THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS BULLETIN No. 3034: September 8, 1930 AN ANALYSIS OF SHIPMENTS OF TEXAS SHEEP AND GOA TS By GEORGE M. LEWIS Assistant Director, Department of Marketing, Institute of American Meat Packers Formerly in Charge of Livestock Marketing Studies in the Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas Bureau of Business Research Research Monograph No. 7 PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN Publications of The University of Texas Publications Committees: GENERAL: FREDERIC DUNCALF MRS. C. M. PERRY J. F. DOBIE C.H. SLOVER J. L. HENDERSON G. W. STUMBERG H.J. MULLER A. P. WINSTON OFFICIAL: E. J. MATHEWS KILLIS CAMPBELL C. F. ARROWOOD C. D. SIMMONS E. C.H. BANTEL BRYANT SMITH 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. 3001 is the first bulletin of the year 1930.) 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, The University of Texas, Austin. Additional copies of this publication may be procured from the Bureau of Business Research, The University of Texas Austin, Texas, at $1.00 per copy THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS PRESS ~ THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS BULLETIN No. 3034: September 8, 1930 AN ANALYSIS OF SHIPMENTS OF TEXAS SHEEP AND GOA TS By GEORGE M. LEWIS Assistant Director, Department of Marketing, Institute of American Meat Packers Formerly in Charge of Livestock Marketing Studies in the Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas Bureau of Business Research Research Monograph No. 7 PUBLISHED BY THB UNIVERSITY FOUR TIMES A MONTH, AND ENTERED AS SECOND-CLASS MATTER A.T THE POSTOFFICE AT AUSTIN. TEXAS, UNDER THB ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912 The benefits of education and of useful knowledge, generally diffused through a community, are essential to the preservation of a free govern· ment. Sam Houston Cultivated mind is the guardian genius of Democracy, and while guided and controlled by virtue, the noblest attribute of man. It is the only dictator that freemen acknowledge, and the only securify which freemen desire. Mirabeau B. Lamar CONTENTS Introduction --------------------------------------------------------------------------7 Part I Movement of Sheep ECONOMIC POSITION OF THE SHEEP INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES ---------------------------------17 Distribution of Sheep in the United States-----------------------20 Cycles of Sheep Values in the United States---------------------22 Mutton Consumption in the United States ------------------23 The Sheep Industry of Texas ---------------------------------26 ANALYSIS OF SHIPMENTS OF SHEEP WITHIN, FROM, AND TO TEXAS, 1923-1928 ------------------------32 Movement of Sheep from Texas -------------------·--------------------32 Movement of Sheep into Texas ----------------------------------------44 Net Movement of Sheep from Texas--------------------------------47 ANALYSIS OF SHIPMENTS OF SHEEP BY LIVESTOCK DISTRICTS, 1923-1928 ---------------------------------52 Introduction ----------·----------········----·------·---······-----···------·-------------·--52 District 1-Northwestern Texas ------------------------------53 District II-West Central Texas --------------------------58 District III-Central Texas --------------------------------------64 District IV-Eastern Texas--------------------------------74 District V-Western Texas --------------------------------------------------75 District VI-Southern Texas --------------------------------------------80 District VIII-Southeastern Texas----------------------------84 METHODS OF MARKETING TEXAS SHEEP -------------------86 Principal Methods Used in Texas ----------------------------------86 The Federal Farm Board Livestock Marketing Program -----91 MARKET OUTLETS FOR TEXAS SHEEP -------------------------94 Nature of Outlets --------------------·······------------------------------94 Survey of Feeder Sheep Outlets ---------------------------------95 Results of the Survey ----------------------------------------------------95 Part II Movement of Goats THE ECONOMIC POSITION OF THE GOAT INDUSTRY _______109 World Distribution of All Breeds of Goats _____________________________109 Distribution of Angora Goats _____________________________________________________109 Distribution of Angora Goats in the United States ______________110 Chevon Consumption in the United States ______________________lll The Goat Industry of Texas ------------------------------------------------------------114 ANALYSIS OF SHIPMENTS OF GOATS TO, WITHIN, AND FROM TEXAS, 1923-1928 __________________________________117 Shipments of Goats within Texas ----------------------------117 Shipments of Goats from Texas -----------------------------------------------------121 Shipments of Goats to Texas____________________ __________________________________l23 Net Movement of Goats into Texas _______________________________125 MARKETING GOATS IN TEXAS ___________________________________________126 Methods of Marketing -------------------------------------------------------------------126 Market Outlets for Goats ___ _______________________________________________126 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Estimated per Capita Consumption of Mutton __________ 25 Figure 2. Sheep Shipments from Texas -------------------------------------33 Figure 3. Seasonal Distribution of Sheep Shipments from Texas_ 35 Figure 4. County Distribution of Sheep in Texas __________.facing 52 Figure 5. Sheep Received at Fort Worth --------------------------------73 Figure 6. Number of Goats Clipped in the United States_________l14 Fi1P1re 7. County Distribution of Goats in Texas ____________facing 118 PREFACE This study is similar to one already made of Texas cattle. It is the third of a series of studies which deal with the business side of the livestock and meat packing industries and with wholesale and retail meat distribution in Texas. It is also preceded by A SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE FOR LIVESTOCK RANCHES. Through the generous cooperation of the railroads and the United States Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Business Research is now in a position to furnish more detailed information than is contained in this monograph, and the essential part of the current data are published monthly in TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW and in special news releases. A. B. Cox, Director. June, 1931. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This method of recording the movements of livestock was worked out by Mr. H. H. Schutz and his associates, Messrs. Gustave Burmeister, F. E. Finley, and K. D. Blood, in the Texas office of the United States Department of Agriculture. Because of the limited amount of available funds and the pressure of their other duties, they have been unable to prepare an analysis of these livestock shipments. Never­theless, the many suggestions and the assistance received from these men have been invaluable in the interpretation of this material. The writer gratefully acknowledges their valuable assistance and helpful suggestions. The complete­ness of this six-year record of railroad shipments was made possible only through the full cooperation of the officials and station agents of Texas railroads. They have displayed an unusual cooperative spirit by their willingness and faith­fulness in submitting these monthly reports. GEORGE M. LEWIS. INTRODUCTION Scope and purpose of the study The basic material of this study consists of an analysis of sheep and goat shipments to and from Texas during the period from 1923 to 1928, together with a consideration of some of the factors which bring about changes in the sheep and goat industries. Economic conditions not only in Texas but also in the United States and in the other important sheep-and goat-raising countries influence the relative profitableness of these industries in Texas. The information, which was obtained from monthly reports of railway station agents to the Texas office of the United States Department of Agriculture, shows the volume and trend of movements by markets and by states. In those states where one or more of the important primary markets are located, the shipments are shown for each individual market and for the rest of the state under the caption of "Other Points." Since the data have been compiled for each of the seven livestock districts of the United States Department of Agriculture, an analysis of the shipments of each is pre­sented separately. A brief description of agricultural conditions in each district is given in order to show how the sheep and goat industries fit into the general agri­cultural program. The record of shipments shows some rather definite shifts in market outlets for Texas sheep. In order to obtain some measure of these shifting tendencies, questionnaires were sent to several hundred buyers that purchase Texas sheep. Their statements about, their preferences for, and their objections to the type and quality of sheep produced in Texas are included in this study. The University of Texas Bulletin A survey of the methods of marketing sheep in Texas also has been made in order to compare the selling methods of Texas producers with the buying preferences of stocker and feeder buyers in other states. Production of wool and mohair is an important part of the sheep and goat business. The influence which wool and mohair exert upon the value of sheep and goats will be indicated in a study of the size and importance of these industries which will follow this bulletin. Particular emphasis is to be given to the problems and methods of marketing these products in T'exas. SUMMARY The sheep industry The United States, with approximately one-twelfth of the world's sheep, is the third largest sheep-producing country, being exceeded only by Russia and Australia. Domestic sheep production practically balances American mutton consumption. The number of sheep in the United States expanded from 36,591,000 head in 1922 to 50,503,000 head in 1930, an increase of 38 per cent. Approximately 69 per cent of the sheep are found in the western range states. More than one-half of the total supply of mutton is consumed in the