1 University of Texas Bulletin No. 2836: September 22, 1928 A MARKET ANALYSIS OF THE CA TILE INDUSTRY OF TEXAS BY GEORGE M. LEWIS Bureau of Business Research Research Monograph No. 2 PUBLISHED BY THB UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN Publications of the University of Texas Publications Committees: GENERAL: FREDERIC DUN'CALF C. H. SLOVER J. L. HENDERSON G. W. STUMBERG H. J. MULLER HAL C WEAVER MRS. F. A. PERRY A. P. WINSTON OFFICIAL: E. J. MATHEWS R. A. LAW W. J. BATTLE F. B. MARSH C. D. SIMMONS The University publishes bulletins four times a month, so numbered that the first two digits of the number show the year of issue and the last two the position in the yearly series. (For example, No. 2901 is the first bulletin of the year 1929.) These bulletins comprise the official publica­tions of the University, publications on humanistic and scientific subjects, and bulletins issued from time to time by various divisions of the University. The following bureaus and divisions distribute bulletins issued by them; communications concerning bulletins in these fields should be addressed to the University of Texas, Austin, Texas, care of the bureau or division issuing the bulletin: Bureau of Business Research, Bureau of Economic Geology, Bu­reau of Engineering Research, Interscholastic League Bureau, and Division of Extension. Communications concerning all other publications of the University should be addressed to University Publications, University of Texas, Austin. Additional copies of this publication may be procured from the Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas Austin, Texas at One dollar per copy UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS PRESS University of Texas Bulletin No. 2836: September 22, 1928 A MARKET ANALYSIS OF THE CA TILE INDUSTRY OF TEXAS BY GEORGE M. LEWIS Bureau of Buaineu Research Research Monograph No. 2 PUBLISHBD BY THB UNIVERSITY FOUR TIMES A MONTH. AND ENTERED AS SECOND·CLASS MATTBR A.TTHB POSTOFFICBAT AUSTIN. TEXAS. UNDBR THB ACT OF AUGUST 24. 1912 The benefits of education -cl of useful knowledge, generally diffused through a community, are essential to the preservation of a free goTern­ment. Sam Houston CultiTatecl mind is the saarclian genius of democracy. • • • It is the only dictator that freemen aclmowl• edse and the only security tlaat fne­men de1ire. Mirabeau B. Lamar TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Preface ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 Introductory Summary______________________________________________________________ ______________ 9 Scope and Purpose of the Study Summary SECTION I Importance of the Cattle Industry______________________________________ 15 Changes in the Industry____________________________________________ 16 Stabilizing Factors of Cattle Prices__________________________________ 19 Character of Texas Cattle Shipments__________________________ 21 SECTION II ANALYSIS OF CATTLE SHIPMENTS TO AND FROM TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 Cattle Movement from Texas__________________________ __________________________ 23 Trends of Texas Cattle Shipments Seasonal Movement of Cattle Shipments from Texas The Principal Market Outlets for Texas Cattle Cattle Movement into Texas_____________________________________________ 44 Net Movement of Cattle from Texas__________________________________________ 48 Cattle Movement from Mexico_________________________________________________ 50 SECTION III DISTRICT ANALYSIS OF TEXAS CATTLE SHIPMENTS 1923 TO 1927 District I-Northwestern Texas_________________________________________________________ 52 General Type and Character of Agriculture Character of Cattle Production Cattle Shipments from Northwestern Texas Cattle Shipments to Northwestern Texas Net Movement of Cattle from Northwestern Texas District II-West Central Texas___________________________________________________ 65 General Type and Character of Agriculture Cattle Shipments from West Central Texas Cattle Shipments to West Central Texas Net Movement of Cattle from West Central Texas District III-Central Texas__________________________________________________________ 75 General Type and Character of Agriculture Cattle Shipments from Central Texas Cattle Shipments to Central Texas Net Movement of Cattle from Central Texas Contents PAGE District IV-Eastern Texas·---------------------------------·--------------------------------91 General Type and Character of Agriculture Cattle Shipments from Central Texas Cattle Shipments to Central Texas Net Movement of Cattle from Central Texas District V-Western Texas__________________________________________________________ 98 General Type and Character of Agriculture Cattle Shipments from Western Texas Cattle Shipments to Western Texas Net Movement of Cattle from Western Texas District VI-Southern Texas_____________________________. ________ 109 General Type and Character of Agriculture C11ttle Shipments from Southern Texas Cattle Shipments to Southern Texas Net Movement of Cattle from Southern Texas District VII-Southeastern Texas______ _________________________________ 119 General Type and Character of Agriculture Cattle Shipments from Southeastern Texas Cattle Shipments to Southeastern Texas Net Movement of Cattle from Southeastern Texas SECTION IV METHODS OF MARKETING TEXAS CATTLE District I-Northwestern Texas ---------------------------------------------128 Methods of Selling Cattle Marketing Difficulties District II-West Central Texas_ _________________________________________________ 131 Methods of Selling Cattle Marketing Difficulties District III-Central Texas___________________________________________ 133 Methods of Selling Cattle Marketing Difficulties District IV-Eastern Texas________________________________________________ 134 Methods of Selling Cattle Marketing Difficulties District V-Western Texas_______ ___________________________________ 136 Methods of Selling Cattle Marketing Difficulties District VI-Southern Texas____________________________________________________ 137 Methods of Selling Cattle Marketing Difficulties District VII-Southeastern Texas____________________________________________________ 13& Methods of Selling Cattle Marketing Difficulties Contents 5 SECTION V MARKETING OUTLETS FOR TEXAS CATTLE PAGE Factors Determining Livestock and Meat Prices__ _ _______________ __________ 140 Services Performed by the Marketing Agencies________________________________ 141 Selection of Market Outlets ----------------------------------------------------------------142 Survey of the Stocker and Feeder Cattle Outlet___________ ______ _____ _ __ 143 Results of the Survey___________________________________________________________ ______ _______ _ 144 Kind of Cattle Grazed or Fed Sections of Texas Furnishing Stocker and Feeder Cattle Competing Sources of Stocker and Feeder Cattle Factors Determining the Purchase of Stocker and Feeder Cattle Methods of Buying Stocker and Feeder Cattle in Texas Difficulty of Securing Cattle of Uniform Grade and Quality Most Desirable Kind of Feeder Cattle Beginning Date of Feeding Period Length of Feeding Period Market Outlets for Feeder Cattle Comparison of the Types and Quality of Cattle from Texas with Those from Other States SECTION VI THE COST OF MARKETING 'l'ElXAS CATTLE Government Supervision of Livestock Markets______________________________ 160 Development of Cooperative Commission Companies___________________ 160 Influence of Transportation Charges_______________________________________ __ 162 Effect of Higher Cattle Prices on Marketing Costs_______ ___ _ ______ 165 Comparison of Marketing Costs between Markets_____________ ______________ 166 Influence of Costs upon the Selection of Markets_____________________________ 168 PREFACE This monograph on the cattle industry is the first of a series of studies dealing with the business side of the live­stock and meat packing industries and with wholesale and retail meat distribution in Texas. The volume of business and the number of people involved make this group of inter­related businesses second in importance only to that of cotton and cotton textiles in the economic structure of the State. The many business problems arising in each branch of the livestock and meat industries, due to the many im­portant economic changes taking place, make these studies extremely timely. The Bureau of Business Research of the University of Texas is pleased to have an opportunity to serve directly so large a number of the people of the State by cooperating with them in the solution of some of these problems. The comprehensiveness of the data presented herein has been made possible through the access to the records of livestock shipments collected by the United States Depart­ment of Agriculture and by the generous cooperation of the several trade associations interested and of a very large number of individuals both in and out of the State. A. B. Cox, Director. September 22, 1928. INTRODUCTORY SUMMARY SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY This study presents an analysis of the records of cattle shipments to and from Texas showing the volume and the trend of the movement by markets and by states from 1923 to 1927. In those states where one or more of the important markets are located, the shipments are shown for each indi­vidual market and for the rest of the state under the caption of "Other Points." Because of the size of Texas and be­cause of the wide variations in the movement of cattle between the different sections of the State, the record of railroad shipments is given for each of the seven livestock districts shown in Figure 1. Each of these district sum­maries is supplemented with a general description of the character of agriculture and livestock production within the district in order to show the importance of the cattle industry in each district and the manner in which it fits into the general agricultural program of the different sections of the State. Moreover, this survey attempts to measure the demand for Texas cattle and to ascertain the causes for the frequent shifts in the several market outlets. The five-year shipping records reveal not only the relative importance of each of the market outlets, but also the shifts in the movement from year to year. These :figures alone, however, do not show the reasons for the shifting. A survey of the methods of marketing Texas livestock also has been made in order to coordinate the selling methods of Texas producers with the buying preferences of stocker and feeder buyers in other states. A questionnaire was sent to a large number of Texas producers asking them for an expression as to the methods which they used in selling their livestock during 1927 and the marketing dif­ficulties which they encountered in disposing of their cattle. The results are presented in the fourth section of this study. University of Texas Bulletin A schedule was sent to several hundred buyers of live­stock in all the states that receive cattle from Texas. Many of them stated their reasons for preferring Texas livestock and others gave their objections to the type and quality of cattle produced in the State. An analysis of these question­naires is given in the fifth section of this report. Finally, an analysis of the marketing costs shows the influence which they exert upon the marketing of Texas cattle at the different markets, and it is hoped that such an analysis wiil encourage the adoption of a more uniform pro­duction and marketing program which will enable Texas cattlemen to secure the most satisfactory returns possible from the sale of their cattle. SUMMARY Texas, with 11 per cent of the nation's cattle, is the lead­ing beef cattle producing state. More than two million head of cattle disappear from Texas ranges annually; one million head is slaughtered in the State, while another million is shipped out. The interstate shipments go to over a dozen markets, to 43 states, and to several foreign countries. The trends of shipments direct to the central markets and to the feeding sections have been downward since 1923, while the movement to the grazing areas has been definitely upward. There are two seasonal movements of Texas cattle shipments, one during the spring and another during the fall. The spring shipments consist largely of steers and cows going to Kansas and Oklahoma grazing areas. The fall movement includes all classes of cattle destined either to some market or to some grazing or feeding area. The principal shipping seasons for each of the classes of cattle to the individual markets and states are given in Section II of this report. The district origin of all direct cattle ship­ments from Texas are shown for each of the important outlets. The number of head and the percentage distribu­tion by districts for the average of the past five years and for 1927 are presented in tables. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 11 Cattle forwardings from Texas have exceeded incoming shipments by an average of 962,324 head annually since 1923. This outflow, with the number slaughtered within the State and the death losses, gives a total net disappear­ance of more than two million head, or approximately one­third of the cattle reported on farms and ranches in the State. District I is one of the most highly developed agricultural sections of Texas. Large acreages of wheat, cotton, grain sorghums, oats, and corn are harvested in the Northwestern district. Approximately 16 per cent of the cattle popula­tion are found in this area. More than nine-tenths of the cattle shipped were sent to other states. Cattle are re­ceived from other Texas districts and from the adjoining states for grazing purposes. The West Central district, with 22 per cent of the cattle numbers of the State, is the largest surplus producing area in Texas. The annual forwardings have averaged 490,777 head since 1923. Approximately 69 per cent of these cattle were shipped to other Texas districts, principally the Cen­tral district which includes the Fort Worth market. With small incoming shipments, the net outflow has averaged 438,536 head annually since 1923, or about one-third of the number of cattle reported on farm~ and ranches in Dis­trict II. The Central district includes Fort Worth, the leading live­stock market of the Southwest. More than one-half of the cattle disappearing from Texas ranges annually pass through this market center. Most of the heavY annual movement from District III represents the re-shipment of cattle from Fort Worth to other markets, grazing areas, and feeding sections. Receipts were heavY from each of the seven livestock districts in the State. The bulk of receipts at this market has been Texas cattlt:. District IV is principally a lumbering and a farming sec­tion. Beef cattle production is conducted primarily as a joint enterprise with farming or as a by-product of the dairy industry. The principal outlets are the Fort Worth University of Texas Bulletin market and grazing areas in Districts VI and VII. Most of the shipments into this district are received from these same areas. The Western district is the outstanding specialized cattle producing area of the State. More than three hundred thousand head have been shipped from this section annually since 1923. Approximately 57 per cent of these cattle were consigned direct to other states including the markets at Kansas City, Wichita, and Los Angeles, and grazing and feeding areas in Kansas, Oklahoma, California, Nebraska, Iowa, New Mexico, and Illinois. Receipts of cattle in this district were relatively small except those from New Mexico. District VI, Southern Texas, is an important breeding area and a;"'. extensive grazing section. Approximately 19 per cent of the total number of cattle in the State are located in this district. The annual movement has averaged 347,428 head during this period. More than 63 per cent of the cattle were sent to other Texas districts. The majority of them went to the Fort Worth market. Cattle were received in these grazing grounds from all the adjoining districts. The Southeastern district ships fewer cattle than any of the other districts. The principal outlets for District VII have been the Fort Worth market and grazing areas in Southern Texas. The relatively heavy receipts from the Eastern, Southern, and Central districts make the annual net outflow a rather small proportion of the estimated num­ber of cattle reported in this district. METHODS OF MARKETING TEXAS CATTLE Texas cattle are marketed principally through local sales. and direct shipment to the primary markets. Local sales. are made either to local traders or to non-resident stocker and feeder buyers. The cattle purchased locally are ordi­narily re-shipped to one of the central markets, to some grazing area, or to some feeding section. During 1927, local trading was especially heavy in the western half of the A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 13 State because of the unusually strong demand for good stocker and feeder cattle. Many small producers in the eastern half of the State were forced to sell locally because of their inability to ship a carload of cattle at one time. Most of the complaints referred to high transportation costs and other marketing charges. These marketing difficulties were mentioned especially by shippers in Districts I, II, V, and VI, the western half of the State. Many producers in the fever-tick infested areas of Districts III, IV, VI, and VII referred to the restrictions against the shipping of cattle from these quarantine sections. Small producers in the eastern half of Texas expressed the need for cooperative shipping associations in their respective localities. MARKET OUTLETS FOR TEXAS CATTLE Texas producers dispose of their cattle through several channels. Some do farm slaughtering, some sell locally to local butchers or other buyers, some ship direct to primary markets, and some sell to stocker and feeder buyers either direct, through cooperative pools, or through private selling agencies. The sales to stocker and feeder buyers have been i:ncreas­ing in volume during the last five years. These buyers ex­pressed a preference for high quality cattle. Price, qual­ity, and accessibility are the factors which influence feeders in the selection of their cattle. The majority of feeder cattle are obtained in the western half of the State. The western range states are the principal competing sections for this business. Stocker and feeder buyers use several different methods of buying Texas cattle. Many of the large operators make personal trips to the producing areas, some place their orders with livestock commission agencies, others buy by correspondence with producers, and a few purchase their supply at auction sales. Some feeder buyers frequently find it difficult to secure cattle of uniform grade and quality when they purchase University tS, tO'#'Q, NE.el'A•KA, Ire ••lll~SOV'" • OM.1.1NG ClrJ!tCQ• · f'Ul.N...~, 01'\LD.HCH~lt "'""' '°"'C•lCO • ~t'\AN9A~C.ITY, 'W ICHITA, OKLA CIT"{1Nt.'W ailLa.ANS1 £AST &IWN'T \..Ot.lla, SOUTl-1 a"'NT JOK.PH, L.0$ ~\...U, OMAHA, OE.NVE.,..;tt C.H\C.QGO. FIGURE 3 largely accounted for by the changed practice of feeder buyers. They now secure a larger proportion of their supply from Texas cattle which had been sent previously to grazing areas in Oklahoma and Kansas. Northern feeder A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 27 buyers say that the Texas cattle, after having grazed in these states for several months, adapt themselves to the northern climate more quickly than do those obtained direct from Texas ranges. SEASONAL MOVEMENT OF CATTLE SHIPMENTS FROM TEXAS One of the difficulties of adjusting the flow of cattle to the market demand is the seasonal nature of shipments. This problem is of particular concern to range cattle producers because some of the factors determining the shipping sea­sons are not controllable by the shippers. The condition of the ranges, the water and feed supply, the breeding season, the purpose for which the cattle are produced, and the fact that they must be shipped when they reach the proper condition are the principal causes for the seasonal movements. The average monthly movement of cattle shipped from Texas during the last five years is shown graphically in Figure 4. Two definite seasonal movements are present-­one during the spring and another during the fall. The spring shipments are made principally during the months of April and May. More than 60 per cent of the heavy April movement go to Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. Most of the cattle are steers shipped to grazing areas prin­cipally in Kansas and Oklahoma for further fattening before going to market. During May, as the climate becomes milder, the states farther north-Nebraska, Colo­rado, South Dakota, and Montana-begin to receive grass cattle from Texas, and shipments to these areas form a part of the May movement. The fall movement begins in August and continues through November, reaching the peak in October. Approxi­mately one-half of the heavy volume during October is steers. The other half is divided about evenly between cows and calves. The major portion of the cattle is destined either to some market or to some grazing or feed­ing area in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Illinois, or Iowa. University of Texas Bulletin These seasonal characteristics apply only to cattle move­ments direct to other states. The best index of seasonal variation of intrastate shipments is the receipts at the Fort Worth market. Most of this market's receipts are Texas cattle and more than one-half of all Texas cattle pass through this market before they are slaughtered. The aver- GATTL.E. SHIPME.nTS FROM TE.~~s AV~RAG-£ MOtiTHLV St11PMENTS 1923 -191 7 2AS JAN FL?. MQR APR MCl't' .JUN JUL AVG Sr:P OC:T t'4CN OC.C FIGURE 4 age monthly receipts at Fort Worth since 1920 are shown in Figure 9. The principal shipping seasons for each of the classes of cattle to the individual markets and states are given in the succeeding sections. THE PRINCIPAL MARKET OUTLETS FOR TEXAS CATTLE The chief markets for direct shipments of Texas cattle, in order of their importance, are: Fort Worth, Kansas City, Wichita, Oklahoma City, New Orleans, East St. Louis, South St. Joseph, Los Angeles, Denver, Omaha, and Chicago. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 29 The movement to Fort Worth is discussed in the District Analysis of Central Texas, which includes this market. Only the out-of-state markets are considered in this section. The principal grazing and feeding areas which receive Texas cattle are: Kansas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Iowa, Ne­braska, Missouri, California, New Mexico, Ohio, and Colo­rado. Movement to the Kansas City Market.-Kansas City has received more cattle direct from Texas than any other market except Fort Worth. An annual average of 277,176 head or approximately 26 per cent of all the cattle shipped out of Texas since 1923 were billed to the Kansas City Stockyards. Over one-half of this movement originated in District I, the Panhandle section of Texas. The district origins of all Texas cattle billed to this market during 1927 and the average since 1923 are shown in Table 2. TABLE 2 DISTRICT ORIGIN OF TEXAS CATTLE SHIPMENTS DIRECT TO THE KANSAS CITY MARKET Number of Head Billed Percentage Direct to Distribution District Origin ,---Kansas City --., ,---by Districts --., 5-Yr. Ave. 5-Yr. Ave. 1927 1923-1927 1927 1923-1927 I. Northwestern __ 119,285 143,985 55.1 52.0 IL West CentraL.. 29,073 29,757 13.4 10.7 III. Central ________ _ 37,454 40,128 17.3 14.5 IV. Eastern _________ 590 793 .3 .3 V. Western 9,472 27,214 4.4 9.8 VI. Southern _ 19,939 33,926 9.2 12.2 VII. Southeastern __ 543 1,373 .3 .5 Total Movement from Texas to Kansas City, Mo. _ ________ 216,356 277,176 100.0 100.0 The Kansas City receipts of cattle direct from Texas have decreased from 420,334 head, or approximately 35 per cent of all cattle shipped out of Texas in 1923, to 216,356 head, or only 19 per cent of the 1927 shipments. The decrease of nearly 50 per cent reflects the growing tendency of cat­tlemen to ship Texas cattle to grazing and feeding areas before sending them to market. Approximately 43 per cent University of Texas Bulletin of the cattle in 1927 were steers, 34 per cent cows, 21 per cent calves, and 2 per cent heifers. About 44 per cent of the steer shipments were made in May, June, and October. Except for the heavy fall movement, with October as a peak, cow shipments to Kansas City were fairly uniform during the year. Calf shipments, likewise, started during the latter part of August and continued through a part of December, November being the peak month. Movement to the Wichita Market.-The Wichita market has received an annual average of 69,434 head, or slightly over 6 per cent of all the cattle shipped out of Texas direct since 1923. Unlike the direct movement to most markets, shipments to Wichita have maintained a fairly steady level over the past five years. The Wichita receipts of Texas cattle fell off in 1926, but the total shipments from the State that year also were considerably below normal. The Wichita market has relied upon District I for the bulk of its receipts from Texas. The origin of all cattle receipts direct from Texas is presented by districts in Table 3. TABLE 3 DISTRICT ORIGIN OF TEXAS CATTLE SHIPMENTS DIRECT TO THE WICHITA MARKET Number of Head Billed Direct to Percentage Distribution District Origin ,-Wichita-, 5-Yr. Ave. ,-by Districts-_ 5-Yr. Ave. I. II. III. IV. v. VI. VII. Northwestern __ West Central____ Central --------­Eastern --­--------­Western Southern __________ Southeastern -­ 1927 31,962 9,193 4,291 28,784 210 1923-1927 30,137 13,722 5,279 70 19,351 794 82 1927 42.9 12.3 5.8 38.7 .3 1923-1927 43.4 19.8 7.6 .1 27.9 1.1 .1 Tot.al Movement from Texas to Wichita, Kan. -------------------------­ 74,440 69,435 100.0 100.0 Approximately three-fourths of the cattle shipped direct from Texas to the Wichita market during 1927 were divided A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 31 equally between steers and cows. Most of the steer move­ment took place in the spring and fall; April was the largest shipping month while November ranked second. The peak of the cow shipments occurred in November, but the other fall months and April and May also showed heavy move­ments. The shipment of calves comprised 21 per cent of the total; over one-half of these left Texas in November and December. Movenient to the Oklahoma City Market.-The Oklahoma City market ranked fourth among the markets for Texas cattle during the past five years. Receipts have averaged 44,087 head each year, or about 4 per cent of the direct interstate shipments since 1923. The receipts of Texas cattle during the last three years, however, have been declin­ing; last year, only 33,490 head, or 3 per cent of the total movement were shipped direct to Oklahoma City from Texas. Approximately one-half of these shipments originated in District I, Northwestern Texas. All the district origins of this movement are shown in Table 4. TABLE 4 DISTRICT ORIGIN OF TEXAS CATTLE SHIPMENTS DIRECT TO THE OKLAHOMA CITY MARKET · Number of Head Billed Percentage Direct to Distribution District Origin ,--Oklahoma City-, ,--by Districts --., 5-Yr. Ave. 5-Yr. Ave. i927 1923-1927 1927 1923-1927 I. Northwestern __ 21,885 21,606 65.4 49.0 II. West Central__ 3,985 6,837 11.9 15.5 III. Central 4,728 9,800 14.1 22.2 IV. Eastern ------------85 --.2 V. Western 77 107 .2 .3 Southern _________ 8.4 12.2 VI. 2,815 5,377 VII. Southeastern 275 .6 Total Movement from Texas to Oklahoma City, Okla_______________ 33,490 44,087 100.0 100.0 Cows and bulls comprised about 47 per cent of the cattle shipped to this market during 1927. Steers made up 28 per cent and calves 19 per cent of the total movement. Only University of Texas Bulletin a few heifers were shipped. The heavy steer movement occurred in January, May, June, and July, while most of the cows went to this market from July to December. The big calf shipping season was in the late fall months. Movement to the New O·rleans Market.-The New Orleans market has handled approximately the same volume of Texas cattle since 1923 as Oklahoma City, or around 4 per cent of the total shipments from the State. Both of these markets have experienced downward trends during the past five years; but since the decline to Oklahoma City has been greater, the New Orleans receipts of Texas cattle for the last two years have exceeded the Texas movement direct to the Oklahoma City stockyards. New Orleans is an important outlet for cattle from Dis­trict VI, Southern Texas. An average of nearly twenty­five thousand head, or 57 per cent of the annual movement during the last five years originated in this district. Dis­trict III supplied 21 per cent of the total, most of which came from Fort Worth. Table 5 shows the district origin of Texas cattle shipped to New Orleans during 1927 and the five-year average since 1923. TABLE 5 DISTRICT ORIGIN OF TEXAS CATTLE SHIPME 'TS DIRECT TO THE NEW ORLEANS MARKET . . .. Number of Head Billed Direct to Percentage Distribution Disfrict Origin r-Xew Orleans-, ·5-Yr. Ave. ,-by Districts-, 5-Yr. Ave. r. II. Northwestern ·west Central -· 1927 18 1923-1927 128 310 1927 1923-1~27 .3 .7 III. IV. Central ·­. . . Eastern _______ 3.310 2 6 9,093 388 9.5 20.9 . .. .9 v. VI. Western Southern .. 119 26,046 1,409 24.730 ..1 74.5 3.3 56.9 VII. Southeastern .. 5,172 7,374 14.8 17.0 Total :'..\Iovement from Texas to Tew Or- lean , La. .... ---·-· 34,951 43,432 100.0 100.0 New Orleans is an important calf market. Over 93 per cent of the 1927 receipts frcm Texas were calves. Although A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 33 these shipments were heaviest during the spring and sum­mer months, they were fairly regular throughout the year. The movement during 1927 never fell below 1,000 head or went above 4,100 head during any month. This more or­derly movement was due, in part, to the method of selling calves at New Orleans. Only a limited demand exists there and many shippers are advised by the commission agents when to ship. Movement to the East St. Louis Market.-According to the average annual cattle movement from Texas since 1923, East St. Louis is the sixth ranking market. The yearly average of 37,400 head sent direct to this market is slightly over 3 per cent of the total shipments from Texas. This five-year average, however, is not representative of present conditions because of the downward trend in shipments during this period. Receipts have decreased from 52,691 head or 4 per cent of the movement in 1923 to only 22,333 head or less than 2 per cent of the total shipments in 1927. The decrease of direct shipments to this market, like those to most of the other markets, was off set by increases in movements to grazing areas for further fattening. East St. Louis is an important outlet for South Texas cattle. Over one-half of the Texas receipts at the National Stockyards during the last five years originated in District VI. District III also showed a heavy movement, the bulk of which was forwarded from the Fort Worth market. The district origin of Texas shipments to this market are shown in Table 6. Over 75 per cent of the Texas shipments to East St. Louis during 1927 were steers, most of which moved in April, May, June, October, and November. The other 25 per cent were divided equally between cows and calves. Most of the cows were shipped in January, May, June, September, and October, while the heavy calf shipping months were May, October, and November. Movement to the South St. Joseph Market.-An annual average of 29,894 cattle have been billed direct to the South St. Joseph Stockyards by Texas railroads since 1923. The University of Texas Bulletin trend of the shipments to this market, like that to several of the other markets, has been downward during this period. The number decreased from 52,047 head in 1923 to 10,474 head in 1927. TABLE 6 DISTRICT ORIGIN OF TEXAS CATTLE SHIPMENTS DIRECT TO THE EAST ST. LOUIS MARKET Number of Head Billed Percentage Direct to Distribution District Origin ,.--East St. Louis---, ,.--by Districts ----, 5-Yr. Ave. 5-Yr. Ave. 1927 1923-1927 1927 1923-1927 I. Northwestern _ 1,780 1,788 8.0 4.8 IL West Central___ 1,026 1,736 4.6 4.6 III. Central ----------2,773 10,584 12.4 28.3 IV. Eastern -----------894 1,152 4.0 3.1 V. Western _________ 1,677 1,614 7.5 4.3 VI. Southern _____ _ 14,124 20,432 63.2 54.6 VII. Southeastern __ 59 134 .3 .3 Total Movement from Texas to East St. Louis, IlL________________ 22,333 37,440 100.0 100.0 Over one-half of the cattle billed to South St. Joseph from Texas since 1923 came from the Panhandle section. The district origin of shipments for the average of this period and for 1927 are presepted in Table 7. These figures show not only the sources of shipments but also the shifting tendencies between the different districts. TABLE 7 DISTRICT ORIGIN OF TEXAS CATTLE SHIPMENTS DIRECT TO THE SOUTH ST. JOSEPH MARKET Number of Head Billed Percentage Direct to Distribution District Origin ,-South St.Joseph---, ,.