000 and 5,950,000 tons for the nation as a Whole. For the five state area the consumption ranges between 345,000 tons and 365,000 tons.
ll Exports and imports are both very small.
-14-

The increase in consumption at the household level will not be e enly s~read over the entire region but will probably be highest i.n Florida, followed bJ Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and South Carolina in that order. Plants serving this retail market are the purchasers of paper boxes.
New and expanded plants to serve this retail market will tend to follow both local and regional patterns. Those established to serve local markets will tend to be spread over the five state area 1n generally the same proportions as the increase in consumption. Flor1da will receive more of these than any other state. Georgia will probably be second.
Those plants which serve regional markets are usually centrally located in a region. Although the boundaries of such regions vary with the company, Georgia tends to get a high prpportion of such plants because of its transportation position. These plants tend to be larger users of paper boxes than those serving local markets.
The trend should continue, with Florida and Georgia obtain1ng a large share of the added and expanded plants. Florida w"ll probably obtain a larger number of plants, wh1le Georgia may very well add more actual tonnage because of the large size of many of the Georgia installations.
The primary focus of this analysis has been toward market orlentation of the plants consuming paperboard items. It is recognized that many plants using paperboard boxes actually locate close to their raw material. Food freezers and canners are examples. Much of this raw material, however, is available in other parts of the country, too. The plants locate near a particular source of raw mater1al to be near a particular market. Exceptions exist; the southern vegetables are distr1buted nationally from the South, but the South gets its share of the exceptions and the location of the market st1ll plays 1ts part in determining what location within a region will receive a plant. Such development is in process now, and is discussed 1n the sect1on on special food board products. The 1ndustries d1scussed use folding boxes as well as food board.
So far as a folding box manufacturer is concerned, therefore, the best location for the future as well as the present, will be 1n south Georg1a. Such a location will enable a manufacturer of folding boxes and/or foor. board items to best serve the market. With a location in south Georgia, a box manufacturer should see the market in his area increase more than 50 per cent by
-15-

VI. NEW PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS
There are two new products on the market which will affect the future of the paperboard container industry in the Southeast. One product is a new type of bleached sulphate board which is exceptionally smooth and bright. It will probably replace the old food board for many food uses and is already being widely accepted for uses previously reserved for clay-coated board because it is much cheaper and takes printing very well. (The old style bleached sulphate was rough, dull and took printing poorly.)
This new board will result in a considerable increase in sales of bleached sulphate, not only because it will replace other kinds of boxboard but also because increased eye appeal will result in increased use for a variety of display purposes.
This new product is manufactured in the Southeast only a few hours trucking time from the area recommended for a plant. Clay-coated board must be ordered from the Northeast and extra lead-time is therefore involved, in addition to higher cost.
Another product is still too new to be evaluated. Nevertheless, it is reported that a great deal of interest has been shown in a new type of resincoated greaseproof board. This has been introduced at a price which is much lower than the price for plastic covered boards now in general use. Price has tended to restrict the use of resin coated boards up to now, but the new product is reported to be not only cheaper and greaseproof but waterproof as well. If it lives up to expectations, the new product should have a good market in the food industry. Both the board and the coating can be obtained in the Southeast.
-16-

Appendix A HETHODOLOGY
The survey itself was actually carried out in two parts. Since the corrugated kraft container is a standard item, a questionnaire was sent to several hundred users requesting information on this product. Almost all the respondents indicated that a new plant was not feasible. Generally, where the users made comments, they indicated that they were buying from three or more suppliers now but had many more than that actively soliciting business. Of the few who ind~cated a need for another corrugated box plant, almost all were in isolated areas.
A very large quantity of this product is used ~n Georgia annually by this state's predominantly "producers goods" industries. However, so many corrugated box manufacturers are located in Georgia near the source of their raw material that there is more than enough production capacity.
The fold~ng box business is much more heterogenous. It was therefore felt that no one questionnaire could be used to cover all the different needs. Instead, a series of interviews with users, distributors, and manufacturers' agents was substituted. People ~n associated industries and competing ~ndus tries supplied information. Information was also solicited and received from raw material suppliers, from the Folding Paper Box Association, and a firm of investment brokers that specializes in paper box market work. In addition, much quantitative data were obtained from Department of Commerce publications.
No consumption estimates of paper boxes by states are available in published form nor could the Department of Commerce or the Folding Paper Box Association offer any help. Furthermore, although the Department of Commerce has published est~mates of folding box consumption by use, these estimates are not tabulated by ~ndustry. We do, however, have an estimate that food processing consumes 35 per cent of folding boxes as well as all the food board)_/ People in the industry indicated that apparel and textile manufacturers were large consumers of folding boxes, but no quantitative information could be obtained.
From the estimates of total U. s. consumption by the Department of Com-
merce, a regional estimate was derived The assumption was made that retail Paper box consumpt~on ~s a function of the total ~ncome of the area, with the
l/ Conta~ners a d Packaging, November 1956, U. S Department of Commerce.
-17-

