1:2~~/ ~:U TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas Vol. XVII, No. 2 March, 1944 ·I NDEXE5 0 F DU I L D I NG PE f)M if1 y IN TEXAS·l 9 2 9-1942 · 1929=1001.· TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Business Review and Prospect GENERAL Two noteworthy reports bearing on the same general subject were made public during February. These were the Baruch-Hancock report on "War and Post-War Ad­justment Policies" and the report of the George Com­mittee on "Post-War Economic Policy and Planning." Although there are points of difference in the two sets of proposals, the similarities of t4e two prof?rams a.nd their broad areas of agreement are far more impress~ve than their differences. Both are based upon the prm­ciple that the great need in the demobilizaito.n p~riod will be to get people back to work on peacetime 1ob~. To that end both would get the Government out of busi­ness promptly by having it pay its debts, move war materials out of plants, and sell its surpluses; and both would preserve and strengthen the system of free enter­prise. One of the main themes of the Baruch-Hancock report is that the size of the post-war conversion problem should be reduced and the war effort itself speeded by tighten­ing up efficiency during the war. It states forcefully that scrutiny of war requirements to avoid was~e, sue~ as accumulating . excess stocks of weapons which rapidly become obsolete, should be intensified. The report obje~ts to the making of goods no lo~ger needed simply to provide employment or profit, either in the war or post-war period. It argues for an. early effective review of the programs for the production of raw materials, for stockpiling, for imports, an? for s.ub­ s~dies, premiums, or other devices for stimulating marginal production. Wherever practicable it would use materials left after the war needs are met to fulfill civilian requirements. It calls for making necessary decisions promptly; otherwise later decisions will. be more difficult. Where there have been war expansions far beyond any possible post-war future, it will be better to cancel war contracts earlier and begin reducing the bloat than to wait until it has to be done all at once. This emphasis on speed in shifting from war to peace runs throughout the report. It applies to cutba~ks in production, to settlement of contracts, and to handlmg of surpluses. The report says: "Some short-sighted persons will oppose prompt decisions in the hope of continuing unnecessary production. We call them short-sighted becl!use they are only borr~win~ em~loyment from the future when it will be needed and usmg it up m the present when there is more work than all of us can do. Unneeded stocks of raw materials beyond the margin of military safety will hang over the post-war market depressing future production, employ­ment and prices. It will be stockpiling trouble for the future." The same philosophy is carried over into pro~osals for disposal of surplus property. The first suggestion made is that the Surplus Property Administrator "sell as much as he can as early as he can without disrupting normal trade." The points are made that during the months immediately ahead the surplus war goods can most readily he sold, market conditions will he at their best, and an immediate start on the problem would reduce enormously the likely surpluses that would be left for the more difficult months after the war, As principles to govern sales the report urges, among others: no sales to speculators or promoters; use of regular channels of trade; proceeds of all sales to go to reduce national debt; equal access to surpluses for all businesses and all sizes of businesses with size of lots to be determined accordingly; no creation of monopoly. To promote reconversion the Baruch-Hancock report recommends advance planning jointly by military and civilian agencies for the unknown day on which Germany is defeated. The plan would seek to estimate in advance the cancellations, the industries affected, and the resources likely to be released. It would make tentative selections of the industries and plants to be freed all for the pur­pose of speeding reconversion and reemployment and increasing the supply of civilian goods early. It recom­mends an advance listing of civilian needs which have been restricted during the war and which should have preference in the opening up of civilian supply, giving highest priority to such things as vital repairs, e~panded transportation or improved maintenance. It ad_vises that industries which will need to retool for peacetrme work be permitted to secure their tools before the end of the war. It would guide cancellations to permit the earliest release of small concerns which can convert back to d · msance"d con ro s ti peacetime pro uction. "N" pro uction· affecting only small quantities of materials would be re­ laxed early under the plan and all materials limitations would be brouofa under early review. The report ~ecommends that "as far as possible no manufacturer should he permitted to jump the gun on his competitors," but, it states, "it may not always be possible to do so, and industrialists mu~t understa~d that this objective cannot he allowed to mterfere with war requirements or hold back the production of needed civilian items and so contribute to inflation and unem­ployment." With reference to the return of the Armed Forces to civilian life, the report states that demob~lization.will be gradual and absorption into industry will be aided by several factors, such as: the giving up of war jobs by many women; the retirement . of ?Ider workers; the increase of travel and recreat10n time; the r~m of many younger workers to school; the resumptl?n of college and professional training by many now m the services or in war industry; the renewal of many P.ro­ fessional and service businesses that ha~e stopped d~rmg the war; the starting of new enterprises; the busmess involved in meeting the needs of the world; the red?c· tion in work week; the normal enforcement of child labor laws. While acknowledging the difficulty of the problem the report states: "considering the factors men­ tioned above the problem of de1!1-ohili~ation. i~ ~o~uhle if we create the atmosphere in which private imt1ative and resourcefulness-the traditional American spirit---ean again take hold." Both the Baruch-Hancock report and the George Committee report state without qualification that there should be no government operation of pla~ts to compete with private industry. Both. agree _that m the case ?f synthetic rubber