area east of the Ohio and north of the Potomac rivers. Texas is the leading sheep-producing state in the Union. Approximately 5,550,000 head, or about 11 per cent, of the nation's sheep are located in the State. The number of sheep in Texas increased 89 per cent from 1923 to 1930. More than 95 per cent of Texas sheep are Rambouillet and Delaine, both of which are fine-wool breeds. More than nine-tenths of the total sheep production of the State is con­ducted on a large scale and is concentrated principally in the Edwards Plateau region. During the six-year period from 1923 to 1928, more than 700,000 head of sheep were marketed from Texas farms and ranches annually. Approximately two-thirds of this number were disposed of through outlets in other states, while the other one-third were slaughtered in Texas, prin­cipally at the Fort Worth market. The interstate outlets included ten of the leading livestock markets and more than twenty states. Some of the sheep were slaughtered imme­diately, others were placed on grass or feed for further finishing, whereas some were sold either for breeding pur­poses or for wool production. Shipments from Texas show a distinct seasonal variation. More than 46 per cent of the total movement from 1923 to 1928 was made during September and October, as a result of the shipment of grass-fat sheep to market and feeder lambs and ewes to feed lots. A secondary peak occurred during the spring months, particularly May and June, when grass-fat muttons were marketed after shearing time. The principal out-of-state market outlets for Texas sheep during this period were the Kansas City, Denver, and Wichita markets, and grazing and feeding areas in Colo­rado, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ohio, New Mexico, and Nebraska. Receipts of sheep into Texas from 1923 to 1928 amounted to less than 27,000 head annually. They were of two classes: stocker sheep for replacing and expanding existing flocks, or fat sheep for slaughter at the Fort Worth packing plants. The principal sources of receipts were New Mexico, Colo­rado, Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, and Arizona. The Northwestern district of Texas, an important crop and beef cattle area, is not in the principal sheep-raising region. Yet sheep production there during the period from 1923 to 1928 expanded rapidly, principally because of increased grazing and feeding operations. Approximately nine-tenths of the sheep forwarded from there during the period from 1923 to 1928 went to points in other states, principally the Kansas City, Denver, and Wichita markets. Most of the receipts into this area originated in the West Central and Central districts. The West Central district, the lower half of which is located in the Edwards Plateau, is the principal sheep­ producing area of the State. This section is also the chief cattle-and goat-raising territory of Texas. Shipments of sheep from there averaged 575,659 head annually from 1923 to 1928; approximately 45 per cent of them were sent to other districts in the State, principally to the Central dis­trict, which includes the Fort Worth market. The majority of the 55 per cent which were forwarded to other states went to the Kansas City, Denver, and Wichita markets, and to grazing and feeding areas in Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. Receipts of sheep into this district were relatively light. They were confined pri­marily to the transferring of stocker and breeding sheep from other districts for grazing and breeding purposes. The Central district is one of the most important farming sections of the State, especially for cotton, corn, and oats. Fort Worth, the principal livestock market of the South­west, is located in this district. More than 40 per cent of the Texas sheep marketed in 1928 were sent to Fort Worth. Receipts into the Central district, therefore, were heavy, and 95 per cent of them originated within the State. Forwardings were light, being restricted primarily to reshipments to other markets, to grazing areas, or to feed­ing sections. The Eastern district is relatively unimportant in sheep production. Agriculture there is restricted primarily to lumbering and general farming operations. The Western district, although one of the most important beef cattle-raising sections, had relative few sheep, except in Terrell and Pecos counties, prior to 1925. Much of the expansion in Texas from 1925 to 1929, however, occurred in this territory. Approximately two-thirds of the ship­ments from this district during the six-year period were sent out of the State. Receipts increased very rapidly from 1923 to 1928, when producers were expanding their flocks. Only the upper border counties of the Southern district are important sheep-producing sections. Approximately 45 per cent of the shipments from there went to other districts in T'exas and 55 per cent to market outlets in other states. Analysis of Shipments of Texas Sheep and Goats 11 The Fort Worth and Kansas City markets received the majority of the sheep. Receipts into the Southern district originated primarily in the West Central district, the prin­cipaf sheep-producing region of the State. Only small flocks are kept in the Southeastern district, in order to utilize the avaliable feeds and to supplement gen­eral farming operations. Methods of marketing Texas sheep.-The most common method of disposing of sheep in Texas is through local sales made to local operators buying for themselves or filling orders for other buyers. Local sales also are made to non­resident buyers who may be either order, feeder, or packer buyers; they buy not only from producers, but also from local buyers who have previously acquired control of the sheep. Shipping direct to markets is the other important way of disposing of sheep. This practice is used not only by producers, but also by operators who previously purchased sheep from the producers. Most of the difficulties mentioned by producers referred to the lack of transportation facilities in several counties in the Edwards Plateau, the shortcomings of selling locally, and the practice of contracting of lambs for future delivery. The livestock marketing program of the Federal Farm Board provides for the organization of a national livestock marketing association composed of producer-owned and pro­ducer-controlled marketing agencies for the purpose of con­trolling and directing the movement of livestock from farms and ranches to places of slaughter. The affiliated marketing agency organized in Texas is the Texas Livestock Market­ing Association, which plans to sell, market, or dispose of all the livestock of its membership. Market outlets for Texas sheep.-Approximately 38 per cent of the sheep disposed of during 1928 were slaughtered at Texas markets and on farms and ranches. Of the remain­ ing 62 per cent, or 451,089 head, about one-half went directly to primary markets, and the other half to grazing and feeding areas in other states. Increased numbers were furnished feeders during the six-year period. Feeders expressed a preference for cross-bred lambs weighing from fifty-five to sixty-five pounds when placed on feed. Ram­bouillets, the most common breed of sheep in Texas, make desirable feeding stock, especially when crossed with one of the mutton-type breeds. Delaine lambs were criticized as feeder animals because of their small frames and heavy pelts. Most feeder sheep were obtained from the western portion of the Edwards Plateau and the Fort Worth market. The intermountain states are the chief competing areas of feeder lambs because of the predominance of mutton-type breeds. The principal factors influencing the purchase of feeder sheep were price, weight, and quality. Most feeders secured their stock either directly from pro­ducers or through commission agencies. Many feeders criticized the practice of contracting of lambs for future delivery. Little difficulty was experienced in securing Texas lambs of uniform grade and quality. Feeding operations usually began between September and December. The length of feeding period varied between 90 and 120 days. The goat industry The principal Angora goat-producing countries are the United States, Turkey, and the Union of South Africa. Approximately 46 per cent of the number in these three countries in 1929 were in the United States. Production in the United States is restricted primarily to the southwest­ern and western range states. More than 83 per cent of the fleece goats of the United States in 1929 were in Texas. The number increased 54 per cent in the United States and 71 per cent in Texas from 1922 to 1930. Consumption of goat meat, or "chevon," is relatively small; therefore, goats are kept primarily for mohair production and only sec­ondarily for chevon production. The Angora goat industry in Texas, like the sheep indus­ try, is highly concentrated in the Edwards Plateau, in Southwest Texas, where range and climatic conditions are favorable. Forwardings of goats from the State averaged less than 7,000 head annually from 1923 to 1928, consisting mostly of stocker and breeding animals which were shipped either to producing areas in Oklahoma and New Mexico or to the Kansas City market. Shipments within the State, which averaged 77,762 head during the six-year period, increased from 30,673 head in 1923 to 160,795 head in 1928. Most of the movement rep­resented the transfer of stocker goats from one producing area to another, and of butcher goats to Fort Worth and other slaughtering points. Receipts of goats into Texas averaged 7,847 head annually during the period from 1923 to 1928. They exceeded 22,000 head in 1928, the year of rapid expansion of goat flocks in Texas. The majority of them originated in Arizona. MOVEMENTS OF SHEEP ECONOMIC POSITION OF THE SHEEP INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED ST A TES The United States, with approximately 8 per cent of the world's sheep, is the third largest sheep-producing coun­try, being exceeded only by Russia and Australia. The other commercially important producing areas are Argen­tina, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and New Zealand. Although comparable and official figures on the number of sheep in the world are not available, some idea of the distribution can be obtained from the estimated number reported in the principal producing countries (Table 1). The market outlets for the products of the sheep indus­try of the United States differ from those of most other important sheep-producing countries. Producers in Aus­tralia, Argentina, the Union of South Africa, and New Zealand dispose of their products in foreign markets. Pro­ duction in the United Kingdom is not sufficient to supply the British trade, and therefore large quantities of mutton and lamb are imported from other countries. Production in the United States, on the other hand, is adequate to supply domestic consumption, which makes it unnecessary to depend upon foreign supplies or to dispose of an appre­ciable surplus in foreign markets. Exports of sheep from the United States averaged only 28,574 head annually from 1920 to 1929 (Table 2). The trend of shipments was definitely downward during the ten-year period, ranging from 117,396 head in 1921 to 15,431 head in 1929. Most of the sheep were exported to Canada and Mexico. Imports, which averaged only 60,891 head annually from 1920 to 1929, also show a downward trend (Table 2). Since 1921, importations, other than breeding stock, have been subject to a duty of $2 a head. The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Bill, which was signed by Presi­dent Hoover in June, 1930, provides for an increase of this rate to $3 a head. ....... 