possible qualification that some variations ~n consumption may be due to

variations in per capita ~ncome. This qualification is based on the belief

that where the low-income family buys a sack of flour, the higher-income

family buys boxes of cake mix and pancake flour, trays or tubes of biscuits,

frozen waffles and pies; the low-income family buys diapers bound with cloth

tape, while the high-income family buys formed snap-on diapers in a multi-

colored box; one family buys or grows greens in the winter and beans and okra

in the summer, while the other buys them frozen.

In addition, the promotion of multiple sales has increased the consump-

tion of folding paper boxes by higher income groups. Where the poorer family

has money for only one towel, the better paid person can buy a box of three

or six.

Therefore, the two variables, total and per capita income, were related

in the following manner: Each state 1s per cent of the national income was

multiplied by the Sales Management Quality Index. This made possible the

modification of total income to reflect the variation in per capita income.

The product gives a "quantity index" which represents each state 1 s per cent

of national retail consumption of paper boxes and food board items. In all

but one case this procedure reduced the consumption below what it would have

been were it based on total income (see Table 2). Since all the food board

is consumed by food manufacturing industries, for which quantitative ~nforma

I tion is available, our estimates for food board are more exact. No adjust-

I

ments were necessary to produce reliable figures.

I

I

-18-

Appendix B SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES AND CHARTS
I
'
-19-

Appendix Table 1

QUANTITY AND VALUE OF PRODUCTS SHIPPED BY MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS 1954 AND 1947
(in thousands of short tons and mill1ons of dollars)

Bending Board (Incl. Spec. Food)

Product1on

1954

1947

3579.9 2757.9

Total Sh12ments

Quantity

Value

1954

1947

1954

1947

3562.6 2753.6

484.5 294.4

Value Per Ton

1954

1947

136

107

Folding Boxboard

Unlined Ch1pboard

336.6

261.1

332-8

260.1

30.5

21.3

92

82

Manila Lined Chipboard

692.0

601.2

685.4

597.8

80.8

56.2

118

94

Lined Ch1pboard except

Manila

317.0

426.2

319.7

428.8

34.9

37.6

109

88

Patent Coated

673.8

568.3

676.6

567.8

92.4

62.8

137

111

I

Clay Coated

187.5

113.5

187.7

112.3

27.9

16.6

149

148

N 0

Other Machine Coated

71.8

48.4

(D)!/

47.9

(D).!/

5.8

NA 2/ 121

I

Other Fold:ng

161.6

113.3

157.3

113.3

22.5

11.2

143

99

seec1al Food Board
Milk Bottle Stock Cup and Round Nested
Food Container Stock Plate, Dish, and
Tray Stock Frozen Food Cont. Stock Butter, Oleo, Shor~en1ng
and Ice Cream Stock