--by Districts ----, 5-Yr. Ave. 5-Yr. Ave. 1927 1923-1927 1927 1923-1927 I. Northwestern __ 5,074 15,784 48.5 52.8 IL West Central___ 1,175 3,730 11.2 12.5 Central ____________ III. 2,426 4,502 23.2 15.1 Eastern ______ IV. 33 257 .3 .9 v. Western _________ 945 4,316 9.0 14.4 VI. Southern _________ 821 1,238 7.8 4.1 VIL Southeastern __ 67 .2 Total Movement from Texas to South St. Joseph, Mo.____________ 10,474 29,894 100.0 100.0 A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 35 Steer shipments in 1927 comprised 62 per cent of the total movement to this market from Texas. Forwardings were greatest e. 5-Yr.•.\.>e. 1921 1923-1921 1927 1923-1921 -·')-­ I. Xorthwestern _ 1.-1 9 ;:i._ ,;:i -13.0 30.6 II. West Cenn-al_ 3.510 -Ul3 20.5 2-1.4 III. Central ___ 1.93-1 2.25-1 11.1 13.1 ff. Eas-ern ___ -136 561 2.5 3.3 Y. Western ___ 3.-112 2.31 20.0 13.5 n. ...,outhern __ -191 2,439 2.9 U.2 YU. ...,outheastern _ 15 .9 'for.al ::\lovemem from Texas to ''Other Point " ::\ILsouri_ 11.39 11.224 100.0 100.0 •··o her Points'" :Missouri includes all points in l!issouri e_-,:cept the Kansas Citr and South St-Joseph markets. Steers comprised 46 per cent of the 1927 movement. They were shipped largely in two definite seasonal move­ments-the first coming in April, May, and June, and the second in September, October, and November. Calf ship­ments made up 36 per cent of the total number, most of them mo"ing during September, October, and November. Cows made up 17 per cent of the movement, the majority of which were sent to :\lissouri points during the fall months. Jloi·ement to Other Grazing and Feeding Areas.-Of the smaller outlets for Texas cattle, some have been declining during the last fiye years while others haYe been increasing the number of cattle secured direct from Texas. :\Iovement to California during 1927 was smaller than that during the previous three years. The strong demand for Texas cattle from closer markets and the great hauling A Market Analysis of tke Cattle Industry of Texas 43 distance accounts for most of this decrease. Then, too, the heavy re-stocking of cattle, following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and the drought, had subsided. Steers and cows comprised over 95 per cent of the 1927 shipments. The heavy steer movement, comprising 51 per cent of the shipments, occurred during October and November, while the bulk of the cows were shipped in October, November, and December. Nearly 90 per cent of these shipments originated in District V, Western Texas. The trend of the shipment of feeder cattle to Indiana, Ohio, and South Dakota declined also during the last five years. The transportation costs and the increased demand for Texas cattle from closer states have caused these buyers to purchase their feeder supply elsewhere. On the other hand, some of the states have been increas­ing the number of cattle secured direct from Texas. They are Colorado, New Mexico, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Vir­ginia. Over 40 per cent of the cattle sent to "Other Points" Colorado from Texas during 1927 were steers, 35 per cent calves, and 23 per cent cows. Heavy steer shipments were made in April, the rest of the steers and the bulk of the other classes being billed in May, June, and July. Shipments to New Mexico are different from most others from Texas. When the grass gets short in the bordering dtstricts in Texas, cattle are sent to grazing areas in New Mexico. Later, many of them are transferred back to Texas. Over 54 per cent of the cattle shipped to New Mexico in 1927 were cows, 27 per cent calves, and 18 per cent steers. Sharp increases have occurred in the movements to Ten­nessee, Kentucky, and Virginia. Over 17,000 head were sent to these three States in 1927, as compared with only 2,700 head in 1923. These shipments were made largely from Districts I, II, and III. The bulk of these movements was steers destined for the grazing and feeding areas in those states. The heavy shipping season to these points was in the fall months. University of Texa.s Bulletin CATTLE MOVEMENT INTO TEXAS THE PRINCIPAL SOURCES OF CATTLE RECEIPTS IN TEXAS Although Texas is a large surplus cattle producing area, there has been an increasing movement of cattle into the State, especially during 1927. Since 1923, Texas has re­ceived annually an average of 126,164 head of cattle from other states. Receipts increased from 68,918 head in 1923 to 215,718 head in 1927. Approximately 90 per cent of these cattle came from four states: New Mexico, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arizona. A summary of the state origin of these receipts by years since 1923 and the five-year average movement is given in Table 14. TABLE 14 NUMBER OF CATTLE SHIPPED INTO TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 Five-Year Origin by Average States and Markets 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 Arizona ---------------------­Arkansas ----------------­Florida -------------­-----­Kansas: 7,322 178 8,286 683 5,147 9,855 744 253 13,651 4 17,831 894 1,715 11,389 501 1,423 Wichita -----------------­Other Points_______________ Louisiana: New Orleans__________________ Other Points.________________ Missouri: Kansas City_______________ South St. Joseph·----·-··---·­Other Points ------------·------­Nebraska: 2,525 6,373 374 2,805 877 718 195 634 1,153 301 5,254 1,570 207 183 1,941 4,241 4,440 1,097 66 475 511 1,755 11,115 2,967 49 552 592 1,775 676 61,493 175 100 653 1,241 3,059 2.70 17,021 1,337 228 412 Omaha P~T;t,;~~~~~~:~~==::=:=-~:Other New Mexico_____________________ Oklahoma: Oklahoma City________________ Other Points_________________ Wisconsin Other Stak,;-:::::=_::_:::::::::-.:::_:::::_:­ 25 24 17,568 1,925 23,835 1,921 2,153 41,747 2,726 18,911 256 1,061 2,666 82,238 632 26,352 1,824 1,470 2,733 68,018 968 14,248 1,745 1,555 96 101,338 326 20,578 2,187 5,289 6 1,104 62,182 1,315 20,785 1,587 2,305 Total Movement to Texas_ 68,818 88,119 138,294 119,871 215,718 126,164 Most of the big increase during 1927 originated in Louis­iana and New Mexico. The movement from Louisiana re­sulted from the Mississippi River flood which inundated a large portion of the lowlands of that state. The large in­crease from New Mexico represents purchases by Texas cattlemen for re-stocking their ranges. Prices were high enough to make it profitable for producers to ship all their A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 45 cattle with the exception of breeding stock and very young animals either direct to market or to feed lots. The relative importance of the states sending cattle to Texas is shown in Figure 5. 100 75 5 I: h. 0 0 "' ~ 6 I: I­ FIGURE 5 Receipts from New Mexico.-New Mexico has supplied 49 per cent of the cattle shipped into Texas since 1923; most of them went to Districts I and V, Northwestern and Western Texas. The destination of this movement is shown University of Texas Bulletin by districts for 1927 and for the average of the last five years in Table 15. TABLE 15 DISTRICT DESTINATIONS OF CATTLE RECEIVED INTO TEXAS FROM NEW MEXICO Number of Head Received Percentage From Distribution District Destination ,-New Mexico-, ,-by Districts ---, 5-Yr. Ave. 5-Yr.-Ave. 1927 1923-1927 1927 1923-1927 I. Northwestern __ 78,557 41,145 77.5 66.2 II. West Central___ 2,003 2,031 2.0 3.3 III. Central ___________ 4,023 2,632 4.0 4.2 Eastern ____________ IV. v. Western -----·--·-16,755 16,125 16.5 25.9 Southern _________ VI. 103 .2 VII. Southeastern __ 146 .2 Total Movement to Texas from New Mexico ---------------101,338 62,182 100.0 100.0 These cattle were shipped into the various districts to replace the native cattle which had been sent to Northern pastures and feed lots for further fattening. Approxi­mately 47 per cent of the 1927 movement were calves, 37 per cent cows, and 15 per cent steers. The peak shipping month for cows and calves was November:. Large numbers were shipped also during January, April, May, June, Sep­tember, October, and December. The heavy steer move­ment occurred during May and from August to November. Receipts from "Other Points" Oklahoma.-Most of the eattle entering Texas from Oklahoma were en route to the Fort Worth market. During the last five years, an annual average of 20,785 head of cattle has been shipped into Texas, about 88 per cent going to District III, which includes Fort Worth. Table 16 shows the district destination of these shipments for 1927 and the five-year average for 1923-1927. Over 71 per cent of the Oklahoma shipments of cattle to Texas in 1927 were cows, 18 per cent calves, 9 per cent steers, and 2 per cent heifers. Most of the cows were shipped during January and March, and from September to December. The bulk of the calves was loaded out during the fall months, October being the peak month. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 47 TABLE 16 DISTRICT DESTINATIO S OF CATTLE RECEIVED INTO TEXAS FROM "OTHER POINTS" OKLAHOMA* Number of Head Received Percentage From Distribution District .-"Other Points" Oklahoma--, ,..-by Districts --, Destination 5-Yr. Ave. 5-Yr.-Ave. 1927 1923-1927 1927 1923-1927 I. Northwestern __ 2,812 1,261 13.7 6.1 II. West CentraL__ 480 395 2.3 1.9 Central _________ Eastern __________ III. 16,706 18,381 81.2 88.4 IV. 455 111 2.2 .5 V. Western ________ 125 222 .6 1.1 VI. Southern _______ _ 362 1.7 VII. Southeastern __ 53 .3 Total Movement to Texas from "Other Points" Oklahoma__ 20,578 20,785 100.0 100.0 *"Other Points" Oklahoma includes all points in Oklahoma e.xcept the Oklahoma City market. Receipts from "Other Points" Louisiana.-Receipt of 61,493 head of cattle from "Other Points" Louisiana during 1927, resulting from the serious Mississippi River flood, raised the annual receipts since 1923 up to 17,021 head. Approximately one-half of this movement went to the Fort Worth market. District VII, Southeastern Texas, received nearly one-third of the heavy shipments during i927. The district destination of shipments from "Other Points" Louisiana is presented in Table 17. TABLE 17 DISTRICT DESTINATIONS OF CATTLE RECEIVED INTO TEXAS FROM "OTHER POINTS" LOUISIANA* Number of Head Received Percentage From Distribution District ,--"Other Points" Louisiana--, ,..-by Districts --, Destination 5-Yr. Ave. 5-Yr.-Ave. 1927 1923-1927 1927 1923-1927 I. Northwestern _ 54 11 .1 .1 II. West C'entraL__ 845 207 1.4 1.2 III. Central __________ 30,071 9,487 48.9 55.7 IV. Eastern __________ 6,073 2,135 9.9 12.5 Western _________ v. 36 94 .1 .6 VI. Southern _______ 3,025 661 4.9 3.9 VII. Southeastern __ 21,389 4,426 34.7 26.0 Total Movement to Texas from "Other Points" Louisiana _ 61,493 17,021 100.0 100.0 *"Other Points" Louisiana includes all points in Louisiana except the New Orleans market. University of Texas Bulletin Receipts from Arizona.-Arizona producers have shipped an annual average of 11,389 head of cattle to Texas since 1923. The bulk of these cattle was destined for the ranges in Western and Northwestern Texas, as shown in Table 18. TABLE 18 DISTRICT DESTINATIONS OF CATTLE RECEIVED INTO TEXAS FROM ARIZONA Number of Head Received Percentage From Distribution District Destination ,---Arizona --, ,---by Districts -, 5-Yr. Ave. 5-Yr.-Ave. 1927 1923-1927 1927 1923-1927 I. Northwestern _ 4,030 3,569 22.6 31.3 II. West CentraL_ 60 134 .3 1.2 III. Central ----------228 111 1.3 1.0 IV. Eastern ----------­ V. Western ---------13,513 7,575 75.8 66.5 VI. Southern _________ lvn. Southeastern Total Movement to Texas from Ari­zona ------------------------17,831 11,389 100.0 100.0 Approximately 60 per cent of the 1927 shipments were cows, 23 per cent steers, 12 per cent calves, and 5 per cent heifers. The cows were shipped in January, May, June, October, November, and December. Most of the steers entered Texas in May, while the big calf-shipping month was December. NET MOVEMENT OF CATTLE FROM TEXAS Heretofore in this study, the shipments of cattle both to and from Texas have been considered separately. The net effect of these movements, however, indicates the im­portance of the State as a surplus cattle producing area. The annual net outflow has averaged 962,324 head since 1923. The downward trend of this movement has resulted from both a decrease in forwardings and an increase in receipts. The annual movements since 1923 are presented in Table 19. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 49 TABLE 19 NET MOVEMENT OF CATTLE FROM TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 5-Yr. Ave. 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 Total Movement of Cattle from Texas ·--------·--------1,215,752 1,178,628 1,070,655 858,078 1,119,325 1,088,488 Total Movement of Cattle to Texas ·-····-·-····-·······--68,818 88,119 138,294 119,871 215,718 126,164 Net Outflow___________________________ l,146,934 1,090,509 932,361 738,207 903,607 962,324 Number Slaughtered at Five Texas Markets-····--····-······ 883,000 1,072,000 1,090,000 873,000 955,000 974,600 Total Net Disappearance..... _ 2,029,934 2,162,509 2,022,361 1,611,207 1,858,607 1,936,924 This net movement, however, does not consider the an­nual increase or decrease in the number retained on farms and ranches. Neither does it include the number slaughtered within the State, nor the death losses. All of these factors must be included in order to measure the normal producing capacity of the State. Statistics on the number of cattle on farms and ranches and the number slaughtered at the six recognized public markets in Texas2 have been recorded, but annual data covering local and farm slaughterings to­gether with death losses are not available.3 Assuming that the numbers disposed of through these outlets remain fairly constant from year to year, their influence on the trend of the indicated productive capacity would not be noticeable. The known annual net disappearance, exclusive of these estimates, is shown in Table 19. The relation between the total number of cattle reported on farms and ranches each year and this annual net disap­pearance of T'exas cattle is given in Table 20. Except during 1926, the percentage of net disappearance remained between 31 per cent and 34.5 per cent of the estimated cattle population. The sharp decline in 1926 resulted from a short calf crop and from the heavy liquidation of cattle during the previous year, which was brought about by the severe drought conditions over a large area of Texas. 2Fort Worth, San Antonio, El Paso, Dallas, Laredo, and Amarillu 3The United States Department of Agriculture estimated the num ber killed locally in Texas during 1927 at 233,000 head, farm slaugh tered at 105,000 head, and death losses at 237,000 head. University of Texas Bulletin TABLE 20 COMPARISON OF THE TOTAL NUMBER WITH THE ANNUAL NET DISAPPEARANCE OF TEXAS CATTLE 1923 to 1927 Total Number of Net Per Cent Cattle on Farms Disappearance of the and Ranches at of Total Year End of Year* Texas Cattle Number 1923 1924 -----­-----------­-------­------­-----------------------------­ 6,550,000 6,27 5 ,000 2,029,934 2,162,509 31.0 34.5 1925 1926 1927 ---------------------------------­-----------------------------­----------------------------­ 5 ,900 ,000 5 ,841,000 5 '607 ,000 2,022,361 1,611,207 1,858,607 34.3 27.6 33.1 5-Yr. Ave. 1923-1927_____ 6,034,600 1,936,924 32.1 •January 1 Estimates of the United States Department of Agriculture. CATTLE MOVEMENT FROM MEXICO Although very little information is available on the move­ment of cattle across the Mexican border, a considerable number are sent to and brought from that country. Most of them are driven across at one of the ports of entry and then transported to their destinations. The importance of these imports of cattle may be obtained from the record kept by the Bureau of Animal Industry of the United States Department of Agriculture. These figures are not segre­gated by states but the movement to the United States since 1924 is given in Table 21. TABLE 21 IMPORTS OF CATTLE FROM MEXICO TO THE UNITED STATES* 1924 TO 1927 NumberYear of Head1924 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------72,2971925 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------86,0891926 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------160 ,053 1927 --------------------------------------------------------------------·----------------------160,7021928 (January to April) ----------------------------------------------------93,067 *Bureau of Animal Industry, United States Department of Agriculture. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 51 The movement has been heavy during the last two years because of the higher prices of cattle. A part of this move­ment includes importations of animals previously exported to Mexico for grazing without the payment of duty, and also inspected animals passing from one point in Mexico, through the United States, to another point in Mexico. Section III DISTRICT ANALYSIS OF TEXAS CA TILE SHIPMENTS, 1923 TO 1927 Because of the size of Texas and because of the wide variation in the type and quality of cattle produced, it is difficult to analyze the movement of cattle to and from the State without breaking down the shipments into smaller and more homogeneous units. These units or districts were worked out by H. H. Schutz, Statistician for the United States Department of Agriculture in Texas in order to facilitate the livestock reporting work of that organization. The railroad records for each of the seven districts are presented in the same manner as were those for t:ke entire state in the preceding section. Since the weights of cattle vary in the different sections of the State, the net move­ments would be more comparable if they were expressed in pounds of beef instead of in numbers of head. But no sufficiently reliable data are available on the weights of the several classes of cattle by districts. Neither are local and farm-slaughtering figures or death losses available by dis­tricts. District I-Northwestern Texas GENERAL TYPE AND CHARACTER OF AGRICULTURE District I or the northwestern portion of the State is known as a part of the Plains or the Panhandle of Texas. The 40 counties that are included in this territory are shown in Figure I. This district is one of the most highly developed agricul­tural sections of Texas. The soil and climatic conditions make the lands very productive and are conducive to a widely diversified farming program. The principal money A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 53 and feed crops are wheat, cotton, sorghum grains, oats, and corn. District I is the leading wheat section of the State; the last Census of Agriculture shows that 898,246 acres or 68 per cent of the total harvested acreage of the State were planted in these 40 counties.1 Grain sorghums also are grown extensively in this district. The Census re­ported that there were harvested in this part of Texas 1,217,427 acres of sorghum; of these, 637,534 acres or 53 per cent were cut for grain and 579,893 acres or 43 per cent were cut for forage.2 The sorghums are especially adapted to this section because of their ability to withstand the long drouths which are not uncommon to the Plains country. Furthermore, the westward movement of cotton acreage has reached the lower portion of District I; the Census shows that 1,425,198 acres or 9 per cent of the State acreage were harvested in this section. Likewise, approxi­mately 162,000 acres of oats and 101,000 acres of corn were harvested in this territory. Such a combination of crops provides a well-diversified farming program and, in addition, it enables the livestock producers in this district to secure an adequate supply of stock feed in their localities. CHARACTER OF CATTLE PRODUCTION Prior to the rapid expansion of the crop acreage in this territory, the cattle industry was conducted primarily on a large scale. With the breaking up of the tillable parts of the large ranches, however, the scale of operations has been reduced considerably. This tendency has brought about one of the two conditions : Either the livestock program has been worked in with the general farming operations or a more intensive livestock program has been adopted. A few operators have been fattening their stock at home in­stead of sending them to other states for further finishing. 1United States Census of Agriculture, 1925. 2/bid. University of Texas Bulletin This practice undoubtedly will become more general in this section when the producers learn that their cattle can be finished as well at home as they can in the established feeding areas. Cattle feeding, however, is a highly specialized business, and it will be developed gradually in this territory. Feed­ing experiments have been conducted on the comparative feeding value of corn and grain sorghums and cottonseed products by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and several other State experiment stations. They have found that a feed ration of grain sorghums, and cottonseed prod­ucts possesses the approximate equivalent feeding of value of corn. Even with the rapid encroachment of crop acreage during the last decade, District I is still one of the leading range cattle sections of the State. Approximately 16 per cent of cattle population of the State is located in this area. The average grade of cattle in this district is very high. Producers have been improving their breeding herds in order to secure the quality of cattle desired by the Northern and Western feeders. Hereford is the predominating breed of cattle throughout this district. It does exceedingly well on the range and is the choice of the majority of feeders and feeder buyers. There are also some herds of Shorthorn cattle in this territory which have given highly satisfactory results. CATTLE SHIPMENTS FROM NORTHWESTERN TEXAS In order to show the complete movement of cattle from District I, the shipments since 1923 are summarized in Table 22. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 55 TABLE 22 NUMBER OF CATTLE SHIPPED FROM THE NORTHWESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 to 1927 5-Yr. Ave. Destination 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 l N'rRASTATE SHIPMENTS: By Districts : I. Northwestern* 49,565 42,970 78,298 63,500 88,722 64,611 II. West Central ____:::::::~~:::::~::_: 3,328 5,198 10,964 9,614 11,734 8,167 III. Central -----------------------------------25,458 25,810 30,858 25,955 36,222 28,861 IV. Eastern -----------------------------48 543 645 562 360 v. Western --------------------------------4,130 1,615 5,767 2,333 2,359 3,241 VI. Southern 672 2,538 521 Southeaste~;;-----------------------495 106 866 VII. -----------------------354 131 26 213 145 Total Intrastate________________________.____ 33,636 36,058 48,886 38,423 51,196 41,640 INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS: By States and Markets: Arizona·-----------------------------------------629 30 208 194 28 218 California: Los Angeles ---------------------------------949 36 49 346 362 348 Other Points --------------------------------2,277 3,128 212 458 617 1,338 Colorado: Denver 6,245 6,257 1,073 1,989 10,685 5,250 Other P~i;;t~~~~--~-=-----~-~----~~-~~-:.-_~~~~-=--~~~=­ 1,917 2,024 7,816 807 2,313 2,976 Illinois: Chicago 4,465 1,915 73 857 3,731 2,208 East. St. --L-~-;is~==:::::=::::::::=--~:~~: 2,459 712 3,654 335 1,780 1,788 Other Points..----------·------------------14,229 6,949 10,877 4,450 8,057 8,912Indiana ----··---------------···--------------· 3,914 358 425 932 1,499 1,426 Iowa 10,933 5,237 5,495 3,462 Kansas·;---·-·-··-----------------··----·-------------4,789 5,983 Wichita 31,161 28,992 35,218 23,354 31,962 30,137Other Poi~t;;::::::::~-:::::::=::::::::::=::::::: 91,523 94,846 136,659 96,039 145,882 112,990 Kentucky ---------------------------------·--·--70 464 520 1,662 543 Louisiana: New Orleans --·----------------------------523 119 128 Points_______________________________ Missouri: Kansas City ----------------------------___2 08, 6 31 180,570 120,708 90,732 119,285 143,985 Other 40 8 Joseph___________________ ___ South St. 23,378 30,121 15,895 4,454 5,074 15,784 Other Points ------------------------------5,718 6,160 4,551 2,456 7,489 5,275 Michigan ------··--······------------------· 1,262 228 1,197 502 2,006 1,039 Montana ---------·----------------------------38 5,641 2,896 463 1,808 Nebraska: Omaha --------------···--------------------11,050 10,220 4,520 1,019 2,335 5,829Other Points·-----------·····--------5,006 12,023 4,944 9,996 12,189 8,832 New .l\1exico......... -----------------------------6,004 2,962 3,711 5,861 3,176 4,343 Ohio ---····----------------------------------------6,090 2,292 2,895 2,209 1,705 3,038 Oklahoma: Oklahoma City----------------------------18,608 23,514 24,338 19,684 21,885 21,606 Other Points ------·-------------------7,387 9,259 13,237 20,424 41,379 18,337 South Dakota -------------------------10,869 6,168 426 2,237 3,940 Other States ----------------------------------1,466 1,485 862 8,861 2.535 Intersta te ________________________-476,7 31 Total 435,675 405,188 296,213 439,214 410,604 Total Interstate _________________________4 7 6.7 31 435,675 405,188 296,213 439,214 410,604 Total Intrastate·------------------------------33,636 36,058 48,886 38,423 51,196 41,640 Total Movement from the North­western District·------------------------510, 36 7 471,733 454,074 334,636 490,410 452,244 *Shipments within the North,vestern District are not included in the total intra­state movement from the district. The table shows that 9 per cent of the cattle forwarded from this section since 1923 went to other parts of Texas, while 91 per cent were sent to other states. University of Texas Bulletin The relative importance of the principal outlets for this district is shown in Figure 6. 160 ><.>NSAS CATTLE SHIPMENTS FIGURE 6 160 1•0 120 100 eo 60 40 VJ MOVEMENT TO OTHER TEXAS DISTRICTS There has been a relatively small movement of cattle from the Panhandle to other sections of Texas. The annual average movement for the five-year period was only 41,640 head, or 9 per cent of the total shipments from the district. Approximately seven-tenths of these intrastate shipments went to District III or Central Texas, which includes Fort Worth-the principal livestock market of the Southwest. The major portion of the cattle went to the Fort Worth A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 57 market. The trend of the shipments from District I to this market has been definitely upward during the last five years. Approximately 7 per cent of all the cattle shipped from this area went to the Fort Worth district in 1927, while only 5 per cent were received there in 1923. Approximately 58 per cent of the 1927 movement to the Central district were cows which were shipped all during the year. The heaviest season was the fall movement with a peak in Octo­ber. Steer shipments comprised 20 per cent of the total number and were received at Fort Worth during the spring and fall with October the high month. The other shipments consisted primarily of calves with November the heaviest shipping month. February, March, August, and Septem­ber also were heavy calf-shipping months. The small volume to the Fort Worth market is attributed to the facts that this section is closer to the Wichita and Kansas City markets than it is to the Fort Worth market, that more rapid transportation service is available to the Northern markets, and that feed-in-transit privilegel:. are available to shippers desiring to stop off in grazing and feeding areas on the way to the Northern markets. The West Central district has received an average of slightly over 8,000 head annually from District I. The movement during 1927 consisted of 51 per cent cows, 40 per cent steers, 8 per cent calves, and 1 per cent heifers. The cows were shipped principally during April, May, and October, the steers during January, October, and November, and the calves during November, May, and July. MOVEMENT TO OTHER STATES The annual interstate movement of cattle from this dis­trict has averaged 410,604 head or 91 per cent of all the cattle shipped from this area. The principal markets which have received these cattle are Kansas City, Wichita, Okla­homa City, Denver, South St. Joseph, and Omaha. Movernent to the Kansas City Market.-Kansas City is the largest market for cattle direct from this district. Ap­proximately 35 per cent of the interstate shipments and University of Texas Bulletin 32 per cent of the total movement from this area during the last five years were shipped direct to the Kansas City market. The trend of these shipments, however, has been decidedly downward. The number decreased from 208,631 head or 41 per cent of the 1923 movement to 119,285 head or 24 per cent of the 1927 shipments from the district. Approximately one-half of the movement during 1927 was shipped in September, October, and NQvember, the peak being in October. The remaining half was distributed over the other nine months, the low point being reached in July. Cattle shipped to Kansas City in 1927 were divided as follows : Cows and bulls 49 per cent, steers 33 per cent, and calves and heifers 18 per cent. Movement to the Wichita Market.-The second most im­portant cattle market of the Northwestern district since 1923 has been Wichita, Kansas. The average annual ship­ments amounted to 30,137 head or approximately 7 per cent of the total movement from this section. The trend of the district forwardings during this five-year period has been slightly upward. In 1923, only 6 per cent of the total move­ment went to the Wichita market. Most of the shipments to Wichita, like those to Kansas City, we:te cows and steers. The former class comprised 49 per cent of the 1927 shipments, while the steers accounted for 35 per cent of the total. The other 16 per cent were calves and heifers. The heaviest shipping months for cows were January and April and from July to December. The bulk of the steers were forwarded in January, April, Sep­tember, October, and December. Most of the calves were shipped during the last half of the year. Movement to Other Markets.-The Oklahoma City mar­ket has been receiving nearly 5 per cent of the direct cattle shipments from this section. The trend of the movement has been upward during this five-year period; less than 4 per cent of the district's shipments in 1923 went to this market. Although the Denver market receives only a small por­tion of the cattle shipments direct from the Panhandle A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 59 section, the trend has been decidedly upward during the past three years. Less than two thousand head of cattle were sent to Denver in 1925 and in 1926, whereas over ten thousand were shipped to this market in 1927 from Dis­trict I. The South St. Joseph market receipts of cattle direct from this district have decreased rapidly during the last five years. This market received 23,378 head, or slightly less than 5 per cent of the cattle shipments from District I in 1923 as compared with only 5,07 4 head, or slightly over 1 per cent of the shipments in 1927. The Omaha market, likewise, has suffered a decline in cattle receipts direct from the Northwestern district during the five-year period; the number has decreased from 11,050 head in 1923 to 2,335 head in 1927. The livestock markets at Chicago, East St. Louis, and Los Angeles receive but a limited number of cattle from this district because of the greater distance from Texas as com­pared with the closer markets. THE PRINCIPAL GRAZING AND FEEDING AREAS This district is primarily a breeding and grazing section so that a large number of the cattle shipped out each year are not finished. Many of them are shipped to other states for further grazing and feeding before they are sent to market. More than half of the cattle shipped from this territory since 1923 have been sent to grazing and feeding areas in Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa, Mis­souri, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, South Dakota, and other states. Movement to "Other Points" Kansas.-An annual aver­age of 112,990 head, or approximately 25 per cent of all the cattle shipped out of District I since 1923 have gone to grazing areas or "Other Points" Kansas. The trend of the movement has been upward during this period. The number increased from 91,523 head, or 18 per cent of the total movement in 1923, to 145,882 head, or 30 per cent of the number shipped from this district in 1927. University of Texas Bulletin Approximately 70 per cent of the 1927 cattle movement to these grazing areas were steers,16 per cent cows, 9 per cent calves, and 5 per cent heifers. There are two definite shipping seasons from this district during the year; the spring movement lasts through March, April, and May; and the fall movement extends from September to Novem­ber. Approximately 89 per cent of the steers and 78 per cent of the cows were shipped out during these two periods. April and October were peak months for each class of cattle. Movement to "Other Points" Oklahoma.