and other mdustries whose fate will TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW be decided by disposition of government-owned plants a formulation of public policy by Congress is called for. That leading American industrialists were aware of the responsibility resting upon them even before the appearance of the Baruch and George reports is evi­ denced by the following passage from an address by Alfred P. Sloan, Chairman of the Board of the General Motors Corporation, at the forty-sixth meeting of the National Association of Manufacturers: "Out of all the circumstances existing today, this fact stands out crystal clear. American business men will he directly challenged by the post-war era. That challenge must he aggressively met. There will be a demand for a more complete utilization of the nation's economic resources. The abundance of the early 'forties in contrast with the shortage of the 'thirties constitutes a political demand that no administration will ignore. We of industry must assume a constructive attitude. We must take the initiative in both planning and action for the post-war period." In the February issue of THE REVIEW it was pointed out that business men and forward-looking citizens generally in both the large centers of population and in the small communiites throughout Texas appear to be giving increasing thought and attention to post-war economic problems in their respective areas. This fact, together with what has been said above of those who are viewing the problem from a nation-wide perspective, is indicative of a determination not to repeat the errors of indifference toward post-war problems which prevailed during World War I. TEXAS INDUSTRY IN RELATION TO THE BARUCH­ HANCOCK REPORT Since a large percentage of Texas industry is carried on in small establishments and distributed over the entire State, some of the provisions of the Baruch-Hancock re­port have a special interest to this State and the Gulf Southwest as a whole. Among these provisions are the following: 1. That surpluses (of war materials) be disposed of in small lots to permit small as well as large busi­ness to participate. 2. Effective representation of small business on Indus­try Advisory Committees. 3. Provision for special credit to assist small business in the changeover and to encourage new enterprises. a. Extension of the lending authority of the Smaller War Plants Corporation, at present restricted to purposes of war production, to cover financial assistance for changeover prob­lems. b. Expansion and liberalization of the Federal Reserve System's authority to make industrial loans permitting one-half billion dollars of such loans outstanding at any one time. c. These two additional sources of credit to sup­plement-not compete with-the enormous vol­ume of savings in the hands of individuals and banks which await tapping. The Baruch-Hancock report will doubtless exercise a great deal of influence in shaping the policy of the government toward industry and trade during the period of transition from war to peace and long after peace has been finally established. Texas industrial, business, labor and c1v1c leaders will therefore wish to become thoroughly familiar with the report because of the prac­tical bearing government policy will have on the affairs of industrial concerns, and on community development throughout the State. Those wishing details may obtain a copy of the complete report upon application to the Office of War Mobilization, 323 Washington Building, Washington 25, D.C. The influence of the report is in fact already apparent in the appointment of Mr. William L. Clayton to the position of Surplus Property Administrator and in the realignments which are taking place in War Production Board policy and procedure. Both Donald Nelson, chairman, and Charles E. Wilson, vice-chairman, of the Board, are expected personally to play an important part in establishing industry reconversion policies. Groups throughout Texas planning post-war programs for their respective communities will do well to keep in tune with national governmental policy in the transi· tion from a war to a peace economy. In the meantime every community should intensify its efforts in develop­ing its own program so that definite action may he taken as soon as conditions permit. INDEXES OF CURRENT BUSINESS IN TEXAS After a brief post-holiday dip, the Texas business in­dex is again pointing upward. The February composite index rose 3.3 points from the January figure of 198.6 or nearly 2 per cent; and the year to year gain was 14 points or approximately 8 per cent. Each of the com­ponent indexes except carloadings and department store sales show a gain over February a year ago; and all but the employment and carloadings indexes are above the January figure. FEBRUARY INDEXES OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN TEXAS Feb., 1944 Feb., 1943 Jan., 1944 Employment ---­-------------­-------------­152.4 Pay Rolls ········-­--------------------------­261.6 Miscellaneous Freight Carload­ings (Southwest District) _____ 137.2 139.3 210.1 142.2 153.6 252.3 145.1 Runs of Crude Oil to Stills ______ 247.4 189.6 241.7 Department Store Sales ____________ 209.8 226.7 190.9 Electric Power Consumption ___ 301.0 265.3 246.2 Composite ------------­-------­---------­201.9 187.9 198.6 No important changes in the employment and pay roll indexes are expected to occur during the months immediately ahead or as long as virtually full employ­ment prevails with overtime pay for hours in excess of the standard week. The other four components are likely to show temporary fluctuations with a gradual upward tendency in the component index. AGRICULTURE The agricultural production plant from the livestock standpoint is numerically in a somewhat more favorable position now than it was a year ago both for Texas and the nation. Moreover, abundance of moisture in Texas during the past two months insures good range and pas­ture conditions for the coming season although planting of feed crops is being greatly retarded. Inventories of hogs, cattle, and horses in Texas as of January 1, 1944, were above those of the corresponding date of the preceding year, but the total numbers of sheep, goats, and mules were under those of last year. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Cattle numbers at 7,669,000 were up ~ per cent; hogs, 31106,000 head, were 17 per cent larger; and the 588,000 horses represented an increase of 1 per cent; chicken nw:nbers increased 4 per cent to 38,495,000. On the other hand the 10,339,000 sheep indicated a 5 per cent decline; the 3,200,000 goats, a decline of 4 per cent; and the 400,000 mules, a drop of 12 per cent. The national figure on cattle inventories reached a new record high of 82,192,000, an increase of 4 per cent over January 1, 1943; hogs, 83,736,000 head, were nearly 14 per cent above the record of a year ago; but sheep, at 51,718,000, showed a decrease of app_roximately 7 per cent from last year. The number of chickens rose _ from 541 million to 573 million, or nearly 6 per cent. FARM CAsH INCOME DURING FEBRUARY Cash income in Texas from agriculture t9talled $55 million during February, an increase of more than 9 per cent over the corresponding month last year, while aggregate cash income during the first two months was $122 million, an increase of nearly 13 per cent over the corre8ponding period a year ago. Substantial gains in income from fruits and vegetables, milk products, rice and hogs were only partly offset by declines in income from cattle, calves, and a few other . products of minor importance at this season of the year, resulting in the net gain indicated in comparison with a year ago. INDEXES OF AGRICULTURAL CASH INCOME IN TEXAS Actual Cash Income (Cumulative) (In Thousands of Dallars January to March Diatricta Feb., 1944 1-N ____ 174.5 Jan., 1944 154.1 Feb., 1943• 244.8 1944 $8,346 1943 $11,682 1-S ______ 491.0 400.8 478.2 14,001 13,053 2 ----------­298.2 3 ------------­263.8 4 ----------­248.4 5 -------­261.3 6 -----------­251.7 7 ---­-265.7 8 ---------­299.3 9 ----­----­358.8 10 --------­210.2 10--A _____ 797.7 220.7 229.8 255.2 224.7 228.5 248.4 289.6 574.5 310.0 648.5 320.8 288.6 195.4 223.8 429.8 336.8 293.8 286.0 334.1 453.2 10,883 4,396 16,257 5,498 5,741 4,281 8,137 15,271 2,671 26,999 11,893 4,382 12,405 4,847 8,322 4,962 8,001 11,948 3,468 13,775 STATE _ 337.9 307.7 309.3 $122,481 $108,738 •Revised. NOT& : Farm cub income aa computed by tbi1 Burea• understates actual farm cash income by from 1i:r. to ten per cent. Thi1 situation rermlt1 from the fact that meane of aecaring complete local marketing•, especially by truck, haTe not yet been fully developed. In addition, means have not yet been developed for computing cub ii.come from all agricultural 1pecialitie1 of ·local imponaoce in ecattered areu throughout the State. This eituation, however, doe1 not impair the accuracy of the inde:ce1 to any appreciable extent. The index numbers clearly reflect the enormous in­crease in farm cash income currently received in certain crop reporting districts, notably in district 1-S, the southern High Plains, and in 10-A, the Lower Rio Grande Valley. The rise in .the index is, moreover, very substantial in all of the other districts and for the State ·as a whole. These indexes show the marked percentage rise in farm eSible in the limited number of districts practicable for the purposes concerned. "It is to be kept in mind, however, that within each district occur areas of considerable size, either individually or in aggregate, whose special characteristics depart markedly from the general environment of the district. "Knowledge of basic features concerning the physical environ­ment of these various districts make possible and is an essential requisite to a common sense interpretation of the agricultural or range utilization of the lands involved." In the February issue of the REVIEW, indexes of sea­sonal variation of farm cash income were given for the State as a whole and for crop reporting districts 1-N and 1-S. The following table gives corresponding indexes for districts 2 and 3. The delineation of all of the crop reporting districts may be seen on the outer cover page of the November, 1943, REVIEW or in the March 1941, issue referred to above. INDEXES OF SEASONAL VARIATIO District 2 District 3 January ____ 47.0 60.1 February 39.0 50.9 March --------------­April ______ 47.1 45.6 57.4 62.3 May -----­------­ 82.6 138.4 June July ------------------­________ 72.8 · 53.0 153.8 116.2 August -------------­ 33.4 90.1 September ----------­ 185.1 113.5 October ----------­-----­ 319.2 154.8 ovember --------------­ 193.1 119.2 December __ 82.1 83.3 The difference in the seasonal distribution of income in these two adjacent districts, it will be noted, is quite striking. In district 2 approximately two-thirds of the annual farm cash income is received during the three fall months of September, October, and ovember. In dis­trict 3 only a little more than one-third of the annual farm cash income is received during these three months. F. A. BUECHEL. O'> II DISTRICT 2-TRENDS OF FARM CASH INCOME BY PRODUCTS Product 1927 l928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 L otton -------------·· · 97,547Cotton Seed ______ __ 15,792 Wheat ------------­----­1,756 67,365 12,116 532 57,072 10,362 581 19,987 4,598 299 20,391 3,116 839 32,234 4,081 824 44,046 5,517 762 15,942 4,156 1,087 29,878 8,379 2,382 23,110 6,139 1,123 31,029 7,512 2,396 21,126 5,461 3,275 15,256 3,869 1,167 21,407 5,108 1,893 58,109 16,114 2,769 58,585 14,755 4,390 39,834 10,350 6,639 Rice ---------------------­ -------­ -----­ -----­ ------­ -­ -­ ----­ ----­ - ---­ ----­ --­ ----­ ---­ ------­ ---­ Grain Sorghum __ 2,611 2,119 1,497 1,453 370 557 667 586 680 1,096 1,464 826 1,103 1,416 1,895 2,435 3,821 Corn --------------····· 225 123 83 139 35 58 29 41 104 152 135 66 35 94 145 163 251 Oats ·····--------········­ 211 347 101 112 143 69 53 99 200 121 213 122 133 103 116 172 258 Cattle -------------­-­14,964 Calves -······---------­494 Hogs ----------------­675 Sheep ---------------­-264 16,300 3,308 1,030 364 14,724 3,493 868 437 10,259 2,550 660 222 6,023 1,532 362 308 4,241 1,057 265 312 4,205 1,133 556 248 6,850 1,094 414 301 6,685 1,051 594 484 6,731 1,202 1,063 359 10,558 1,302 1,032 877 10,59'.' 