377.6
173.0
65.2 71.0
181.1

115.2
78.0 18.7 16.1
108.6

369.8
174.0
64.9 70.7
181.1

112.6
79.5 18.6 16.2
108.7

58.6
29.8
10.6 12.9
32.5

15.6
11.8
2.7 2.5
15.3

158

139

171

148

163

145

182

154

179

141

Container Board

6488.0 4943.7

6452.4 4931.9

657.8 456.2

102

92

Corrugating Material

1872.3 1370.6

1865.6 1367.4

199.2 122.5

107

90

1/ W1thheld to avoid divulging figures of individual firms
2! Not available

Source. Census of Manufacturers

Appendix Table 2
PAPERBOARD PRODUCTION BY REGIONS OF U. S. IN THOUSANDS OF SHORT TONS 1947-56

Year 1956

Paperboard Container Board Bending Board

New
En~land
636.7 135.0 323.0

Middle Atlantic
1889.4 319.3 851.6

E. N. Central
3020.7 1243.5 1203.0

South

E. S.

Atlantic Central

5164.2 4226.6
578 1

342.2 106.4 159.3

u. s.
Total
14234.2 7763.0 4108.1

Vir~im.a
860.8 527.2 195.0

Geor~ia
1345.3 1232.6
(D)}j

Florida
1350.8 1260.2
56.4

1955

Paperboard Container Board Bending Board

627.3 132.0 312.5

1901.0 325.6 808.4

3089.4 1275.0 1254.7

4892.1 4044.5
502.6

333.4 112.3 150.6

13865.1 7541.5 3931.3

799.1 472.5 180.0

1201.1 1165.0
(D)}j

1294.9 1210.3
(D)}j

1953 Paperboard

605.1

1797.5 2825.2 4096.4 358.0 12294.3 627.5

756.1 1140.4

Container Board 113.9

303.4 1162.4 3384.3 130.0

6616.9 382.0

725.5 1092.1

Bend~ng Board

325.9

781.6 1166.4

403.6 161.4

3566.7

(D)}j

(D)}j

(D)}j

I

N

1-'

1951 Paperboard

627.3

1811.8 3094.0 3353.6 221.7 11620 .o 551.8

617.3

910.9

I

Container Board 132.7

380.8 1373.2 2864.9 130.7

6322.8 304.1

584.5

(D)}j

Bending Board

331.7

725.2 1216.5

384.5

(D)}j 3271.6

(D)}j

(D)}j

(D)}j

1949

Paperboard Container Board Bending Board

498.4 68.9
284.3

1435.9 255 9 567.1

2456.9 958.7
(D)}j

2657.9 2169.9
272.5

163.2 81.0
(D)}j

8996.8 4680.1 2612.8

421.0 247.6
(D)}j

466.2 458.4
(D)}j

628.1
(D)}j (D)}j

1948 1947

Paperboard Container Board Bending Board
Paperboard Container Board Bending Board

528.3

305.4

593.3

614.9

302.3

666.2

1248.7 1076.3
3/
ll

2032.6 269.8
1701.4 277.9

3/ 37.o
3/ 38.5

9368.8 5078.9 2674.1
9186.8 4943.7 2757.9

NNNAAAYYY

NAY NA3_/ NAY

NAY NAY NAY

1/ Withheld to avoid divulging figures of individual firms
2.' Not available
J/ Not reported separately

Source: Facts for Industry

Appendix Table 3
PAPERBOARD PRODUCTION BY REGIONS IN U. S IN 1956
(in thousands of short tons)

Paperboard

Per Cent
of U. s.

Container Board

Per Cent
of u. s.

Bending Board

Per Cent of U. S.

United States Total

14234.2

100.0%

7763.0

100.0%

4108.1

100.0%

New England

636.7

4.5%

135.0

1. 7%

323.0

7.9%

Middle Atlantic

1889.lt

13.3%

319.3

4.1%

851.6

20.7%

East North Central

3020.7

21.2%

1243.5

16.0%

1203.0

29.3%

I N

West North Central

314.5

2.2%

127.7

1.6%

76.3

1.9%

N

I

South Atlantic

5164.2

36.3%

4226.6

54.4%

578.1

14.1%

East South Central

342.2

2.4%

106.4

1.4%

159.3

3.9%

West South Central

1300.5

9.1%

811.5

10.5%

334.8

8.1%

Virginia Georgia

860.8 1345.3

6.0% 9.5%

527.2 1232.6

6.8% 15.9%

195.0 (D)!/

4. 7% NA'!:._/

Florida

1350.8

9.5%

1260.2

16.2%

56.4

1.1%

1/ Withheld to avoid divulging figures of individual firms 2/ Not available
Source: Facts for Industry

........

Appendix Table 4
PRODUCTION IN U. S. AND GEORGIA OF TYPES OF PAPERBOARD 1947-56
(in thousands of short tons)

~ 1947
1948

United States Georgia
United States Georgia

PAPERBOARD Packaging Ga. as %
Total of U. S.