-The Osage and other grazing areas in Oklahoma have been attracting in­creased numbers during the last five years. The shipments increased from 7,387 head, or slightly over 1 per cent of the district movement in 1923, to 41,379 head, or 8 per cent of the total shipments in 1927. Over 55 per cent of the movement to Oklahoma in 1927 were steers, 30 per cent cows and bulls, 12 per cent calves. Approximately 83 per cent of the steers were shipped in October. The bulk of the cow shipments were scattered during the months of January, April, June, August, Octo­ber, and November. Most of the calves were transferred in April and October. Movement to "Other Points" Nebraska.-Many cattle producers and shippers of the Panhandle district have sent their cattle to grazing and feeding areas in Nebraska during the last five years. This movement, like that to Kansas and Oklahoma, has been growing. The number increased from 5,006 head in 1923 to 12,189 head in 1927. The records for 1927 show that 45 per cent of the move­ment to Nebraska points were calves and heifers, 39 per cent steers, and 16 per cent cows. May, June, October, and November were the heavy shipping months; over 91 per cent of the cattle billed to Nebraska feeding and grazing areas in 1927 went out during these four months. Most of the calves, heifers, and cows and about half of the steers were shipped during May and a part of June; the others were loaded during October and November. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 61 Other Grazing and Feeding Areas.-The most noticeable feature of the movements to the smaller outlets has been the downward trend to points in California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, and South Dakota. Part of the decline was offset by increased forwardings to points in Colorado, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, indicating the possibility of expanding these market outlets provided Texas cattlemen produce the type and quality of stock demanded. TABLE 23 NUMBER OF CATTLE SHIPPED TO THE NORTHWESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 5-Yr. Ave. Origin 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 INTRASTATE SHIPMENTS: By Districts : I. Northwestern*_______ 49,565 42,970 78,298 63,500 88, 722 64,611 II. West Central_··-············-····-12,773 10,815 17,461 17,622 27,773 17,289 III. Central 5,864 8,680 8,896 8,135 6,608 7,636 ---~--------------­ IV. Eastern 338 1,423 726 504 364 671 v. Western 25,713 21,635 34,021 29,550 46,545 31,493 VI. Southern -------------------1,286 1,485 2,952 121 1,169 VII. Southeastern 2,080 416 Total Intrastate..·--·-·--·-·········· 44,688 43,839 62,589 58,763 83,491 58,674 INTERSTATE SIIIPMENTS: By States and Markets: Arizona -----------------------­ 4,851 3,023 5,938 4,030 3,568 Colorado: Denver ----------------------------------­·----­ 32 50 16 Other Kansas : Points ---···············-·········· 180 3 286 94 Wichita ------------------------­Other Points·--·---··--·····-··-····-·-· Missouri: l,759 483 125 278 1,189 1,764 423 867 110 1,187 721 916 Kansas CitY--­··-···-········-·-··----·-· South St. Joseph ··········--·····-·-· Other Points ------·-----------------------­ 82 18 86 330 668 2 113 10 241 3 18 Nebraska: Omaha -----------------------------­ Other Points_________ ·········-···-····­New Mexico--­--------------------­10,897 25,518 1,290 50,929 2,344 39,824 78,557 727 41,145 Oklahoma: Oklahoma City··-----------·-·······-­Other Points___________________________ Other States -·····-----·····-------·-­ 385 471 264 885 67 31 175 1,606 21 182 1,349 281 30 2,812 110 331 1,261 141 Total Interstate ----··-·-·-·····-······ 14,625 32,117 60,667 51,374 87,132 49,183 Total Total Interstate...... -­___ ····-·-·····--· 14,625Intrastate ________________________ 44,688 32,117 43,839 60,667 62,589 51,374 58,763 87,132 83,491 49,183 58,674 Total Movement to the North­western District.___________________ 59,313 75,956 123,256 110,137 170,623 107,857 *The shipments within the Northwestern District are not included in the total intrastate movement to the district. University of Texas Bulletin CATTLE SHIPMENTS TO NORTHWESTERN TEXAS The Panhandle section is a surplus cattle producing area and naturally the inflow of cattle is small. The average number.shipped into this district annually during the last five years was 107,857 head, of which 55 per cent came from the other six livestock districts of Texas and 45 per cent were received from other states. The movement for the entire period is shown in Table 23. RECEIPTS FROM OTHER TEXAS DISTRICTS Practically all the shipments received from other Texas sections came from the western half of the State. Approxi­mately 54 per cent originated in District V, Western Texas, 29 per cent in District II, West Central Texas, and 13 per cent in District III, Central Texas. There has been a decided upward trend in the number of cattle received in this territory since 1923. The other six livestock districts shipped 83,491 head to this section in 1927, as compared with only 44,688 head in 1923. One-half of the cattle received from District V during 1927 were steers, 31 per cent were cows, and the others were calves and heifers. The heavy steer shipping seasons were during May, June, and July and from September to December. Most of the cows were shipped during the last four months of the year. The bulk of the calves and heifers were shipped during February, October, November, and December. The movements from the other districts were very similar to those from District V. These shipments represent the movement of cows and steers from the western districts of the State to re-stock the ranges which were depleted fol­lowing the depression period of 1920 and 1921 and to re­place the Panhandle cattle which already had moved on farther north to market, grass, or feed lots. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 63 RECEIPTS FROM OTHER STATES The average number of cattle received annually in this district from other states during the last five years was 49,183 head. This average represents an increase in the number of cattle received from 14,625 head in 1923 to 87,132 in 1927. This sharp increase resulted principally from the heavy New Mexico shipments. Cattle from Ari­zona, Oklahoma, and Kansas also entered District I during this period. Receipts from New Mexico.-The New Mexico cattle ship­ments to Northwestern Texas increased from 10,897 head in 1923 to 78,557 in 1927. This movement, which was 47 per cent of all the cattle brought into the district during 1927, was encouraged by the return of more favorable cattle prices, enabling producers to re-stock their ranges. North­ern buyers filled their orders from the Panhandle section and the local cattleman replenished their herds with New Mexico cattle. The shipments from New Mexico, like those of others to and from this district, have been heaviest during the spring and fall. Approximately 71 per cent of the 1927 receipts from New Mexico came in during October, November, and December. May was the peak month of the spring move­ment. Approximately 47 per cent of these shipments were calves, 37 per cent cows and bulls, 15 per cent steers, and 1 per cent heifers. NET MOVEMENT OF CATTLE FROM NORTHWESTERN TEXAS The importance of the Northwestern district as a surplus producer of cattle is indicated by the volume of the annual net outflow. Out-going cattle shipments have exceeded the number entering the district by 344,387 head during the last five years. The net movements since 1923 are sum­marized in Tab!e 24. University of Texas Bulletin TABLE 24 NET MOVEMENT OF CATTLE FROM THE NORTHWESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 5-Yr. Ave. 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 Total Movement of Cattle from the District___510,367 471,733 454,074 334,636 490,410 452,244 Total Movement of Cattle to the District___ 59,313 75,956 123,256 110,137 170,623 107,857 Net Outfiow_451,054 395,777 330,818 224,499 319,787 344,387 The trend of the net outflow from this district is more significant than is indicated by the average, since the num­ber has decreased from 451,054 head in 1923 to 319, 787 head in 1927. This downward tendency was brought about by both a decrease in forwardings and a sharp inerease in receipts from 1923 to 1927. Furthermore, the net outflow is an index of the surplus producing capacity of the district if the cattle population remains constant during the period. Such a condition, however, seldom exists. There is usually an increase or a decrease in the number of cattle during the year. It is essential, therefore, to compare the annual net outflow with the number of cattle retained on farms and ranches in the district. The comparisons, since 1923, are shown in Table 25. TABLE 25 COMPARISON OF THE TOTAL NUMBER WITH THE NET OUTFLOW OF CATTLE FROM THE NORTHWESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 Number of Cattle Net Outflow of Per Cent in the Northwestern Cattle from the of the District at Northwestern Total Year End of the Year* District Number 1923 -------------------------------917,000 451,054 49.2 1924 ------------------------------941,000 395,777 42.0 1925 ---------------------------944,000 330,818 35.0 1926 ---------------------------935,000 224,499 24.0 1927 -------------------------------897,000 319,787 35.6 5-Yr. Ave. 1923-1927 ____ 926,800 344,387 37.2 *Estimates based upon the county distribution of all cattle as reported by the County Assessors to the Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 65 The annual net outflow, exclusive of local and farm slaughterings and death losses, comprised more than 37 per cent of the cattle population during this period. Heavy marketing continued to occur as cattlemen gradually liqui­dated their holdings following the severe decline of prices in 1920 and 1921. Then during 1925 and 1926 fewer cattle were shipped from the district and more were brought in to re-stock the depleted ranges. As prices regained their former levels during 1927, marketings from this district increased. District 11-West Central Texas GENERAL TYPE AND CHARACTER OF AGRICULTURE District II, the West Central portion of Texas, extends across the State from the Oklahoma line to the Mexican border and includes the fifty counties which are shown in Figure 1. Notwithstanding the fact that the type and quality of cattle are fairly uniform over all parts of this district, the general character of crop production varies considerably. The upper portion has been converted during the last two decades from a range country into an important farming section. At the present time, the greater part of the gross income is derived from farming operations. The lower half of the district, however, is in the Edwards Plateau Region and is still almost exclusively a livestock producing area. Practically all the agricultural income of this section is obtained from the sale of livestock and livestock products. It is not only an important cattle district but also an extensive sheep and goat raising section. The lower part of District II produces 78 per cent of all the sheep and 68 per cent of all the goats grown in the State. This is especially significant in view of the fact that 10 per cent of the sheep and 81 per cent of the goats in the nation are in Texas. University of Texas Bulletin Cotton is the principal money crop grown in the West Central district. The last Agricultural Census shows that 2,630,000 acres or about 16 per cent of the cotton acreage in 1924 were harvested in this area, most of which was produced in the upper portion.3 The next important crop in District II is grain sorghums. Over 705,000 acres in these counties were planted in sorghums in 1924. This amounted to 28 per cent of the sorghum acreage of the State. The bulk of this crop was also produced in the upper portion of the district. Approximately 263,000 acres, or 22 per cent of the Texas oat acreage were harvested in the West Centr.al district in 1924.4 During the same year, 200,000 acres of corn and 161,000 acres of wheat were gathered and threshed in District II. The abundance of these feed crops makes the upper part of this district a favorable section for the encouragement of a more intensive cattle feeding program, either as a separate undertaking or as a part of the general farming operations. The Edwards Plateau Region, however, does not have an adequate acreage of feed crops to warrant feeding on a commercial scale. It is primarily a breeding section and is especially equipped to furnish buyers with a good grade of stocker and feeder cattle. The producers in West Cen­tral Texas have been improving the quality of their herds very materially during the past few years and this improve­ment is being reflected in the stocker and feeder demand for cattle from the area. CATTLE SHIPMENTS FROM WEST CENTRAL TEXAS A summary of the annual movement of cattle from this section since 1923 is given in Table 26. During this period, sunited States C'ensus of Agriculture, 1925. 4lbid. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 67 TABLE 26 NUMBER OF CATTLE SHIPPED FROM THE WEST CENTRAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 5-Yr. Ave. Destination 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 INTRASTATE SHTPMENTS: By Districts : I. Northwestern -----------12,773 10,815 17,461 17,622 27.773 17,289 II. West Central*---------··--· 16,687 18,304 25,307 32,097 55,488 29.577 III. Central ____________314,378 350,767 270,071 249,954 288,036 294,641 IV. Eastern -------------461 172 2,170 666 547 803 V. Western ---------------2,597 5,838 8,621 8.173 7,244 6,495 VI. Southern ------·---------14,481 20,385 16,131 18,917 24,337 18,850 VII. Southeastern ----------953 1,692 711 972 533 972 Total Intrastate______________345,643 389,669 315,165 296,304 348,470 349,050 INTERSTATE SHTPMENTS: By States and Markets: California: Los Angeles-----·--·-··--------1,769 253 814 60 591 697 Other Points --------------­64 215 56 Colorado: Denver -----------------------58 100 490 134 884 333 Other Points________________ 851 810 1,952 335 2,411 1,272 Illinois : Chicago -----------------40 227 222 1,072 312 East St. Louis______________ 4.249 1,378 791 1,026 1,238 1,736 Other Points -----------4,276 2,915 2,735 2,960 5,073 3,592 Indiana -----------------_ 1,247 1,466 806 481 452 890 Iowa -------------------------2,790 376 2,270 2,546 2,651 2,127 Kansas: Wichita ____ ------------------19,592 22,170 12,153 5,503 9,193 13,722 Other Points ______________ 23,404 32,517 45,276 30,359 44,544 35,220 Missouri: Kansas City__________________ 51,063 35,518 24,426 8,703 29,073 29,757 South St. Joseph________ 7,938 7,495 1,305 735 1,175 3.730 Other Points ·------------10,722 958 3,339 2,475 3,570 4,213 Nehraska : Omaha ---------------2,153 3,711 274 1,228 Other Points____________ 3,392 1,579 374 1,451 1,359New Mexico___________ 987 414 103 606 836 589 Ohio ----------------------3,319 3,748 929 1,710 310 2,003 Oklahoma: Oklahoma City___________ 4,719 11,238 9.558 4,688 3,985 6,837 Other Points____________ 26,827 36, 137 66,994 27,230 43,658 40,169 Other States _________ 2,462 2,457 892 274 3,337 1,885 Total Interstate____________l 71,858 165,240 175,124 90,848 155,566 151,727 Total Interstate_______ 171,858 165,240 175,124 90,848 155,566 151,727 Total Intrastate__________345,643 389,669 315,165 296,304 348,470 339,050 Total Movement from the West Central District.______517,501 554,909 490,289 387,152 504,036 490,r,77 *The shipments within the West Central District are not included in the total intrastate movement from the district. the annual outflow has averaged 490,777 head, of which 69 per cent went to the other livestock districts of Texas and 31 per cent to other states. The relation between the 1927 movement and the average for the five-year period is presented graphically in Figure 7. University of Texas Bulletin FIGURE 7 MOVEMENT TO OTHER TEXAS DISTRICTS One of the most noticeable features of the shipments from this territory is the heavy intrastate movement. Approxi­mately 70 per cent of all cattle shipped out during tne last five years have gone to other sections of the State. The Central district which includes the Fort Worth market has received 87 per cent of the intrastate shipments and 60 per cent of all the cllttle forwarded frotn District II since 1923. Practically all of these cattle went to Fort Worth. The movement, however, has been. decreasing during this period, the number dropping from 314,378 head A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 69 in 1923 to 288,036 in 1927. About 55 per cent of the ship­ments during 1927 were cows, 27 per cent calves, 15 per cent steers, and 3 per cent heifers. The heavy cow ship­ments extended from May through December with Novem­ber as the peak month. Most of the calves were marketed during September, October, and November. The steer movement ran frcm March to December with October as the high month. Large numbers of cattle have been sent each year also to the Southern and Northwestern districts from West Central Texas. The annual movement to both of these grazing areas has been increasing. Approximately 78 per cent of the cattle sent to the Southern district in 1~27 were cows, the major portion of which was transferred from July to December. Cow shipments comprised 11 per cent of the total number and they were shipped principally during May, July, August, and September. The calves and heifers were billed out during January, February, May, July, August, and October. One-half of the movement to the Northwestern district during 1927 was cows, 41 per cent calves and heifers, and 9 per cent steers. The cows were shipped from September to December; the calves during July, October, and Novem­ber; the heifers in August and November; and the steers during May, September, and October. The Western district, likewise, has been receiving cattle from District II. These shipments, consisting primarily of cows and steers, were made in the late fall months and went to grazing areas, to packers, or to feed lots at and near El Paso. MOVEMENT TO OTHER STATES Over three-fourths of the interstate forwardings of cattle from this district since 1923 have been direct to the Kansas City and Wichita markets or to grazing areas in Kansas and Oklahoma. The shipments to these markets and to the less important outlets during this period are shown in Table 26. University of Texas Bulletin Movement to the Kansas City Market.-With the excep­tion of Fort Worth, Kansas City has been the most im­portant cattle market for the West Central district. Ap­proximately 9 per cent of the total movement since 1923 have been sent direct to this market. The trend of ship­ments has been downward during this period. The number decreased from 51,063 head in 1923 to 29,073 head in 1927. Approximately 49 per cent of the 1927 movement were steers, 28 per cent cows, 18 per cent calves and 5 per cent heifers. The steers were shipped all during the year, but the heavy shipping months were January, February, May, June, July, September, and October. Cows also were sent to this market all during the year. The peak months were February, April, and November. The big calf shipping season was during the fall with the peak in November. Most of the heifers were shipped during October. Movement to the Wichita Market.-The trend of cattle shipments direct to the Wichita market from District II, likewise, has been downward during the last five years. The number decreased from 19,592 head in 1923 to 9,193 head in 1927. The decline is attributed to the growing prac­tice among producers and shippers of taking their cattle to grazing and feeding areas before going to market. During 1927, the movement from District II direct to Wichita consisted of 40 per cent steers, 40 per cent cows, 13 per cent calves, and 7 per cent heifers. Most of the steers, cows, and heifers were shipped during April and May, while the major portion of the calf shipments were made during October, November, and December. Movement to "Other Points" Oklahoma.-The upward trend of cattle shipments from District II to grazing areas in Oklahoma also indicates the growing tendency of pro­ ducers and buyers to better finish their cattle before taking them to market. The stocker movement from the West Central district direct to Oklahoma increased from 26,827 head in 1923 to 43,658 head in 1927. Steers comprised 58 per cent of the total shipments during 1927, the majority of which were made in April. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 71 Approximately 26 per cent of the total number were cows and most of them were shipped in April, August, October, and November. Practically all of the remaining 16 per cent were classed as calves and the major portion of them went to Oklahoma during the fall months. Movement to "Other Points" Kansas.-The shipments to Kansas, like those to the other important grazing areas, have been gaining in the past· five years. They have in­creased from 23,404 head in 1923 to 44,544 head in 1927. Approximately 80 per cent of the 1927 shipments were steers and most of them were transferred during April. The months of March, May, and October were also credited with large numbers. Cow shipments made up 9 per cent of the total and the heavy shipping months were April, May, and November. The other 11 per cent were calves and heifers. Most of the calves were shipped during February, April, and October, while the majority of the heifers were sent to Kansas in June and November. CATTLE SHIPMENTS TO WEST CENTRAL TEXAS The shipments of cattle into this section have been rela­tively smaller than the outgoing movement. The annual inflow since 1923 has averaged 51,721 head, over 92 per cent of which came from other Texas districts and 8 per cent originated in other states. The trend of shipments has been upward during this five-year period. The number increased from 26,637 head in 1923 to 74,063 head in 1927. Most of these additional cattle originated in either the Central, Western, Northwestern or Southern districts. The incoming shipments since 1923 are summarized by market and state origins in Table 27. University of Texas Bulletin TABLE 27 NUMBER OF CATTLE SHIPPED TO THE WEST CENTRAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 192< 5-Yr. Ave. Destination 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 INTRASTATE SHIPME!'TS: By Districts: I. Northwestern _ 3.32 5,19 10,964 9,614 11,734 ,16 II. Wen Central• 16,6'7 1 ,304 25.307 32,097 55.4 ,. 29,511 III. IV. Central ___ Eastern _ ______ 9,666 2,415 10,64 1,6. 0 25,275 1,906 19.961 1,903 20.567 1.541 17,2231 !2ii(l V. Western ---­__ _ 5,21 5,622 i ,695 16,635 21i,i70 12:3-..;, VI. Southern __ 2, .29 l,4H 1 ,079 3,965 9,29• 1,122 VII Southeastern 2 4 90 3,5 7 106 50 ~56 Total Intrastate.___ 23,740 24,679 67,506 52, . H 69,960 lNTERSTATE SHIPMEXTS: By States and Markets: Arizona 612 60 134 Kansas: Wkhita ---·­Other Points___ _ _ __ _ _ 40 15 752 162 25 40 1 Louisiana: New Orleans Other Points_________ 207 130 63 45 Missouri: Kansas City______ 427 40 5 193 5 31.5 South St. Joseph.__ 700 71 154 Other Points_______ 12 141 90 130 ';5 New Mexico_______ 353 l,160 5,441 1,200 2,003 2,031 Nebraska: Omaha Other Points_______ 24 1,376 23 50 295 Oklahoma: Oklahoma City___ ___ 53 11Other Points_______ 709 282 42.5 395 Other States________ 20 2 222 130 Total Interstate_____ _ 2, 97 2,521 ,545 1, o: 4,103 3,915 Total Interstate_______ Total Intrasta 2, 97 23,740 2,521 24,679 ,545 67,506 1, 0 52, 44 4,103 69,960 3,975 47,746 Total Mo'l'ement to Central District the West 26,637 27,200 76,051 54,652 74,063 51,721 •The shipments within the West Central District are not included in the t<>tal intra­state mo\"ement to the distric . RECEIPTS FROM OTHER TEXAS DISTRICTS Most of the cattle entering the \Vest Central district since 1923 originated in Districts I, III, V, or VI, the same sec­tions to which the major portion of the forwardings were shipped. The heaviest movement came from the Central district which includes the Fort Worth market. These shipments increased from 9,666 head in 1923 to 20,567 head in 1927. The largest volume was recei\·ed during 1925 when the ranges in this territory were not so dry as those in some of the other districts. Approximately 41 per cent of the A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 73 1927 shipments were cows, 27 per cent steers, 26 per cent calves, and 6 per cent heifers. The peak shipping month for each of these classes occurred in October. The other heavy shipping months were January, February, and March and from August to December. Receipts from the Western district were especially heavy during 1927 primarily because of the better grazing condi­tions in District II in 1926. The heavy movement during 1927 consisted of 45 per cent cows, 27 per cent calves, 25 per cent steers, and 3 per cent heifers. Most of the cows were shipped during June, August, September, October, and November. The heavy calf shipping months were January and May and from September to December. The major portion of the steers was transferred during May, Septem­ber, October, and November. The stocker cattle movement from the Northwestern dis­trict to District II, likewise, has been increasing since 1923. Approximately 51 per cent of the 1927 movement were cows, 40 per cent steers, and 9 per cent calves a:nd heifers. Most of the cows were transferred during April, May, and Octo­ber; the steers during January, October, and November; and the calves during May, July, and November. The receipts from District VII have fluctuated widely during this period. The heavy shipments during 1925 were brought about by the range conditions in the Southern dis­trict that year. About 50 per cent of the 1927 movement were steers, 29 per cent cows, and 21 per cent calves. The majority of the steers were shipped in April, May, Novem­ber, and December; the cows in February, August, October, November, and December; and the ~alves during March, April, August, and November. RECEIPTS FROM OTHER STATES New Mexico has supplied over one-half of the small volume of interstate receipts of cattle entering the West Central district since 1923. The major portion of ship­ments during 1927 was calves, which were shipped during July and November. Some cattle, principally cows, forced University of Texas Bulletin out of Louisiana following the Mississippi flood in 1927, were sent to District II. Oklahoma also has transferred a few hundred stocker cattle to this grazing territory an­nually during the last five years. NET MOVEMENT OF CATTLE FROM WEST CENTRAL TEXAS The number of cattle shipped out of this district com­pared with the number brought in shows an annual average net outflow of 439,056 head since 1923. These figures ate summarized in Table 28. TABLE 28 NET MOVEMENT OF CATTLE FR0M THE WEST CENTRAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 5-Yr. Ave. 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 Total Movement of Cattle from the District____ 517 ,501 554,909 490,289 387,152 504,036 490,777 Total Movement of Cattle to the District___ 26,637 27,200 76,051 54,652 74,063 51,721 Net Outfiow_490,864 527,709 414,238 332,500 429,973 439,056 The heavy net disappearance makes this district the largest surplus producing area in Texas for the five years. The annual net outflow decreased until 1927 because of both decreases in the outgoing shipments and increases in the number of incoming cattle. Under normal conditions, the annual net movement indi­cates the importance of the district as a surplus cattle producing area. On the other hand, it may include more or less than the normal increase of cattle, depending upon the condition of the market and the ranges. Therefore, the annual net movement should be associated with the esti­mated number of cattle found on farms and ranches in the district. This comparison is presented for each of the last five years in Table 29. The net outflow, exclusive of local and farm slaughterings and death losses, averaged 33 per A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 75 cent of the cattle population for the five-year period. The only extreme deviation from this average was in 1926 when fewer cattle were sent to market because, during the pre­ceding year, drought conditions had forced many producers to dispose of all or a part of their breeding herds. Further­more, these adverse conditions cut down the size of the calf crop. TABLE 29 COMPARISON OF THE TOTAL NUMBER WITH THE ANNUAL NET OUTFLOW OF CATTLE FROM THE WEST CENTRAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 Number of Cattle Net Outflow of Per Cent West Central Year District at Cattle from the West Central of the Total End of the Year* District Number 1923 ----------------------------­1924 -------------------------­1925 ----------------------­1926 ---------------------­1927 --------------------­ 1,441,000 1,381,000 1,298,000 1,285,000 1,234,000 490,864 527,709 414,238 332,500 429,973 34.1 38.2 31.9 25.9 34.8 5-Yr. Ave. 1923-1927__ 1,327,800 439,056 33.0 •Estimates based upon the county distribution of all cattle as reported by the County Assessors to the Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas. District III-Central Texas GENERAL TYPE AND CHARACTER OF AGRICULTURE The Central District includes the major portion of the black land farming belt which produces a large share of the principal crops of the State. It is a more important crop growing section than it is a livestock producing area. The principal crop grown in the district is cotton. Ap­proximately 6,665,000 acres, or 40 per cent of the total cotton acreage of the State, were picked in this area in 1924.5 This one crop is the source of most of the agri­cultural income of the Central district. Corn also is grown sunited States Census of Agriculture, 1925. University of Texas Bulletin extensively in Central T'exas. The last Census shows that 1,535,000 acres, or 42 per cent of the total corn crop of Texas, were harvested in District III. Approximately 714,000 acres of oats, or 59 per cent of the State oat acre­age, also were grown in this section. These three major crops were supplemented with 19 per cent of the State wheat acreage, 14 per cent of the grain sorghums, and smaller acreages of many other field, truck, and fruit crops. The southern, eastern, and northeastern portions are devoted largely to general farming, while the western and northwestern sections have a mixed program of general farming and livestock production. The territory west and southwest of Fort Worth is an important cattle feeding area. The principal method of feeding is with cottonseed cake or corn on grass. The abundance of feed and forage crops which are pro­duced in this district make it adaptable to a more intensive cattle feeding program than has been carried on in the past. The majority of the farmers have very little field work to do during the winter months when cattle feeding operations usually are being conducted. Therefore, the feeding of cattle on a small scale might be combined profit­ably with general farming operations where an adequate supply of feed is grown or can be secured at a reasonable price. INFLUENCE OF THE FORT WORTH MARKET The most valuable livestock asset to the producers and shippers of not only this district but also the entire State is that one of the leading livestock market centers of the country is located at Fort Worth. This market exerts a marked influence especially upon the movement of cattle to and from the State. Even though a considerable portion of Texas cattle are not received at Fort Worth, this market has been one of the most influential factors toward the maintenance of a dependable market within the producing areas of T'exas. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 77 TABLE 30 NUMBER OF CATTLE SHIPPED FROM THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 5-Yr. Ave. Destination 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 INTRASTATE SHIPMENTS: By Districts : I. Northwestern ---------· 5,864 8,680 8,896 8,135 fi,608 7.637 II. West CentraL_________ 9,666 10.648 25,275 19,961 20.567 17,223 III. Central• ---------------339,021 350,070 380,781 270,710 343,246 336,769 IV. Eastern ------------------3,887 6,409 8,3•6 2.!