00 Table 1 ESTIMATED WORLD DISTRIBUTION (Thousands of Head) OF SHEEP ~ ~ ~ Countries 1930 1929 1928 Estimated world total --­--------------­--··--------­736,016:1: 689,262:1: Russia --------------­-­------------­---­----­------­100,600 134,000 123,810 Australia ------------­---­----------­--­----------­106,117 103,482 100,827 UNITED STATES --------------------­50,503 47,704 44,795 Union of South Africa ---------------­49,240 45,174 42,662 Argentina -------­------------­-----­-----­--­--­44,413 38,000t 40,000* United Kingdom ------­------­--------­----­28,168 27,630 27,946 New Zealand ---------------­--­--------------­30,841 29,051 27,134 British India ----------------­--­-­-----­-­--­-----------­23,336 23,350 Uruguay --­---­-------------­-­-----------­---­-­----------­19,358* 23,000* All other countries -----­-----------­-----­--­------­-262,281 235,738 -Source: United States Department of Agriculture. *Estimates from various sources: Foreign Crops and Markets. t Interpolated estimates. +Estimates of National Association of Wool Manufacturers. 1927 603,736:1: 119,389 104,267 41,881 40,271 39,000t 28,419 25,649 23,237 22,500 159,123 1926 600,056:1: 113,865 103,563 39,730 39,020 38,000t 27,684 24,905 23,201 19,000t 171,088 1925 572,456:1: 107,031 93,155 38,112 35,570 37,000t 26,491 24,548 23,226 17,000t 170,323 Av erage 1921-1925 633,400 92,569 85,556 37,215 32,561 36,209 24,665 23,382 22,412 14,443 264,388 Average 1909-1913 687,100 111,051 89,008 43,235 30,657 43,225 29,161 23,996 23,164 26,286 267,317 ~ ... ~ ~ ~....,.... <::: c ...... ~ ~ ~ b:l ~ .......... ~ .,.... ~· Table 2 .EXPORTS AND IMPORTS OF SHEEP AND MUTTON OF THE UNITED STATES, PRE-WAR AVERAGE AND 1920-1929 Exports Imports Mutton Mutton Sheep and Lamb Sheep and Lamb Year Number Pounds Number Pounds 1929 ------­---­--------------­1928 -----------------------------­ 15,431 4,164 835,000 1,024,000 27,480 21,802 4,810,000 3,158,000 1927 ----------------------------­ 22,926 937,000 28,598 2,645,000 1926 -­------------------------------­ 12,311 1,171,000 42,146 3,365,000 1925 -----------------------­ 12,041 1,464,000 67,054 2,770,000 1924 --------------------------­- 18,546 1,445,000 30,373 2,166,000 1923 -------------------------------­ 16,879 2,087,000 38,934 5,215,000 1922 -----------­----------­ 17,172 1,665,000 94,887 12,155,000 1921 ---­--------------­ 117,396 7,515,000 84,739 25,368,000 1920 ---------­-------------­ 48,878 3,575,000 172,905 101,168,000 1920-1929 Average ______ 28,574 2,172,000 60,891 16,832,000 1910-1914 Avera.ge -------­ 125,201 3,539,000 47,222 2,542,000 Source: United States Department of Commerce. Foreign trade of mutton and lamb, likewise, was rela­tively insignificant during the period from 1920 to 1929 (Table 2). Exports, which declined from 3,575,000 pounds in 1920 to 835,000 pounds in 1929, constituted less than 1 per cent of total domestic mutton production. Most of the small volume of mutton and lamb exported was sent to Can­ada, Cuba, the Bermuda Islands, and the United Kingdom. Imports declined from 101,168,000 pounds in 1921 to 4,810,000 pounds in 1929. A part of this decline may be ~ttributed to the restoration of tariffs in 1921 and 1922 which imposed a duty of 2Yz cents a pound on mutton and 4 cents a pound on lamb imports. A further increase of these duties to 5 cents a pound on mutton and 7 cents a pound on lamb imports was made in the new tariff bill of 1930. The facts that the American consumer market for mutton and lamb is supplied largely from domestic production, that no appreciable surplus has to be disposed of in foreign markets, and that protective tariff measures tend to restrict foreign competition of sheep, mutton, and wool, make it possible to confine a study of factors affecting the American .sheep industry principally to the United States. DISTRIBUTION OF SHEEP IN THE UNITED STATES There are several distinct regions in the United States in which different types of sheep production are conducted. Wentworth and Ellinger label the three most important regions as a range producing belt, a feeding belt, and an eastern breeding and feeding belt.1 The range producing belt, which includes all the western range states and Texas, Oklahoma, and North Dakota, is the principal sheep-raising area. Approximately 69 per cent of the 50,503,000 head reported on farms and ranches in the United States on January 1, 1930, were in these states. The first nine ranking sheep-producing states are in this range area (Table 3). Table 3 NUMBER OF SHEEP ON FARMS AND RANCHES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1921-1930 (Thousands of Head) 1930 1929 1928 1927 1925 1923 1921 UNITED STATES __ 50,503 47,704 44,795 41,881 38,112 36,212 38,690 TEXAS ----------------­ 5,550 5,187 4,715 4,065 3,500 2,931 3,080 California --­-----­-­Montana _________________ 4,038 4,200 3,846 3,727 3,528 3,358 3,392 3,053 3,045 2,579 2,600 2,370 2,750 2,230 Colorado ---------------­3,495Wyoming ____________ 3,515 Utah -----------­-------­2,813Oregon __________________ 2,576 New Mexico ---­-----­2,527 Idaho ---------------------­2,260 Ohio ---------------------­2,105 All Other States .... 17,424 2,980 3,480 2,785 2,501 2,362 2,216 2,005 16,615 2,960 3,193 2,730 2,359 2,362 2,110 2,005 15,475 1,938 3,100 2,650 2,247 2,250 1,974 2,133 13,917 2,565 2,700 2,355 2,039 2,100 1,960 1,941 13,328 2,449 2,520 2,380 1,868 1,877 2,046 1,906 13,265 2,247 2,875 2,290 2,160 2,205 2,121 1,998 14,734 Source: United States Department of Agriculture. The chief feeding area includes the Corn Belt and adjoin­ing states. The states in which the majority of sheep were fed during the four feeding seasons from 1927 to 1930 are shown in Table 4. Although there are many small breeding flocks in this territory, the majority of the feeder stock is obtained from some of the western range states. 1Armour's Livestock Bureau, Progressive Sheep Raising. Table 4 NUMBER OF SHEEP AND LAMBS ON FEED IN THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 1, 1927-1930 (Thousands of Head) Commercial Sheep Feeding States 1930 1929 1928 1927 UNITED STATES ------5,886 4,822 4,463 4,259 Colorado -------------------­2,035 1,520 1,580 770 Nebraska ---------­------------­-------­ 950 820 690 475 Iowa -----------------------------­ 290 241 189 320 Ohio -------------------------------­ 275 245 227 310 Michigan ------------------­Kansas ---------------------­ 279 300 294 280 243 206 316 206 Illinois -----------------­···-·----··­ 149 166 163 388 Missouri ·-··--·--------------­ 140 135 132 188 South Dakota ..... ·--··----·-···· 200 102 100 75 Utah ····-····---··········--····-··-······· 150 118 105 165 Idaho ----···-·-···--····--·······-·--· 129 100 106 109 Wyoming ·········-·­··-····-----·· Wisconsin ·-----···---·-····-·-·· 120 95 110 75 90 72 55 116 California ·--··-·--·······---······ 86 90 110 150 Indiana --···-···-·--··----··-··· 113 124 103 194 Montana --··-·····-·-·----·····-·-· 180 96 100 130 TEXAS ···············--··--·······-···· 83 80 73 25 All Other States .... ----···-···-··­ 312 226 164 267 Source: United States Department of Agriculture. The third sheep region includes the states east of the Mississippi River and north of and including Tennessee and Virginia. Sheep-raising in this area is confined prin­cipally to small farm flocks. Sheep producers place most emphasis on mutton production in this region, except in Ohio, where Merino, or fine-wool producing sheep, predomi­nate. There is a tendency, however, among many producers even in Ohio, as there is in other sections where production costs have increased, to improve the mutton characteristics of sheep in order to secure income from the sale of both sheep and wool. Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana also are important commercial sheep-feeding areas. The remaining Southern States are relatively unimpor­tant sheep-producing areas. Only 475,000 head, or approxi­mately 1 per cent of the total number of sheep reported on farms and ranches in the United States on January 1, 1930, were in the states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina. CYCLES OF SHEEP VALUES IN THE UNITED STATES Expansion or contraction in the number of sheep is in­fluenced largely by prices of mutton and wool. Favorable prices for these products encourage expansion in the num­ber of sheep until eventually the available market supply exceeds the demand. Then the oversupply forces prices to an unprofitable level or even below the costs of production, which automatically encourages heavy liquidation. As the balance between supply and demand is restored, prices re­turn to a more profitable level, thus completing a definite cycle. Price cycles have recurred in the sheep industry at intervals of from seven to ten years during the last half century. The peaks in these cycles occurred in 1874, 1884, 1892, 1900, 1908, 1917, and 1927-1929, while the low points were recorded in 1869, 1879, 1886, 1895, 1903, 1912, and 1922.2 The prolongation of the recent peak from 1927 to 1929, when the price started downward, was due to a com­bination of factors, some of the principal ones being the tariffs on sheep, mutton, lamb, and wool, the high prices of beef, the more intensive efforts to increase consumption of mutton and lamb, and the strong demand of producers who were either entering the sheep business or expanding their existing flocks. Producer demand is especially significant during a period of expansion since it acts as a demand fac­tor just as increased consumption does. During a period of liquidation, however, sheep producers who are new in the business are among the first to decrease the size of their herds. The effect of this combination of factors on pro­duction may be illustrated by the increase in the number of sheep reported on farms and ranches by the United States Department of Agriculture from 36,591,000 head in 1922, the smallest number since 1869, to 48,913,000 head in 1930. The increase amounted to approximately 34 per cent for the eight-year period, and the number in 1930 was larger than that reported for any other year since 1911. 2Armour's Livestock Bureau, Monthly Letter to Animal Husband.. man, December, 1927. During this same period, the number of sheep slaughtered at Federal inspected packing plants in the United States increased from 10,929,000 head to 14,023,000 head, a rise of approximately 28 per cent. The number slaughtered during 1929 exceeded any volume ever handled at Federal inspected plants except during the record years of 1912, 1913, and 1914 when slightly more than the 1929 volume was handled. MUTTON CONSUMPTION IN THE UNITED STATES Producers of most agricultural products seldom give adequate attention to the influence which consumption exerts upon their production programs. Reference already has been made to an increase of more than 12,000,000 head of sheep from 1922 to 1930. During the same period, total consumption of mutton increased 158,000,000 pounds, the equivalent of only approximately 3,000,000 head of sheep. Stated in another way, the per capita consumption increased from 5.0 pounds to 5.8 pounds (Table 5). It is apparent, therefore, that even with an increase of approximately 10,000,000 people in the United States during this period, the rate of increase in the number of sheep was more than three times as great as the increase in the consumption of mutton and lamb. The total volume consumed, therefore, ultimately restricts expansion of production. This definite restriction should cause producers to be especially inter­ested in enlarging and expanding consumer outlets for mutton and lamb and in adjusting production to consump­tion requirements. Per capita consumption of mutton and lamb in the United States during this period indicates but little flexibility, principally because of competition of beef, pork, poultry, fish, and other meat and meat products. Approximately 4 per cent of the total quantity of beef, pork, and mutton consumed in the United States in 1929 consisted of mutton and lamb, while 53 per cent was pork, and 43 per cent was beef and veal. Greater flexibility in the per capita consumption of the three major classes of meat-beef, pork, and mutton­both with respect to the total amount consumed and to the relative proportions of each class, is found in Australia, Argentina, United Kingdom, and Canada (Table 5). Table 5 ESTIMATED PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF MUTTON IN AUSTRALIA, ARGENTINA, UNITED KINGDOM, CANADA, AND UNITED STATES, PRE-WAR AND 1921 TO 1929 Australia Argentina United Kingdom Canada United States Per Per Per Per Per Pounds Cent Pounds Cent Pounds Cent Pounds Cent Pounds Cent Per of Per of Per of Per of Per of Cap-Total Cap-Total Cap-Total Cap-Total Cap-Total Year ita Meat ita Meat ita Meat ita Meat ita Meat Con· Con-Con· Con-Con-Con-Con-Con-Con· Con· sump· sump-sump-sump-sump· sump-sump-sump-sump-sump· tion tion• tion tion* ti on tion• tion tion* tion tion* Pre-War --------------97.4 36.9 32.2 10.7 29.3 23.6 9.1 6.7 7.3 4.8 1929 ----------------------5.8 4.2 1928 -------------------------21.2 6.8 25.1 19.6 6.5 4.2 5.6 3.7 1927 -------------71.6 33.7 20.2 6.5 25.9 20.1 6.1 3.9 5.4 3.5 1926 -------------64.1 31.1 19.5 6.7 25.0 19.9 6.0 4.0 5.5 3.5 1925 --------------54.7 28.0 15.8 5.2 23.9 18.7 5.0 3.4 5.2 3.3 1924 ----------59.9 29.8 15.7 4.6 22.2 17.2 5.2 3.1 5.2 3.1 1923 -------------78.3 36.4 23.4 6.3 24.9 18.4 8.6 5.1 5.2 3.2 1922 ------------86.l 40.4 29.1 11.8 26.5 20.8 9.8 6.3 5.0 3.3 1921 ------------66.1 38.7 38.7 14.9 26.9 22.4 11.4 7.3 5.9 4.1 *Total meat consumption includes only beef, pork, and mutton consumption. Si;urce: United States Department of Agriculture. Mutton consumption per capita prior to 1925 decreased not only in actual amount but also in relative quantity as compared with other classes of meat, especially in Australia, Argentina, and the United Kingdom. Since then, not only the per capita consumption but also the proportion of mutton to other meats increased in each of these countries. These variations indicate a greater degree of flexibility than are suggested by the changes in the United States (Table 5 and Figure 1). Data on mutton consumption in the United States are not available by states. Approximately three-fourths of the sheep are raised west of the Mississippi River, while an equally large proportion of mutton is consumed east of the Mississippi, where more than three-fourths of the total population reside. Even within these areas, however, there are wide variations in the per capita consumption of FIGURE 1. mutton. Records compiled by the United States Depart­ment of Agriculture on slaughterings and receipts of dressed carcasses of mutton and lamb show that approxi­mately 50 per cent of the total is consumed in the north­eastern section of the United States, east of Ohio and north of the Potomac River, 15 per cent of the total in the Pacific coast states, and the remaining 35 per cent in other sections of the United States, principally in the mid-western states.2 Consumption in the southern and some mid-western states, except in a few of the large cities, is relatively light. Low consumption of mutton may be attributed to an abundance of comparatively lower priced local meats, to a lack of 2c. A. Burmeister, Senior Agricultural Economist, Livestock, Meats, and Wool Division, United States Department of Agriculture. familiarity with tempting ways of preparing mutton and of its excellent food qualities, or to some local prejudice instigated by propaganda. The National Livestock and Meat Board, an organization fostered by meat packers and livestock producers, realizing the possibilities of increasing demand, has been teaching consumers the fine eating qualities of mutton and lamb. With the cooperation and assistance of home economics departments of colleges and schools, meat dealers, hotels, railroad dining cars, sheep and wool associations, and other agencies, it has been conducting intensive advertising cam­paigns and demonstrations in order to encourage consum­erii to eat more mutton and lamb. The Board reports that the campaigns have been successful, especially in those sections where consumption has been low. This apparent progress suggests the flexibility of the consumer demand for mutton, but campaigns must be continued if consump­tive channels are to be expanded as rapidly as the number of sheep increases. Either the expansion of consuming outlets or the checking of production is necessary if prices are to be maintained at profitable levels. THE SHEEP INDUSTRY OF TEXAS Texas is the leading sheep-producing state of the United States. There were 5,550,000 head, or approximately 11 per cent of the nation's sheep on Texas farms and ranches on January l, 1930, and an increase of 89 per cent over the number for 1923 (Table 3). The sheep industry is one of the principal agricultural revenue-producing units in the economic structure of the State. Income from the sale of sheep produced in Texas during 1929 was estimated at $10,993,000 by the United States Department of Agriculture.3 In addition, the 1929 wool clip of more than 41,300,000 pounds, which sold for an average price of 28 cents a pound, brought the producers 3C. L. Harlan, Livestock Statistician, Division of Crop and Live­stock Estimates, United States Department of Agriculture. over $11,564,000, or more than one-half of the estimated total sheep income. Formerly, the majority of Texas sheepmen operating in a range area were inclined to place greatest emphasis upon the production of wool. But, with the favorable mutton and lamb prices which prevailed from 1922 to 1929, there was a tendency for many operators to shift to a fifty-fifty, or dual production plan-that of producing for both mutton and wool. Principal breeds of sheep in Texas The two general types of sheep are the Merinos or fine­wool producers and the English breeds or mutton producers. Tbe principal fine-wool breeds include the American Merino, Rambouillet, Delaine, and Corriedale. The English breeds are of two types, the "Longwools" and the "Downs," or short wools. The leading long wool breeds are Lincoln, Cotswold, Leicester, and Romney. The short wools include the Shropshire, Hampshire, Southdown, Oxford, Dorset, Suffolk, and Cheviot. Since Texas sheepmen, like most range operators, place most emphasis on wool production, the principal breeds of Texas sheep are Rambouillet and Delaine. It is estimated that more than 95 per cent of all the sheep in the State are of these two breeds. They seem to be best adapted to the range conditions of Western Texas. The most popular breed in Texas is the Rambouillet, a Merino of French origin, which is longer, stronger in bone, and somewhat more robust in appearance than the other Merino breeds. Although the Rambouillets do not produce quite as fine a grade of wool as the Delaines, they are more satisfactory for feeding purposes. The production of lambs acceptable to feeders has been important during the last few years. The Rambouillet makes a fairly good feeder and at the same time produces a fine grade of wool. This breed