1,361 730 817 11,458 1,568 828 890 ' 11,285 1,596 589 949 13,523 1,510 999 1,031 21,937 1,908 1,943 1,661 23,502 2,089 3,076 1,592 Poultry -··············­Wool ---------·········· 1,655 338 1,695 500 2,144 450 1,758 309 1,792 233 982 129 951 336 977 293 1,181 268 988 866 1,313 1,145 1,010 867 803 1,084 901 1,649 886 2,210 1,019 2,366 1,026 2,444 Mo hair ---------------­ 130 195 150 50 18 12 40 25 48 117 101 81 115 146 151 255 260 Eggs ------------------­Milk Products ____ Fruits, vegetablesCanning ________ 1,681 1,358 -------­ 1,889 1,404 -------­ 1,972 1,654 ------­ 1,579 1,368 ------­ 1,103 1,244 -----­ 819 1,070 -------­ 432 1,677 ------­ 1,116 1,997 ------­ 1,508 2,522 1 1,454 2,824 -------­ 1,322 2,708 -------­ 1,178 2,695 -------­ 1,424 2,748 -------­ 1,590 3,211 -­-----­ 3,207 4,179 -------­ 5,396 6,152 -------­ 4,621 7,011 ------­ ~ [rj Peanuts TOTAL -----------­-------­______ ________139,701 ------­109,287 ------­95,588 -----­45,343 ---­---­37,509 -----­46,710 -----­60,652 ------­34,978 ------­55,965 -----­47,345 -------­63,107 ------­50,212 ------­42,481 -----­51,937 ------­106,844 1,215 124,352 2,184 108,958 ~ >en tcc:er; ~ z [rj DISTRICT 3-TRENDS OF FARM CASH INCOME BY PRODUCTS en en Product 1927 1928 1929 1~30 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 :::0 [rj Cotton ----------------­Cotton Seed ________ Wheat -----------------­ 14,022 2,170 1,160- 12,444 2,196 644 9,106 1,584 831 3,139 1,250 308 3,868 611 571 3,973 608 511 6,662 862 403 4,101 1,124 719 6,149 1,690 586 4,236 1,102 879 3,047 706 1,778 1,322 303 1,924 1,159 269 1,003 2,406 552 1,976 3,381 948 1,076 4,924 1,238 594 2,974 765 1,682 <~ [rj ~ Rice ------------------­ ------­ -------­ ----­-­ -----­ -------­ ------­ -------­ -------­ ----­- -------­ -------­ ------­ ---­---­ -------­ -----­ -----­ -­ Grain Sorghum __ 355 223 119 223 120 78 72 101 143 76 149 109 38 142 190 209 419 Corn ------------------·-·· 640 326 170 358 140 129 138 138 101 333 560 201 116 167 230 279 403 Oats ------------------­ 520 1,021 465 322 471 226 313 338 642 396 486 292 317 318 370 330 252 Cattle -­---------------­12,219 Calves ----------------­629 Hogs ---·--------------­604 Sheep ----------------­128 15,024 3,070 868 232 13,147 2,980 829 220 8,542 2,427 544 240 5,097 1,227 275 279 3,680 1,256 204 253 3,269 1,257 507 127 5,400 1,344 322 165 7,645 2,474 629 322 7,047 2,527 1,234 223 12,612 3,724 1,191 352 10,499 3,249 851 435 10,437 3,564 845 449 9,477 3,446 752 296 12,351 4,233 1,366 408 21,791 5,201 2,571 674 19,843 5,094 3,541 847 Poultry ---------------­Wool ------------------­Mohair ---------------­Eggs ---------------------­Milk Products ___ _ Fruits, Vegetables 1,440 204 168 958 610 1,456 336 255 491 632 1,873 346 193 1,172 . 744 1,867 294 218 925 880 1,188 259 131 605 709 628 145 66 502 533 596 494 222 522 555 608 456 137 669 659 859 779 248 862 806 734 612 358 862 916 887 773 375 760 1,002 794 551 271 695 910 :726 703 361 l'il8 844 542 928 598 554 1,206 673 1,211 622 770 1,471 716 1,783 1,028 1,101 2,501 874 1,818 1,047 1,458 2,830 Ca nning --------­ -------­ -------­ -----­-­ 4 2 ----­ .....---­ 1 ---­--­- 4 Peanuts ---------------­ ------­ -------­ ------­ ----­ ---­ ----­ --­ ------­ ------­ ------­ -------­ -------­ ------­ -------­ ------­ 6,421 8,043 TOT AL --------------­ 35,827 39,218 33,779 21,541 15,553 12,792 15,999 16,282 23,935 21,539 28,402 22,406 21,449 23,360 29,300 51,361 51,890 Maximum Values From Cotton in 1944 Planting time is a critical period in determining farm cash income in Texas. Crop l!Creages and, to a sub· stantial extent, qualities of products are now being determined by varieties planted; the latter is ~specially true in the case of cotton. Cotton is our major crop. It is preeminently a raw material producing plant. It yields two major products, cotton lint and cottonseed. Both are basic raw materials for large manufacturing industries. Qualities of both of these products, but more especially the lint, vary widely. Likewise, the proportion of seed to lint, and the yield pei: acre, vary as betwe~n climatic zones, soil types and conditions, and also as between different varieties and strains of cotton. All of these variations are further complicated by varying cost; of production as between regions and varieties. Cotton lint and cottonseed are produced to sell. Farmers are interested in securing the greatest net i:eturn for the two products combined. The value of lint per pound is about 8 times the value of seed in the case of M. 15/16, but only 4 times as valuable per acre where the weight of seed is 2/3 that of lint. The major factors to be evaluated in determining the relative profitableness of growing different varieti~ of cotton are (1) yield per acre of lint (2) yield per acre of seed (3) staple length (4) grade and character of lint (5) quick fruiting (6) size of bolls (7) storm­ proofness (8) and adaptability to mechanical harvesting where this method of harvest is used. The object of the following analyses is to convert as . many of the above factors into lint yield per acre equiva· hmts as possible to facilitate accurate comparisons. The market discount for 3/4 inch staple is about 225 points off 15/16 inch. This means, for example, that if a farmer is getting 200 pounds of lint per acre from a variety of cotton tpat produces 15/16 inch staple, he should get at least 224 pounds per acre from a variety that produces only 3/4 inch staple, and the amount of seed for the short staple should be at least equal to the other. In order to determine yield value equivalents of staple lengths in terms of a given length, e. g. 15/16, it is only necessary to follow the fqllowing simple procedure. First, get the percentage relationship between the price of the staple length in question in relation to 15/16. That is, divide th~ price of 15/16 into the price of the staple length in question. Divide this quotient into 100, and multiply that result by the yield expected from 15/16 to get the necessary yield from the variety in question. For example, the premium for middling 11/8 inch cotton .is now 460 on middling 15/16. The price of middling 15/16 at Dallas is 21 cents per pound. This means that the price of middling 11/8 inch is 25.60 cents, 25.60 cents divided by 21 cents equals 122. This figure divided into 100 equals .82. Now, suppose the farmer has been getting 200 pounds per acre of lint cotton from his 15/16. He would have to get 164 pounds from a variety that would yield 11/8. This is arrived at by multiplying the .82 by 200, the yield from 15/16. The value of cottonseed is now approximately $56 per ton to the farmer. If a farmer is producing a variety of cotton which yields ~ lint percentage of 33 1/3, and is getting 200 pounds of lint per acre, he would get approxi· mately 400 pounds of seed---400 pounds of seed at 2.3 cents a pound would be $11.20 for seed. Now, if the farmer changed from . the above variety to one with a lint per cent of 40, and got 200 pounds of lint, he would get only 300 pounds of seed, which, at 2.8 cents per pound, would bring only $8.40 per acre. What would be the relative values of these two varieties, assuming di.at yield of lint and staple length in each case is the same, i.e., 200 pounds of 15/16? The gross value difference is $2.80 in favor of the high seed producing variety. The farmer must pick 100 more pounds of seed cotton in