Infant Mortality Rates: 1912 and 2012

17-year-old Helena Muffly wrote exactly 100 years ago today:

Wednesday, April 10, 1912: I rubbed my shoulder rather badly when I happened to get a tumble. It’s sore yet, besides I have a big hole in my waist to mend.

Her middle-aged granddaughter’s comments 100 years later:

Since Grandma’s diary entry a hundred years ago today is self-explanatory, I’m going to follow-up on yesterday’s post.

She wrote that her nephew died shortly after he was born. I wondered how much infant mortality has decreased over the years.

I discovered that the infant death rate has decreased a lot over the years–modern medicine has done wonders—but that it’s complicated to come up with accurate numbers.

First, a couple definitions—

Neonatal mortality rate—The number of babies per thousand births who die within the first 28 days after birth. (The definition was a little looser a hundred years ago.)

Infant mortality rate—The number of babies per thousand births who die within the first year after birth.

Now the complications–

In the early 1900’s most births were at home—and the births and deaths of babies who were stillborn or died shortly after birth were often not recorded. Only 7 states calculated a neonatal mortality rate back then, but fortunately Pennsylvania—where Grandma lived– was one of those states.

Pennsylvania’s neonatal mortality rate a hundred years ago was 140 deaths per thousand births which was about average for the states that calculated the rate. Today the rate is 5 neonatal deaths per thousand births. As it was a hundred years ago—Pennsylvania is still a typical state near the median of all states.

Likewise the infant mortality rate was much higher a hundred years ago than now. Back then 150 infants per 1,000 births died in the first year of life. Now it is about 8 per thousand births.

For those of you who care about the details or want to dig deeper into the data—

Since I couldn’t find 1912 details, I used 1910 data and assumed that the neonatal and infant mortality rates were about the same. Likewise, I couldn’t find 2012 data—so used date from the most recent year available (2007).

The rates from a hundred years ago are from a 1915 journal article published by the American Statistical Association called The Present Position of Infant Mortality: Its Recent Decline in the United States.

(It’s interesting that the title suggests that even in early 1900’s the infant mortality rate was declining. I wonder what it had been in the 1800s.)

The recent numbers were calculated by the Center for Disease Control and are on the Child Health USA site.

Sugar and High Fructose Corn Syrup Per Capita Availability: 1912 and 2012

16-year-old Helena Muffly wrote exactly 100 years ago today:

Tuesday, February 20, 1912: I hardly know what to write.

Sugar.Corn.Syrup — Click on chart to make larger.

Her middle-aged granddaughter’s comments 100 years later:

Since Grandma didn’t write much a hundred years ago today, I’ll tell you about some interesting statistics that I found.

We hear so much about how we eat too many sweets today. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has one hundred years of trend data about per capita availability of sugar and high fructose corn syrup.

In 1912 there was enough sugar for every man, woman and child in the US to eat 76 pounds of sugar per year. Sugar availability was 102 pounds in 1972. By 2012 there were 64 pounds per person.

A hundred years ago people ate a small amount of corn syrup per capita, but it was not high fructose corn syrup. Prior to the late 1960s corn syrup was either glucose or dextrose.

In 1972 there was 1 pound of high fructose corn syrup per person. By 1992 there was 63 pounds per person. It decreased to 50 pounds per person in 2012.

2009 data are the most recent year available on the USDA website. When making the chart, I assumed that per capita availability of sugar and high fructose corn syrup is the same in 2012 as it had been in 2009.

Average Height for Males and Females in 1912 and 2012

16-year-old Helena Muffly wrote exactly 100 years ago today:

Tuesday, February 6, 1912: Am trying to get ready for monthly exams. They come tomorrow and the day after. I have sad hopes and misgivings for one study especially.

Table from 1912 textbook showing average height of boys and girls by age. — Source: Durrell’s School Algebra (1912)

Her middle-aged granddaughter’s comments 100 years later:

I’ve recently posted many of Grandma’s diary recent entries which indicated that she was working very hard on her algebra.