pre­dominates especially in the western part of the producing area. The counties in which Rambouillets are most numer­ous are Crockett, Val Verde, Sutton, Schleicher, Tom Green, Irion, Sterling, Glasscock, Reagan, Terrell, and Pecos (Fig­ure 4). There are three types of American Merino sheep, based upon the length and fineness of fiber, the number of wrinkles over the body, and the amount of oil in the fleece. Sheep of the A-type produce the finest fleece among the American breeds. They have a number of folds on the neck and body and a large percentage of oil in the fleece. Those of the B-type are larger and have fewer folds on the neck and body. The fleeces contain a smaller amount of oil and are less dense. Delaine sheep, the C-type, are the most common of these three types in Texas. They have fewer folds, are thicker fleshed, and are better developed. While they possess more mutton characteristics than either the A-or B-types, they do not have as many as the Ram­bouillet. However, they produce a finer grade and a larger quantity of wool than the Rambouillet. The counties in which the Delaines predominate are Edwards, Kimble, Menard, Kerr, Kendall, Real, Bandera, Uvalde, Kinney, Gillespie, Blanco, Mason, Llano, Burnet, Lampasas, Run­nels, Goleman, Brown, Mills, San Saba, McCulloch, Concho, Coke, and Comanche (Figure 4). Some cross-breeding has been practiced by Texas pro­ducers between Rambouillets and Delaines and between one of these Merino types and some of the English breeds, in an effort to combine the best qualities of both strains-a satisfactory mutton type and a fine-wool type combined. None of these crosses, however, has become universally popular in Texas. The majority of the English or mutton-type breeds found in Texas are in small-farm flocks, where more attention can be given to the care of the lambs for early marketing. The most common of these are Shropshires, Hampshires, and Southdowns. Types of sheep production in Texas There are three general types of sheep production con­ducted in Texas: large-scale production, commercial feed­ing, and small-farm flocks. More than 90 per cent of the total production is con­ducted on a large scale and is concentrated principally in the Edwards Plateau, located in the lower half of District II, West Central Texas, and the adjoining counties (Fig­ure 4). Many producers in this section restrict their opera­tions principally to sheep-raising, while others conduct a joint enterprise with either cattle or goats, or both. Com­binations, when possible, permit the maximum utilization of ranges in those areas where grasses, weeds, and shrub­bery are found together, since the different classes of live­stock eat these several types of vegetation. Furthermore, this form of diversification tends to lessen the risks of losses which may arise from the decline of prices in one of the individual enterprises. Commercial feeding of sheep in Texas expanded rapidly during the period from 1927 to 1930. Prior to 1927, most feeder lambs were shipped to other states for finishing. Since that time, however, gradually rising price levels of lambs and increased production of grain sorghums and other feed crops have encouraged a few operators to enter the commercial sheep-feeding business. According to the esti­mates of the United States Department of Agriculture, the number of sheep and lambs on feed in Texas increased from 25,000 head on January 1, 1927, to 82,000 head on January 1, 1930 (Table 4). The majority of the sheep were fed either around Del Rio in Southwest Texas, around Lubbock and Littlefield in Northwest Texas, or at Fort Worth. Feeding operations in the first two of these areas were conducted chiefly by a few large operators who purchased their feeder Iambs from other producers. The principal feeds used in both of these sections included various kinds of grain sorghums, hay, small quantities of corn, and cottonseed cake and meal. Some of the lambs were marketed at Fort Worth at the end of the feeding period, while others were shipped to some of the northern markets. Usually the latter shipments were detained a few days at some feed-in-transit point near the market destination. in order to overcome the shrinkage and other ill effects of the long haul. Feeders reported that their operations were satisfactory. Sheep-feeding operations at Fort Worth were conducted primarily by one of the packers in order to obtain an avail­able supply of a satisfactory quality of meat for the mutton trade throughout the year. Under the present system of marketing sheep in this State, the majority of fat muttons are shipped during the spring months, while most lambs go to market during the fall and winter months. This uneven seasonal distribution, which is indicated by sheep receipts at the Fort Worth market (Figure 5), does not conform with the more evenly distributed consumer demand for mutton. Prices naturally tend to be stronger during periods of light receipts and weaker when surplus quantities are on the market. This tendency has encouraged a few operators to produce spring lambs in order to supply the lamb trade during the Easter season, when ordinarily the available supply is less than the demand. This practice probably would be expanded further if profitable levels of fat lamb prices could be main­tained. At the present time, however, packers must either conduct their own feeding operations or secure additional supplies in out-of-state markets. The areas in which possibilities for increased commer­cial feeding operations are greatest seem to be confined to the western and northwestern parts of the State, where the bulk of grain sorghums are produced and where there is also a sufficient quantity of corn, cottonseed products, and hay to supplement the grain sorghums. Even though feed­ing operations have been expanding in these areas, sheep­raising in Texas is likely to continue to emphasize the production of wool, feeder lambs, grass-fat muttons, and ewes for shipment to markets and for sale to operators in other states. The number of farm flocks of sheep increased materially from 1922 to 1930 because of favorable sheep and wool prices. Numerous small flocks are in the northern, north­ eastern, central, and eastern sections of the State. These Analysis of Shipments of Texas Sheep and Goats 31 flocks help primarily to serve as a joint enterprise with general farming operations and as revenue producers through the sale of wool and lambs. While no data are available as to the different breeds of sheep in these small­farm flocks, several of the mutton breeds are represented. The greater proportion, however, even of these small flocks, are either Rambouillets or Delaines, since most of them were originally secured in the western part of the State, where these two breeds predominate. Interpretation of Texas sheep shipments An interpretation of marketing problems existing in an industry requires a knowledge not only of present and prob­able future market supplies but also of the character and volume of shipments to the different market outlets. Information on supplies of the major classes of livestock is available from census figures and from the several kinds of reports of the United States Department of Agriculture, including annual estimates of the number on farms and ranches, and the volume of stocker and feeder movements, feeding operations, and receipts at the public markets. Until recently, however, it has been difficult to secure a check on the volume of shipments from producing, grazing, and feeding areas to the different market outlets. An analysis of Texas livestock shipments has been made possible from information compiled by the Texas office of the United States Department of Agriculture. The data include a record of the number of head of each class of livestock forwarded and received, by months, for each live­stock shipping station in Texas. This detailed record, which shows the number of steers, cows, bulls, heifers, calves, hogs, sheep, goats, horses, and mules, and the amount of wool and mohair shipped by points of origin in Texas, and destination by states, was started first in Texas in 1923. An analysis of forwardings and receipts of sheep and goat shipments to and from Texas from 1923 to 1928 is pre­sented in the subsequent section of this report. A similar interpretation of cattle shipments from 1923 to 1927 already has been published by the Bureau of Business Research of The University of Texas. ANALYSIS OF SHIPMENTS OF SHEEP WITHIN, FROM, AND TO TEXAS, 1923-1928 MOVEMENT OF SHEEP FROM TEXAS Texas produces a surplus supply of sheep. A part of this supply is slaughtered within the state, principally at the Fort Worth market, and the rest is shipped to markets or to grazing and feeding areas in other states (Figure 2). Sheep shipments from Texas averaged 470,030 head annually from 1923 to 1928 (Table 6). The initial desti­nation of Texas sheep included ten of the leading livestock markets and more than twenty states from New York to California. Some sheep were slaughtered immediately, others were placed on grass or feed for further finishing, whereas some were sold either for breeding purposes or for wool production. Shipments fluctuated considerably during the six-year period, varying from 335,501 head in 1924 to 575,104 head in 1927. Forwardings were heaviest during 1923 and 1927. The large number during 1923 resulted from the excessive liquidation of sheep which resulted from the drastic decline in prices during 1920 and 1921. More than one-half of the 1923 interstate movement was consigned direct to the Kansas City market. By 1924 the liquidation had been checked and producers had begun to hold back their sheep for replacement and expansion. This practice caused inter­state shipments to decrease to 335,501 head during 1924. As sheep values continued to rise during 1925 and 1926, shipments increased; producers were taking profits which had accrued to them through the rise in prices. The peak was reached in 1927, when 575,104 head were shipped out of the State. The heavy shipments to grazing and feeding areas in Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, and New Mexico accounted for the greater part of this increased volume. The favorable prices which were maintained during 1928 encouraged producers to expand their flocks !BO KAN5A5 CITY MISSOURI 160 SHEEP SHIPMENTS FROM TEXAS 140 ~ - 1928 SHIPMENTS 1923-1928 AVERAGE SHIPM~NTS ... 