the case of the high seed producing variety. Assuming the price of picking each variety per hundred is $1.00, and that ginning is charged on the weight of the lint, then the high seed yielding variety would be the better by $1.80 per acre, the high lint per cent variety would need to produce about 8 pounds per acre more than the high seed yielding variety to produce the same net value per acre from both lint and seed. · The significant fact brought out by these calculations is that at present prices of cottonseed they yield a net return to_ the farmer above cost, and that, other things being equal, it will pay the farmer to grow high seed producing varieties. The next question to be answered is, do the varieties producing high lint percentages produce more lint per acre? The answer to that question must come from the scientific tests made by the experiment station and checked by the farmer's own experience. Let me illustrate. In a five year test of 22 varieties at the Black Land Experiment Station at Temple, the · variety with the highest lint percentage was eighth in yield of lint per acre, twenty-first in bolls per pound, twentieth in value of lint, and twentieth in value of seed. The number one variety in yield of lint per acre had a lint percentage of 36.5. The average difference in the amount and value of the seed produced at Temple, at present prices of seed, be­ tween Acala, the lowest lint percentage producing variety, and half-and-half, the highest, is $5.79. During this same period Acala 111 had an average lint yield of 304 pounds of 1 1/32 inch cotton worth $81.14 per acre at present prices; and half-and-half produced 279 pounds of 13/16 inch worth $53.85. The cost of picking cotton is an important factor to be considered, and costs are determined by such factors as ( 1) yield per acre, ( 2) size of bolls, and (3) fruit­ ing habits. If we assume yield per acre to be the same, then the number of bolls required to be picked per pound is perhaps the leading factor determining cost of picking. This varies very widely. Generally it may be said that the weight of bolls varies inversely with the lint ratio. That is, the higher the ratio of lint to seed, present prices of cottonseed, the farmer is justified in the lighter the weight of bolls. It is also generally true, shifting to varieties that produce the largest amount of although there are some important exceptions, that the seed, provided those same varieties equal the others in lint percentage varies inversely with the length of staple. lint produced per acre. This means to say that as a rule the shorter stapled A. B. Cox. varieties have the highest lint percentages. Certainly, at COTTON BALANCE SHEET FOR .THE U.S. AS OF MARCH 1, 1944 (In Thousands of Running Bales Except as Noted) Carryover Imports Gov. Est. as Cons. to Exports to March 1 Y ear Auguat l to March I* of Dec. I• Total March l March 1 Total Balance 1934-1935 -----------------------7,746 56 9,731 17,533 2,685 2,865 5,550 11,983 1935-1936 -------------------------7,138 56 10,734 17,928 3,014 4,004 7,018 10,910 1936-1937 ---------------------------5,397 72 12,407 17,876 3,435 3,848 7,283 10,593 1937-1938 ------------------------4,498 46 18,746 23,290 3,078 3,832 6,910 16,380 1938-1939 ------11,533 77 12,008 23,618 3,397 2,192 5,589 18,029 1939-1940 ---------------------13,033 66 11,792 24,891 4,042 4,170 8,212 16,679 1940-1941 -------------------10,596 58 12,686 23,340 4,423 654 5,077 18,263 1941-1942 ----------------------12,367 t 10,976 23,343 5,391 793 6,184 17,159 1942-1943 -----------10,590 t 12,982 23,572 5,628 t 5,628 17,944 1943-1944 -------------------10,687 t 12,120 22,807 5,902 775i 6,677 16,130 The Cotton year begins August 1. *Figures are in 500-pound ba,les. tNot available. !New York Cotton Exchange estimate to March 1. DAIRY PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED IN PLANTS IN TEXAS Product and Year CREA MER Y BUTTER January February March April May June July Aurust September October November December Total (1000 lb.) 1944* ---------­---­2,043 1943* -----------­----------­2,631 1930-39 average _______ 2,074 2,126 2,743 2,109 2,724 2,392 3,446 3,138 4,740 3,556 4,275 3,166 4,051 4,113 3,452 2,867 2,629 2,513 2,581 2,608 2,236 2,301 1,924 2,211 38,071 32,048 ICE CREAM (1000 gal.) i 1944* ------------1,115 1943* --------------------­1,125 1930-39 average -----------­1,215 AMERICAN CHEESE 1,211 1,187 1,262 1,408 434 1,823 570 2,327 752 2,391 893 2,758 904 2,763 845 1,990 686 1,622 460 1,443 259 940 205 22,237 6,486 (1000 lb.) 1944* ----------­-----­ 902 956 1943* ---------­1930-39 average _________ MIL K EQUIVALENT OF 914 554 948 590 1,108 737 1,633 1,050 2,120 1,215 1,943 1,129 1,896 1,119 1,405 1,025 1,019 866 819 852 621 718 809 641 15,272 10,496 DAIRY PRODUCTSt (lOOOlb.) 1944* _____,__ _________ ___ _ ____67,873 1943* _____ ___ _ __ ______ _________80,106 1930-39 average ___________ 54,675 71,519 83,301 57,139 88,540 115,540 154,491 142,700 143,120 124,558 67,456 89,641 104,323 97,562 97,075 89,185 93,186 76,165 85,084 73,444 73,290 60,119 62,253 55,872 1,271,809 922,656 *Estimates of production made by the Bureau of Business Research. tMilk Equivalent of Dairy products was calculated from production data by the Bureau of Business Research. U ncludes ice cream, sherbets, ices, etc. _ NoTE : 10-year average production on creamery butter, ice cream and American cheese based on data from the Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S.D.A. COMMODITY PRICES CEMENT Wholesale Prices: Feb., 1944 Feb ., 1943 Jan., 1944 (In Thousands of Barrels) U.S. Bureau of (1926=100% ) Fann Prices : U.S. Bureau of (1926:::;=100%) Labor Statistics ----------------------­103.6 Labor Statistics --------------­----·­-­-122.5 102.5 119.0 103.8 121.& Texas Plants Production ------------­---­Shipments -------------­------­Stocks -------­---------------­United States Jan., 1944 430 449 1,116 Jan., 1943 809 668 872 Dec., 1943 534 409 1,135 Retail Prices : Food (U.S. Bureau of Labor Sta­tistics (1935-1939=100% ) _____ Department Stores (Fairchild's Publications 134.5 133.6 136.1 Production ------­-----·------­Shipments -------------------­Stocks ----------------­--­-­----­Capacity Operated ----------­ 6,322 5,040 24,434 30.0% 12,560 8,641 21,347 60.0% 8,318 5,603 23,134 40.0o/o January, 1931=100%) --------­Cost of Living Index (1938-1939 113.3 113.3 113.3 NoTE : From U.S. Departm ent of Interior, Bureau of Mine!!. =100%) -----------------123.7 120.9 124.l •Revieioo. FEBRUARY, 1944, CARLOAD MOVEMENTS OF POULTRY AND EGGS Shipments from Texas Stations Cara of Poul try Cara of Eggs Shell •Destination Chickens Turkeys Shell Frozen Dried Equjvalentt 1944 1943 1944 1943 1944 1943 1944 1943 1944 1943 1944 1943 TOTAL -----------------------------------------------------------------------10 10 5 1 24 29 43 19 78 37 734 363 Intrastate ----------------------------------------------------------------__ ___ _ 1 0 1 0 20 18 26 7 10 0 152 32 Interstate--------------------------------------_________----------_______ 9 10 4 1 4 11 17 12 68 37 582 331 Receipts at Texas Stations ------------------------...