8359.8

--

9366.3 285.6

3.0%

CONTAINER BOARD Ga. as % Corrugated
Total of U. S. Material

-- 4943.7

1370.5

-- 5078.9

1372.7

BENDING BOXBOARD Folding
Total Boxboard
2757.9 2256.7

NONBENDING BOXBOARD Set Up
Total Boxboard
705.4 594.8

2671.5 2024.2

701.9 596.2

1949 United States Georgia

8993.0 466.2

5.2%

4680.1 458.4

9.8%

1306.9

2612.8 1953.2

752.5 617.2

I

1950 United States

10925.7

5830.3

1633.6

3134.8 2355.6

876.3 708.8

N w

Georgia

602.6

5.5%

548.0 9.4%!/

I

1951 United States

11620.0

6322.8

1784.2

3271.6 2362.4

876.8 733.5

Georgia

617.3

5.3%

584.5 9.2%

1952 United States Georgia

10771.8 619.7

5.8%

5766.5 576.7 10.0%

1583.0

3144.2 2192.9

782.9 687.6

1953 United States Georgia

12334.5 756.1

6.1%

6653.0 725.5 10.9%

1906.1

3544.0 2444.5

957.6 746.9

1954 United States Georgia

12190.81/ 853.4- 7. 0'7)=_/

6488.0 843.4 13.0%

1872.3

3579.9 2440.3

922.6 718.2

1955 United States Georgia

13868.9 1201.1

8.7%

7551.5 1165.0 15.4%

2191.2

3931.3 2592.0

1053.4 796.7

1956 United States Georgia

14234.2 1345.3

9.5%

7763.0 1232.6 15.9%

2281.8

4108.1 2607.2

1052.0 794.0

1/ Estimated Source: Facts for Industry, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census

----o~~~
Appendix Table 5 CALCULATION OF INDICES OF U. S. INCOME PAYMENTS AND BENDING BOARD PRODUCTION
(1954 = 100)

Year

Bending Board Products
(000 tons) Index

Wages and Salaries
~ill ions)

1947

2757.9

77

$122,858

1948

2674.1

75

135,214

1949

2612.8

73

134,310

I

.Np.
I

1950

3134.8

87

146,391

1951

3271.6

91

170,788

1952

3144.2

88

184,835

1953

3544.0

99

198,030

1954

3579.9

100

196,259

1955

3931.3

110

210,902

1956

4108.1

115

227,304

1957

4148.6

116

238,120

Profits $29,525
33,000 26,370 40,628 42,153 36' 691 38' 311 34,061 44,862 45,493 43,426

U. S. Income
Pa~ents
Total Col. 3 & 4
$152,383 168,214 160' 680 187,019 212,941 221,526 236,341 230,320 255,764 272,797 281,546

Total Converted

Conversion to Constant

Factor

Dollars

Index

84.6

$180,122

78

89.5

187,949

80

88.7

181,150

78

89.9

208,030

89

96.0

221,814

95

98.0

226,047

97

99.0

238' 728

102

100.0

230,320

100

100.4

254,754

109

102.2

266,925

115

105.2

267,629

116

Source: Facts for Industry Survey of Current Business

Appendix Table 6
INCOME PAYMENTS FOR FIVE SOUTHEASTERN STATES AND CONTINENTAL U. S. 1947-1957 (in millions of dollars)

Tennessee South Carolina Georgia Florida Alabama
Total five states

1947
2,776 1,554 2,890 2,903 2,337 12,460

1948
3,006 1,755 3,088 3,053 2,542 13,444

1949 2,992 1,700 3,098 3,210 2,429 13,429

1950 3,288 1,869 3,510 3,632 2,659 14,958

1951 3,633 2,284 4,046 4,077 3,030 17,070

1952 3,796 2,468 4,337 4,543 3,223 18,367

1953
4,050 2,543 4,460 5,041 3,344 19,438

1954 4,056 2,414 4,414 5,312 3,258 19,454

1955 4,347 2, 604 4,918 6,088 3,708 21,665

1956 4, 607 2,694 5,237 6,820 3,914 23,272

1957 4,791 2,796 5, 407 7,522 4,171 24,687

I

Continental U. S. 189,077 207,414 205,452 225,473 252,960 269,050 283,140 285,339 306,598 327,947 345,272

i'.)