0 Ill 0 z ~ 80 " ~ I­ ALL OTHER POINTS OTHER POINTS OTHER POINTS 20 0 FIGURE 2. Table 6 NUMBER OF SHEEP FORWARDED FROM TEXAS, 1923-1928 Destination 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 Total Number of Sheep Shipped from Texas____ 451,089 575,104 493,218 467,601 335,501 497,667 5,781 7,275 684 8,645 1,299 50 California: Los Angeles ______ 132 10,808 293 428 173 Other Points ---­8,516 2,627 23,815 12,268 6,215 Colorado: Denver --­Arizona -----------­ 36,623 26,284 22,135 14,947 13,578 26,082 Other Points ----50,573 123,884 46,345 69,036 51,975 17,612 Illinois: Chicago -------­ 964 1,048 7,422 8,061 9,283 21,008 East St-Louis __________ 1,388 4,585 9,877 15,152 6,465 10,626 Other Points ---4,263 2,445 8,686 11,090 4,261 1,341 Indiana -----­350 12,105 3,222 14,111 2,343 Iowa 1,549 1,346 4,687 340 898 Kansas: Wichita ------------19,236 13,852 18,517 12,381 13,614 12,785 Other Points _____ 44,550 40,505 33,479 34,010 15,872 9,959 Kentucky -----------­595 4,972 1,462 1,794 3,826 Louisiana: New Orleans ______ 43 23 467 20,438 Other Points -------552 485 150 300 15 Missouri: Kansas City -----------146,427 205,242 157,247 177,934 151,168 256,279 South St. Joseph ________ 3,454 6,408 1,221 9,589 Other Points ____________ _ 9,676 9,193 27,409 21,512 15,898 45,332 Michigan ---------------­656 3,071 4,471 215 250 Nebraska: South Omaha ___________ 570 5,188 3,724 2,165 26,586 3,749 Other Points ------------47,148 2,559 582 21,345 4,300 13,102 New Mexico ___________ 8,152 37,826 21,444 15,638 2,707 5,961 New York ___·---1,960 6,191 2,883 1,093 300 3,503 Ohio ----------------­16,288 3,777 48,857 13,380 7,772 21,569 Oklahoma: Oklahoma City ---1,800 2,412 2,197 268 580 Other Points ______ 23,434 58,607 23,907 10,174 3,293 6,576 Wyoming ----------­16,874 3,738 Other States __ 130 1,410 283 92 394 249 and also attracted new operators into the industry, increas­ing the local demand and causing out-of-state shipments to drop off to 451,089 head during 1928. Railroad records do not show the ultimate destination of Texas sheep, for those going to grazing areas and feed­ing sections for further fattening lose their Texas identity after they have been unloaded unless they are billed to some market with stop-over privileges en route. Many Texas shippers bill to some northern market, with stop-over privileges at Fort Worth, where the sheep are sometimes sold. Furthermore, many sheep originally billed to Fort Worth are reshipped to markets outside of Texas. These different practices make it difficult to trace shipments to the ultimate destination, or even to reconcile the discrepan­cies found between the reports of different agencies. Each organization is interested in different phases of the move­ments and most of them have different sources from which the information is collected. Texas shippers, however, are interested primarily in the initial destination of shipments. Seasonal movement of sheep from Texas Shipments from range areas in any one year may show seasonal variations quite different from the five-year aver­age, because of changes in range conditions, water and feed 135 120 105 90 75 •o 45 30 15 SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF SHEEP SHIPMENTS FROM TEXAS AVERAGE MONTHLY SHIPMENTS 192.3-1928 FIGURE 3. supply, breeding periods, and other factors which cannot be controlled by shippers. Total forwardings from Texas show a well-marked sea­sonal variation. As a result of the movement of grass-fat sheep to market and of feeder lambs and ewes to feed lots, the movement is concentrated in the early fall (Figure 3). During the six-year period, shipments during September and October represented 46 per cent of the annual average (Table 8). A secondary peak occurs during the spring months, particularly May and June, when grass-fat mut­tons are marketed after shearing time. Shipments to individual outlets, however, may show an entirely different tendency, due to changes in price, varia­tions in demand, types of sheep wanted, and the location of the outlets (Tables 7 and 8). Principal markets for Texas sheep The markets to which most Texas sheep were sent from 1923 to 1928 are Fort Worth, Kansas City, Denver, and Wichita. The movement to Fort Worth, the leading market for Texas sheep, is analyzed in a later part of this report. Kansas City.-This market ranked next to Fort Worth in receipts of Texas sheep. An annual average of 182,384 head, or approximately 39 per cent of all sheep which were shipped from the State from 1923 to 1928, went to the Kansas City market. More than 63 per cent of these ship­ments originated in the West Central district (Table 9). Table 9 DISTRICT ORIGIN OF TEXAS SHEEP FORWARDED DIRECT TO THE KANSAS CITY MARKET !'\umber of head hilled Percentage distribution direct to Kansas City by districts Six-year Six-yeatDistrict Origin Average Average 1928 1923-1928 1928 1923-1928 Tot~l Movement from Texas to Kansas City._ _ 146,427 182,385 100.0 100.0 I. Northwestern _____________ 12,542 14,211 8.5 7.8 II. West Central ___________ 103,571 115,674 70.8 63.4 I II. Central ·············-········· 8,939 17,628 6.1 9.7 IV. Eastern ____________________ 180 0,1 V. Western -----·········------7,468 12,281 5.1 6.7 VI. Southern -------------------13.612 22,342 9.3 12.3 VII. Southeastern _____ 295 69 0.2 Table 7 MOVEMENT OF SHEEP FROM TEXAS, BY MONTHS-1928 Total Number Per Cent January Number P er Cent February Number Per Cent March Number Per Cent April Number Per Cent May Number Per Cent June Number Per Cent July Number Per Cent August Number Per Cent September Number Per Cent October Number Per Cent November Number Per Cent December Number Per Cent: UNITED of Sheep of Total of Sheep of Total of Sheep of Total of Sheep of Total of Sheep of Total of Sheep of Total of Sheep of Total of Sheep of Total of Sheep of Total of Sheep of Total of Sheep of Total of Sheep of Total of Sheep of Total. STATES ______ 451,089 100 8,108 1.8 21,638 4.8 21,474 4.8 43,257 9.6 28,528 6.3 38,055 8.4 16,861 3.7 22,557 5.0 72,378 16.0 140,620 31.2 16,914 3.8 20,699 4.6 Arizona ---------­ 5,781 100 5,503 95.2 29 0.5 249 4.3 California: Los Angel~ __ 132 100 132 100.0 Other Points _ 8,516 100 7,860 92.3 656 7.7 Colorado: Denver Other Points _ 36,623 50,573 100 100 1,618 3.2 3,443 9.4 6,322 12.5 253 0.5 2,637 5,968 7.2 11.8 27,797 30,799 75.9 60.9 439 2,427 1.2 4.8 2,307 3,186 6.3 6.3 Illinois: Chicago 964 100 644 66.8 320 33.2 East St. Louis 1,388 100 301 21.7 375 27.0 712 51.3 Other Points -­ 4,263 100 4,263 100.0 Iowa ----------­ 1,549 100 1,216 78.5 333 ?.1.5 Kansas: Wichita __________ 19,236 100 308 1.6 596 3.1 289 1.5 1,904 9.9 7,387 38.4 5,655 29.4 3,097 16.1 Other Points _ 44,550 100 1,292 2.9 1,470 3.3 312 0.7 2,094 4.7 1,247 2.8 4,232 9.5 19,157 43.0 14,746 33.1 Louisiana: New Orleans _ 43 100 43 100.0 Other Points __ 552 100 400 72.5 152 27.5 Missouri: Kansas City __ St. 1oseph________ 146,427 3,454 100 100 5,711 3.9 12,739 8.7 14,057 449 9.6 13.0 25,332 207 17.3 6.0 18,743 12.8 8,053 5.5 6,882 4.7 9,518 6.5 7,175 4.9 23,575 16.l 6,296 4.3 8,346 2,798 5.7 81.0 Other Points __ 9,676 100 1,809 18.7 300 3.1 271 2.8 7,170 74.1 126 1.3 Ne·braska: Omaha 570 100 570 100.0 Other Points _ New Mexico ___ 47,148 8,152 100 100 277 3.4 6,271 302 13.3 3.7 17,586 37.3 566 677 1.2 8.3 1,980 5,853 4.2 71.8 896 1.9 3,159 6.7 10,514 399 22.3 4.9 6,176 391 13.l 4.8 253 3.1 New York --­-·­ 1,960 100 1,960 100.0 Ohio ------­------­-­ 16,288 100 2,085 12.8 4,349 26.7 9,854 60.5 Oklahoma: Oklahoma City__ 1,800 100 301 16.7 1,499 83.3 Other Points __ 23,434 100 258 1.1 23 0.1 1,617 6.9 1,828 7.8 281 1.2 3,398 14.5 10,780 46.0 4,780 20.4 469 2.0 Wyoming ---------­Other States ____ 16,874 1,136 100 100 71 6.2 16,874 350 100.0 30.8 655 57.7 60 5.3 Table 8 MOVEMENT OF SHEEP FROM TEXAS, BY MONTHS-1923-1928 Total Number Per Cen t of Sheep of Total January Number Per Cent of Sheep of Total February Number Per Cent of Sheep of Total March Number Per Cent of Sheep of Total April Number Per Cent of Sheep of Total May Number Per Cent of Sheep of Tota! June Number Per Cent of Sheep of Total July Number Per Cent of Sheep of Total August Number Per Cent of Sheep of Total September Number Per Cent of Sheep of Total October Number Per Cent of Sheep of Total November Number Per Cent of Sheep of Total December Number Per Cent of Sheep of Total UNITED STATES 470,030 100 13,354 2.9 10,800 2.3 10,762 2.3 17,331 3.6 37,213 7.9 42,071 9.0 26,019 5.5 37,698 8.0 107,978 23.0 108,223 23.0 36,479 7.8 22,102 4.7 Arizona ----------­ 3,956 100 174 4.4 918 23.2 767 19.4 4 0.1 40 LO 1,428 36.l 364 9.2 146 3.7 115 2.9 California: Los Angeles ___ _ Other Points __ 1,972 8,907 100 100 45 0.5 22 1.1 71 3.6 29 1,069 1.5 12.0 986 2,930 50.0 32.9 864 4,756 43.8 53.4 107 L2 Colorado: Denver --------­Other Points _ 23,275 59,904 100 100 47 180 0.2 0.3 372 539 1.6 0.9 60 0.1 721 3.1 3,049 3,714 13.l 6.2 466 599 2.0 LO 582 180 2.5 0.3 3,817 9,345 16.4 15.6 8,682 36,661 37.3 6L2 3,468 7,009 14.9 11.7 2,071 1,617 8.9 2.7 Illinois : Chicago _____ East St. Louis __ Other Points _ 7,964 7,999 5,348 100 100 100 1,744 48 267 21.9 0.6 5.0 24 0.3 151 472 1.9 5.9 279 408 3.5 5,1 103 128 1.3 L6 462 384 75 5.8 4.8 L4 56 936 326 0.7 1L7 6.1 486 424 1,310 6.1 5.3 24.5 2,668 2,951 2,540 33.5 36.9 47.5 382 1,360 364 4.8 17.0 6.8 669 504 412 8.4 6.3 7.7 964 360 54 12.l 4.5 1.0 Indiana --------­ 5,355 100 54 LO 59 1.1 744 13.9 589 lLO 2,554 47.7 1,355 25.3 Iowa ------------­--­ 1,470 100 49 3.3 9 0.6 248 16.9 31 2.1 717 48.8 416 28.3 Kansas : Wichita __ 15,064 100 60 0.4 211 1.4 151 1.0 1,401 9.3 1,069 7.1 527 3.5 2,109 14.0 2,922 19.4 4,700 31.2 1,296 8.6 618 4.1 Other Points _ 29,729 100 2,022 6.8 327 1.1 89 0.3 1,100 3.7 1,159 3.9 1,724 5.8 832 2.8 2,884 9.7 11,327 38.l 6,273 21.1 1,724 5.8 268 0.9 Kentucky ------­Louisiana: 2,108 100 57 2.7 1,256 59.6 584 27.7 211 10.0 New Orleans ___ 3,495 100 11 0.3 42 1.2 3,394 97.l 3 0.1 45 1.3 Other Points _ Michigan ___________ 250 1,444 100 100 5 2.0 36 2.5 86 475 34.3 32.9 69 55 27.5 3.8 16 423 6.6 29.3 45 3.1 43 3.0 74 264 29.6 18.3 103 7.1 Missouri: Kansas City _ St. Joseph _ 182,384 