------------------· -----------------------------· TOTAL 4 3 0 0 66 13 28 8 0 0 122 29 Intrastate ----------------------------------------------------------------1 0 0 0 17 8 22 5 0 0 61 18 Interstate____________________________________________________ 3 3 0 0 49 5 6 3 0 0 61 11 •The destination above is the first destination as shown by the original Waybill. Changes in destination brought about by diversion factors are not 1hown. tDried eggs and frozen eggs are converted to e. shell egg equivalent on the f oll owing basis: I rail carload of dried eggs=8 carloads of shell eggs, and l carload of frozen eggs=2 carloads of shell eggs. Non: These data furnished to the Division of Agricultural Statistica, B. A. E., by railroad officials through agents at all stations which orittinate and receive carload shipments of poultry nod eggs. The data are compiled by the Bureau of Business Research. FEBRUARY SHIPMENTS OF LIVE STOCK CONVERTED TO A RAIL-CAR BASIS* Cattle Calves Swine Sheep Total 1944 1943 1944 1943 1944 1943 1944 1943 1944 1943 Total Interstate Plus Fort Worth_________ _________ 2,196 4,120 518 687 1,438 1,134 228 657 4,380 6,598 Total lntrastaie Omitting Fort Worth_____ _ _ _ 533 792 123 215 93 35 27 30 776 1,072 TOTAL SHIPMENTS ----------------------------------2,729 4,912 641 902 1,531 1,169 255 687 5,156 7,670 TEXAS CAR-LOT* SHIPMENTS OF LIVE STOCK FOR YEAR 1943 Cattle Calves Swine Sheep Total 1944 1943 1944 1943 1944 1943 1944 1943 1944 1943 Total Interstate Plus Fort Worth ------------------­5,021 7,560 1,283 1,278 2,870 2,428 543 1,332 9,717 12,598 Total Intrastate Omitting Fort Worth - --------1,029 1,664 231 375 177 149 100 146 1,537 2,334 TOTAL SHIPMENTS_ _____________________________ 6,050 9,224 1,514 1,653 3,047 2,577 643 1,478 11,254 14,932 " •Rail-car Ba1i1: Cattle, 30 head per car; caJvee, 60; ho1•. 80; and eheep, 250. Fort Worth 1hipmenu are combined with interetate forwardioc1 in order that the bulk of market diaappearance for the month may be •hown. NoTE: Thes~ data are furnished the United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics by railway officials through more than 1,500 station agents, representing every livestoclC' shipping point in the state. The data are compiled by the Burea u of .Business Research. FEBRUARY CREDIT RATIOS IN TEXAS DEPARTMENT AND APPAREL STORES (Expressed in Per Cent) Number Ratio of Ratio of Ratio of of Credit Sales Collections to Credit Salaries Storee to Net Sales Outstandin2s to Credit Sales Reporting 1944 1943 1944 1943 1944 1943 44.5 50.4 62.2 Stores Grouped by Cities: Austin ______----------------------------------5 40.6 45.9 70.0 71.2 1.6 1.2 Beaumont-----------------------------------------------------------3 All Stores -------------------------------------------------------------------55 64.9 1.3 1.5 48.8 55.7 71.0 75.8 1.3 0.7 Bryan --------------------------------------------------------------3 45.9 44.4 58.1 54.4 5.1 3.9 Corpus Christi -------------------------------------------------------------3 39.9 42.7 83.l 85.9 1.3 0.7 Dallas ------------------------------------------6 51.5 59.9 68.9 68.4 0.9 0.7 EI Paso ------------------------------------------------------------------------3 37.9 43.l 65.7 55.9 1.8 1.3 Fort Worth -----------------------------------------------------4 39.5 49.1 64.6 62.5 1.4 1.1 44.9 52.2 64.l 64.l 1.4 1.2 Houston ----------------------------------------------------------5 San Antonio -----------------------------------------------------------------4 40.9 41.4 43.3 62.6 1.5 1.4 48.8 51.8 59.8 60.1 1.0 1.1 Waco ---------------------------------------------------------------5 All Others --------------------------------------------------------------------------14 38.4 42.5 71,.0 68.l 1.5 LO Stores Grouped According to Type of Store: Department Stores (Annual Volume Over $500,000) ___________________ 18 45.0 51.4 66.9 65.2 1.2 1.0 Department Stores (Annual Volume under $500,000)______________ 10 41.5 43.2 68.5 65.7 1.7 1.3 3 40.3 47.7 64.8 68.0 2.1 1.4 Dry-Goods-Apparel Sto·res -----------------------------------------­ Women's Specialty Shops ----------------------------------­12 43.9 46.6 41.1 64.4 1.1 0.7 12 42.9 52.1 65.2 62.9 1.7 1.1 Men's Oothing Stores -----------------------------------------­Stores Grouped According to Volume of Net Sales During 1943: 17 42.6 53.2 66.7 65.4 1.2 LO Over $2,5000,000 ----------------------------------------­ $2,500,000 down to $1,000,000 ---------------------------------------­8 45.5 45.2 67.3 70.1 1.7 1.2 $1,000,000 down to $500,000 ------------------------------------13 40.0 45.0 66.6 70.7 1.2 0.9 Less than $500,000 ------------------------------------------------------------­ 17 32.4 32.7 65.5 68.8 4.7 2.8 Non : The ratios shown for each year, in the order in which they appear from left to right are obtained by the following computations; ( 1) Credit Sales divided by Net Sa)e!I. (2) Collections during the month divided by the total accounts unpaid on the first of the month. (3) Salaries of the credit department divided by credit sales. The data are reported to the Bureau of Buainees Research by Texas retail stores. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW EMPLOYMENT AND PAY ROLLS IN TEXAS February, 1944 Estimated Number of Percentaite Chan2e Estimated Amount of Percentage Chanu Workers Employed* from from Weekly Pay Roll from from Jan., Feb., Jan., Feb., Jan., Feb., Jan., Feb.,1944(1} 1944<2> 1944 1943 1944(1) 1944<2) 1944 1943 MANUFACTURING All Manufacturing lndustries____l65,790 165,439 0.2 + 1.7 $5,364,010 $5,477,508 + 2.1 +19.9 Food Products Baking 8,517 8,260 3.0 + 6.8 257,602 267,184 + 3.7 +23.3 Carbonated Beverages ---------------3,516 3,484 0.9 + 15.3 100,931 102,663 + 1.7 +23.0 + 29.5 22,713 22,548 0.7 Confectionery -------------------------· 1,681 1,660 1.3 +34.3 Flour Milling ------------------------·-· 2,334 2,416 + 3.5 + 13.3 71,055 73,032 + 2.8 +43.3 Ice Cream 1,263 1,303 + 3.2 + 12.5 34,247 35,997 + 5.1 + 25.l 6,425 6,195 3.6 -0.6 224,622 185,291 -17.5 -0.4 Meat Packing ---------------------------· Textiles 5,528 5,509 0.3 -18.7 118,676 125,065 + 5.4 -ll.9 Men's Work Oothing ----------·-------·· 4,190 4,319 + 3.1 --10.2 72,991 78,969 + 8.2 +16.9 Cotton Textile Mills ----------------·----·· Forest Products 1,799 1,603 - 10.9 -10.9 44,477 42,070 5.4 +27.6 Furniture ------------------------------·­ - Planing Mills ------------------··----.. 