\0!i 6,5 A.357 V. Western --------------1,61!; 1,950 11,726 2.569 1.765 3.925 VI. Southern --------------19,043 24,440 17.368 8,000 10.r25 15,775 VII. Southeastern -----------12,065 11,523 15,774 4,644 4,444 9,690 Total Intrastate ---------------52,140 63,650 87,385 45,814 44,044 58,607 INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS: Bv States and Markets: Alabama __ ----------------------1,075 1,174 276 24 178 545 Arizona -----------------------------·-123 371 179 631 261 Arkansas --------------------------628 457 217 318 329 390 California: Los Ano:eles ·----------------------­43 l ,?70 1'90 85!\ ~46 'i'Gl Other Points -------------------­371 771 891 147 532 542 Colorado: Denver ---------------------4,951 30 829 950 1,044 1,561 Other Points -----------------------949 150 247 269 73 337Illinois: Chicago _ --··--·-------------------------1,185 6,313 3,203 4,272 6,737 4.342 East St. Louis ------------------20.253 14,330 6,660 8,904 2,773 10,584 Other Points --------------------3,143 1,061 1,365 911 1,202 1,536 Indiana -------------------------------6.617 4,673 1,225 282 180 2.595 Iowa --------------------·------1,340 3,108 1,474 2,286 3,328 2,307 Kansas: Wichita --------------------------8.203 5.676 5.470 2.753 4,291 5,279 Other Points -----------------------­14,110 14,989 27,157 13, 725 21,442 18,285 Kentucky -------------------·---­294 2,003 1,060 663 3,238 1,452 Louisiana: New Orleans ____________ 17,301 12,295 7,289 5,273 3,310 9,093 Other Points_______________________ 1,247 3,586 1,883 629 684 1,606 Missouri: Kansas City ------------------------59, 755 41,409 33,350 28,672 37,454 40,128 South St. Joseph _________________ 7,858 6,863 4,350 1,011 2,426 4,502 Other Points ---------------------1,656 2,617 4,032 1,033 1,934 2,254Michigan -----------------------­41 1,014 211 Nebraska: Omaha ------------------8,914 12,046 4,609 630 1,840 5.608 Other Points ----------------------1,884 4,753 406 730 1,061 1,767 New Jersey ----------------------7,037 7,515 3,299 3,524 2,305 4,736 New Mexico.__________________ 1,558 357 1,530 227 739 882New York_______________________ 5,796 12,480 5,537 3,322 8,103 7,048 Ohio --------------------------3,731 5,059 3,532 3,205 1,652 3,431) Oklahoma: Oklahoma City_________________ 14,814 16,333 5,708 7,420 4,728 9,801 Other Points-------------·------------19,496 24,9% 57,280 4!\ 9~1; 61 .578 41,855 Pennsylania ---··----·----------1,209 180 952 3,122 2,882 1,669 South Dakota________________ 820 1,083 954 922 530 862 Tennessee ----------------------1,012 1,088 137 521 2,295 1,011 Other States ---------------------1,425 927 681 1,025 878 987 Total Interstate_______________218,798 209,572 186,664 143,790 182,337 188,232 Total Interstate______________218,798 209,572 186,664 143,790 182,337 188,232 Total Intrastate ------------52,140 63,650 87,385 45,814 44,044 58,607 Total Movement from the Cen­ tral District__________270,938 273,222 274,049 189,604 226,381 246,839 *The shipments within the Central District are not included in the total intrastate movement from the district. University of Texas Bulletin Furthermore, the economic advantages of this market, by virtue of its location in the heart of a large producing section and in the center of a large and rapidly growing meat consuming area, are more favorable than those facing some of the other large livestock markets not so favorably located. CATTLE SHIPMENTS FROM CENTRAL TEXAS The importance of the Fort Worth market as a cattle dis­tributing center may be appraised from the summary of shipments from District III. The movement since 1923 is presented in Table 30. More than three-fourths of the cattle forwarded from the Central district during the last five years have gone to points outside of Texas. This heavy interstate movement largely represents the re-shipment of cattle to other mar­kets, pastures, and feed lots after they were received at Fort Worth. The relative importance of the principal out­lets for cattle shipped from Central Texas during 1927 and the average for the five-year period are shown graphically in Figure 8. MOVEMENT TO OTHER TEXAS DISTRICTS Approximately 56 per cent of the cattle shipped to other Texas districts from this territory since 1923 were sent to Districts II and VI. The movement to West Central Texas during 1927 consisted of 41 per cent cows, 27 per cent steers, 26 per cent calves, and 6 per cent heifers. There were two heavy shipments of each of these classes, from January to March and from August to December. Approximately 47 per cent of the 1927 movements to South Texas from District III were steers, 41 per cent cows, and 12 per cent calves and heifers. Most of the steers were shipped to this grazing area from June to October. The heavy cow shipping months were January, March, June. July, August, and October. The months of May, July, anci October received credit for the majority of the calves and heifers. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 79 1%0 120 OTHE:R CATTL~SHIPMENTS POINTS f"ROM C~NTAAL.TE.Yo.AS 10!1 10!1 • TOTAL &HIPMENTS 19Z7 D AVERPtroGE. &HIPME.HTS 192.'3-un.7 90 7!1 60 4!1 30 IS FIGURE 8 The shipments to District I included cows, steers, and calves. The heavy shipping season was during October, November, and December. Most of the cattle shipped from Fort Worth to the Southeastern district originally came from either the Southern, Southeastern, or Eastern dis­tricts, because a large portion of District VII is infested with fever ticks which makes the bringing in of clean cattle a risky undertaking. MOVEMENT TO OTHER STATES The principal out-of-state markets which have been re­ceiving cattle from the Central district are Kansas City, East St. Louis, Oklahoma City, New Orleans, New York, University of Texas Bulletin Omaha, Wichita, Jersey City, South St. Joseph and Chicago. The chief grazing areas to which cattle from the Central district have been shipped are in Oklahoma and Kansas. Movement to the Kansas City Market.-Kansas City has received more cattle direct from District III than any other market. Approximately 21 per cent of the out-of­state shipments and 16 per cent of all the cattle shipped from the Central district since 1923 went direct to this market. The trend of the movement, likewise, has been downward, primarily because of the smaller volume of cattle and because of the heavier shipments to grazing areas before going to market. More than one-half of the cattle shipped direct to Kansas City from District III in 1927 were calves. The heavy shipping months were August and September, followed by November and December. About 46 per cent of the 1927 shipments were steers, the majority of which were billed to Kansas City during June, July, and August. Movement to "Other Points" Oklahoma.-The continued increase in shipments of cattle to grazing areas in Oklahoma during the last five years has made that state the largest outlet for cattle from the Central district. More than one­half of the movement during 1927 was cows which went into that section principally during the spring and fall months. The high months were March, October, Novem­ber, and December. Over 31 per cent of the 1927 movement were steers. They were shipped all during the year with peaks in May and August. The remaining shipments con­sisted of calves and a few heifers. The heavy shipping season for these was during October, November, and De­cember. Movement to "Other Points" Kansas.-The shipments of cattle from District III to Kansas grazing areas, like those to Oklahoma, have increased during this five-year period. There has been a difference, however, in the sea­sonal movement and the kind of cattle sent to Kansas. Steers comprised about 75 per cent of the 1927 shipments and most of them were sent out during April and May. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 81 The remaining one-fourth included cows and calves, the transfer of which was made all through the year. CATTLE SHIPMENTS TO CENTRAL TEXAS The location of the Fort Worth market in this area causes a heavy flow of cattle into the Central district. Many of them are slaughtered immediately, but a consid­erable number are sold as stockers or feeders and sent back to the country for further grazing or feeding or are shipped to some other market center. The summary of annual receipts and disposition of cattle at the Fort Worth stock­yards since 1920, which is presented in Table 31, shows not only the total number, but also the relative proportion of calves to all other classes of cattle received at Fort Worth. These figures show some interesting tendencies during the eight-year period. The receipts consisted of a large proportion of calves during 1921 and 1922 following the sharp break in cattle prices. Cattlemen were compelled to liquidate their holdings. Then as prices began to rise, a large number of heifer calves were held back. The ratio of calves to all cattle increased again in 1927 because of the high prices paid for them. The precentage of calves slaughtered at Fort Worth fol­lowed the same general trend. The proportion of young animals killed was heavier during the period of liquidation and was smaller when prices began to rise. The increasing demand for more tender cuts of beef, however, has swelled the proportion of calves slaughtered. The ratio of calves to all cattle in the stocker and feeder shipments from Fort Worth have been increasing since 1920. This increase is attributed to the improved quality of Texas calves, to the more active demand for feeder calves, and to the relatively small number of all cattle on farms and ranches. University of Texas Bulletin TABLE 31 RECEIPTS AND DISPOSITION OF CATTLE AT THE FORT WORTH MARKET* 1920 TO 1927 Stocker and Local Feeder ,---Receipts-, ,---Slaughter-, ,---Shipments-, All Per Cent All Per Cent All Per Cent Year Cattle Galves Cattle Calves Cattle Calves 1920________________ 1,135,000 22.8 558,000 45.1 278,000 7.2 192 l ________________ _ 985,000 42.0 576,000 54.4 172,000 13.9 1922______________ 1,072,000 30.3 620,000 52.3 225,000 9.5 1923______________ 1,250,000 25.0 795,000 46.1 169,000 -t .. 1924____________ 1,394,000 24.8 972,000 46.2 158,000 17 .5 1925_______________ 1,363,000 22.5 987,000 48.4 191,000 26.9 1926_______________ 1,210,000 20.9 761,000 39.9 222,000 21,2 1927____________ 1,291,000 25.6 841,000 45.4 259,000 22.3 8-Yr. Ave. 1920-1927 __ 1,212,500 26. 7 763,750 47.2 209,250 *Crops and Markets, United States Department of Agriculture. !Calves not shown separately. FIGURE 9 A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 83 SEASONAL VARIATION OF CATTLE RECEIPTS AT THE FORT WORTH MARKET Monthly receipts of cattle at the Fort Worth market reflect the seasonal characteristics of intrastate shipments because 96 per cent of the Fort Worth receipts originate in Texas and because every section of the State ships to this market. The average monthly receipts of all cattle from 1920 to 1927 inclusive are shown in Figure 9. Shipments during the seven months, from May to November, exceeded the average monthly movements. These seven months re­ceived 69 per cent of the total shipments. The average annual movement advances gradually from the low level in February to the high point in November, then falls off during December and January. The shipments during the spring and early summer represent primarily the receipts of cows and heifers from District II or West Central Texas University of Texas Bulletin and of steers, cows, and calves from South Texas. The heavy shipments during the remainder of the yeat include large shipments of cows, steers, heifers, and calves from all parts of Texas. While a large number of these grass fat cattle are slaughtered at Fort Worth, many of them are received at this livestock clearing house-the Fort Worth market-for .sale and re-shipment to other sections of Texas, to other markets, or to feeding areas in other states for further fattening. TABLE 32 NUMBER OF CATTLE SHIPPED TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 5-Yr. Ave. Origin 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 INTRASTATE SHIPMENTS: By Districts: I. Northwestern -····------25,458 25,810 30,858 25,955 36,222 28,861 Central__________ 314,378 II. West 350,767 270,071 249,954 288,036 294,641 III. Central• ____:___339,021 350,070 380,781 270, 710 343,246 336,769 IV. Eastern ---·--------· 63,519 98,520 99,651 107,071 80,831 89,918 v. Western ---·-------66,549 104,541 38,899 95,349 74,506 75,969 ________144,753 VI. Southern 175,102 172,002 230,369 206,894 185,824 VII. Southeastern -------46,598 49,902 90,160 57,356 79,500 64,703 Total Intrastate _________661,255 804,642 701,641 766,054 765,989 739,916 INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS : By States and Markets: Arizona ---------------38 180 107 228 111 Arkansas 103 523 697 4 40 273 Colorado: Denver -------·--20 4 Other Points -----------54 172 271 39 l28 133 Iowa 113 49 17 36 Kansas: --------··--­ Wichita --------------623 176 301 47 34 236 Other Points ---···-··-···---69 565 600 525 219 396 Louisiana: New 177 41 44 Orleans -··-··-··-----­ Point.s________ Other 1,713 4,570 3,666 7,414 30,071 9,487 Mississippi 69 128 37 34 54 Missouri: City ____________ Kansas 342 260 97 2,442 40 636 South St. Joseph···--··---207 66 49 29 70 Other Points --------------46 154 199 278 439 223 Nebraska: Orruiha 25 5 Other Points_.__________ 366 19 77 New Mexico --------------1,638 2,973 1,600 2,923 4,023 2,631 Oklahoma: City_________ Oklahoma 1,538 1,777 457 786 296 971 Other Points.-----···-·----21,095 18,255 23,271 12,579 16,706 18,881 Other States------·-----228 231 56 144 132 Total Interstate--------27,720 30,183 31,547 27,630 52,416 33,900 Total Interstate·-···-------··--27, 720 30,183 31,547 27 ,630 52,416 33,900 Total Intrastate ·-·--·------·······-·--661,255 804,642 701,641 766,054 765,989 739,916 Total Movement to the Central District 834,825 733,188 793,684 818,405 773,816 ________688,975 *The shipments within the Central District are not included in the total intrastate movement to the district. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 85 The influence which calf shipments exert upon the sea­sonal movement of all cattle received at Fort Worth is shown in Figure 10. The other classes are not kept sepa­rate by the Stockyards Company. More than 64 per cent of the calves were received at this market during the five­month period from July to November. The figures of the Fort Worth Stockyards Company, given in Table 31, do not show the points of origin of the receipts. This information is shown in Table 32. It sum­marizes the number of cattle received into the Central dis­trict since 1923 by district and state origins. This record shows that around 96 per cent of the receipts of District III originated in other Texas districts, while only 4 per cent 240 DZOO 4 "' :t ... 0 ~1eo! il :t ~ 1lO 80 40 WE.ST CENTRA.L TE.~A.S CATTLE: SHIPMENTS TO CENTR~'TEXAS • TOTAL SHIPMtNTs-t927 D AVERA.GE. St11PMPME.NTS "Z3-192.7 FIGURE 11 OTME.R 3ZO zso 240 200 1&0 IW BO 40 University of Texas Bulletin came from other states. Furthermore, it shows that cattle are received in large numbers from every one of the live­stock districts of the State. Moreover, most of the cattle shipped into this district and also practically all of the intra-district shipments go to Fort Worth. The :figures, however, include only railroad shipments. The remaining receipts at Fort Worth were either driven in on foot or brought in by trucks, a method of transportation which has expanded very rapidly during the last few years. The five principal regions shipping to the Central district, princi­pally to Fort Worth, are shown in Fig. 11. RECEIPTS FROM OTHER TEXAS. DISTRICTS Approximately 65 per cent of the cattle shipped in from the other Texas districts since 1923 have come from the West Central and Southern districts. Practically all of these cattle were sent to the Fort Worth market. The West Central district has consigned over 60 per cent of its shipments during the last five years to the Fort Worth district. Around 55 per cent of the 1927 movement were cows and they went to market principally from May to De­cember. The peak month was November. Calf shipments comprised 27 per cent of the total number, most of which were shipped during August, September, October, and No­vember. The movement of steers made up 15 per cent of the cattle shipped and they were transferred all during the year with October the high month. The other shipments were heifers. Most of them were received in District III during March, May, July, and August. The movement from South Texas to the Fort Worth mar­ ket increased from 1923 to 1926 but it fell off in 1927. The 1927 volume consisted of 47 per cent calves, 36 per cent steers, and 17 per cent cows and heifers. The calves were shipped all during the year, but the heaviest months were May, October, and November. Most of the steers were sent to Fort Worth during April, May, November, and December. The cows also were brought to market all A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 87 during the year with the heavy shipments during May and from September to December. The receipts from the Eastern district were heaviest during the winter months. Approximately 64 per cent of the 1927 receipts were cows, 18 per cent steers, and 18 per cent calves and heifers. The heavy cow shipping season was during the winter. Most of the steers went to market during the winter and summer months. The calves were shipped principally from July to· January. The receipts from the Western district represent only a small portion of the total shipments from that area because of the large volume of business done with northern and western markets and with stocker and feeder buyers. Of the number that were shipped to the Central district during 1927, 53 per cent were cows, 24 per cent calves, 18 per cent steers, and 5 per cent heifers. The majority of these cows were shipped during the last months of the year. This movement represents principally the disposing of old and inferior grade cows after the calves had been sold. Most of the calves were received at Fort Worth from August to January with November as the peak month. These ship­ments consisted of the early calves and others not sold to stocker and feeder buyers or shipped to other markets. The heavy shipping months for steers were March, May, August, November, and December. A part of the steers shipped during the spring were placed on the grazing areas west and southwest of Fort Worth. The Fort Worth market is practically the only market outlet for a large part of the Southeastern district because of the presence of fever ticks. Since the Crisp Bill, which forbids the interstate movement of cattle from a tick in­ fested area until the cattle are cleaned and inspected, went into effect, shippers in the quarantine section are forced to send practically all their cattle to the Fort Worth market where they are handled separately in quarantine pens. The areas now under quarantine are shown in Figure 12. A large portion of Districts IV and VI likewise are affected. University of Texas Bulletin Most of the cattle from the Southeastern district are received at Fort Worth during the last half of the year. Approximately 56 per cent of the shipments during 1927 were calves, 31 per cent cows and heifers, and 13 per cent steers. The big calf shipping season extended from April to December with the peak month in August. The move­ment of cows extended from March to December, with the high month in November. Most of the steers were shipped during March, April, June, and November. The shipments of cattle from District I to the Fort Worth district have been increasing during this period. The movement during 1927 consisted of 58 per cent cows, 20 per cent steers, 22 per cent calves and heifers. The ship­ments of cows made from January to March and from July to December represent largely the marketing of old· and inferior grade of cows. Most of the better grades of cattle go to northern outlets. The seasonal movement of calves and heifers to Fort Worth was very similar to that of cows. There were definite spring and fall movements for steers. The high months for each of these seasons were May and October. RECEIPTS FROM OTHER STATES Even though Fort Worth is primarily a market for Texas cattle, an annual average of 33,899 head has been received from other states during the last five years. Approxi­mately 90 per cent of this number originated in one of the border states; either Oklahoma, Louisiana or New Mexico. Receipts from "Other Points" Oklahoma.-The annual movement from "Other Points" Oklahoma to this district has averaged 18,381 head since 1923. Most of these cattle were consigned to the Fort Worth market. About 81 per cent of the shipments last year were cows, and they came into this district during the first three and the last four months of the year. The other 19 per cent of the movement were divided equally between steers and calves. The ship­ments of both of these classes also were divided between the spring and fall months. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 89 Receipts from "Other Points" Louisiana.-The effect of the Mississippi River flood during 1927 is reflected upon the movement of cattle from Louisiana into this district. The shipments during 1927 were more than four times as large as those in any of the previous four years. The heavy movement during 1927 consisted of 43 per cent calves, 38 per cent steers, and 19 per cent cows. The ship­ments of all three of these classes were heavy from June to the end of the year. December was the peak month for both steers and calves, while the big cow shipping month was November. Receipts from New Mexico.-Shipments from New Mexico to District III during 1927 consisted of all classes of cattle. Steers comprised 40 per cent of the total number and were received during the first five months of the year. Cows made up 35 per cent of the shipments and they were loaded during the first half of the year. Approximately 25 per cent of the cattle were calves, most of·which were shipped during the spring. NET MOVEMENT OF CATTLE FROM CENTRAL TEXAS The Central district is the only one of the seven livestock districts that has shipped in more cattle than have been shipped out. This difference is accounted for by the large number of cattle that are shipped in from other sections and slaughtered at the Fort Worth market. When the number slaughtered is deducted, this district also shows a surplus production. The net outflow has averaged 308,824 head annually since 1923. These movements are shown by years in Table 33. The greatest net disappearance occurred in 1925 when the outgoing shipments exceeded the receipts more than one-half million head. This heavy diminution occurred during 1925 when cattle were forced on the market, because of the abnormally dry conditions throughout the district. This unusual condition is indicated by the fact that the University of Texas Bulletin number of cattle slaughtered at Fort Worth was greater in 1925 than in any ot}J.er year since 1917. This heavy liquida­tion also affected the shipments during 1926 because there were fewer cattle to be marketed-poth mature cattle and calves. TABLE 33 NET MOVEMENT OF CATTLE FROM THE CEKTRAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 5-Yr. Ave. 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 Total Movement of Cat- tie from the District 270,93 273,222 274,049 l 9,604 226,3 1 246,839 Total Cattle Siaughtered at Fort Worth ---· 795,000 792,000 9 7,000 761,000 841,000 835,200 Tctal Disappearance __l,065,93 Total Mo,·ement of Cat­ 1,065.222 1,261,049 950,604 1,067 ,3 1 1,082,039 tie to the District_ 68 ,9•5 34, 25 733,l 793,6 4 818,405 773,815 Net Disappearance_ 376,963 230,397 527,861 156,920 248,976 30 ,224 A comparison of the annual net outflow with the number of cattle retained on farms and ranches is difficult to make in this district because the numbers have varied consider­ably during the last five years on account of the severe drought which occurred in 1925. The numbers shown in Table 34 are estimates based upon the county distribution of all cattle in Texas according to the Assessors' Annual Report. The district weights were applied to the State estimates of the United States Department of Agriculture TABLE 34 COMPARISON OF THE TOTAL NlTMBER WITH THE NET OUTFLOW OF CATTLE FROM THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 umber of Cattle Net Outflow of Per Cent in the Central Gattie from the of the Year District at Central Total End of the Year* District Number 1923 ------------1,113,000 376,963 33.9 1924 ---------------1,067,000 230,397 21.6 1925 826,000 527,861 63.9 1926 993,000 156,920 15.8 1927 ------------953,000 248,976 26.1 5-Yr. Ave. 1923-1927__ 990,400 308, 24 31.2 *Estimates based upon the county distribution of all cattle as reported by the County Assessors to the Comptroller of Public Account of Texas. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 91 in obtaining the district figures. The effect of the dry condi­tion is shown by the shipment of 63.9 per cent of the entire cattle population to market during 1925. This district probably was affected more than any other section of the State. The small percentage of shipments during 1926 shows the scarcity of cattle and the smallness of the calf crop. District IV-Eastern Texas GENERAL TYPE AND CHARACTER OF AGRICULTURE The Eastern district is primarily a lumbering and a field, truck, and fruit farming section. Beef cattle production is conducted chiefly as a joint enterprise with farming or as a by-product of the dairy industry. Cotton is the principal cash crop. Approximately 2,978,000 acres, or 18 per cent of the total cotton a·creage picked in 1924 were in the Eastern district.6 Figures also show that 28 per cent of all the corn produced in Texas was grown in this territory. Peaches, tomatoes, potatoes, and other fruit and truck crops also contribute to the farm income of Eastern Texas. The Census shows that the Eastern district had 611,044 head of cattle.1 Nearly one-third of these animals were classed as dairy cattle. The dairy industry has been ex­panding very rapidly in this territory during the last few years. Encouragement has been based upon the facts that District IV has relatively cheap land values, that ample quantities of feeds can be produced locally, and that several large markets for dairy products are accessible. Beef cattle production, however, is not very important in this part of Texas. The limited areas of suitable grazing lands, the prevalence of the fever ticks, and the competition from farming operations have restricted the production of sunited States Census of Agriculture, 1925. 7Ibid. University of Texas Bulletin beef cattle. The eradication of the fever ticks, especially, has been a difficult problem because the inaccessibility of many of the wooded sections makes it difficult to find every animal on the regular dipping dates. F"E.VER TICK INf"E.STEO AREAS Of' TE.XAS "+OTC. f'OA NAl'l\C.~ 6< ~VMk.RS 0,.. T'"IC K"t.N 1..1\/'~TCC.K 01$,-RIC.TS CV'Tl..1~s;.O, SC.~ P"IGUAE. 1'10 I Ill OUQAAH'TIMt'..C QR'C.A· c.Ol' ~ 60\JTH­ f-150 C.A.STERN w OTHER 10 PotNTS WEST CENTRAL TC.XAS FIGURE 13 70 60 40 20 10 Approximately 64 per cent of the 1927 movement to Fort Worth consisted of cows. The shipments were fairly heavy A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 95 during each month of the year, but the largest volume came to market during the winter months. Steer shipments com­prised 18 per cent of the total number and the majority of them were made during the winter and summer months. The other 18 per cent consisted of calves and heifers. Most of them were shipped from July to January. The second important outlet has been the Southeastern district. The movement has averaged 20,346 head annually during the last five years. Over 70 per cent of the ship­ments during 1927 were stocker cows destined for grazing areas in District VII. The heavy shipping seasons were during the fall, winter, and spring months. About 14 per cent of the shipments were calves. They were transferred also during the fall, winter, and spring months. A large portion of these calves were billed to packing houses in Houston, Galveston, Beaumont, Port Arthur and local .slaughtering establishments. The movement of stocker steers comprised the remaining shipments; they were heaviest during the spring months and from September to December. The Southern district received the major portion of the remaining shipments from District IV. They consisted largely of cows going to better grazing sections. A part of the movement was steers shipped during the fall and winter months. .MOVEMENT TO OTHER STATES Since only aboout 9 per cent of the district's forwardings go out of the State, there are relatively few significant out­lets. The most important market for this section outside <>f Fort Worth has been East St. Louis. Several hundred head also have been sent to Kansas City each year. The movement to grazing areas in Oklahoma has been heavier than to any other state. Kansas and Iowa buyers also have been securing several hundred head of stocker cattle from this district annually. University of Texas Bulletin CATTLE SHIPMENTS TO EASTERN TEXAS The movement of cattle into this district has been very light since 1923 as compared with the outgoing shipments. The annual receipts have averaged only 8,746 head during the last five years. Approximately 72 per cent of this number came from the other livestock districts of Texas, while other states contributed the remaining 28 per cent of the shipments. The points of origin of all cattle received into this district since 1923 are shown in Table 36. TABLE 36 NUMBER OF CATTLE SHIPPED TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 5-Yr. Ave. Origin 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 INTRASTATE SHIPMENTS: By Districts : I. Northwestern ----------48 543 645 562 360 II. West Central --------------461 172 2,170 666 547 803 III. Central --------------------3,887 6,409 8,346 2,505 635 4,356 IV. Eastern• --------­1,579 2,480 4,819 15,294 15,153 7,865 V. Western --------28 236 267 311 168 VI. Southern -----------------151 205 522 53 38 194 VII. Southeastern ---------105 26 348 388 1,072 388 Total Intrastate ------------·---4,680 7,591 12,298 3,612 3,165 6,269 INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS: By States and Markets: Arkansas ---·--------75 101 45 679 180 Louisiana: New Orleans ___________ 97 19 Other Points --------------------549 630 246 3,178 6,073 2,135 Oklahoma: Oklahoma City ------------_ Other Poin•s____________ 68 32 455 111 Other States_._______ 121 39 82 Total Interstate..___________ 721 920 291 3,249 7,207 2,477 Total Interstate___________________ 721 920 291 3,249 7,207 2,477 Total Intrastate__________ 4,680 7,591 12,298 3,612 3,165 6,269 Total Movement to the Eastern District _______ ___________ 5,401 8,511 12,589 6,861 10,372 8,746 *The shipments within the Eastern District are not included in the total intrastate movement to the district. RECEIPTS FROM OTHER TEXAS DISTRICTS The majority of cattle that have been shipped into East­ern Texas since 1923 came from District III which includes the Fort Worth market. The movement reached a peak in 1925 when cattle were forced out of other sections because of the drought and grass shortage during that year. Since A Mq,rket Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 97 that time, however, receipts from the Fort Worth market have been declining. The largest contributing district during 1927 was South­eastern Texas. This movement represented the transfer of stocker cows and steers to grazing areas in District IV. The West Central district shipped over two thousand head to this section during the dry year of 1925. RECEIPTS FROM OTHER STATES Practically 90 per cent of the cattle received from other states during the last five years have come from Louisiana. The receipts from that state were heavy, especially during 1927 because of the Mississippi River flood which forced the movement of livestock to other sections. Small ship­ments came in from Arkansas and Oklahoma also, especially during 1927. NET MOVEMENT OF CATTLE FROM EASTERN TEXAS A measure of the surplus producing capacity of this area is obtained from the net movement of the shipments. The annual net outflow since 1923 is shown in Table 37. TABLE 37 NET MOVEME T OF CATTLE FROM THE EASTER DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 5-Yr. Ave. 