And, I’ve provided a lot of background information about algebra a hundred years ago. When I got ready to write this post, I wondered what else I might write about algebra.

To get inspiration, I flipped through a 1912 algebra textbook —and I happened to notice that one of the problems in the book was about the average height of males and females.—and it included a data table with heights for selected ages between 3 and 21.

This reminded me that I’ve heard that on average people are taller now than they were a hundred years ago—and the next thing I knew I was headed off on a tangent.

Average Height by Age and Gender, 1912 and 2012

Click on graph to enlarge.

Click on graph to enlarge.

I found recent Centers for Disease Control data on average heights in the US. Since 2012 data are not yet available, I assumed that it is the same as it was in recent years. I also assumed that the data in the algebra book was correct for 1912.

On average, three-year-old children are much taller now than they were 100 years ago. Three-year-old boys are almost 4 inches taller; girls about 3 and 1/2 inches.

By age, 21, males now are, on average, more than 1 1/2 inches taller than they were a hundred years ago. In 1912 the average 21-year-old male was 68.25 inches (5 feet 8.25 inches) tall. Now the average male in the US is 69.9 inches (5 feet 9.9 inches) tall.

Females are about 1/2 inch taller now than they were a hundred years ago. In 1912 the average 21-year-old female was 63 .75 inches (5 feet, 3.75 inches) tall. Now the average 21-year-old female in the US is 64.3 inches (5 feet 4.3 inches) tall.

Percentage of Consumer Expenditures on Food, Housing, and Apparel: 1912 and 2012

16-year-old Helena Muffly wrote exactly 100 years ago today:

Tuesday, January 2, 1912: Started into school again after such a long vacation. Wasn’t glad it was over either. Want to study harder now and make better marks than I did the fore part of the term. That is a new year’s resolution I made yesterday. Bumped my head a little while again above the eye. Kinda sore. Isn’t this here scratching?

Her middle-aged granddaughter’s comments 100 years later:

Time will tell whether Grandma was able to keep her resolution to study harder.

Today many people make resolutions to manage their money better in the upcoming year. I was surprised to discover that what people spend their money on has changed over time.A hundred years ago about 30% of a household’s expenditures were on food—today it’s approximately 12%.

But we now spend a higher percentage of our income on housing than was done in the past. In 1912 people spent about 15% on housing; today we spend about 34%.

Given today’s consumer culture, I was surprised to discover that we spend relatively less on apparel. A hundred years ago about 15% of household expenditures were for apparel; today it’s only about 4%. I suppose that it was more labor intensive to make clothes and shoes back then. Also, families were bigger so maybe households needed to spend more on apparel.

I got the 1912 data from an article in the January 1912 issue of Ladies Home Journal on budgeting. For 2012, I used data from the 2010 Consumer Expenditure Survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics since that was the most recent year available.

U.S. Crop Yields and Production, 1911 and 2011

16-year-old Helena Muffly wrote exactly 100 years ago today:

Saturday, October 15, 1911: Was so busy all day. Had to help Daddy pick corn and husked pop corn between loads. Both of these jobs aren’t finished yet either.

Her middle-aged granddaughter’s comments 100 years later:

Whew, it sounds like a lot of work. There weren’t combines (or even mechanical corn pickers) a hundred years ago. Horses would have been used and much of the labor would have been by hand.

This entry made me curious about how crop production and yields have changed over the last 100 years.

Crop Production

Corn production has mushroomed. In 1911, approximately 2,475 million bushels of corn were produced in the US. In 2011, about 12,447 million bushels were produced.

So few soybeans were produced in 1911 that the U.S. Department of Agriculture did not even track it. In 1931, 17 million bushels of soybeans were produced in the U.S. –and by 2011 approximately 3,329 million bushels were produced.

Barley and oats production decreased substantially between 1911 and 2011—probably due at least in part to the reduced number of horses that needed to be fed in the US. Wheat production increased a little over the years.