3,446 100 100 7,478 28 4.1 0.8 7,113 17 3.9 0.5 8,025 76 4.4 2.2 11,855 121 6.5 3.5 30,093 1,058 16.5 30.7 16,232 1,389 8.9 40.3 13,314 27 7.3 0.8 18,238 10.0 30,641 245 16.8 7.1 15,503 8.5 11,308 20 6.2 0.6 12,584 465 6.9 13.5 Other Points _ 21,503 100 43 0.2 107 0.5 387 1.8 86 0.4 688 3.2 494 2.3 1,355 6.3 4,924 22.9 8,838 41.l 2,645 12.3 495 2.3 1,441 6.7 Nebraska : Omaha --------­Other Points _ New Mexico ___ New York ______ Ohio --------------­ 6,997 14,840 15,288 2,655 18,607 100 100 100 100 100 224 371 260 279 3.2 2.5 1.7 1.5 175 45 688 2.5 0.3 4.5 1,039 351 7.0 2.3 2,923 19.7 63 59 75 0.9 2.2 0.4 104 2,446 50 521 0.7 16.0 1.9 2.8 326 3,333 856 2.2 21.8 4.6 341 321 2,642 2.3 2.1 14.2 1,420 2,375 3,700 50 7,275 20.3 16.0 24.2 1.9 39.l 1,196 4,437 3,654 1,365 6,438 17.1 29.9 23.9 51.4 34.6 3,478 2,671 214 1,033 521 49.7 18.0 L4 38.9 2.8 441 208 321 98 6.3 1.4 2.1 3.7 Oklahoma: Oklahoma City 1,210 100 7 0.6 23 1.9 143 1L8 95 7.9 156 12.9 166 13.7 195 16.l 375 3LO 50 4.1 Other Points _ Wyoming ________ Other States _____ 20,999 3,435 426 100 100 100 84 0.4 210 1.0 84 12 0.4 2.7 273 43 1.3 10.2 546 2.6 1,260 3,435 69 6.0 100.0 16.2 378 58 L8 13.6 1,743 87 8.3 20.5 8,630 125 41.1 29.4 6,090 5 29.0 1.2 1,344 10 6.4 2.3 357 17 1.7 3.9 Receipts of Texas sheep at Kansas City reached a peak in 1923, when 256,279 head, or more than one-half of the interstate shipments, were consigned there. The smallest volume of receipts was recorded during 1928, when only 146,427 head, or less than one-third of the total State for­wardings, were received. The downward trend in shipments to this market was offset in a measure by increased ship­ments to grazing and feeding areas in Nebraska, Kansas, and Wyoming. Most of the sheep which were shipped to Kansas City were wethers. Very few Texas lambs and ewes were billed there direct. The heavy shipping seasons during 1928 were in A,pril and May, and in October, following the two shear­ing seasons. Average monthly shipments for the period from 1923 to 1928 were highest during September and May (Tables 7 and 8}. Denver.-The Denver market received an annual average of 23,275 head, or approximately 5 per cent of the inter­state sheep forwardings from Texas from 1923 to 1928. The movement fluctuated between 13,578 head in 1924 and 36,623 head in 1928. Most of these shipments originated in the West Central district, the principal sheep-producing area of Texas (Table 10) . Table 10 DISTRICT ORIGIN OF TEXAS SHEEP FORWARDED DIRECT TO THE DENVER MARKET Number of head billed Percentage distribution direct to Denver by districts Six-year Six-year District Origin Average Average 1928 1923-1928 1928 1923-1928 Total Movement from Texas to Denver --------------36,623 23,274 100.0 100.0 I. Northwestern -------------135 3,989 0.4 17.1 II. West Central -------------35,338 16,521 96.5 71.0 III. Central _______________________ 239 1,207 0.7 5.2 IV. Eastern ------------------------­ V. Western --------------------------911 1,464 2.4 6.3 VI. Southern ---------------------93 0.4 VII. Southeastern -------------­ Approximately 76 per cent of the 1928 movement to Denver was made in October. Most of the sheep were feeder lambs placed on feed for further finishing. The monthly distribution of shipments from 1923 to 1928 shows that the movement to Denver was heavier during the fall months, although there was another distinct marketing season during May and June (Tables 7 and 8). With the exception of a few direct purchases made by packers on the Fort Worth market for Denver packing plants, ship­ments consisted primarily of yearling ewes purchased by Colorado operators for breeding purposes. Some of the receipts of Texas sheep at Denver were old ewes and wethers which were reshipped to feeding areas for further finishing. Wichita.-Annual receipts of Texas sheep at the Wichita market averaged 15,064 head, or slightly over 3 per cent of the total forwardings of sheep from Texas during the period from 1923 to 1928. Receipts were on an upward trend, increasing from 12, 785 head in 1923 to 19,236 head in 1928. Most of these sheep originated in the West Central district (Table 11). Table 11 DISTRICT ORIGIN OF TEXAS SHEEP FORWARD ED DIRECT TO THE WICHITA MARKET District Origin Total Movement from Texas to Wichita________ Number of direct to 1928 19,236 head billed Wichita Six-year Average 1923-1928 15,063 Percentage by di1928 100.0 dietribution 1tric11 Six-year Average 1923-1928 100.0 I. Northwestern ---·­-····-II. West Central ·----­---­III. Central ----­---------­-----­IV. Eastern -----­----­-----­-­ 2,282 15,140 582 11,085 891 11.9 3.9 78.7 73.6 5.9 V. Western ------­-----­-----­-VI. Southern -----------------­ 1,814 1,868 637 9.4 12.4 4.2 VII. Southeastern ------­--­ Approximately 65 per cent of the six-year average and 78 per cent of 1928 shipments were made during August, September, and October (Tables 7 and 8). Most of the animals were feeder lambs and ewes. The spring shipments consisted principally of shorn wethers. Analysis of Shipments of Texas Sheep and Goats 39 Principal grazing and feeding areas for Texas sheep Since the major portion of Texas sheep marketed annu­ally are stocker and feeder rather than fat animals, a large proportion of the shipments direct to primary markets are reshipped to grazing and feeding areas for further finish­ing. In addition, a large volume is shipped from the producing sections of Texas direct to these specialized feed­ing areas. The states to which the majority of stocker and feeder sheep from Texas were cdnsigned during the period from 1923 to 1928 were Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Okla­homa, Ohio, New Mexico, and Nebraska. "Other points" Colorado.-Feeding areas in Colorado ranked next to the Kansas City market as outlets for Texas sheep from 1923 to 1928. An annual average of 59,904 head, or approximately 13 per cent, of the interstate forwardings during the period was shipped to feeding areas in Colorado. The movement of 123,884 head during 1927 was the peak for this period. Most of the sheep originated in the West Central and Western districts (Table 12). Table 12 DISTRICT ORIGIN OF TEXAS SHEEP FORWARD ED DIRECT TO "OTHER POINTS" COLORADO* Number of head hilled direct to "Other Points" Colorado Percentage distribution by districts District Origin 1928 Six-year Average 1923-1928 1928 Six-year Averag-e 1923-1928 Total Movement from Texas to "Other Points" Colorado ___ 50,573 59,903 100.0 100.0 I. Northwestern ________ 5,009 5,345 9.9 8.9 II. West Central -----­---30,336 45,000 60.0 75.1 III. Central ----------­----­---­ 250 318 0.5 0.5 IV. Eastern -------------­----­ 158 0.3 V. Western -----­--­----------­ 14,978 8,619 29.6 14.4 VLVII. Southern -----------­-----­Southeastern _____ 463 0.8 *"Other Points" Colorado includes all points in Colorado except the Denver market. Shipments to "Other Points" Colorado, like those to the Denver market, were made principally during September, The University of Texas Bulletin October, and November (Tables 7 and 8). Most of them were feeder lambs destined for feed lots, although some old ewes also were included. The shipments made during May and June consisted primarily of wethers and yearling ewes. "Other points" Kansas.-The trend of shipments of Texas sheep direct to grazing and feeding areas in Kansas from 1923 to 1928 was decidedly upward. Receipts increased from 9,959 head in 1923 to 44,550 head, or approximately 9 per cent of the interstate shipments in 1928. The district origins of the 1928 movement and the six-year average are summarized in Table 13. Table 13 DISTRICT ORIGIN OF TEXAS SHEEP FORWARDED DIRECT TO "OTHER POINTS" KANSAS Number of head billed direct to uother Point1" Kansas Percentage distribution by districu Diatrict Origin 19'28 Si:r:-yeat Average 1923-1928 1928 Six-year Average 1923-1928 Total Movement from Texas to "Other Points" Kansas _ ____ 44,550 29,730 100.0 100.0 I. Northwestern _____ 2,749 1,584 6.2 5.3 II. West Central ------­ 29,584 18,154 66.4 61.1 III. Central --------­ 5,345 2,922 12.0 9.8 IV. Eastern --­--------­ 53 0.2 V. Western ---------------­ 5,577 2,013 12.5 6.8 VI. Southern ····-----·-----·· 1,295 5,004 2.9 16.8 VII. Southeastern --------­ *"Other Points" Kansas includes all points in Kansas except the Wichita market. The months in which shipments were made during 1928 and during the six-year period, 1923-1928, are shown in Tables 7 and 8. All classes of sheep were represented, although most of them were feeder animals that were fat­tened and reshipped to market. "Other points" Missouri.-Feeding areas in Missouri have become less important as outlets for Texas sheep. The decrease in shipments from 45,332 head in 1923 to 9,676 head in 1928 may be attributed primarily to stronger com­petition for Texas sheep offered by feeder buyers in Colo­rado, Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas. The number on feed on January 1 in Texas alone increased from 25,000 head in 1927 to 83,000 head in 1930. The majority of Texas sheep consigned to feeding areas in Missouri during 1928 origi­nated in the Southern and West Central districts (Table 14). Table 14 DISTRICT ORIGIN OF TEXAS SHEEP FORWARDED DIRECT TO "OTHER POINTS" MISSOURI* Number of head billed direct to "Other Points" Mill!IOUri Percentage distribution by districts Six-year Six-year District Origin 1928 Averag-e 1923-1928 1928 Averag:6 1923-1928 Total Movement from Texas to "Other Points" Missouri ----------­ 9,676 21,503 100.0 100.0 I. Northwestern--------­ 1,154 5_4 II. III. West Central ----­----­Central -------­-----­----­ 4,137 4.30 15,339 2,179 42.8 4.4 71.3 10.1 IV. Eastern-----­----­ V. Western ------------------­ 962 4.5 VI. Southern -----­-------­--­-- 5,109 1,869 52.8 8.7 VII. Southeastern ---------­ *"Other Points" Missouri includes all points in Missouri except the Kansas City and South St. Joseph markets. The shipments consisted primarily of feeder lambs going to feed lots during August, September, and October (Table 8) . Most of the 1928 movement was made in September and May (Table 7). Shipments during May consisted prin­cipally of shorn wethers. "Other points" Oklahoma.