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 Total Movement of Cattle from the District___l09,469 153,120 138,131 157,676 123,257 136,331 Total Movement of Cattle to the District__ 5,401 8,511 12,589 6,861 10,372 8,746 Net Outflow 104,068 144,609 125,542 150,815 112,885 127,585 The heavy outflow of cattle as compared with the light inflow into the district indicates that most of the surplus is raised in this territory unless the outgoing shipments represent a depletion of the breeding herds. It is necessary, therefore, to compare the annual net movement with the University of Texas Bulletin estimated number of cattle retained on farms and ranches during this period. The annual net outflow since 1923 has averaged 22 per cent of the cattle population. The heaviest liquidation occurred in 1926 when the net outflow amounted to 28.7 per cent of the total number of cattle in the district. This area was not affected as much by the drought in 1925 as were some of the other districts, and buyers secured a larger proportion of their cattle from this section. The figures for each of the years during this period are pre­sented in Table 38. TABLE 38 COMPARISON OF THE TOTAL NUMBER WITH THE NET OUTFLOW OF CATTLE FROM THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 Number of Cattle Net Outflow of Per Cent in the Eastern Cattle from the of the Year District at Eastern Total End of the Year* District Number 1923 --------­ 655,000 104,068 15.9 1924 ---------­ 627,000 144,609 23.1 1925 ---------­ 590,000 125,542 21.3 1926 -----------­ 526,000 150,815 28.7 1927 -----------­ 504,000 112,885 22.4 5-Yr. Ave. 1923-1927­ 580,400 127,585 22.0 *Estimates based upon the county distribution of all cattle as reported by the County Assessors to the Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas. District V-Western Texas GENERAL TYPE AND CHARACTER OF AGRICULTURE The Western district includes the Trans-Pecos Region and several counties located east of this area which conduct a similar livestock program. Only a small amount of gen­eral farming is carried on in this district. Cotton, alfalfa, and grain sorghums are the principal crops grown, accord­ing to the last agricultural Census.8 Approximately 284,000 acres of cotton and 63,000 acres of grain sorghums were sunited States Census of Agriculture, 1925. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 99 harvested in 1924. Most of the cotton and alfalfa was grown in the irrigated area near El Paso, while the grain sorghums were produced principally in the northeastern corner of the district. TABLE 39 NUMBER OF CATTLE SHIPPED FROM THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 5-Yr. Ave. Destination 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 INTRASTATE SHIPMENTS: By Districts : I. Northwestern __ --· ---------25,713 21,635 34,021 29,550 46,545 31,493 II. West Central___________ 5,218 5,622 7,695 16.635 26,770 12,3 8 III. Central -----·------66,549 104,541 38,899 95,349 74,506 75,969 IV. Eastern ___ --------28 236 267 311 168 V. Western• ·-------49,455 46.644 43,649 40,059 46,056 45,173 VI. Southern ----------5, 752 17,305 7,703 5,561 18,271 10,919 VII. Southeastern ---------------1,092 464 540 67 23 437 Total lntrastate_____________l04,352 149,803 89,125 147,162 166,426 131,374 INTEllSTATEJ SHIPMENTS:i:iy S_tates and-:Markets: Arizona ----------------582 658 1,039 2,175 2,495 1,390 California: Los Angeles -----------21,877 17,793 13,374 16,271 8,334 15.530 Other Points____________________ 9,866 11,388 18,281 16,670 11,337 13.508 Colorado: Denver ---------------668 346 889 1, 731 727 Other Points_____________ 918 2,687 4,776 8,210 3,318 Illinois: Chicago ---------------275 55 East St. Louis ----------894 1,913 791 2,795 1,677 1,614 Other Points__________ 11,692 7,290 4,303 5,673 9,282 7,648 Indiana _______ ----·--2,654 l ,065 1,707 899 1,978 1,660 Iowa _____ ----------------12,148 8,166 6,130 8,213 11,427 9,217 Kansas: 27,734 15,576 11.007 28,784 19,351 Other Points·--·----------·-----·-------10,355 31,631 27,653 15,999 33,575 23,842 Wichita --·------·---·--------13,655 Louisiana; New Orleans _____ -------3,852 2,888 185 119 1,409 Other Points______________ 263 64 757 217 Missouri: Kansas City_______ --------52,125 56,008 8,169 10,294 9,472 27,214 South St. Joseph___________ 9,924 7,045 1,617 2,052 945 4,317 Other Points----------3,393 1,430 618 2,677 3,472 2,318 Nebraska: Omaha --------------------·----1,599 558-23 436 Other Points·---------··----·-·--·-·-9,868 3,871 14,565 9,848 10,003 9,631 New Mexico _-----------·--______ 5,340 6,036 3,346 6,000 12,131 6,571 Ohio ----------·--------552 659 2,895 3,633 1,548 Oklahoma: Oklahoma City -----------54 165 64 177 77 107 Other Points___ ______ 10,381 16,021 38,769 13,198 25,959 20,866 South Dakota ______ .. -------141 1.117 1,000 2,854 1,022 Other States----·----·------·-·--1,552 72 l,267 139 1,946 995 Total Interstate _____________18-1,353 202,142 162,674 133,670 189,716 174,511 Total Interstate ·--__________184,353 202,142 162,674 133,670 189,716 174,511 Total Intrastate_______ _ ____104,352 149,803 89,125 147,162 166,426 131,374 Total Movement from the West­ ern District __ _ _ ______288,705 351,945 251, 799 280,832 356,142 305,885 •The shipments within the Western District are not included in the total intrastate movement from the district. University of Texas Bulletin Without the encroachment of any considerable crop acre­age, this district continues to be the outstanding specialized cattle producing territory of the State. Ranching still is conducted on a large scale. This area includes the Highland Hereford section which is well known to cattle feeders and buyers in other states. The producers in this section are the pioneers in building up the quality of their herds, and their efforts have been very successful. The average quality of all cattle probably is higher in this district than that in any other section of the State. The stockmen have been not only good producers, but also excellent merchandisers ; they developed a high quality product and then made direct con­tacts with feeder buyers who were desirous of obtaining 160 CATTLE. SHIPMENTS F'ROM OTHE:A POINTS 160 140 120 10() 80 60 AO zo A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 101 the best type of feeder stock. The result is that the demand for Highland calves and steers is good. They can be found in feed lots all over the Corn Belt and adjoining states and even in Oolorado and California. Many loads of these cattle, when finished, have brought top prices on the open markets and have won prizes at several of the large live­stock expositions. CATTLE SHIPMENTS FROM WESTERN TEXAS A summary of the cattle movement from the Western district since 1923 is presented in Table 39. This record shows that 131,374 head, or 43 per cent of the total ship­ments during this period went to other districts of Texas while 57 per cent were sent to other states. The five largest outlets are shown graphically in Figure 14. MOVEMENT TO OTHER TEXAS DISTRICTS The annual intrastate movements from District V since 1923 have averaged 130,245 head. Approximately 58 per cent of these cattle went to District III which includes the Fort Worth market. Most of them were consigned to this market; others were placed in pastures west and southwest of Fort Worth where they were fed cottonseed cake or corn on grass. The heavy shipping season during 1927 was from August to January. Over one-half of the cattle sent to the Central district was cows, the majority of which was shipped from August to January. The calf shipments com­prised 24 per cent of the total number and the heavy move­ment was from August to January. Approximately 18 per cent of the cattle were steers. The major portion of them were sent to District Ill during March, May, August, No­vember, and December. The remaining shipments were classed as heifers. The heavy shipping season extended from July to January. The movement to the Northwestern district also has been heavy. About 24 per cent of the intrastate shipments during the five-year period went to this area for further University of Texas Bulletin grazing before going on the market. The movement during 1927 consisted of 50 per cent steers, 32 per cent cows and heifers, and 18 per cent calves. May was the heavy steer shipping month. The other classes were transferred during February, March, June, July, September, October, November, and December. Most of the cows and heifers were shipped from September to December with the peak in November. Calf shipments were heaviest in February, October, November, and December. The West Central district, likewise, has taken a large number of cattle from District V. The movement during the last two years especially has been heavy. These shi~ ments represent the transfer of stocker cattle to grazing areas and to breeding herds. Approximately 45 per cent of the movements during 1927 were cows, the bulk of which were shipped in June and from August to November. About 27 per cent of the movement were calves and most of them moved from September to January. The others were shipped during the spring. Steers comprised 25 per cent of the total number transferred during 1927, the major portion of the shipments being made during May, Septem­ber, October, and November. The Southern district has been receiving increased num­bers from District V since 1923. Fifty per cent of the heavy movements during 1927 were cows, 26 per cent steers, 18 per cent calves, and 6 per cent heifers. The bulk of all these classes was transferred during the last six months. August was the peak shipping month for cows, October for steers, and August and November for calves. MOVEMENT TO OTHER STATES This district sends cattle direct both to market and to grazing and feeding areas. The principal markets are Kansas City, Wichita, and Los Angeles. The important grazing and feeding areas are in Kansas, Oklahoma, Cali­ fornia, Nebraska, Iowa, New Mexico, and Illinois. Movement to the Kansas City Market.-The movement of cattle from this district direct to Kansas City since 1923 has A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 103 been greater than to any other out-of-state market. At the same time, however, the trend of the movement has declined sharply. The shipments decreased from 52,125 head in 1923 to 9,472 head in 1927. This heavy decrease was offset principally by increases to grazing and feeding areas in the different sections of the country. The shipments during 1927 were divided about equally between steers, cows, and calves. The heavy shipping months for steers were May, October, and November; for cows, October and November; and for calves, November and December. Movement to the Wichita Market.-During the last three years, a larger number of cattle has been billed direct to the Wichita market from this district than to Kansas City. The movement has increased from 13,655 head in 1923 to 28,784 head in 1927. This upward tendency is contrary to the downward trend that has characterized the direct move­ment to most of the market centers during the five-year period. A good demand for the type of cattle shipped from the Western district coupled with better transportation service on the Orient Railroad which connects this territory with the Wichita market accounts for this increased volume. The shipments of steers comprised 43 per cent of the 1927 movements, the greater portion of which was sent to Wichita in April, November, and December. About 33 per cent of the total number were calves which were shipped in April, May, November, and December. Approximately 21 per cent of the movement were cows. The majority of them were billed to this market during May, November, and December. Heifers comprised the other 3 per cent and they were shipped during the last three months of the year. Movement to the Los Angeles Market.-The third largest market outside of Texas for the Western district since 1923 has been Los Angeles. Nevertheless, the trend of the move­ment to this market has been definitely downward. The number has decreased from 21,877 head in 1923 to only 8,334 head in 1927. The cost of transportation and compe­tition from other sections have brought about this decrease. University of Texas Bulletin Approximately 50 per cent of the shipments during 1927 were calves, the majority of which were forwarded in Jan­uary. Cows made up 40 per cent of the total number. Most of those going to this Pacific Coast market during November and the first three months of the year were old cows destined for the alfalfa fields in California. The re­maining 10 per cent were steers and were shipped princi­pally in March. Movement to "Other Points" Ka.nsas.-The shipments of cattle from this district to grazing and feeding areas in Kansas have increased from 10,355 head in 1923 to 33,664 head in 1927. The number shipped to Kansas during 1927 exceeded that sent to any other state from this section. Over one-half of the number sent to these sections in 1927 was steers. Most of them were billed in April, May, and November. The bulk of the calf movement, which comprised 35 per cent of the total number, was shipped during November and December. Cow shipments made up 8 per cent; they were placed on Kansas grass in May, while the others were shipped with the calves in the late fall months. Movement to "Other Points" Oklahoma.-The shipments to grazing areas in Oklahoma from District V have aver­aged 20,886 head annually since 1923. This movement, like that to Kansas, increased during this period from 10,381 head to 25,959 head. The characteristic difference between the Oklahoma and Kansas movements is that the former was steers and cows while the latter was steers and calves. Steer shipments to Oklahoma in 1927 comprised 43 per cent of the total and were made during April, May, June, July, October, and November. Approximately 40 per cent were cows, most of which were transferred during April, July, and December. About 17 per cent were calves and heifers. The major portion of them was shipped during April, May, November, and December. Movement to "Other Points" California.-California buyers have furnished an important market outlet for cattle in the Western district. An annual average of 13,508 head A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 105 of cattle has been sent direct to "Other Points" California since 1923. Approximately 55 per cent of the shipments during 1927 were steers, 43 per cent cows, and 2 per cent calves. Practically all the steers were billed during Octo­ber and November, while the movement of cows extended from October to December after the calves had been sold. Most of these cow shipments represent aged and inferior breeding stock being taken to California for winter grazing on alfalfa pastures. Movement to "Other Points" Nebraska.~The Western district has billed an average of 9,631 head of cattle an­nually since 1923 direct to grazing areas in Nebraska. During 1927, steers comprised 70 per cent of the total move­ment and practically all of them were shipped in May. The other 30 per cent represented calves and they also were received in Nebraska in May. Movement to Iowa.-The direct forwardings of cattle from District V to Iowa feeders have averaged 9,217 head annually during the last five years. Approximately 59 per cent of the 1927 movement were calves, the major portion of which was shipped in April, October, and November. Steer shipments represented 31 per cent of the total number and the majority were received in Iowa in May, June, Octo­ber, and November. The transfer of cows and heifers accounted for the remaining 10 per cent. Most of the cows were shipped in July and October, while the heifers were loaded out in June. Movement to New Mexico.-The shipments to New Mexico from the Western district have averaged 6,571 head annually since 1923. The number increased from 5,340 head in 1923 to 12,131 head in 1927. Approximately 60 per cent of the large volume duriilg 1927 were cows, 31 per cent calves, and 9 per cent steers. The heavy shipping months for cows were September, November, and Decem­ber; for calves, April, May, September, and November; and for steers, February and August. Movement to "Other Points" Illinois.-The shipments to Illinois points were primarily feeder cattle. The movement University of Texas Bulletin has averaged 7,648 head annually since 1923. Approxi­mately 62 per cent of the 9,282 head shipped during 1927 were calves. The majority of them were billed in Novem­ber and December. A small movement occurred also in April and May. One-third of the total cattle shipped were steers, most of which were received in Illinois in May, June, November, and December. The other few shipments were cows and heifers which were made during June, July, and November. CATTLE SHIPMENTS TO WESTERN TEXAS The movement of cattle into the Western district from other sections has been small as compared with the outgoing shipments. An annual average of 44,202 head has been shipped into this territory since 1923. The heaviest re­ceipts occurred in 1925 when the drought made range condi­tions in other sections of Texas and New Mexico worse than in District V. About 42 per cent of these cattle came from the other six livestock districts of Texas, while 58 per cent originated in other states. The annual movement since 1923 is given in Table 40. RECEIPTS FROM OTHER TEXAS DISTRICTS Over one-third of the receipts from other Texas districts. came from the adjoining territory, District II. Practically all of the 1927 movement from that section were cows and steers which were shipped to the Western district during October, November, and December for grazing and breed­ing purposes. The movement from Southern Texas to the Western dis­trict, like that from District II, consisted of steers and cows, most of which were shipped during August, September, and October. The shipments, especially during 1925, were heavy because of the dry range conditions in South Texas. The Northwestern section also has been sending more than three thousand head of cattle annually to District V. The movement during 1927 was largely cows and calves sent to the grazing areas of Western Texas. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 107 TABLE 40 NUMBER OF CATTLE SHIPPED TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 5-Yr. Ave. Origin 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 INTRASTATE SHIPMENTS: By Districts: L Northwestern TI. W<•st Central III. Central IV. }}astern V. Western• VI. Southern VII. Southeastern 4,130 2,597 1,615 459 ---­49,455 --­-3,513 111 1,615 5,838 1,950 222 46,644 3,591 166 5,767 8,621 11,726 45 43,649 9,678 2,919 2.333 8,li3 2,569 154 40,059 1,637 2,359 7,244 1,765 64 46,056 2,592 3,241 6,495 3,925 189 45,172 4,202 639 Total Intrastate ----­12,425 13,382 38,756 14,866 14,024 18,691 INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS: By States and Markets: Arizona California: 6, 710 3,397 6,652 7,604 13,513 7,575 Los Angeles Other Points Colorado: 777 171 8 528 112 618 173 286 Denver Other Points Iowa Kansas: 125 73 44 30 161 30 79 49 69 94 109 74 51 48 W~h~a 73 169 375 17 448 216 Other Points 310 889 201 256 332 New Mexico _____ _ Oklahoma: _ ---­ 4,680 11,583 23,600 24,008 16,755 16,125 Oklahoma City 2 Other Points Other States 62 474 3 235 881 642 40 207 125 486 222 40~ Total Interstate --· ---­---­13,074 15,844 33,846 32,3 6 32,404 25,511 Total Interstate --13,074 15,844 33,8-16 32,386 32,404 25,511 Total Intrastate _ ­12,425 13,382 38,756 14,866 14,024 18,691 Total Movement to the Western District __ • _ 25,499 29,226 72,602 47,252 46,428 44,202 *The shipments within the Western District are not included in the total intrastate movement to the district. Most of the movement from District III originated at the Fort Worth market. The records for 1927 show ship­ments of stocker cows, steers, ana calves, the bulk of which were received in the Western district during the fall months to replace cattle previously sent to market, grass, or feed lots. MOVEMENT FROM OTHER STATES New Mexico has been the source of 37 per cent of all the cattle received in District V since 1923. This state supplied 64 per cent and Arizona 30 per cent of the number received from points outside of Texas. Approximately 64 per cent of the receipts from New Mexico during 1927 were University of Texas Bulletin 108 cows and 31 per cent were calves. Most of the cows were shipped in January and June and from August to December. The calves were received in January, October, November, and December. The movement from Arizona to the West­ern district during 1927 differed from the New Mexico shipments in that very few calves were included in the receipts from Arizona. Instead, steers were shipped; they comprised 30 per cent of the total number received from Arizona. Practically all of them were shipped in May. The heavy cow movements were made in January, May, June, October, and November. NET MOVEMENT OF CATTLE FROM WESTERN TEXAS The movement of cattle from the Western district has. exceeded the incoming shipments by an average of 261,554 head annually during the last five years. The annual figures since 1923 are summarized in Table 41. TABLE 41 NET MOVEMENT OF CATTLE FROM THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 1923 TO 1927 5-Yr. Ave .. 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 Total Movement of Cattle from the DistricL_.288,705 351,945 251,799 276,529 354,802 304,756' Total Movement of Cattle to the District____ 25,499 29,226 72,602 47,252 46,428 44,202 Net Outfl@w .. 263,206 322,719 179,197 229,277 308,374 260,554 The large net movement from this district would indi­cate the importance of Western Texas as a cattle producing­area, if the bulk of the net outflow represented the annual increase of cattle production. But since the number of cattle retained in this district has decreased during this period, it is necessary to compare the annual net movement, exclusive of local and farm slaughterings and death losses, with the estimated number of cattle on farms and ranches. when measuring the surplus producing capacity of the­ A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 109 district. This comparison is made for each of the last five years in T'able 42. The percentage of the total number of cattle disposed of is higher in this district than any of the others. This heavy turnover is attributed, in part, to the relatively high percentage of the calf crop, to the early marketing of the cattle, and to the small death losses. Dis­position was heavy especially during 1927 because of the favorable prices paid for cattle. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ TABLE 42 COMPARISON OF THE TOTAL NUMBER WITH THE NET OUTFLOW OF CATTLE FROM THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 Number of Cattle Net Outflow of Per Cent in the Western Cattle from the of the Year District at Western Total End of the Year* District Number 1923 -------------------------­ 589,000 263,206 44.7 1924 ------­------­-------­ 564,000 322,719 57.2 1925 ---------------­-----­----­ 531,000 179,197 33.7 1926 --------------------------­ 525,000 229,277 43.7 1927 -----­---------------­ 505,000 308,374 61.1 5-Yr. Ave. 1923-1927__ 542,800 260,554 48.1 *Estimates based upon the county distribution of all cattle as reported by the County Assessors to the Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas. District VI-Southern Texas GENERAL TYPE AND CHARACTER OF AGRICULTURE The Southern district is a widely diversified agricultural area. It is not only an extensive cattle raising section but also a big producer of several important crops. The terri­tory included in District VI is shown in Figure I. Cotton is the principal crop grown in this district. The most recent Census shows that Southern Texas harvested 2,072,000 acres, or 12 per cent of the cotton acreage of the State.9 During the same year 14 per cent of the corn acre­age and 6 per cent of the grain sorghums were grown there. uunited States Census of Agriculture, 1925. University of Texas Bulletin The Lower Rio Grande Valley, the southern portion of this district, has developed into one of the important citrus fruit producing areas of the country. A large acreage of truck crops also is planted in the territory. An irrigated section in the western part of the district, known as the Winter Gardens, is a heavy producer of various truck crops, includ­ing spinach, onions, and cabbage. The most recent estimates of the number of cattle on farms and ranches show that the Southern district ranks second with 1,065,000 head, or 19 per cent of the total num­ber of cattle in the State. District VI is primarily a cattle grazing section and, in addition, the counties along the coast are important as breeding areas. This district generally has made slower progress in building up the quality of :the breeding herds than the western part of the State. On the other hand, some of the largest and most noted cattle breeders of Texas are located in this section. The results of their efforts have begun to spread not only over the South-­ern district but also over many other parts of the country. The announcement of the purchase of a herd of high grade range cattle and registered bulls by cattlemen in this section is not infrequent. Although District VI probably will continue to be largely a grazing and breeding territory, some of the ranchmen in certain localities have begun to feed on a commercial scale. Over 30,000 head of lambs were fed in the northwestern corner of this district during 1927. The principal feeds used were cane, hegari, milo, and corn, and most all of these crops were produced locally. The feeders were very suc­cessful with their relatively new undertaking. A serious problem which has confronted the cattlemen of this district has been the matter of tick eradication. At the present time, over one-half of this district is under quarantine.10 This restriction prevents the shipment of livestock to clean areas without first complying with the regulations of the Livestock Sanitary Commission for intra­state movements and of the Bureau of Animal Industry for 1o s ee Figure 12. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 111 interstate shipments. The progress of this work has been retarded because many of the holdings are so large that it has been difficult to carry out eradication methods. One observer stated that the pasture rotation method with oc­casional dipping would greatly facilitate the cleaning up the ticks in this territory. Then, also, the border counties along the Rio Grande have had to combat the infestation of ticks from Mexico where no systematic eradication work has been conducted. TABLE 43 NUMBER OF CATTLE SHIPPED FROM THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 5-Yr. Ave. Destination 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 INTRASTATE SHIPMENTS: By Districts: I. Northwestern ----·--·---1,286 1,485 2,952 121 1,169 II. West Central·----·--__ 2,829 1,441 18,079 3,965 9,298 7,122 III. Central --------------144,753 175,102 172,002 230,369 206,894 185,824 IV. Eastern -------------151 205 522 53 38 194 V. Western ---------3,513 3,591 9,678 1,637 2,592 4,202 VI. Southern* --------93,857 96,217 101,348 111,639 129,364 106,485 VII. Southeastern -----15,922 23,2 5 17,022 22,046 17,586 19,172 Total Intrastate__,_________167,168 204,910 218,788 261,022 236,529 217,683 lNTERSTATEl SHIPMENTS: By States and Markets: rizona ----------30 15 31 310 77 California: Los Angeles___________ 256 2,055 128 30 709 636 Other Points____ 1,075 600 335 Colorado: Denver -------------­ 62 12 Other Points_________ 1,295 666 392 Illinois: Chicago -----·--------­East St. Louis -------------23,064 34.796 6,068 24,108 14,124 20,432 Other Points--------·-92 1,591 26 59 354 Kansas : 377 3,381 210 794 Wichita ---------­ Other Points ---------8,397 3,109 24,043 17,690 25,375 15,723 Louisiana: New Orleans_ __ 14,618 28,936 23,213 30,837 26,046 24,730 9,165 8,567 2,148 569 4,836 Other Points-----------3,731 Missouri: Kansas CitY----'------------45,531 41,150 13,683 49,327 19,939 33,926 South St. Joseph __ -_ ----2, 777 622 1,969 821 1,238 Other Points ·-_ -----­ 11,696 497 2,439 Oklahoma: 8,225 2,662 7,430 2,815 5,377 Oklahoma CitY--------·---5,754 Other Points_____ ----11,322 6,111 19,456 9,453 39,123 17,093 South Dakota________ ------3 772 754 Other States_________ ---808 '293 158 261 27 309 Total Interstate ___ -·----116,380 138,249 102,316 159,653 130,686 129,457 Total Interstate _____________116,380 13 ,249 102,316 159,653 130,686 129,~5~ 'l'otal Intrastate _ ____ 167,168 204,910 218,78 261,022 236,529 217, Total Movement from the Southern District _ 283,548 3-13,159 321,101 420,675 367,215 347,140 -*The shipments within the Southern District are not included in the total intra tate '.movement from the district. University of Texas Bulletin CATTLE SHIPMENTS FROM SOUTHERN TEXAS A record of the shipments of cattle from the Southern district since 1923 is presemted in Table 43. The annual movement has averaged 347,42~ head during this period. Api:roximately 63 per cent of these cattle were sent to the other Texas districts, while 37 per cent went direct to other states. A comparison of the cattle shipments during 1927 with the annual average movement for the five-year period from this district to the principal outlets is shown graphically in Figure 15. 200 175 CENTRAL. TE.XAS CATTLE SHIPME:NTS F"ROM SOUTHE:.RN TEXAS 150 • TOTA.L SHIPMENTS 1927 0 A.\1£RC&G£. SHIPMENTS 1923-1927 0 d ~ 125 ... 0 75 OTHC.~ ~o 200 175 150 125 1()(1 75 50 ZS FIGURE 15 A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 113 MOVEMENT TO OTHER TEXAS DISTRICTS The annual movement of cattle to District III has aver­aged 185,601 head, or 85 per cent of the intrastate ship­ments and 54 per cent of all the cattle shipped from the Southern district since 1923. Practically all of thii;; heavy movement went to the Fort Worth market. There are two definite movements of South Texas cattle-spring and fall. The spring shipments, which began in March and extended through June, comprised 41 per cent of the total number shipped during 1927. The heavy shipping spring months were April and May. Approximately 47 per cent of these cattle were steers, 37 per cent calves, and 16 per cent cows and heifers. The fall movement, which accounted for one­half of the 1927 shipments, extended from August to Decem­ber. Around 55 per cent of these cattle were calves, 29 per cent steers, and 16 per cent cows and heifers. For the entire year, 47 per cent of the cattle were calves. The heavy shipping months were May, October, and November. Steer shipments comprised 36 per cent of the total number sent to market, the majority of which moved during April, May, November, and December. The movement of cows, which made up 16 per cent of the total, was fairly uniform throughout the year but showed small peaks in May and November. The Southern district also has sent a considerable number of cattle to Southeastern Texas during the last five years. The shipments in 1927 consisted of 47 per cent calves, 31 per cent steers, and 22 per cent cows. Most of the calves were shipped during the first four months and during November and December. Some of these calves were sold to slaughtering establishments and others were placed on grass. The stocker steers were transferred during June, July, November, and December. The cow movement was fairly uniform throughout the year except for the light loadings during the summer months. District II has received a considerable number of stocker cattle from South Texas, particularly during 1925 and 1927. University of Texas Bulletin The movement in 1925 resulted from the dry range condi­tions in District VI, while the 1927 shipments were made to re-stock the ranges in the West Central district. Approxi­mately 49 per cent of the cattle shipped during 1927 were steers, 29 per cent cows, and 22 per cent calves. April, May, and October were the heavy shipping months for steers; January, August, October, November, and December for cows; and March, April, August, and October for calves. MOVEMENT TO OTHER STATES The principal markets which have been receiving cattle direct from District VI are Kansas City, New Orleans, and East St. Louis. The movement from South Texas to grazing areas in Oklahoma and Kansas also has been very heavy. Movement to the Kansas City Market.-Although the number of cattle received at Kansas City direct from this district has averaged 33,926 head annually, the trend of the movement has been downward. The shipments decreased from 45,531 head in 1923 to 19,939 head in 1927. Approximately 90 per cent of the 1927 shipments were steers which went to market during April, May, June, Octo­ber, and November. The remaining 10 per cent was divided between cows and calves. The cows were shipped during the first six months, while the calves were sent to market in May, June, November, and December. Movement to the New Orleans Market.