Crop Yields

Crop yields increased significantly for all the major cops between 1911 and 2011.

Corn yields increased the most. For example, in 1911, about 24 bushels per acre were produced. This increased to approximately 148 bushels per acre in 2011. Yields increased substantially between the 1930’s and 1950’s due to the widespread shift from open pollinated corn to hybrid corn. The increased use of commercial fertilizers and pesticides in the later part of the last century also increased yields. In recent years the use of genetically modified seed has led to major yield increases.

Another factor that has increased the average yield per acre over the past 100 years, is that some of the less productive land in the US has been taken out of production.

Data Source: US Department of Agriculture. For some crops 2011 data are not yet available. If not available, 2010 data were used to construct the figures.

Life Expectancy–1911 and 2011

16-year-old Helena Muffly wrote exactly 100 years ago today:

Wednesday, August 9, 1911: Today is passing and my opportunity for writing anything about it is passing with it. It is not necessary to jot down the happenings of every occurrence.

Her middle-aged granddaughter’s comments 100 years later:

Since Grandma didn’t write much a hundred years ago today, I’ll tell you about some statistics I found on the Center for Disease Control website. I’ve often heard that people live longer now than they used to, and I wondered how much longer they lived.

In 1911 the life expectancy at birth for females was 53 years; for males it was 50 years.

Grandma was born in 1895. I don’t have data for people born in 1895, but assume that the life expectancy was even lower then than in 1911. Grandma lived longer than average. She died in 1981 when she was 85-years-old.

Since more children died shortly after birth a hundred years ago than today, I thought that might affect the birth life expectancies. So I also checked the life expectancy at age 60.In 1911 a 60-year-old female could expect to live 15 more years; a male could expect to live 14 more years. In 2011 a 60-year-old female can expect to live 24 more years and a male can expect to live 21 more years. (For those who care–The 2011 numbers are for the most recent available year. The Center for Disease Control has not yet released the 2011 life expectancy tables, so those estimates may go up or down slightly after they becomes available.)

Are You Obese?: 1911 and 2011

16-year-old Helena Muffly wrote exactly 100 years ago today:

Friday, June 9, 1911: Must have forgotten what I did today. It won’t come into my head when I am ready to write it down.

TaftTelephoneCrop — William Taft (President in 1911): The most obese president in US history

Her middle-aged granddaughter’s comments 100 years later:

Since Grandma didn’t have much have much to say today, I’m going to go off on a tangent. When I look at photos from a hundred years ago some of the people look stout to me—well, frankly they look obese.

We hear that people are more likely to be obese today than in the past—and I wondered what people considered a healthy weight to be a hundred years ago.

I did a little research and found how one author defined obesity 100 years ago. According to Anna M. Galbraith, M.D. in a book published in 1911 called Personal Hygiene and Physical Training for Women:

Women should range in weight from one and eight-tenths to two and two-thirds pounds to each inch in height. In order to determine your own factor in this respect divide your weight in pounds by your height in inches. Any weight above two and one-half pounds to the inch in stature may be considered as excessive, inasmuch as it adds nothing to one’s mental or physical efficiency, and is frequently the forerunner to obesity.

According to the book, in 1911 the average woman was 5 feet 4 inches tall and weighed 133 pounds. According the Center for Disease Control and Prevention website the average woman today is still 5 feet 4 inches tall, but now weighs 165 pounds.

The chart above indicates when a woman was considered normal weight, overweight, and obese in 1911 and 2011. I was amazed to discover that according to the chart I’d be considered normal weight in 1911, but overweight today.

For 1911 I used the quote above to estimate the weights. I assumed that:

Normal weight = 1.8 pounds X height in inches to 2. 5 pounds X height in inches

Overweight = 2.5 pounds X height in inches to 2.67 pounds X height in inches

Obese = Over 2.67 pounds X height in inches

Today a person’s body mass index (BMI) indicates whether they are a healthy weight. BMI is calculated based upon a person’s height and weight and is calculated using a formula that is more complex than the ones used in 1911.