V1

I

Personal Consumption

Price Index

(1954 = 100)

84.6

89.5

88.7

89.9

96.0

98.0

99.0 100.0 100.4 102.2 105.2

Total five states in Constant Dollars $14,750 $15,050 $15,150 $16,600 $17,790 $18,700 $19,650 $19,500 $21,400 $22J 600 $23,350

(Converted to Index 1954 = 100 for comparison with Dept. of Commerce Index)

75.5

77.2

77.8

85.0

91.1

96.1 100.9 100.0 109.0 116.0 119.0

Index for Southern

States

76

77

78

85

91

96

101

100

109

116

119

Index for U. S.

78

80

78

89

95

97

102

100

109

115

116

Source: Survey of Current Business

Year

1947

1948

1949

1950

I

1951

l

1952 1953

l

1954

1955

1956

1957

Appendix Table 7
CALCULATION OF TREND LINE FOR INCOME PAYMENTS FOR FIVE SOUTHEASTERN STA ES
1947-1957

X

y

XY

x2

-5

75.5

-377.5

25

-4

77.2

-308.8

16

-3

77.8

-233.4

9

-2

85.0

-170.0

4

-1

91.1

- 91.1

1

0

96.1

0

0

1

100.9

100.9

1

2

100.0

200.0

4

3

109.0

327.0

9

4

1160

464.0

16

5

119.0

1047.6

595.0

25

Estimates 72.2 76.8 81.4 86.0 90.6 95.2 99.8 104.4
109 .o
113 6 118.2 1047.2

~ = 0 r,Y = 1047.6 r,xy = 506.1 ~2 110

r,Y = Na r,(XY) =

br,(X 2 )

1047.6 = lla
a = 95.2

506.1 = b(llO)
b = 4.6

Origin 1952 Y = 95 2 + 4. 6X

-26-

r

Year 1952 1953
I 1954 1955
I 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965

Appendix Table 8
TABLE OF VALUES FOR X AND Y BASED ON TREND LINE
CALCULATION FOR 1947-1957 FIVE SOUTHEASTERN STATES

Consumption

Income Payments of Folding

b = 4.6

95.2

Index y

Boxes and Food Board

X

6X

-a-

Index

in tons

0

0

95.2

95.2

211,944

1

4.6

99.8

222,185

2

9.2

104.4

232,426

3

13.8

109.0

242,667

4

18.4

113.6

252,908

5

23.0

118.2

263,149

6

27.6

122.8

273,390

7

32.2

127.4

283,631

8

36.8

132.0

293,872

9

41.4

136.6

304,113

10

46.0

141.2

314,354

11

50.6

145.8

324,595

12

55.2

150.4

334,836

13

59.8

155.0

345' 077

X = year from new origin--see Table 7
1965 = 137% of 1956

-27-

r
CHART 1 ELEVEN YEARS INCOME PAYMENTS INDICES FIVE SOUTHEASTERN
STATES VERSUS TOTAL U.S. (1954 = 100)
(CONSTANT DOLLARS)
150

140

,.....
Ll)
"' 130
~
,...I ..
'<:1'
"'
><
UJ
z 0

Vl
1z -

120

UJ

:>:::E-

<(
a..

UJ
::::E
0uz 110

Vl UJ
1-
<(
1-
Vl
z
~ 100
UJ 1Vl <(
UJ
::c
1-
:::> 0
Vl
UJ 90
>
u..

80

70 70

/
v
v /
/
~
v ~ ~ v

/
/

v /
v/.
/
v~ /
I

80

90

100

110

120

130

U.S. INCOME PAYMENTS INDEX 1947-1957

-28-

CHART 2 INDEX OF U.S. BENDING BOARD PRODUCTION VERSUS INDEX OF U.S. INCOME PAYMENTS
IN CONSTANT DOLLARS (1947-1957) (1954 = 100)
150

140

130

.......
olO-
~
....I...
CJ.
~

X

w
0 z

120

z
0

1u -

::::>

0

0
a0.:.:

110

0
<0::
0co

<-'

~
0 z

100

w

co

v?
::::>

90

80

/
/
/
v /
-/
/
v
/
V
/ /
v ~
/
/
v /


I/

I

70 70

80

90

100

110

120

130

U.S. INCOME PAYMENTS INDEX 1947-1957

-29-