-The annual movement of cattle direct from Southern Texas to New Orleans has averaged 24,730 head during the last five years. The trend of the shipments to this market has been upward. The number increased from 14,618 head in 1923 to 26,046 head in 1927. The movement from this district to New Orleans during 1927 exceeded that direct to the Kansas City market. Over 93 per cent of the 1927 shipments from District VI to New Orleans were calves. An unusual characteristic of this movement was the absence of definite spring and fall A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 115 shipments. The tendency has been to distribute the num­ber more evenly over the entire year as they are needed in New Orleans, because this market can absorb only a limited number at any one time. Nevertheless, a small peak occurred during the summer months. The shipment of cows and steers was very light during 1927. Movement to the East St. Louis Market.-The movement of cattle direct from District VI to the East St. Louis market has been very irregular since 1923. The number fluctuated between 34, 796 head in 1924 and 14,124 head in 1927. In contrast with the movement to New Orleans, over 84 per cent of cattle that went direct to East St. Louis last year were steers and the major portion of them was shipped during April, May, June, and November. The scattered shipments of cows during the first part of the year and during October comprised 12 per cent of the total movement. The remaining shipments were calves sent to East St. Louis during October. Movement to "Other Points" Oklahoma.-The transfer of cattle direct from the ranges of District VI to pastures in Oklahoma has been increasing during the past five years. The movement increased from 11,322 head to 39,123 head in 1927 which was the largest consignment to any of the states from this district; Around 98 per cent of these cattle were steers and practically all of them were shipped to Oklahoma in April. Movement to "Other Points" Kansas.-Sending cattle direct to grazing areas in Kansas from the Southern dis­trict, likewise, has been increasing during the last five years. The number increased from 8,397 head in 1923 to 25,375 head in 1927. Steer shipments comprised 81 per cent of the 1927 movement and most of them were sent there in April and May. The spring movement of cows comprised 13 per cent of the total number. The other cattle were calves shipped in February, May, and December. University of Texas Bulletin CATTLE SHIPMENTS TO SOUTHERN TEXAS District VI has received an average of 65,644 head of cattle annually since 1923. Approximately 95 per cent of them came from the other six livestock districts of Texas, while 5 per cent were received from other states. Table 44 shows the points of origin for the shipments of cattle into the Southern district during the last five years. TABLE 44 NUMBER OF CATTLE SHIPPED TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 5-Yr. Ave. Origin 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 INTRASTATE SHIPMENTS: By Districts: I. Northwestern 672 2,538 521 495 106 866 II. West Central ···-·-···-······-· 14,481 20,385 16,131 18,917 24,337 18,850 III. Central 19,043 24,440 17,368 8,000 10,025 15,775 IV. Eastern ---·--·--· 13,339 21,010 7,539 9,314 8,261 11,893 v. Western 5,752 17,305 7,703 5,561 18,271 10,919 VI. Southern* ----···------93,857 96,217 101,348 111,639 129,364 106,485 VII. Southeastern -·-··-·-·-···-·-29,250 28,671 14,257 24,483 16,599 22,652 Total Intrastate.·-·--------··--·-82,537 114,349 63,519 66,770 77,599 80,955 INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS: By States and Markets: Florida --------------------------253 881 227 Georgia ---------1,293 259 Kansas: Wichita ------------------------30 6 7 Other Points.......... ·-·····-··-···--5,821 195 88 1,221 Louisiana: Orleans_________ Other Points--------·-···--·--40 241 3,025 661 New 2 676 135 Missouri: Kansas City·········--····-·-·--··--118 78 12 42 South St. Joseph --------­Other Points··-·------------17 15 31 13 Mexico________________ New 513 103 Oklahoma: Oklahoma CitY---·--·-·-·-·--·-·-11 2 Other Points---··-··-····----1,421 218 169 362 Tennessee ---------------33 278 62 Wisconsin 1,816 256 1,824 1,745 2,119 1,552 Other States----------···--····-··--· 56 59 7 151 809 216 Total Interstate...·-·---····--···-· 9,161 1,138 2,581 2,215 9,212 4,862 Total Interstate ·---··-·--·--·-----9,161 1,138 2,581 2,215 9,212 4,862 Total Intrastate--··--··--·-· 82,537 114,349 63,519 66,770 77,599 80,955 Total Movement to the Southern District ·----·-······-----···--91,698 115,487 66,100 68,985 86,811 85,817 *The shipments within the Southern District are not included in the total intra­state movement to the district. RECEIPTS FROM OTHER TEXAS DISTRICTS The Southern district is the grazing ground for the surrounding districts. Since 1923, heavy shipments have A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 117 been received from every district in Texas except the North­western section. The largest number for the five-year period came from District VII. About 69 per cent of the 1927 .movement were steers shipped principally during the last half of the year with the peak in September. Cow shipments made up 27 per cent of the total and were dis­tributed over the entire year, but with heaviest loadings in August and October. Calf shipments were made mostly during March, June, and July. The heaviest movements to the Southern district during 1927, however, originated in the West Central and Western districts. The trends of the shipments from both of these districts have been upward since 1923. The greater part of both of these movements during 1927 consisted of cows and steers. The heavy cow shipping months were July and August, while most of the steers came in during the fall months. Since 1923, District VI has received an annual average of 15, 775 head of cattle from the Central district-which was principally from the Fort Worth market. Most of these cattle were stockers cows and steers sent back to grazing areas from the Fort Worth market. During 1927, 46 per cent were steers, 41 per cent cows, and 12 per cent calves and heifers. These shipments were scattered over the year, with a peak season from July to October. The Eastern district has sent an annual average of 11,893 head of cattle to District VI since 1923, but the trend has been downward. Approximately 58 per cent of the light volume during 1927 were cows, 33 per cent steers, and 8 per cent calves and heifers. The heavy shipping months were January, September, and November. RECEIPTS FROM OTHER STATES The receipts of cattle into this district from other states have been very small. The movement has averaged only 4,689 head annually since 1923. The largest number origi­nated in Wisconsin which represents the shipment of high grade dairy cattle into Southern Texas. Much interest has University of Texas Bulletin been aroused in the development of the dairy industry in this section during the last few years, especially around Kingsville and Falfurrias. The sharp increase in the receipts from Louisiana during 1927 was caused by the Mississippi River flood. NET MOVEMENT OF CATTLE FROM SOUTHERN TEXAS The importance of the Southern district as a surplus producer of cattle is shown by the net outflow from the territory. The annual movements since 1923 are summar­ized in Table 45. TABLE 45 NET MOVEMENT OF CATTLE FROM THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 5-Yr. Ave. 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 Total Movement of Cattle from the District____283,548 343,159 320,820 419,797 367,215 346,908 Total Movement of Cattle to the District__ 91,698 115,487 66,100 68,985 85,948 85,644 Net Outfiow__191,850 227,672 254,720 350,812 281,267 261,264 The foregoing table shows that the trend of the net out­flow has been rising during the five-year period. This increase is a result of larger shipments from the district and smaller receipts. The net movement, less the number slaughtered and the death losses, represents the annual calf crop and the decrease in the number of cattle from year to year. Therefore, the net outflow is compared with total number of cattle on farms and ranches during the corre­sponding period in order to determine the surplus producing capacity of this area. Table 46 shows this comparison for the last five years. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 119 TABLE 46 COMPARISON OF THE TOTAL NUMBER WITH THE NET OUTFLOW OF CATTLE FROM THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 Number of Cattle Net Outflow of Per Cent in the Southern Cattle from the of the Year District at Southern Total End of the Year* District Number 1923 --------------------­ 1,245,000 191,850 15.4 1924 ------------------­ 1,130,000 227,672 20.1 19!5 -------------------------­ 1,180,000 254,720 21.6 1926 -----------------------­ 1,100,000 350,812 31,9 1927 ----------------------­ 1,065,000 281,267 26.4 5-Yr. Ave. 1923-1927 __ 1,144,000 261,264 22.8 *Estimates based upon the county distribution of all cattle as reported by the County Assessors to the Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas. District VII-Southeastern Texas GENERAL TYPE AND CHARACTER OF AGRICULTURE District VII, which is located in the southeastern corner of T'exas, produces several important agricultural commod­ities. The three largest crops are cotton, corn, and rice. The last agricultural Census shows that 614,580 acres or almost 4 per cent of the State cotton acreage in 1924 was produced in this district.11 During the same year, 268,936 acres or approximately 7 per cent of the State corn acreage was harvested in the Southeastern district. All of the 174,000 acres of rice produced in Texas in 1927 were grown in District VII. This section also is an important cattle producing area; approximately 10 per cent of the total number of cattle in the State are located in these counties. This section is devoted almost entirely to breeding and grazing inasmuch as the grasses of this coastal region have a high carrying capacity and are good for maintaining the breeding herds. Practically no supplementary feeding is done in this district except on a limited scale by local butchers and by a few feeders around several of the cotton oil mills. 11United States Census of Agriculture, 1925. University of Texas Bulletin Even though farming operations have been expanding in Southeastern Texas, cattle production continues to supply a large part of the agricultural income. Several factors, however, have retarded the development of the industry in this territory. One of the great obstacles has been the presence of the fever ticks which have been difficult to eradicate. The large size of many of the ranches and the difficulty of gathering up all the animals on dipping dates have impeded the progress of eradication work. The portion of the district now under tick quarantine is shown on the map in Figure 12. Prior to May 1, 1928, when the Crisp Bill became effec­tive, cattle could be shipped to out-of-state markets for immediate slaughter. Beginning with that date, however, cattle from the quarantine areas cannot be shipped out of the State unless shippers have complied with the regulations of the Livestock Sanitary Commission and the Bureau of Animal Industry. Ordinarily several dippings are neces­sary and the shippers contend that these treatments cause the cattle to heat badly, which condition makes it dangerous to ship the animals long distances immediately. This new regulation makes Fort Worth and the other Texas markets the only outlets for the producers of ticky cattle, since shippers are permitted to ship to these Texas markets for immediate slaughter on one dipping within 72 hours after dipping. This ruling should cause producers to follow more intensive eradication methods in order to remove this barrier to out-of-state markets. The presence of these fever-carrying ticks also has had an effect upon the progress of improving the quality of cattle because of the danger of bringing in high grade cattle from tick-free areas. Since this is an important breeding section, it is one of the chief sources for stocker cattle. The quality of these stockers naturally cannot be improved with inferior grades of cattle in the breeding herds. Even with this handicap, however, some improve­ment has been made. The practice of crossing native cows with Brahmans has given satisfactory results but the supply A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 121 of high grade Brahman bulls has not been adequate to meet the demand. Nevertheless, with the ultimate eradication of the ticks and with the probable development of more nutritive grasses, this district may develop into one of the most im­portant stocker and feeder cattle producing sections in Texas. The winters usually are short and mild which necessitates very little shelter and supplementary feeding and which facilitates an early movement of calves to market. TABLE 47 NUMBER OF CATTLE SHIPPED FROM THE SOUTHEASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 5-Yr. Ave. Destination 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 INTRASTATE SHIPMENTS: By Districts: I. Northwestern 2,080 416 Central._______________________ II. West 284 90 3,587 766 50 955 III. Central -----------------------------46,598 49,902 90,160 57,356 79,500 64,703 IV. Eastern --------------------------------105 26 348 388 1,072 388 v. Western ----------------------------111 166 2,919 639 VI. Southern 29,250 28,671 14,257 24,483 16,599 22,652 ··--------------------------­ 54,160VII. Southeastern* --------------------32,578 41,114 62,989 62,155 71,964 Total Intrastate·-------------------------76,348 78,855 111,271 82,993 99,301 89,753 INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS: By States and Markets: Arkansas ----------------------------------565 113 California: Los Angele•-----·-·----·-----··-------···-4.40 25 93 Points_________________________ Illinois: Chicago ------------------------------132 19 30 Other 379 76 St. Louis____________________________ East 346 25 216 22 59 134 Other Points--------------··--------------4.66 33 100 Kansas: Wichita --------------------------------340 68 81 Other Points.--------------------------9,612 25 3,401 3,646 1,889 3,715 Louisiana: Orleans___________________________ Points__________________________ New 8,042 8,474 10,309 4,872 5,172 7,374 Other 281 316 391 891 26 381 Missouri: City______________________ Kansas 3,054 1,001 1,662 606 543 1,373 Joseph ________________________ South St. 172 163 67 Other Points·---------·----------------­ 790 158 Oklahoma: City___________________________ 1,338 275 37 14,040 2,367 8,353 11,524 6,241 8,505 Oklahoma Other Point•--------------------·----­ States__________________________________ 56 Other --------27 163 70 23 Interstate____________________________ Total 35,887 12,272 28,271 21,683 14,543 22,531 35,887 12,272 28,271 21,653 14,543 22,531Total Interstate.--------------------------­ Intrastate_________________________ 76,348 78,855 111,271 82,993 99,301 89,753 Total Total Movement from the South- District_________________ll2,235 91,127 139,542 104,676 113,844 112,284 eastern *The shipments within the Southeastern District are not included in the total intra­state movement from the district. University of Texas Bulletin CATTLE SHIPMENTS FROM SOUTHEASTERN TEXAS The destinations of all cattle shipped from District VII since 1923 are classified according to states and markets in Table 47. Approximately 80 per cent of this five-year movement went to other districts in Texas, while the re­maining 20 per cent were sent to other states. A compari­son of the shipments during 1927 with the annual average movement since 1923 to the principal outlets is shown in Figure 16. FIGURE 16 A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 123 MOVEMENT TO OTHER TEXAS DISTRICTS 'fhe movement of cattle to other districts from this area has averaged 89,753 head annually since 1923. Over 72 per cent of these cattle went to District III; practically all of them were shipped to the Fort Worth market, which is in this district. Furthermore, the trend of the movement has been upward. The shipments during 1927 were ex­ceeded only by those during the drought year of 1925. The records show that 56 per cent of the .1927 movement were calves and that the heavy shipping season extended from April to December with a peak during August. The shipment of cows made up 30 per cent of the total number and were scattered over the entire year with heaviest load­ings during October. Steer shipments comprised 13 per cent of the 1927 movement. October was the biggest ship­ping month also for steers, followed by the months of March, April, and June. The other heavy movement from District VII was to Southern Texas. The annual average since 1923 was 22,652 head, but the trend of these shipments has been downward during the. period. Approximately 69 per cent of the cattle shipped during 1927 were steers, most of which were loaded during the last six months, with the peak in September. Cow shipments made up 27 per cent of the total number and were transferred during both the spring and fall months. The remaining shipments con­sisted of calves and heifers and they were made all during the year. MOVEMENT TO OTHER STATES The only two markets outside of the State that have been receiving many cattle from the Southeastern district are New Orleans and Kansas City. The grazing areas in Oklahoma and Kansas also have been important outlets for cattle from this section. Over 97 per cent of the shipments to New Orleans during 1927 were calves. They were sent to this market all during University of Texas Bulletin the year, but the heaviest shipping season was during June, July, and August. The trend of the movement to Kansas City has been declining sharply since 1923. Only 543 head were reported for 1927. This number represents the shipments of steers during February and March. The transfer of cattle to Oklahoma and Kansas, likewise, has been decreasing during this period, principally because of the restrictions against the shipment of ticky cattle to other states. The movement to both of the states during 1927 consisted of steers which were shipped during April and May. TABLE 48 NUMBER OF CATTLE SHIPPED TO THE SOUTHEASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 5-Yr. Ave. Origin 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 INTRASTATE SHIPMENTS: By Districts: I. Northwestern ------354 131 26 213 145 II. West Central_____ 953 1,692 711 972 533 972 III. Central -------------12,065 11,523 15,774 4,644 4,444 9,690 IV. Eastern -----------17,654 14,787 17,846 26,509 24,933 20,346 V. Western -------1,092 464 540 67 23 437 VI. Southern --------15,922 23,285 17,022 22,04!0 17,586 19,172 VII. Southeastern• -----------32,578 41,114 62,989 62,155 71,964 54.160 Total Intrastate_ 47,686 52,105 52,024 54,264 47,732 50,762 INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS: By States and Markets: Alabama --------------­846 169 Florida ---------------­5,147 834 1,196 Louisiana: New Orleans _______.___ 258 52 Other Points______________ 543 14 184 21,389 4,426 New Mexico._______ 668 63 146 Other States._________ 77 18 108 962 175 268 Total Interstate________ 620 5,437 776 l,2fl9 23,244 6,257 Total Interstate --·--···-----620 5,437 776 1,209 23,244 6,257 Total Intrastate____. __ 47,686 52,105 52,024 54,264 47,732 50,762 Total Movement to the South­eastern District-----··---48,306 57,542 52,800 55,473 70,976 57,019 *The shipments within the Southeastern District are not included in the total intra­state movement to the district. CATTLE SHIPMENTS TO SOUTHEASTERN TEXAS The annual fl.ow of cattle into District VII since 1923 has averaged 57,019 head. Approximately 89 per cent of these cattle originated in the other six livestock districts, while A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 125 11 per cent came in from other states. The entire move­ment since 1923 is summarized in Table 48. RECEIPTS FROM OTHER TEXAS DISTRICTS The majority of the intrastate receipts came from the Eastern, Southern, and Central districts. These three dis­tricts have quarantine areas which permit the transfer of cattle to the infested areas of District VII without the need of a series of dippings. The movement from District IV has been increasing during the last three years. The shipments during 1927 consisted of 71 per cent cows, 14 per cent calves, 13 per cent steers, and 2 per cent ~eifers. There was both a definite spring and fall movement of cows with peaks in March and October. The calves were shipped during the entire year. Most of them were consigned to local packers and butchers in Houston, Galveston, Port Arthur, and Beaumont. The steers were shipped principally during the spring and fall months. The steers and cows represent the movement of stocker cattle to grazing areas in the Southeastern district. The annual receipts from the Southern district have aver­aged 19,172 head during this period. Calves comprised 47 per cent of the cattle shipped during 1927, most of them being loaded during the first four months and in November and December. Approximately 31 per cent of the move­ment was steers and they were transferred during April, June, July, November, and December. The other 22 per cent of the total shipments were cows and they were shipped all through the year except during the summer months. RECEIPTS FROM OTHER STATES The receipts of cattle into the Southeastern district from other states have been small and irregular. The only sig­nificant movement was the heavy inflow from Louisiana during 1927. The abnormally large number represents the shipments of cattle from the lowlands of Louisiana during and following the Mississippi River flood of 1927. Approx­imately 80 per cent of these cattle were cows, 15 per cent calves and heifers, and 5 per cent steers. University of Texas Bulletin NET MOVEMENT OF CATTLE FROM SOUTH­ EASTERN TEXAS The difference between the number of cattle shipped from the district and the number brought in for each of the five years since 1923 is presented in Table 49. TABLE 49 NET MOVEMENT OF CATTLE FROM THE SOUTHEASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 5-Yr. Ave. 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1923-1927 Total Movement of Cattle from the District____l12,235 91,127 139,542 104,676 113,844 112,284 Total Movement of Cattle to the District_ 48,306 57,542 52,800 55,473 70,976 57,019 Net Outflow__ 63,929 33,585 86,742 49,203 42,868 55,265 The annual net outflow may represent the disposition of the equivalent of the calf crop and it may include also a disappearance in the numbers of cattle from farms and ranches. Therefore, the relation between the net outflow, exclusive of death losses and slaughterings, and the cattle population of the Southeastern district since 1923 is shown in Table 50. Th€ heaviest liquidation occurred in 1925, TABLE 50 COMPARISON OF THE TOTAL NUMBER WITH THE NET OUTFLOW OF CATTLE FROM THE SOUTHEASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1923 TO 1927 Number of Cattle Net Outflow of Per Cent in the Southeastern Cattle from the of the Year District at Southeastern Total End of the Year* District Number 1923 590,000 63,929 10.8 1924 ----------------565,000 33,585 5.9 1925 --------531,000 86,742 16.3 1926 467,000 49,203 10.5 1927 --··--------449,000 42,868 9.5 5-Yr. Ave. 1923-1927-520,400 55,265 10.6 •Estimates based upon the county distribution of all cattle as reported by the County Assessors to the Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Irulustry of Texas 127 resulting from the dry range conditions. Another peculiar­ity in the movement of cattle from this district is the relatively small percentage of the total number of cattle marketed annually. This low percentage indicates a pro­portionately smaller calf crop in this district than in the others. Section IV METHODS OF MARKETING TEXAS CATTLE The preceding analysis of cattle shipments to and from Texas measures the importance of the different sources and outlets, but it does not show the methods used in marketing. In order to supplement this analysis, questionnaires were sent to a large number of producers throughout the State asking them for the methods by which they sold their cattle and calves during 1927. A summary of the reports is shown in Table 51. These producers reported the methods of selling 329, 784 head of cattle, 106,480 of which were calves. A wide variation was found in the selling practices both between the different sections of the State and between the different classes of livestock. Therefore, the informa­tion is presented for each of the seven livestock districts and by classes in order to bring out the chief differences in the methods of marketing cattle in T'exas. District I-Northwestern Texas METHODS OF SELLING CATTLE District I is primarily a breeding and grazing section and the producers do considerable trading among themselves and of selling to local buyers or to non-resident buyers who travel through that territory and buy direct from the ranch­men. The reports from this district show that over one-half of the steers and cows and over three-fourths of the calves sold during 1927 were disposed of locally. Approximately 62 per cent of the steers and cows and 96 per cent of the calves sold locally were purchased by local buyers. Only a small number are sold to butchers or as farm-slaughtered meat in this territory. The practice among producers of shipping direct to mar­ ket on their own account also was used considerably in this University of Texas Bulletin section in 1927. Approximately 22 per cent of the steers and cows and 15 per cent of the calves were sold by this method. Most of the old cows and "culls" are shipped direct to market from District I. The principal markets were Kan­sas City, Wichita, Fort Worth, and Oklahoma City. A few cars of cattle were reported to have been shipped through cooperative shipping associations, but that method has not been developed in this area except possibly in a few cases and only then on a very small scale. Nearly 9 per cent of the steers and cows were shipped to other sections for further fattening before they were sold. This movement indicates that some producers make feeding or grazing arrangements in Oklahoma and Kansas particularly, but retain the ownership of the cattle until they are ready for market. The percentage, however, does not represent the total movement of cattle from this district to other grazing and feeding sections, because most of the cattle sold locally also go to other grazing and feeding areas for further fattening. Producers in District I sold a large number of cattle to Northern feeders. The most mommon method was selling direct; slightly over 9 per cent of the steers and cows and over 2 per cent of the calves were handled in this manner. Only two instances of selling by mail orders were reported. The practice of selling to Northern feeders through order buyers was not used very much during 1927 by the pro­ducers in this district. Approximately one-half of the reported sales made were for future delivery. The contracts were made all during the year, but most of the deliveries were made during the spring or fall months. MARKETING DIFFICULTIES Some of the producers in this section indicated in their reports the difficulties which they encountered in marketing their cattle during 1927. The most common complaints were those on transportation. Some referred to slow service both to the Kansas City and Fort Worth markets A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 131 causing heavier shrinkage and delays on the way to these markets; others thought the freight rates were too high; while still others accused the railroads of rough handling. Several of the reporters felt that the commission charge, feed, and other marketing costs were too high, while others experienced no serious trouble in marketing tbeir cattle during 1927. The last expression probably represents the attitude of most producers in this district, especially since the return of more favorable cattle prices. District 11-West Central Texas METHODS OF SELLING CATTLE The methods of marketing cattle in District II differed from those in District I in several respects. In the first place, a smaller percentage of the total was sold locally; only 30 per cent of the steers and cows and 47 per cent of the calves were sold within this area. Approximately 12 per cent of the grown cattle and 26 per cent of the calves were sold to local buyers, while the rest of the local sales were to non-residents buyers. Only small numbers were sold to local butchers or as farm-slaughtered meat in the West Central district. Most of the decreases in local sales were offset by in­creases in direct-to-market shipments of which practically all were made by individual producers and shippers. The reports show that 15 per cent of the mature cattle and 33 per cent of the calves were marketed in this manner. The principal markets were Fort Worth, Kansas City, Wichita, and Oklahoma City. The practice of shipping cattle to other sections for further fattening was very common among the producers in this territory. Approximately one-third of the total movement was classified under this method. They were mostly steers and cows; only a small number of calves were reported. The producers of West Central Texas sell a considerable number of cattle also to Northern feeders. Selling direct University of Texas Bulletin to feeders was the most common method reported and ac­counted for 15 per cent of the total sales of steers and cows and 9 per cent of calves. The rather unique plan of selling cattle by correspondence was used successfully by several producers in District II. Some of the Northern feeders purchased their cattle through order buyers who travel over the range country and know where the desired type and quality of animals can be secured. This method is used more widely in the West Central district than the figures indicate, which is accounted for by the fact that most of these buyers are located around the larger cities, like San Angelo and Midland, and many of the reporters classed them as local buyers even though they were filling orders for Northern feeders. Over a third of the cattle sold by these reporters during 1927 was on future delivery. Most of the contracts were made in the spring and summer for fall delivery. MARKETING DIFFICULTIES The producers in this district registered more complaints than those from any other section of the State. The most frequently mentioned grievance was against the transpor­tation facilities. A considerable area below San Angelo is not traversed by any railroad. Several producers reported distances from 60 to 80 miles to the nearest loading station. These long drives from the ranges to a railroad shipping point cause a shrinkage in weight which usually is not overcome prior to the sale of the cattle. Several reports suggested the designation of public livestock trails closed to other traffic and provided with small pastures or "traps" along the route for feed, water, and rest. Some of the shippers complained of the slow service because of the frequent stops on the way to market. Some contended also that the freight rates were too high. A few stated that, since no Sunday trains were operated on some of the branch lines, they were unable to get on a Monday market at Fort Worth. Others expressed a need for cooperative shipping associa­tions which would enable the small producers to pool their A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 133 cattle and ship to market instead of selling locally. The common charge that commission rates and other marketing costs were too high was mentioned frequently, while, on the other hand, many registered no complaints. District III-Central Texas METHODS OF SELLING CAT'TLE The most widely used methods of selling cattle in District III were those of selling locally and of shipping direct to market on the shippers' own account. These practices were the most common because of the nearness to the Fort Worth market. Locay buyers pick up the few head from small prcducers in the different localities and ship them to market on their own account. Most of the larger operators also sflip direct to market. The schedules show that 27 per cent of the cattle and 56 per cent of the calves sold in this section were to local buyers, while 13 per cent of the steers and cows and 14 per cent of the calves were purchased locally by non-resident buyers. The shipments direct to market by the producers accounted for 38 per cent of the grown cattle and 22 per cent of the calves marketed in the Central district during 1927. The principal markets were Fort Worth, Kansas City, and East St. Louis. A small number were shipped direct to market through cooperative shipping associations. Approximately 6 per cent of the cows and steers were shipped by the producers to other sections for further fattening. Cattlemen in a few of the counties in the western part of the district supply Northern feeders with cattle. The results in Table 51 show that 11 per cent of the steers and cows and 7 per cent of the calves were purchased by those feeders direct from the producers. Only a small number of orders were filled