1,945 1,927 0.9 9.1 49,207 54,536 +10.8 -2.9 Saw Mills -----------------·-------. 15,371 15,994 + 4.0 0.8 248,599 302,654 +21.7 + 19.I Paper Boxes --------------·----·-945 843 -10.8 + 8.2 21,674 18,684 -13.8 + 14.l Printing and PubUshing Commercial Printing 2,413 2,472 + 2.5 + 3.2 83,992 87,794 + 4.5 +18.2 Newspaper. Publishing ----------------3,932 3,817 2.9 8.7 105,914 198,510 + 2.4 ± (3) Chemical Products Cotton Oil Mills ------------------------3,889 3,656 6.0 + 6.1 62,682 60,410 3.6 +35.9 Petroleum Refining ------------------23,243 23,729 + 2.1 + 5.9 1,315,523 1,367,997 + 4.0 +30.4 Stone and Clay Products Brick and Tile ---------------1,773 1,786 + 0.8 + 1.1 25,722 30,282 + 17.7 + 6.1 Cement ---------------------------975 942 3.4 -20.4 35,098 34,808 0.8 -14.5 Iron and Steel Products Structural and Ornamental Iron__ 2,694 2,564 4.8 -10.6 85,047 81,980 3.6 + 7.6 NONMANUFACTURING Crude Petroleum Production____ 26,425 26,829 + 1.5 + 3.2 1,399,242 1,408,886 + 0.7 +28.5 Quarrying ------·-------------------------(4) (4) 2.7 -19.1 (4) (4) + 2.2 -3.5 Public Utilities ---------------------(4) (4) + 1.6 + 5.6 (4) (4) + 1.3 +16.9 Retail Trade ___________________________ 214,034 201,444 5.9 1.3 5,123,289 4,913,578 4.1 + 15.l Wholesale Trade ---------------------62,155 61,978 0.3 + 3.2 2,301,647 2,321,886 + 0.9 + 11.7 Dyeing and Cleaning ----------------2,728 2,824 + 3.5 + 4.1 62,064 63,664 + 2.6 +22.3 Hotels -----------------------------------·---·-19,351 19,254 -0.5 + 6.9 318,487 331,859 + 4.2 +25.8 P ower Laundries ----------------------14,059 14,200 + 1.0 0.5 239,946 246,629 + 2.8 +13.0 CHANGES IN EMPLOYMENT AND PAY ROLLS IN SELECTED CITIES{6) Em plo yment Pay Rolle Employment Pay Rolle PeTcentage Chanj?e Pereen tage Chane::e Percentage Change Percenta2e Chana:e Jan., 1944 Feb., 1943 J~n.. 1944 Feb., 1943 Jan., 1944 Feb., 1943 Jan., 1944 Feb., 1943 to to to to to to to toFeb., 1944 Feb., 1944 Feb., 1944 Feb., 1944 Feb., 1944 Feb., 1944 Feb., 1944 Feb., 1944 Abilene ________ 3.8 + 4.5 2.0 + 20.5 Galveston _______ + 8.1 + 20.4 + 22.5 + 76.l Amarillo ____ + 3.3 11.8 + 3.0 4.3 Houston + 0.8 + 3.0 + 4.0 + 1.3 Austin 1.6 3.2 3.4 1.6 Port Arthur.... + 3.9 0.4 + 6.0 + 26.9 Beaumont _____ + 0.5 5.2 + 11.2 + 8.9 San Antonio ___ + 1.3 0.1 0.6 + 8.0 Dallas -----------+ 2.3 + 34.1 + 6.1 + 68.7 Sherman __ _ ____ + 2.6 4.6 + 9.2 + 18.9 El Paso + 1.2 + 0.2 + 4.8 + 22.6 Waco + 1.5 + 4.4 + 7.5 + 11.9 Ft. Worth 9.4 + 23.4 9.5 + 41.3 Wichita Falls_ + 0.1 15.6 1.0 + 9.6 STATE _______ __ 0.8 + 10.l + 3.7 + 24.0 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN NONAGRICULTURAL BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENTs <•> 1941(l) 1942 (1) 1943(1) 1941 (1) 1942(1) 1943 January ------------------1,094,000 1,170,000 1,385,000 1,317,000 1 450 ooo<" July -------------------------1,156,000February ----·----·-------1,120,000 1,199,000 1,397,000 August ...................... 1,176,000 1,352,000 i '.441:000(1)March ---------------------1,120,000 1,226,000 1,415,000 September _______________ 1,203,000 1,373,000 1,448,000<11 April ---------------------1,114,000 1,222,000 1,433,000 October ------------------1,219,000 1,384,000 1 455 ooo<•> May ------------------------1,120,000 1,251,000 1,458,000 November ________________ 1,219,000 1,389,000 1,461'ooo<•> June -----------------------1,134,000 1,291,000 1,478,000 December _____________ ___ 1,222,000 1,413,700 1:410:000<•> *Does not include proprielors, firm members, officers of corporations, or other principai executives. Factory employment excludes also office, salea, 1echnic1l and professional personnel. <1>Rev ised. <2>S ubjcct to revision. <3>No change. <4 >Not available. CG>nased on unweighted figures. 0 <>Not including self-employed persons, casual workers, or domes tic servants and exclusive of military and maritime personnel. These figures are furnished bythe Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. , Prepared from reports from re presentative Texas establishments to the Bureau of Business Research coOperating with the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Due to the national emergency, publications of data for ce rtain industries, is being withheld until further notice. FEBRUARY RETAIL SALES OF INDEPENDENT STORES IN TEX.AS Percenta1e Chan1ea Number of in Dollar Salee Estah· Feh., 1944 Feb., 1944 Year 1944 lishrnenta from from from Reporting Feb., 1943 Jan., 1944 Year 1943 TOTAL TEXAS _______ 952 + 2.0 + 6.3 + 5.7 STORES GROUPED BY LINE OF GOODS CARRIED: APPAREL 102 -8.7 + 8.3 -2.3 Family Clothing Stores 23 -4.8 + 3.6 + 0.7 Men's and Boys' Clothing Stores 32 -4.0 +15.0 -4.5 Shoe Stores 14 -28.0 3.9 -21.l Women's Specialty Shops __ 33 -12.6 + 3.1 + 0.3 AUTOMOTIVE• 73 +39.7 -2.2 +22.0 Motor Vehicle Dealers 66 +45.7 -2.2 +23.9 COUNTRY GENERAL 95 + 6.7 + 5.5 + 8.2 DEPARTMENT STORES 61 + 0.4 +10.9 + 5.7 DRUG STORES ----lll +14.3 + 5.0 + 16.0 DRY GOODS AND GENERAL MERCHANDISE 24 -6.9 + 3.8 + 0.3 FILLING STATIONS 27 + 9.9 + 3.4 + 5.8 FLORISTS 21 +32.7 +13.0 +38.2 FOOD• 137 + 6.8 -2.7 + 8.0 Grocery Stores -· 35 + 4.3 -1.3 + 6.4 Grocery and Meat Stores 95 + 7.9 -2.7 + 9.0 FURNITURE AND HOUSEHOLD• 74 -4.1 +13.2 -6.2 Furniture Stores 67 -2.2 +12.9 -4.9 JEWELRY 21 +13.0 + 4.6 +11.5 LUMBER, BUILDING, AND HARDWARE• 167 -1.7 2.6 + 6.7 Farm Implement Dealers 12 +18.9 + 7.4 +17.8 Hardware Stores 54 +12.5 + 6.5 +25.2 Lumber and Building Material Dealers 99 -7.2 -7.4 -0.4 RESTAURANTS 23 +23.3 -2.1 +21.4 ALL OTHER STORES 8 +10.3 +13.9 +15.6 TEXAS STORES GROUPED ACCORDING TO POPULATION OF CTTY: All Stores in Cities 00£­Over 100,000 Population 138 1.7 + 8.7 + 3.7 50,000-100,000 Population 105 + 0.8 0.7 + 7.5 2,500-50,000 Population 477 + 7.7 + 7.8 + 6.0 Less than 2,500 Population 232 + 7.4 + 1.3 +15.9 --:;{;roup total includes kinds of business other than the classification listed. . . .. . . Prepared from reports of independent retail stores to the Bureau of Business Research, cooperating wllh the U.S. Bureau of the Census. PETROLEUM Daily Average Production (In Barrels) Feb., 1944 Feb., 1943 Jan., 1944 Coastal Texas• ----------516,600 320,450 520,800 East Central Texas ___ lll,900 100,550 ll6,400 East Texas ----------390,600 325,100 366,200 North Texas ----------139,950 