through order-buyers in this district except at the Forth Worth stockyards. University of Texas Bulletin MARKETING DIFFICULTIES Fort Worth is sufficiently close to a large part of this section that the trucking of cattle to market in small num­bers is easily accomplished. At the same time, however, the most common complaint of small producers in District III is that they are forced to sell to local buyers because of their inability to ship a carload at one time. Many of them suggested the need of cooperative shipping associations to overcome this practice. Unlike the other districts, very few producers in the territory complained about the trans­portation facilities. Some felt that rates were rather high and a few stated that selling expenses were out of line. District IV-Eastern Texas METHODS OF SELLING CATTLE Since beef production is conducted on a relatively small scale in District IV, the bulk of the cattle sold represents the sale of by-products of the dairy industry. This includes the disposition of old cows not needed for milking purposes and of calves and steers. The quality of these cattle, as beef, therefore, does not equal that found in the beef cattle producing areas of the State. The natural outlet for this class of cattle is the Fort Worth market. The two methods of marketing cattle most generally used by producers in this section during 1927 were selling locally and shipping direct to market on their own account. Prac­tically 54 per cent of the local sales of cows and steers were made to non-resident buyers who travel around the several localities and purchase a few head from the many small pro­ducers. The buyers then assemble them at convenient shipping points and send them to market. Local buyers also compete for this business. They purchased 10 per cent of the cows and steers and 14 per cent of the calves from the producers in the Eastern district during 1927. These A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 135 buyers usually operate on a smaller scale than do the non­resident buyers, but they follow the same methods of pur­chasing .and assembling the cattle at the nearest railroad station and then shipping direct to market or selling to local butchers. The reports show that practically 5 per cent of the sales were made to local butchers. A small portion of the cattle also were disposed of by the farmers as farm:slaughtered meat. Shipping direct to market is the other important method of marketing cattle. Approximately 20 per cent of the mature cattle and 86 per. cent of the calves were handled in this manner during 1927. The increased use of the motor truck has encouraged the direct marketing of cattle, espe­cially from the northwestern portion of District IV because of the nearness to the Fort Worth market. Some of the producers in the southern part of Eastern Texas ship their cattle to the Southeastern and Southern districts for further grazing; this movement amounted to approximately 9 per cent of the district total in 1927. No contracting for future delivery was reported for the Eastern district during 1927. MARKETING DIFFICULTIES Most of the producers in District IV operate on a small scale and are unable to ship a full carload to market at one time; hence, their only outlet is local buyers. In most communities, however, there is enough local bidding to keep the prices very close to the Fort Worth market level. Some sections of the district sell a sufficient volume of cattle periodically to maintain cooperative shipping asso­ciations. This form of organization enables producers to ship direct to market. Their principal marketing obstacle, however, is the fever tick infestation. A large number of the counties in the Eastern district are under quarantine and producers are not permitted to ship cattle out unless they comply with the regulations of the Livestock Sanitary Commission. The area under quarantine is shown in Figure 12. Uni'versity of Texas Bulletin District V-Western Texas METHODS OF SELLING CATTLE District V includes the Highland section, where a large portion of the cattle are sold locally. Table 51 shows that, during 1927, 40 per cent of the cows and steers and 35 per cent of the calves were sold to local buyers and 28 per cent of the mature cattle and 24 per cent of the calves to non-resident buyers. A few sales were made to local butchers, but the aggregate number was relatively small. The practice of shipping direct to market also was of considerable importance. Approximately 17 per cent of the steers and cows and 7 per cent of the calves were sent direct to one of the primary markets by the producers. The majority of these shipments were grass-fat cattle, old cows, and calves not contracted for by Northern feeder buyers. The principal markets were Fort Worth, Kansas City, Wichita, Los Angeles, and El Paso. Very few producers ship to other sections for further fattening. They prefer to specialize in breeding high grade cattle for the local market and let feeders do the finishing. Because of their high quality, stock produced in this district enjoy a strong feeder demand. The feeders used different methods of purchasing. Approximately 7 per cent of the cows and steers and 24 per cent of the calves are purchased direct by feeders. The mail order business is not used extensively in this section of the State. A consid­erable number, however, are purchased for feeders by order buyers, such as the National Livestock Producers Associa­tion and the Livestock Exchange, Inc. These and other forms of buying organizations are discussed more fully in the subsequent section of this report. Approximately 60 per cent of the sales reported by producers were for future delivery. Contracts were made principally during the spring for fall delivery, and also during early fall months for delivery during the following spring. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 137 MARKETING DIFFICULTIES The producers in this section, with their high quality cattle, experienced little trouble in marketing their stock during 1927. In the first place, the demand was brisk, especially for good cattle. Prices were high and trading was active; it was a sellers market. Because of the great distance to market centers, however, transportation was a large item of expense. Naturally, many of the cattlemen complained of the shipping charges to Northern markets, to feeding areas, and to California. They expressed a need for a stock rate with feed-in-transit privileges on cattle going to Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and other feeding areas similar to the stock rates on stocker cattle going to Oklahoma, Kansas and other grazing areas. Several of the reporters felt that the railroads made too many unnecessary stops on the way to market. The need for better feeding and watering facilities in the stock pens also was mentioned. District VI-Southern Texas METHODS OF SELLING CATTLE Practically all of the cattle reported sold in the Southern district during 1927 were disposed of locally or shipped direct to market by the owners. Approximately 34 per cent of the cattle and 12 per cent of the calves were bought locally by local buyers, while 8 per cent of the cows and steers and 3 per cent of the calves were sold locally to non­ resident buyers. Local butchers bought practically all their supply of cattle in their respective communities. Only a few head were reported sold as farm-slaughtered meat. The producers show that approximately 58 per cent of the cows and steers and 84 per cent of the calves sold in the Southern district during 1927 were shipped direct to market by the owners. This large movement to market included the shipments destined to one of the Northern markets, but unloaded in Oklahoma or Kansas for further grazing. The University of Texas Bulletin principal markets were Fort Worth, New Orleans, Kansas City, East St. Louis, San Antonio, and Houston. No direct sales to Northern feeders were reported by the producers in District VI. Only a small percentage of the sales made were for future delivery. MARKETING DIFFICULTIES The marketing difficulty most frequently mentioned by cattlemen in this district is the restriction which prohibits the movement of cattle from the tick-infested areas. The Livestock Sanitary Commission of Texas requires that ani­mals be dipped within 72 hours of loading before being shipped from one quarantine area to another or to one of the recognized livestock market centers in Texas. Some contend that dipping in a solution of "22" just prior to loading causes the cattle to over-heat and shrink badly. Furthermore, cattle destined to other states from those infested areas must be dipped until they are free of ticks. Ordinarily this regulation necessitates two or more dip­pings, thereby making long distance shipping almost im­practical because of over-heating and frequent losses. Most producers in the quarantine areas, however, realize that the only solution to this problem is continued dipping until the ticks have been eradicated. Some also complained about poor transportation service and high freight and commission charges. The small opera­tors in this district, as in the others, realized the need for cooperative shipping associations which would enable them to ship direct to market. District VII-Southeastern Texas METHODS OF SELLING CATTLE Most of the cattle in District VII are sold locally or shipped direct to market or to other sections for further fattening. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 139 Local sales include 18 per cent of the cows and steers and 18 per cent of the calves to local buyers; 25 per cent of the cows and steers and 6 per cent of the calves to non-resident buyers; and approximately 3 per cent of the grown animals and 7 per cent of the calves to local butchers and as farm­slaughtered meat. The movement direct to markets from this district com­prised about 20 per cent of the cattle and 60 per cent of the calves sold during 1927. The majority of these cattle went to the Fort Worth market. A good demand also existed at Houston and Galveston. The Southeastern district also ships a considerable number of cattle to other sections for finishing because of the difficulty in fattening them on the type of grass grown in this area. During 1927, about 35 per cent of the cows and steers and 9 per cent of the calves were sent to other grazing sections. The practice of con­tracting for future delivery is not followed extensively in Southeastern Texas. MARKETING DIFFICULTIES A large area of the Southeastern district, like the South­ern and Eastern districts, is infested with fever ticks and is under quarantine. The movement of cattle from this terri­tory is permitted only after complying with the regulations of the Livestock Sanitary Commission and of the Bureau of Animal industry. It is practically impossible to ship cattle from these infested areas to other states because of the series of dippings required by the Bureau of Animal Industry. Several of the producers who have only a few cattle to sell at a time report that local buyers are their only market outlets, and that some of those buyers have very little competition. Cooperative shipping associations again were suggested as the solution to the problem of securing full market prices by the producers. A considerable number of the operators experienced no trouble because they did their own slaughtering and disposed of the meat in nearby cities. Section V MARKET OUTLETS FOR TEXAS CATTLE The operation of a cattle marketing cycle requires the performance of a series of distinct services. Producers raise the cattle, railroads transport them, feeders fatten them, commission agents sell them, financial agencies finance them, packers process and distribute them, and meat retail­ers sell the edible products to consumers. Factors Determining Livestock and Meat Prices Ordinarily producers consider the sale of their cattle complete when they sell them to some buyer, but the market­ing process is not ended until the beef reaches the final buyers-the consumers. The desire and the ability of consumers to buy beef largely determine the prices. If the quality or price does not suit them, they will eat less beef or change to some beef substitute. The actual operation of this principle may be illustrated by the prices of beef and pork during 1927; with relatively high beef prices and correspondingly low pork prices, the per capita consumption of beef decreased while that of pork increased. Furthermore, since consumers are the ultimate buyers of the products, their preference should be the rule and guide for producers. The consumptive demand should govern the quantity and quality of cattle produced because it is possible to control, at least partially, both of these factors, whereas demand is not subject to artificial regula­ton. It is important, therefore, that these various service­performing agencies work together in attempting to satisfy the wants of consumers by offering them beef that will meet both their desire and their ability to buy. The success of this procedure will depend upon the degree of coordinated support received from all the different agencies. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 141 Services Performed by the Marketing Agencies Retail meat markets are in a position to judge the desires of consumers from inquiries received from the buying public. Since beef is a perishable product, markets must carry the kind of meat people will buy. This condition enables meat shops to pass those consumer preferences on to the packers who supply the beef products. Packers are interested in selling the kind of beef for which there is a demand, and they prefer to purchase the type and quality of cattle required to fill the retailers' order. Often there is a scarcity of the more desirable grades or a surplus of the less desirable class of cattle coming to the market centers. Unfortunately, little control has been exer­cised over either the number or the quality of cattle coming to market. The effective regulation of these two factors would go a long way toward solving the chief marketing problems of the cattle industry. Commission agents are the connecting links between the producers and feeders and the packers. They are able to render a valuable service to their customers by encouraging them to produce the type and quality of cattle that will sell best. Feeder buyers and speculators also are in a position to help. The railroads have been doing a considerable amount of educational work by encouraging production of higher grade animals and better balanced agricultural programs. The next and probably most important group in the live­stock marketing system is the one consisting of producers and feeders. The importance of this group is based upon the fact that they produce and prepare the animals for slaughter; the type and quality of the finished product is dependent almost wholly upon the condition of the cattle prior to the time of their arrival at the market centers. Furthermore, producers are charged with a double respon­sibility: They must determine the type and quality of animals that will satisfy the desires of the beef-consuming public and they must adjust the total supply and the market University of Texas Bulletin flow of cattle to the consumptive demand. Such an adjust­ment will prevent either a surplus or a scarcity of beef on the market; either condition will affect the prices of both livestock and meat products. Selection of Market Outlets In addition to producing the best type · of cattle and of adjusting the supply to the demand, producers should select the most advantageous market outlet. The different chan­nels through which Texas producers dispose of their cattle were enumerated in the preceding section of this study. The more important ones mentioned are: 1. Farm slaughtering. 2. Local sales to butchers. 3. Local sales to other buyers. 4. Direct shipments to primary markets. 5. Sales to stocker and feeder buyers. a. Direct. b. Through cooperative pools. c. Through private organizations. The importance of these outlets varies from year to year according to the conditions in the industry and according to competition among the different buyers. The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that approxi­mately 30,000 head of cattle and 75,000 head of calves were slaughtered on Texas farms during 1927. While these figures are large in the aggregate, they represent only a small portion of the total number of cattle marketed in the State during that year. Furthermore, farm slaughtering is decreasing and its importance as an outlet for surplus cattle is relatively small. Local slaughtering continues to be an important outlet for Texas cattle. The estimates of the United States Department of Agriculture show that 80,000 grown cattle and 153,000 calves were slaughtered locally in the State during 1927. These two outlets take approximately 2 per cent of the total net disappearance each year (excluding death losses). A Market Analysis of the Cattle Indu.stry of Texas 143 The other 98 per cent either are sold to local buyers, shipped direct to one of the primary markets, or sold to stocker and feeder buyers. From the point of view of volume, sales to local buyers and shipments direct to markets are largest, and both of these outlets probably wili continue to pe the avenues through which the major portion of Texas cattle will flow to market. Nevertheless, supplying stocker and feeder buyers with grazing and feeding stock has been developing very rapidly during the last few years, and the possibilities for further expansion are very favorable. In the first place, the relative shortage of cattle and the accompanying higher prices have increased the demand. An equally important factor, especially for Texas producers, is the improvement in the quality of the breeding herds. This development has placed Texas stocker and feeder cattle on a parity with those of any other producing area. Fur­thermore, Texas producers enjoy some natural and economic advantages. They have favorable climatic conditions which require very little supplementary feeding and shelter facilities. Survey of the Stocker and Feeder Cattle Outlet This business is highly competitive. Texas producers must compete with operators in the other stocker and feeder cattle-producing states. Therefore, in order to encourage the further expansion of this growing outlet, the Bureau of Business Research undertook to find out from the feeders the factors which influenced them in buying their feeder stock. Questionnaires were sent to over a thousand feeders in the Corn Belt and other cattle grazing and feeding states including Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyom­ing, and Califorfnia. A summary of the information se­cured is presented in Table 52. While a few of the ques­tions asked for only qualitative information not subject to statistical measurements, it is possible to determine from the answers some of the factors which influence purchases of stocker and feeder cattle. University of Texas Bulletin Results of the Survey KIND OF CATTLE GRAZED OR FED The .primary aim of feeders is to secure cattle capable of being adapted quickly to the feed lots and possessing suf­ficient quality to make economical gains. The majority of feeders expressed preference for Here­ford cattle because they possess the desired feeding qualities. At the same time, however, those feeders handling either Shorthorn or Angus cattle were satisfied with these breeds. More emphasis seemed to have been placed upon the quality of the animals than upon the breed. A few feeders reported the purchase of low grade mixed steers and calves and, almost without exception, the results were not as satisfac­tory as were those obtained by feeders who bought high grade animals. SECTIONS OF TEXAS FURNISHING STOCKER AND FEEDER CATTLE The majority of these stocker and feeder buyers secured their cattle in the Northwestern, West Central, Western, Central, and Southern districts of Texas. The sections most frequently mentioned were the Highland section and the areas around Midland in District V; the Panhandle ter­ritory in District I; the territory around Stamford, Llano and San Angelo in District II; the Fort Worth market and the areas west and southwest of Fort Worth in District III; and the sections around Uvalde and Kingsville in Dis­trict VI. It is evident that buyers have to cover a large area to locate desirable animals because the best herds are widely scattered over the State. Furthermore, it is important to continue improving the quality of breeding herds in order to compete with other cattle producing states. The sections from which each of the reporting states secured cattle in Texas are shown in Table 52. TABLE 52 METHODS AND PRACTICES FOLLOWED BY BUYERS OF TEXAS CATTLE States California_ _ _ _____ Colorado__ __________ Illinois________________ Indiana___ ______ Iowa_______ _,... Kansas_ ____________ Kentucky_____ ____ Michigan------------· MissourL ______________ Nebraska...--------------­Ohio.------------­Oklahoma....----­ Percentage of Reporters' Purchases Coming from Texas CattielCalve' 100 ---­ 30 25 53 89 91 99 59 63 82 76 75 90 60 80 46 81 55 26 51 84 82 98 Per Cent of Stocker and Feeder Cattle Purchased in Texas Sections of Texas from Which the Cattle Were Secured States from Which the Rest of the Stock Was Secured Factors Determining the Purchase of Stocker and Feeder Cattle By Making Personal Trips to Texas By Cor­responding Direct with Producers Through Com.mission Agencies Private or Other "Old Line" ICooperat.ive I BuyingCompanies Companies Companies Most Frequently Mentioned Months in Which Feeding Was Started Average . Number of Days in Feeding Period Market to Which Feeders Generally Ship I Highland Section. West Texas. Highland and Panhandle and around Stamford, Sections Midla..nd, Utah, Idaho. Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado, and Kansas. Indiana, Illinois, Wyoming, Colo­rado, Montana, Nebraska; Minne- Price, quality, and transportation. Price and quality. Price, quality, and freight rate. 100 50 13 --­---­8 ---­50 21 --­---­58 l -­-·­---­ November. October and November. November, "'December, October, September. and 180 147 220 Los Angeles.Omaha, Kansas City, South St. Jo­seph, and Denver. Chicago, East St. Louis, and Indian­apolis. Kingsville, and Fort Worth. sota, and Missouri. Highland and Panhandle Sections and• around Stamford. Highland and Panhandle Sections, West and South Texas. Highland and Panhandle Sections, West, East, and Central Texas. West Texas. Missouri, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kan­sas, and Illinois. Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Iowa, and New Mexico. Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri, and Arkansas. Tennessee, Virginia, Kentucky, and Illinois. Price, quality, and freight charges. Price and quality. Price, quality, and condition. Price and quality. 5 5 73 --­- 14 12 9 ---­ 15 12 18 -­ 66 16 --­100 -­-55 -­-­ October, December, September. January, January, November, tember, and July. October, Ocoober, November, August,tember, July, and December. December and November. and Sep-Sep­ 228 200 125 183 Chicago, Indianapolis, and Buffalo. Chicago, Omaha, and Kansas City. Kansas City. Chicago, South St. Jo­seph, and Wichita. Cincinnati. Highland, Panhandle, and Stamford Sections. Northwest Texas, Jones County, and Illinois, Wisconsin, and Montana; also Canada. Colorado, Wyoming, Missouri, and Price, quality, and delivery. Price, quality, and delivery. ---­10 7 34 32 33 61 23 -- October, September,May. August, November, December, October, and Feb­ 173 188 Buffale and Chicago. East St. Louis, Chicago, Kansas Fort Worth. Kansas. ruary, March, September, April, City, and South St. Joseph. June, July, and August. Panhandle and West Texas. Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, .braska, and New Mexico. Ne- Price, quality, locality, and quantity. 69 7 24 --­ - October, June. November, August, and 131 !)maha, Chicago, Kansas City, South St. Joseph. Highland and Panhandle Sections and around Stamford and Uvalde. West Texas, South Texas, Panhan­dle, and also the Fort Worth Mar­ Ohio, Minnesota, Missouri, West Virginia, Montana, and Illinois. Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Arkansas. Price, quality, and transpo~tion. Price, quality, and condition. 9 75 6 13 22 12 63 --­ ----­ November, December, October, tember, and August. Sep-November, April, May, September,and October. 181 165 Buffalo, Pittsburg, Cleveland, Cin­cinnati, and Chicaf!O. Kansas City, East St. J,ouis, and Oklahoma City. ket. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 145 COMPETING SOURCES OF STOCKER AND FEEDER CATTLE Even though the stocker and feeder cattle from Texas compare favorably with those of other producing sections, Texas supplies only a small portion of the total number fed. This seems to be attributed to the facts that the available supply in the State is limited, that Texas cattlemen have not advertised the high qualities of their product sufficiently, that adequate methods of making contracts with distant feeders have not been adopted, and that transportation charges from sections located closer to the feeding areas are less. Texas cattle compete chiefly with cattle from Colo­rado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Ari­zona, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and the native cattle in the grazing and feeding areas. FACTORS DETERMINING THE PURCHASE OF STOCKER AND FEEDER CATTLE The chief factors which influence buyers in selecting their cattle are price, quality, and accessibility. It is difficult to determine which one is given the greatest consideration because the influence of each one varies considerably in the different sections. Price usually is dominant since pur­chasers desire to protect themselves as much as possible against price fluctuations during the grazing or feeding periods. This factor was mentioned by practically every reporter. They think in terms of the cost of the animals delivered at their pastures or feed lots. The item of trans­portation, therefore, is an important factor to buyers in distant states like Ohio or Indiana. Quality was stressed by the correspondents very fre­quently as a factor influencing their purchases. They included under this factor cattle that are well bred, healthy, uniform in size, and capable of making rapid gains on Northern pastures and in feed lots. 146 University of Texas Bulletin Accessibility is another important factor that is asso­ciated with the agencies through which buyers secure their cattle. A large number of reporters said that they pre­ferred to see the stock before purchasing. METHODS OF BUYING STOCKER AND FEEDER CATTLE IN TEXAS Stocker and feeder buyers have several methods by which they secure their cattle. A few of them make personal trips to Texas and do their own buying; some place their orders with livestock commission agencies; others buy by corresponding direct with the producers; and still others purchase their supply at auction sales. All of these methods are used by buyers in obtaining Texas cattle. The selection of the agency depends principally upon the number and kind of cattle wanted, the previous experience of the pur­chasers with the different agencies, and the geographical location. MAKING PERSONAL TRIPS TO TEXAS Many of the purchasers come to Texas each year and buy their stockers and feeders personally. This is probably the most satisfactory method because the buyer and seller reach a mutual understanding before the sale is consummated. Nevertheless it is rather expensive unless a large number is purchased, and only the larger operators regularly follow this procedure. This is illustrated by the figures in Table 52 which show that buyers in Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska are the principal users of this plan, and most of them purchase large numbers of stocker cattle for further grazing. Several of the reporters stated that they were able to buy direct from some producers with whom previous personal contacts had been made. Many of the feeders, however, handle only a few carloads of cattle a year and find it impractical to make trips to Texas to do their own buying. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 147 BUYING THROUGH COMMISSION AGENC1ES Even if the feeders were able to make personal trips to the producing areas, many of them would prefer to buy through an agency capable of knoWing the market value of cattle rather than to rely on their own bargaining ability. If a reliable agency is selected, the feeders have the assur­ ance that the cattle will be purchased on the basis of exist­ ing market values. With this assurance, the commission charge comprises a relatively small part of the cost of the animals. Dependable and responsible commission agencies render a service commensurate with the charges made. There are several types of these organizations operating in Texas. Private or "Old Line" Commission Companies.-Most of the private or "old line" commission companies operate almost. exclusively at the primary market centers. The data in Table 52 show that a considerable portion of the stocker and feeder cattle still are purchased through these agencies. Ordinarily, they fill the customers' orders from the supplies that come to the market centers. Frequently the orders are left with the commission agents to be filled when the desired kind of cattle appear on the market. Most of the feeders reporting purchases through these agencies were well satisfied with the service, but quite a number of them complained about the difficulty of securing uniform cattle at the market centers. Even though the cattle appear to be uniform after they are assorted and re-shaped by the .traders and speculators, frequently they do not finish out uniformly because of their mixed breeding. Some of the feeders also mentioned the greater danger of receiving cattle with stockyards fever or other diseases contracted at the public markets. Cooperative Commission Companies.-The operations of the National Producers Cooperative Commission Company differ from those of most private companies in that this organization has formed a feeder cattle buying pool for the purpose of securing the type of stock desired by its members at a minimum cost. The National Livestock Producers Pool University of Texas Bulletin has been sending one of its representatives to producing areas annually since 1926 where he purchases direct from the owners the kind of cattle that will fill the orders of feeders. The representative acts as agent for both the buyer and the seller and in such capacity he undertakes to set the most equitable price. Much responsibility, there­fore, is placed upon the character and ability of the agent because he must obtain and retain the confidence of both parties. This cooperative organization purchased over ten thou­sand head of cattle direct from Texas producers during 1927. These cattle were distributed to feeders in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Michigan, and Kentucky. The feeders were very well satisfied with this method of buying. Many of them fed only one or more carloads, yet they obtained the kind of cattle they wanted direct from the ranges at a nominal commission charge. They contend that they receive better selected and more uniform animals after their representative has seen the condition of the range and the breeding herds. Most of these cattle were obtained in the Highland section of Western Texas and in the Panhandle section of North­western Texas. The producers have been satisfied with this method of selling because they know what their cattle will bring before leaving the range and because they have con­fidence in the integrity and selling ability of the commission agent. BUYING THROUGH OTHER AGENCIES Although most of the private commission companies operate order-buying departments, very few of them go direct to the ranges to fill their orders. There are only a few agencies specializing on this type of commission busi­ness. One of the private agencies frequently mentioned by some of the correspondents is the Livestock Exchange, Inc. This agency secures orders from feeders, principally in Iowa and Illinois, to be filled from cattle purchased direct from the ranges-a method very similar to that followed A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 149 by the National Livestock Producers Pool. Most of these cattle are purchased in the Panhandle, Midland, and High­land sections in the Northwestern and Western districts. The feeders who have secured their feeding stock through this organization were well pleased. They commented on the uniformity and good quality of the cattle. Further­more, they indicated that the animals are fresh from the ranges; that the method is convenient and economical; and that such an agency possesses greater bargaining power than do most individuals. Selling Direct by Mail Orders.-One of the most unique methods of selling feeder cattle is the use of direct corre­spondence between the producers and feeders. It has been used very successfully by several large operators; the most conspicuous is the S. M. S. Ranch. These people have worked out standard classifications which enable them to describe the type and quality of their cattle by mail. They have developed a reputation among the feeder buyers also for their high quality and well graded stock. This method of selling, however, is adaptable only to large operators who have a sufficient volume from which to select uniform loads and over which to distribute the selling expenses. There are probably only a few ranches remaining in Texas suf­ficiently large to adopt this type of selling. Highland Hereford Breeders Association.-One of the first cooperative selling agencies organized by producers in Texas was the Highland Hereford Breeders Association. Cattle producers in the Trans-Pecos region organized this association in 1918 for the purpose of encouraging the pro­duction of higher quality cattle and of finding the best market for their products. The plan of this agency was to ship the cattle to strategic points in the corn belt states and dispose of them through auction sales to feeders. These auctions and the supplementary advertising carried on by the association not only provided an immediate market outlet, but also encouraged feeders and other buyers to come to Texas and secure a larger portion of their feeding stock. This increased demand has enabled many producers to sell University of Texas Bulletin individually direct from the ranges instead of through auction sales. Nevertheless, the auction method of selling and the supplementary advertising conducted by this asso­ciation have increased the demand for cattle from this Highland section. DIFFICULTY OF SECURING CATTLE OF UNIFORM GRADE AND QUALITY The majority of the correspondents encountered little or no difficulty in obtaining cattle of uniform grade and quality. Nevertheless, the data in Table 52 show that a few in some of the states had trouble in finding the kind they wanted. Most of this class of buyers secured their stock at the primary markets-another indication that feeders obtaining their cattle direct from the ranges have less difficulty in securing uniformity and the desired quality. MOST DESIRABLE KIND OF FEEDER CATTLE From the feeders' point of view, the most desirable kind of cattle are those which can be acclimated quickly, fattened properly and economically, and sold satisfactorily. Such cattle sometimes are difficult to find. In the first place, the producers and feeders are widely scattered and separated, and many of the feeders have made no direct contact with producers or with commission agencies who specialize in handling choice feeder cattle. Even after the cattle are located, not all of them possess the desired quality, uni­formity, and capacity, all of which depend upon proper breeding and raising. Furthermore, when fattened, they should be the type of beef for which a consumer demand exists. Consciously or subconsciously, these things are· in the minds of buyers when they purchase feeding stock. Desirable Ages and W eigkts.-The most desirable ages and weights of feeder cattle depend upon the length of the feeding period. The short-time feeders want mature cattle capable of fattening quickly, while the long-time feeders A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 151 prefer either calves or yearlings. The steers ordinarily are placed on a full feed ration immediately, while the calves and yearlings usually are placed on grass and rough feeds during the fall and winter and afterwards finished on corn. The range of ages and weights for these three classes are shown in Table 53. TABLE 53 THE MOST DESIRABLE AGES AND WEIGHTS OF FEEDER CATTLE REPORTED r---Steers--,.., Yearlings Calves Age Weight Weight Weight Range Range Range RangeState Years Pounds Pounds Pounds California -900 to 1,100 -------------­Colorado ----2 to 4 800 to 1,100 500 to 700 Illinois --------2 to 4 750 to 1,200 500 to 750 375 to 600 Indiana ____ 2 to 4 -----------------600 to 750 400 to 600 Iowa _________ 2 to 4 800 to 1,100 400 to 700 400 to 500 Kansas ___ 2 to 4 800 to 1,200 500 to 700 350 to 500 Kentucky ____ 2 to 3 800 to 1,000 600 to 700 -· -----------­ Michigan ---2 to 4 800 to 1,250 500 to 650 400 to 500 Missouri 2 to 3 800 to 1,000 500 to 600 350 to 500 Nebraska __ 2 to 3 900 to 1,100 600 to 700 375 to 500 Ohio ----------------550 to 750 350 to 650 Oklahoma --2 to 4 500 to 1,100 The steers vary in ages from 2 to 4 years and in weights from 800 to 1,250 pounds. The most typical combination is two and three-year-old steers weighing from 800 to 1,000 pounds. The feeders contend that the younger steers make more rapid gains on less feed than the older steers because they have not reached their full growth and because there is less likelihood of their early growth being checked on account of drought or feed shortage. The states receiving the biggest proportion of steers from Texas were Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, and Illinois. Most of the movements to Kansas and Oklahoma were stocker steers going to the Flint Hills and Osage grazing areas and later on to one of the primary markets. Because they feed for longer periods, the majority of feeders in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Nebraska, Missouri, and Michigan prefer calves and yearlings. They state that University of Texas Bulletin the younger animals make cheaper gains and that the mar­keting date may be extended more readily on calves and yearlings than on grown cattle. The reported range of weights for yearlings varies between 400 and 750 pounds, but the most frequently mentioned weight ranged between 600 and 700 pounds. The calf weights ran from 350 to 650 pounds, the most typical being between 400 and 500 pounds. Preference between Steers and Heifers.-Most of the feeders in every state reporting expressed a preference for male animals, especially when they expected to feed for an extended period. A few feeders in Ohio, Illinois, and Mis­souri noted very little difference between the feeding quali­ties of steer and heifer calves if marketed before they are eighteen months of age. The majority of those who were feeding heifer calves were doing so because of the spread in the prices of the two classes. Usually heifer calves are as much as five dollars per head cheaper than steer calves. Preference between Horned and Dehorned Cattle.-Prac­ tically every buyer expressed preference for dehorned cattle. Many of them said that they would not feed horned cattle at all and some even were willing to pay a premium for dehorned animals. Feed lot cattle that have been dehorned do not bruise one another and they take up less space in the feed lots. Even though there is this very definite preference for dehorned cattle, some producers fail to remove the horns. If this operation is performed before the calves get too old, their growth will not be checked. Furthermore, if the dehorning process is done carefully, the animal's head will have a smooth appearance at maturity; some feeders com­plained that frequently animals with one or a part of a horn are found in a shipment and that it is difficult to remove such parts without affecting the growth of the cattle. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 151 BEGINNING DATE OF FEEDING PERIOD The majority of feeders begin operations sometime be­tween September and January. Reports show, however, that some feeding operations were started during every month of the year. The beginning date depends princi­paliy upon the kind of cattle being fed, upon the geographi­cal location, and upon the individual feeder. The calf feeders want·to receive their calves as early in the fall as possible so that they will become adjusted to the change of climate before cold weather begins. Usually they are placed on feed immediately in order that they will not lose their milk fat or have their growth checked. During 1927 most of the Texas calves were sent to the feeders during October, November, and December. Since some feeders want to secure their calves earlier, those pro­ducers living in sections where climatic conditions permit earlier breeding would do well to cater to this early demand. LENGTH OF FEEDING PERIOD The length of the feeding period varies considerably be­tween the different states and the different classes of cattle. The average number of days cattle are fed in each state is given in Table 52. The feeders in the states of Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, and Oklahoma have short feeding periods. The primary reason for this is that most of the cattle sent to those states ordinarily are placed on grass for three to five months and then sent to market as grass fat cattle. Some are sold as feeders and are re-shipped to feed lots for furthering fattening. The average feeder in the states of Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa feeds cattle over two hundred days. The farmers in heavy corn-producing states find it more profitable to market their feed crops in the form of livestock rather than to sell them as feed. Therefore, practically all of the long-fed animals go to market grading either prime, choice, or good, the three highest grades of cattle. The Government grades of beef are prime, choice, good, medium, common, cutter, and low cutter. University of Texas Bulletin These feeders can afford to fatten cattle in this manner because a good demand exists for a limited amount of well finished beef. The supply, however, must be governed by the limited demand if a profitable price is to be realized, because any excess must be sold on the same basis as beef of lower grade. It is estimated that of the steer beef which comprises approximately 47 per cent of the cattle slaugh­tered in the United States, about 0.5 per cent falls in the prime grade, 4 per cent in the choice grade, 22 per cent in the good grade, 53 per cent in the medium grade, 17 per cent in the common grade, and 3.5 per cent in the cutter and low cutter grades. The Chicago market, the center of the long-feeding area, receives the bulk of the better grades; approximately 53 per cent of the number killed at this market during 1927 were graded as prime, choice, or good.1 It is evident, therefore, that too many feeders should not attempt to finish their cattle to grade prime or choice, because the surplus will depress the price level for all the grades. This practice often wipes out the profit margin for the feeders, whereas if some would cut down the length of their feeding period and go to market earlier both groups would profit. The problem of determining the probable number of each grade of cattle needed to supply the con­sumer demand is not for the individual feeder to solve; it is the task of an association of feeders sufficiently large and strong to control the number on feed and to recommend the approximate beginning and length of feeding periods. MARKET OUTLETS FOR FEEDER CATTLE Cattle, at the end of the feeding period, are finished products and are ready for immediate slaughter. The only outlet, therefore, is the slaughter pen. Ordinarily the packers buy these cattle at the primary markets. Very little direct buying of cattle is practiced by the packers because adequate supplies can be secured on the open markets. 1United States Department of Agriculture. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 155 The principal markets to which the feeders from the several states ship are shown in Table 52. No attempt was made to measure the volume going to the different markets by states. The markets, however, are ranked according to the number of times they were mentioned by reporters. COMPARISON OF THE TYPE AND QUALITY OF CATrLE FROM TEXAS WITH THOSE FROM OTHER STATES Feeders indicated that Texas cattle compare very favor­ably with those of other producing sections. Most of them stated that for feeding purposes Texas cattle were as good as or even better than those from any other place. It must be remembered, however, that these feeders get the better Texas cattle and that they represent but a small portion of the total produced in the State. Therefore, even though the cattle that have gone to feed lots in the past have been very satisfactory, Texas producers generally will do well to continue improving the quality of their breeding herds in order to retain this reputation and to secure additional business. Supplying feeder cattle is one of the most satis­factory phases of livestock production, because ordinarily there is a good demand for these animals and the marketing costs are kept at a minimum. Some of the typical com­ments, both favorable and unfavorable, are reproduced in Table 54. University of Texas Bulletin TABLE 54 FEEDERS' COMMENTS ON THE RELATIVE QUALITY OF TEXAS CATTLE STATES FAVORABLE COMMENTS UNFAVORABLE COMMENTS California_____ "Quality more uniform." ''Type not so good." "The cows I bought this year were as good as can be bought any­ where." Colorado____ "Texas cattle usually best in the country." "Texas cattle preferred because of uniformity." "We've gotten better quality and "Little deficient in scale and type cattle from Texas than any bone." place else." "Hard to learn to eat corn." "Quality and type of cattle we get "Your cattle are a little wild." from Texas has been of a superb quality. scarcely a poor steer in a hundred head." "I find them of better quality and Illinois______ more uniform." "I believe they have a preference over northern raised cattle." "The calves I received last year. best I ever had, a uniform and choice load and priced i·eason­ ably." "I prefer Texas cattle. They do gain." "Texas cattle are better through­ "Texas cattle are wilder." out." "Texas cattle are lacking in bone." "I think Texas cattle are 0. K. ; "Not as large frame as northern they finish quick and look fine­ cattle." they are good rustlers on grass." "I topped the market with myIndiana____ _ fifty-one head of Texas calves." "Some of the best feeding cattle I have ever seen came from Texas." "They are market toppers." "Texas cattle run more uniform." "Lack some in scale and ability "Quality comparable to cattle from to handle large amounts of feed." other states." "Should be in better flesh when shipped." "Are better quality and finish bet- Iowa.__________ ter." '!id.;, Texas cattle are pretty 1 "Very favorably." "Just 'as good or better." "Texas and Colorado cattle are probably the best that come to this section." "Have always fed Texas cattle." "Texas produces the best feeders that come to this part of Kan­ sas... "Steers from Texas have always made a better gain on grass in my pastures than cattle from Kansas ___________ other states.'' "Texas cattle are generally a lit­ tle higher price, but enough bet­ ter to be worth the difference." "Cat.tie coming from Texas are hardy and quick maturing-and can be secured in uniform bunches." A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 15'f -TABLE 54 (Continued) FEEDERS' COMMENTS ON THE RELATIVE QUALITY OF TEXAS CATTLE STATES FAVORABLE COMMENTS UNFAVORABLE 001\IMENTS "Texas cattle compare favorably "Texas cattle are a great deal Kentucky with any other state." wilder." "Texas cattle are very good-We "Texas cattle do not have largelike Herefords and Shorthorns enough bones." crossed.". "Too much variation in carload." "You have healthy cattle, good Michigan _____ quality, and they do good in our locality." ''Steers are a little higher than other states, but are worth the difference.•• "I really like the cattle from Texas "Quality good, mostly too short, for their uniform size, breeding, and not bone enough for body."and general feeding qualilies.0 "Your cattle are a little "ild." "Hereford and Shorthorn crossed ''Texas cattle (not all of them) seemed to be good feeders." are awfully wild." "Your better livestock is as good ""Had some cold-blooded wild cat- as grows, but a low grade ofMissouri ··-­ tie that were not desirable." Texas cattle is no good." "Texans don't look as well as "I believe that Texas feeders are northwest cattle when put inthe best investment." feed lot, but they do better." 0 Texas cattle seem to dress a bet­ter per cent for the butchers." "We buy nothing but Texas calves." "I have gotten as good cattle from Montana ___ Te.xas as elsewhere." "Texas calves are excellent but "Do not handle anything but "More uniform." older cattle frequently are Texas cattle and have handled stunted." them since 1880." "Usually a Colorado or Wyoming steer feeds better than a Texas steer, because they are usually "Compare very favorably." "Have had some as good steers as more rugged and looser bided." Nebraska __ _ I ever fed that came from Mid­ land and Snyder territory." "About the same but worth -·1 per hundred more than when bought through the feed stockyards." "Prices being equal, we prefer the well-bred Texas Hereford cattle." "Quality from Texas is just a ''Vary too much in age and qual­ little better than from other states if bought direct from the ity and are wild." ranches.'' ·'Not enough for comparison yet." "Texas cattle do well locally." ''Calves received in 1927 were not "Are better." quite as good as those received in 1926." "'We get better bred and more uniform calves from Texas than ·'Not quite as rugged as northern Ohio ----·­ cattle." anywhere else." "We like the Texas calves best on account of their breeding and finish." "We have practically no shipping fever from Texas calves bought direct." University of Texas Bulletin TABLE 54 (Continued) FEEDERS' COMMENTS ON THE RELATIVE QUALITY OF TEXAS CATTLE STATES Oklahoma____ West Virginia FAVORABLE COMMENTS UNFAVORABLE COMMENTS "Better." "We prefer to handle the white­faced, dehorned, high-grade Here­ ford steers.,, "More white faces. They always sell better, and more of a de­mand for them.'' "I think Texas cattle are far su­ perior." "I have gotten as good cattle from Texas as elsewhere." Section VI THE COSTS OF MARKETING TEXAS CATTLE Since the drastic decline in cattle prices during 1920 and 1921, the influence of the costs of marketing probably has been discussed more widely than has any other phase of the industry. This sudden drop in the price level created an inevitable and excessive shrinkage in the value of cattle. Producers and shippers were confronted with large losses during the subsequent period of forced liquidation. The natural reaction of producers, therefore, was to demand a reduction of marketing costs in order to reduce their losses and to make the charges commensurate with the lower level of cattle prices. An immediate reduction of these marketing costs, how­ever, was impossible. In the first place, some of the charges were based on the services rendered rather than on the value of the product, and the agencies performing those services were unable to lower their rates. In addition, it is difficult to vary charges with the current price level of a commodity. Furthermore, the producers were not suf­ficiently organized to bring about prompt and effective action. Nevertheless, livestock interests sought some form of immediate relief. Sufficient pressure was exerted by the several livestock organizations to effect several important changes in the marketing system. Among the more sig­nificant changes were: (1) The placing of livestock mar­kets under the supervision of the Secretary of Agriculture for the purpose of regulating the trade practices of the different marketing agencies, (2) the increased stimulus given to the expansion of cooperative commission com­panies, primarily as a protest against the existing scale of commission rates, and (3) the frequent filing of briefs with the State and Interstate Commerce Commissions for the purpose of obtaining reductions in transportation charges. Universi.ty of Texas Bulletin GOVERNMENT SUPERVISION OF LIVESTOCK MARKETS The Secretary of Agriculture was given regulatory super­vision over activities at all public livestock markets by con­gressional action following complaints by various livestock interests that the charges assessed were unregulated and that many of them were unreasonable. The Department of Agriculture regulates the trade practices so as to assure free and fair competition. The administration also deter­mines all fees and charges to be collected from the producers by the commission firms and the stockyards companies. DEVELOPMENT OF COOPERATIVE COMMISSION COMPANIES The comm1ss1on charge has been one of the principal arguments for the organization of producer-owned selling agencies. The shippers have contended that the existing rates were out of proportion to the selling price and that by operating their own agency the profits would accrue to them. The privately-owned companies, on the other hand, have contended that their rates are just and reasonable and their arguments are predicated upon the statement that they are earning no more than a fair return on their investment. Nevertheless, the rate charged is based upon the service rendered by a selling organization. A real commission agency, whether private or cooperative, renders to livestock shippers a highly specialized service for which it is entitled to receive adequate com~nsation. This service embodies more than the buying and selling of livestock for the ship­pers. It should include, in addition, the furnishing of reliable information on market conditions to shippers regu­larly, the giving of assistance to producers and other live­stock organizations in the attempt at regulating the market flow of livestock to the consumer demand for meat and meat products, and the forecasting of the available supply of and the probable future demand for each class of livestock. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 161 Many of these services could be rendered best through a strongly organized livestock exchange composed of all the marketing agencies. Such an organization is in a better position to collect and disseminate reliable and useful in­formation more economically, and would avoid unnecessary duplications. The exchange is able to advertise the indi­vidual market and to build up and retain the confidence of shippers. Furthermore, it is needed to regulate and main­tain free and fair trading practices at the market centers. The schedule of rates required for the individual com­panies to render the proper service depends upon three con­siderations: expert salesmanship, good management, and a sufficient volume of business over which the operating ex­penses can be distributed. The latter factor is the obstacle confronting the majority of the companies. An inadequate volume of business has resulted from the operation of too many commission companies at many of the markets. This trouble might be remedied, at least in part, by a series of consolidations of the smaller agencies. Less than one-half of the firms now operating on the Fort Worth stockyards probably could handle all the livestock consigned to this market. Then the smaller number of concerns, with the additional volume of business over which to distribute the operating expenses, would be able to charge a smaller com­mission rate and at the same time earn a fair return on their investment. Some methods of affecting these consolidations and of regulating the future organization of other companies must be worked out before this difficulty can be solved, because no great increase in receipts can be expected during the next few years or as long as the relative shortage of cattle exists. The cooperative livestock commission agencies were or­ganized by a group of producers and shippers primarily as a protest against the existing schedule of commission rates. Although the first of the cooperative agencies now in opera­tion was formed in 1917, none was organized at the Fort Worth market until 1922, the year following the severe University of Texas Bulletin depression in cattle prices. The Cattle Raisers and Pro­ducers Commission Company was sponsored by the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, the Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers Association, and the Texas Farm Bureau Federation. This agency immediately began to charge rates which were approximately one-third less than those charged by the private companies. This schedule of rates, however, was not sufficient, with their volume of business, to cover the costs of operation. Therefore, the rates were restored to the level of the privately-owned com­panies in January, 1926. This agency has effected some savings to the shippers, but it has not been as successful as some of the affiliated cooperative firms at some of the other markets, because the producer-members have not shipped to it continuously. The Executive Committee of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association is reorganizing this firm, and it is planned to make it the official marketing agency of the Association. The plans of this committee also include the reorganization of the cooperative agency at the Kansas City market. Both of these houses will become affiliated with the National Livestock Producers Association. With the pledge of the members of the Cattle Raisers Association that they will market their livestock through this firm only, it should be possible to secure a sufficient volume of business to enable the cooperative companies at these two markets to be as successful as the associated agencies at some of the other markets. INFLUENCE OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES Since transportation charges originally comprise about twice as much as all other distribution costs combined, much attention has been given to the reduction of rates during the last five years. The producers have an organization known as the Livestock Traffic Association which is sup­ported and maintained by an assessment on livestock ship­ments to the Fort Worth market and by the several livestock A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas 163 associations in the State. This organization has been suc­cessful in securing many freight rate adjustments in the Southwestern territory. Among the more important changes are : 1. RATES ON MIXED CARS ON CATTLE AND CALVES: Se­cured suspension of a mixed carload rule which would have established the higher calf rate and cattle minimum weight on mixed cars of cattle and calves. This suspension effected an estimated saving of $150,000 annually for the future and around $400,000 on prior shipments. 2. RATES ON STOCKER HOGS: Secured a rate reduction on stocker hogs ranging from $6.25 for a 20-mile haul to $32.78 for a 500-mile haul per car. 3. BEDDING CHARGES: Cancellation of rule imposing charges of $1 per single-deck and $1.50 per double-deck car on all live­stock moving between points in Texas. Estimated saving for Texas shippers around $100,000 annually. 4. CLEANING AND DISINFECTING CARS: Cancellation of rule imposing charge of $2.50 per single-deck and $4 per double­ deck car. 5. MARKET PRIVILEGES: Secured cancellation of rule impos­ing "beef" rates on "stock" cattle accorded privileges of Texas markets. 6. RATES ON CALVES: Secured rule whereby rates on cattle operate as maximum rates on calves, representing a reduction of over $13 per car. 7. ORIENT LIVESTOCK RATES: Secured adjustment of rates from and to points on the Orient Lines in Texas. The reduc­tions on cattle ranged from $29. 70 to $39.60 to St. Louis; from $37.40 to $45.10 to Chicago; from $2.20 to $22 to Fort Worth, Oklahoma City, Wichita, and local points in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Kansas, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Estimated saving to shippers around $500,000 annually. 8. RATES ON CALVES: Secured suspension and cancellation of proposed increases in rates on calves from points in the northern half of Texas to interstate destinations, which ranged from: $6.80 to $19.50 per 36-foot car. 9. MARKET PRIVILEGES: Secured withdrawal of a proposed rule which would have prohibited the change in ownership of livestock accorded the privilege of the market. 10. SOUTHWESTERN LIVESTOCK RATES: Secured suspen­sion and cancellation of a new tariff which would have upset the entire southwestern rate structure. The new rule would have resulted in increases from $14 to $19 per car to points in University of Texas Bulletin Oklahoma on the Tulsa and Pawhuska branches of the Santa Fe Lines; from $8 to $41 per car to points in Oklahoma on the M-K-T Lines; from $13 to $32 per car to points in Oklahoma on the Rock Island and Frisco lines. 11. GENERAL REDUCTION OF RATES IN THE SOUTHWEST: Secured a general reduction in rates under 600 m;iles on all classes of livestock from, to, and between points in the State of Texas. The reduced rates ranged from 'h cent to 5'h cents under the old rates, or an average reduction of about 15 per cent. 12. FURNISHING CARS FOR THE MOVEMENT OF LIVE­STOCK: Secured cancellation of the proposed rule which would permit carriers; to furnish cars of length other than the . size ordered by the shippers. 13. RATES TO STATES EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER: Secured suspension of proposed increases in rates to Indiana~ Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and other states east of the Missis­sippi River four times during the last two years. The last attempt would have increased the rates from $20 to $30 per car. A petition is pending before the commission now which, if approved, will reduce the rates about $50 per car. At present, there is no stock rate to these areas, even though the major movement consists of stocker-feeder cattle and lambs. 14. STOCKER CATTLE RATES FROM TEXAS TO KANSAS: Secured cancellation of the rule which restricted the movement of livestock via certain routes, some of which were longer and were the basis of the freight rates, whereas formerly such rates were based upon the shortest route. 15. GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS: The Interstate Commerce Commission has held a series of hearings in the states west of the Mississippi River for the purpose of determining whether or not livestock rates should be reduced. The Livestock Traffic Association has submitted briefs for the livestock interests which give a summary of livestock conditions in the south­western territory and this agency expects a favorable decision. 16. PROPOSED INCREASES IN RATES FROM AND TO POINTS IN NEW MEXICO: Secured suspension of proposed increase of rates on livestock by the Southern Pacific from and to points on its lines in New Mexico and other interstate desti­nations, including the State of Texas. In addition to formal hearings before the State and Inter­state Commerce Commissions, the Traffic Association handles informal cases which appear on the various Rail­road Rate Bureau dockets that contemplate changes in the A Market Analysis of the Cattle Iruiustry of Texas 165 tariff. Furthermore, the association handles claims of alleged undercharges for the shippers which in 1927 amounted to $6,700. This figure does not include matters adjusted almost daily, at the yards before freight charges were paid. EFFECT OF HIGHER CATTLE PRICES ON MARKETING COSTS Relief has come to the livestock shipper not only in the form of reduced freight rates and certain terminal market charges, but also through the return of cattle prices to pre­war levels. These higher prices have given the seller a larger part of the purchase price because the marketing costs have not advanced in proportion to cattle prices. The improved position of the producer or shipper is shown by a study of cattle sales at ten large markets during the last four years made by the Bureau of Railway Economics. TABLE 55 DISTRIBUTION OF THE CATTLE PURCHASER'S DOLLAR 1924 1925 1926 1927 Distribution Cents Cents Cents Cents 10 MARKETS* To Freight_____ ----------·-------5.8 5.0 4.7 3.9 To Other Distribution Costs___ 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.0 To the Producer or Shipper___ 91.4 92.5 92.9 94.1 TotaL______________ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 FORT WORTH MARKET To Freight_____ ------------------8.3 8.0 6.6 5.1 To Other Distribution Costs____ 3.8 3.7 2.9 2.4 To the Producer or Shipper______ 87.9 88.3 90.5 92.5 100.0 100.0 Total ----------------------·--------100.0 100.0 KANSAS CITY MARKET To Freight--------------4.7 4.0 3.5 3.5 To Other Distribution Costs -----2.4 2.0 2.0 l.8 To the PTOducer or Shipper____ 92.9 94.0 94.5 94.7 Total _________ -----------------100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 *Chica!?O, Kansas City, East St. Louis, Omaha, Fort Worth, South St. Paul, Jersey City, Nashville, Lancaster, an