135,350 140,200 Panhandle ----------102,000 88,900 97,900 Southwest Texas ______ 288,250 162,150 293,550 West Texas ________ 362,000 210,700 364,700 STATE ----------1,911,300 1,343,200 1,899,750 UNITED STATES ______ 4,401,800 3,867,900 4,384,000 Gasoline sales as indicated by taxes collected by the State Comptroller were: Jan, 1944, 92,864,246 gallons; Jan. 1943, 87,375,064 gallons; December, 1943, 98,803,951_ gallons. •Includes Conroe. Non: From American Petroleum Institute. See accompanying map showing the oil producing districts of Texas. PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRIC POWER Feb., 1944 Feb., 1944 from from Jan., 1944 Feb., 1943 +34.2 + 17.7 Industrial ------------------------­ Commercial ---------------------­ +17.0 +33.l Residential -----------­ +12.2 +16.8 All Others ---------­ -5.5 +23.3 TOTAL ------------­ +12.7 +25.7 Prepared from reports of 8 electric power companies to the Bureau of Business Research. POSTAL RECEIPTS Feb., 1944 Feb., 1943 Jan., 1944 BUILDING PERMITS Abilene ______________________$ 40,331 $ 37,124 $ 45,707 Feb., 1944 Feb., 1943 Jan., 1944 Amarillo ---·--------------51,581 47,592 57,799 Abilene _____________________:___ $ 7,605 $ 6,647 $ 130,200 · Austin --------------------------99,659 77,137 84,605 33,455 73,900 Beaumont ----------------40,926 36,909 46,546 Amarillo --------------------7,115 18,772 31,528 Big Spring ---------------9,645 8,937 11,340Austin -------------------18,038 Beaumont ____________,,___ 166,923 1,620,890 18,920 Brownsville ------------9,902 8,426 11,707 4,623 8,865 Brownwood ----------------18,196 28,201 22,721 Big Spring -----------------9,500 ·3,026 2,925 Childress -------------------5,226 3,559 5,467 Brownsville -------------------3,065 1,475 20,950 Cleburne ----------------5,250 5,063 5,869Brownwood ---------------93,275 0 0 Coleman -----------------3,651 3,872 5,440Coleman -------------------0 18,814 101,675 Corpus Christi -------------60,527 47,969 61,743Corjius Christi ------------138,830 Corsicana __-:_________________ 710 1,430 1,201 Corsicana --------------8,636 7,386 10,515 149,604 1,367,372 Dallas -----------------------501,186 447,624 492,763 Dallas --------------------------312,729 330 1,400 Del Rio -----------------------5,474 4,144 6,942 Denton -------------------------3,550 5,059 1,714 Denison -------------------------9,034 7,826 9,023 Edinburg ---------------------. 1,903 32,468 37,830 Denton -----------------------11,167 8,903 12,229El Paso -----------------------26,646 357,355 264,456 Edinburg --------------·-4,033 3,124 4,514Fort Worth ----'-----~----191,709 14,446 117,016 El Paso -------------------86,506 76,228 92,483 Galveston -------------------103,811 Gladewater _ ____:_____________ 1,725 9,235 530 Fort Worth ----·-----------217,654 186,031 193,171 790 3,330 Galveston ---------------48,402 42,591 46,949 Graham '--------------------1,665 0 4,000 <;ladewater ----------3,715 3,080 4,731 Harlingen ------------------1,950 63,105 488,200 Harlingen -------------------11,210 9,302 13,337Houston. -----------------------438,540 1,100 4,600 Houston ----------------334,677 290,617 340,809Jacksonville ----------------1,850 0 0 Jacksonville ---------4,708 29,377 5,256Kenedy----------------0 Kerrville· ________,___________ 675 380 1,675 Kenedy ---------------2,164 1,779 2,491 2,140 3,867 Kerrville ----------------------3,359 2,994 4,437 Longview ---------------------1,640 15,875 18,008 Longview --------·-----------12,770 10,357 14,675 Lubbock ---------------------32,304 2,305 6,125 Lubbock ---------------29,836 27,773 33,197 McAllen ----------------------. 7,485 Marshall -----------------------5,866 5,673 8,619 Lufkin ------------------------6,187 5,701 7,377 3,525 20,550 McAllen ------------------6,123 5,655 8,379Midland ---------------------4,600 New Braunfels -----------500 1,600 2,051 Marshall ----------------9,833 7,724 10,810 Palestine -----------------------1,400 6,915 1,000 Palestine ---------------7,245 5,937 7,614 Pampa -------------------------9,700 49,000 150 Pampa ---------------------------9,509 7,880 10,379 Paris -----·z·-________________ 8,620 49,250 9,350 Paris -------------------------19,759 17,256 19,071 7,455 150 Plainview ----------5,914 4,500 6,028Plainview ---------------------200 Port· Arthur •.[ _______ _ __ 6,340 8,840 41,798 Port Arthur -------------25,199 21,498 26,503 San.Antonio ./--------------383,809 85,390 269,989 San Angelo ----------------19,706 16,742 20,626 8,499 7,448 San Antonio -----------242,054 205,382 243,825 Sherman ------------------------10,102 Snyder -------------------------0 150 0 Sherman --------------------11,424 9,041 11,602 1,635 2,278 Sweetwater --------------------2,590 2,010 10,155 Snyder -----------------------2,134 Tyler ----------------------------7,678 2,375 8,284 Sweetwater -------------------8,244 5,952 7,696 Waco -----------------------------147,755 13,526 17,527 Temple ---------------14,917 12,386 15,850 Wichita Falls -------------17,630 9,420 18,790 Tyler --------------------------27,940 25,414 29,484 TOTAL __________________ _ $2,180,033 $2,616,952 $3,126,148 Waco -----------------------------· 48,725 41,975 46,248 Wichita Falls -------------40,647 38,501 42,262 TOTAL _________________$2,144,985 NoTE: Compiled from reports from Texa.a chambers of commerce to the Bu $1,879,104 $2,192,498 rcau of Business Research. NOTE: Compiled from reports from Texas chambers of commerce to the Bu reau of Business Research. CONTENTS Busi",iess Review and Prospect, F. A. Buechel____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________ 3 Max;imum Values From Cotton in 1944, A. B. Cox_________ _ ·----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 LIST OF CHARTS ·; ~~~:~:: ~~ ~~;i~:s~ ~~Tv~~~ iI'n r.r::=~--=======~~=::::::=::::=:::::::::::~==-========-===-~-====::=:~===:==-=== LiST OF TABLES 9 8 8 8 .. ~~!;~~~it{~[~~~~5~~~~~~I~;~~j]_-~~j]~~~l~0I~~~ 12 9 Dairy Products Manufactured in Plants in Texas........------------------· -----------..:._·-------------------------------------8 10 ~:~~'Z:;;tcl~~~g~sainRc~~s~~;~f;:soi""Ei~~iri~--p-~-;~·~:::::=:::=~:=:::::::::=:::::=::::=:::::==:=:::::::::==::=::::==::::::::~-::-=::::::==::::=:::::::::::::=: 11 Petroleum ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 11 11 ~~:;~e~!~~~}~~f~~~~-d~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~-~=~==:=~~==~~==:=~==::::::=::=~~==~~=:::::~~~===~:===~~::~=:~=:::::::::::=::~::::::::~ 12 9 Entered al eecond claNI matter on May 7, 1928, 11.t the poet office at Au11tin, Texas. under Act of Aucu1t 24. 1912 TEN CENTS PER COPY ONE DOLLAR PER YEAR