-Movements to grazing and feeding areas in Oklahoma fluctuated considerably during this period. They increased from 6,756 head in 1923 to 58,607 head in 1927, and declined to 23,434 head in 1928. Most of these shipments originated in the principal sheep­raising section of the State, the West Central district (Table 15). More than 65 per cent of the sheep were forwarded during September and October (Tables 7 and 8). Most of them consisted of lambs and ewes that were going to feed lots for further finishing, or were used to replace and expand sheep flocks. Table 15 DISTRICT ORIGIN OF TEXAS SHEEP FORWARDED DIRECT TO "OTHER POINTS" OKLAHOMA Number of head billed direct to ••other Points Percentage distribution Oklahoma by districts Six-year Six-year. District Origin 1928 Average 1923-1928 1928 Average 1923-1928 Total Movement from Texas t'o "Other Points" Oklahoma ----­-­ 23,434 20,999 100.0 100.0 1. Northwestern -----------­IL West Central _________ 20,199 1,000 16,381 86.2 4.8 78.0 III.IV. Central ---------­----------·­Eastern _________________ 2,675 2,211 11.4 10.5 V. Western -------------------­ 280 1,302 1.2 6.2 VI. Southern ------------------­ 280 105 1.2 0.5 VIL Southeastern -------·---­ *"Other Points" Oklahoma includes all points in Oklahoma except the Okla­homa City market. "Other points" N ebraska.-More Texas sheep were sent direct to feeding areas in Nebraska in 1928 than to any other feeding section. Receipts of Texas sheep amounted to 47,148 head, or more than 10 per cent of the total inter­state shipments. The movements during the five years prior to 1928, however, were very irregular, because of variations in numbers fed in Nebraska annually and because of keen competition from sheep producers in the western range states. Most of the shipments came from the West Central and Northwestern districts (Table 16). Table 16 DISTRICT ORIGIN OF TEXAS SHEEP FORWARDED DIRECT TO "OTHER POINTS" NEBRASKA* Number of head billed direct to ..Other Points" Percentage distribution Nebraska by districts Six-year Six-year District Origin Average Average 1928 1923-1928 1928 1923-1928 Total Movement from Texas to "Other Points" Nebraska._________ 47,148 14,838 100.0 100.0 I. Northwestern ________ 6,160 3,037 13.1 20.5 II. West Central ---------35,927 10,314 76.2 69.5 111. Central -------------------5,061 1,032 10.7 7.0 IV. Eastern --------------­ V. Western -----------------455 3.0 VI. Southern ---------------­ VII. Southeastern -------­ *"Other Points" Nebraska includes all points in Nebraska except the Omaha market. More than one-half of the shipments to Nebraska feeding sections during 1928 were made during March and April (Table 7). The six-year average from 1923 to 1928 shows that usually a heavy fall movement occurred during Sep­tember, October, and November (Table 8). The fall shipments consisted principally of feeder lambs, many of which were put in corn fields for a while and later finished in feed lots. Included in the spring movements were many yearling sheep that were shorn after reaching Nebraska and then fattened for market. New Mexico.-Shipments from Texas to New Mexico increased from 5,961 head in 1923 to 37,826 head in 1927, and dropped off to 8,152 head in 1928 principally because of the strong demand existing among Texas producers for sheev at that time. The movement to New Mexico differed from that to most of the other outlets, in that sheep con­signed there were primarily for replacement or expansion of flocks rather than for feeding purposes. The West Cen­tral district supplied most of the shipments to New Mexico (Table 17). Table 17 DISTRICT ORIGIN OF TEXAS SHEEP FORWARDED DIRECT TO NEW MEXICO Number of head billed Percentage distribution direct to New Mexico by districl9 District Origin Six.year Average Six-year Average 1928 1923-1928 1928 1923-1928 Total Movement from Texas to New Mexico .... 8,152 15,288 100.0 100.0 I. Northwestern ·­-··-····· 1,000 1,774 12.3 11.6 II. West Central ......... . 3,675 9,332 45.1 61.1 III. Central ------------­-------· 2,250 702 27.6 4.6 IV. Eastern ------·--·---------·· V. Western ··········-········ 1,227 2,683 15.0 17.5 VI. VII. Southern ·············-····· Southeastern ___________ 797 5.2 Forwardings were heaviest from June to October, depend­ing principally upon weather and range conditions in both Texas and New Mexico (Table 8), since they were usually made after shearing seasons and represent the transfer of all classes of sheep to range areas in New Mexico. Approxi­mately 72 per cent of the 1928 shipments were made in July alone (Table 7). Ohio.-Shipments to Ohio varied considerably from year to year (Table 6). Since the majority of sheep going to Ohio feed lots were feeder lambs, most of the shipments from Texas came from the principal lamb-producing area of the State, the lower half of the West Central district (Table 18). Table 18 DISTRICT ORIGIN OF TEXAS SHEEP FORWARDED DIRECT TO OHIO Number of head billed direct to Ohio Percentage distribution by districts District Origin Six-year Average Six-year Average 1928 1923-1928 1928 1923-1928 Total Movement from Texas to Ohio ---­ 16,288 18,607 100.0 100.0 1. Northwestern _ ____ 1,731 477 10.6 2.6 II. West Central --­ 13,055 14,249 80.2 76.6 III.IV. Central ------------­Eastern ____________ 426 2.3 V. Western ------------­ 1,738 9.3 VI. Southern -----------­ 1,502 1,642 9.2 8.8 VII. Southeastern ------­ 75 0.4 Ohio feeders usually begin feeding operations between August and October, and most feeder lambs purchased in Texas were received during those months (Tables 7 and 8). MOVEMENT OF SHEEP INTO TEXAS Principal sources of receipts Even though Texas is a surplus sheep-producing state, several thousand sheep were shipped into the State annually from 1923 to 1928 either for immediate slaughter, for replacing and expanding breeding flocks, or for the pro­duction of wool. The principal sources of receipts during this period were New Mexico, Colorado, Mississippi, Okla­homa, Missouri, Nebraska, and Arizona (Table 19). Tabla 19 NUMBER OF SHEEP FORWARDED INTO TEXAS 1923-1928 Origin 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 Total Number of Sheep Shipped into Texas ___ 31,237 27,243 34,038 23,693 14,438 29,116 Arizona _____ 2,709 793 533 144 California: Los Angeles _____ 233 Other Points _____ 253 267 445 906 74 129 Colorado: Denver --­----------­­ 1,699 1,100 550 663 476 Other Points __ 7,884 4,333 6,341 3,784 4,108 2,392 Idaho --------------­ 1,325 833 560 310 Illinois: Chicago --­East ~t. Louis ____ 1,364 100 144 24 125 Other Points ____ 610 302 125 Indiana -----------­----­ 300 Iowa ---------------­ 65 5,000 15 Kansas: Wichita --------------­ 14 277 4,197 Other Points ____ 76 479 501 62 Louisiana ------­--------­ 956 3,108 1,055 Mississippi ----------­ 676 13,889 Missouri: Kansas City _______ 385 2,776 2,237 983 103 1,369 South St. Joseph__ Other Points ______ 250 366 475 532 53 1,234 Nebraska: South Omaha ____ 3,731 380 200 200 Other Points ______ 2,502 896 100 New Mexico -----­---­ 5,481 3,089 4,316 8,319 7,049 16,176 Ohio ----------------­-------­ 1,116 732 368 131 174 232 Oklahoma: Oklahoma City____ Other Points ____ 89 1,513 1,375 30 840 1,447 312 999 61 2,084 Oregon -----·-------­Pennsylvania _______ 85 310 77 234 166 South Dakota -------­ 330 Utah --------------------·-­Wyoming ---------­Other States ------­ 80 484 1,602 1,790 467 468 889 100 342 250 51 300 269 373 85 New Mexico.-Since New Mexico is an adjoining sheep­producing area, shipments from this state are often deter­mined by variations in the condition of the ranges. The shipments fluctuated between 16,176 head in 1923 and 3,089 head in 1927. Most of the sheep were consigned to the Northwestern, Western, West Central, and Southern dis­tricts (Table 20). Table 20 DISTRICT DESTINATION OF SHEEP RECEIVED INTO TEXAS FROM NEW MEXICO Number of head received Percentage distribution from New Mexico by districts Six.year Six-year District Destination Average Average 1928 1923-1928 1928 1923-1928 Total Movement to Texas from New Mexico _____ ___ 5,481 7,405 100.0 100.0 I. Northwestern ________ _ 2,525 1,942 46.1 26.3 II. West Central -------1,000 980 18.2 13.2 III. Central ---------------------69 528 1.3 7.1 IV. Eastern ---------------­ V. Western 1,887 1,320 34.4 17.8 VI. Southern -----------------2,635 35.6 VII. Southeastern _____ _ The 1928 shipments from New Mexico, which were made principally during January, February, September, and October, consisted of stocker and breeding ewes and lambs used for replacing and expanding breeding flocks. Colorado.-An annual average of 5,555 head of sheep was shipped into Texas from Colorado from 1923 to 1928. Receipts increased from 2,392 head in 1923 to 9,583 head in 1928. Most of the shipments were destined for the Cen­tral district, which includes the Fort Worth market (Table 21). Table 21 DISTRICT DESTINATION OF SHEEP RECEIVED INTO TEXAS FROM COLORADO Number of head received Percentage distribution from Colorado by districts Six-year Six-year District Destination Average Average 1928 1923-1928 1928 1923-1928 Total Movement to Texas from Colorado ____ 9,583 5,553 100.0 100.0 I. Northwestern ___ 165 3.0 II. West Central ___ 107 43 1.1 0.8 III. Central ______________ 9,476 5,338 98.9 96.1 IV. Eastern -------­ V. Western ____ 7 0.1 VI. Southern VII. Southeastern ____ The movement to the Central district represented pur­chases by packers to fill killing orders at Fort Worth packing plants and also some ewes being shipped to the different producing sections of Texas but sent through the Fort Worth yards to be dipped and inspected. The majority of the 1928 receipts were received during January, Febru­ary, September, and October. Other states.-Practically all of the shipments from Omaha and Kansas City were destined to the Central dis­ trict, since they represented either packer purchases for immediate slaughter at Fort Worth or stocker sheep going to producing areas but dipped and inspected at that market center. Fort Worth packers also secured sheep direct from Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Kansas, and Iowa. Receipts from Oklahoma included all kinds of sheep. Most of the lambs were shipped to the Fort Worth market, while some breeding stock was billed direct to producing areas. Shipments of sheep from Arizona to Texas during the period from 1923 to 1928 were light, except during 1928. Most of these receipts consisted of stocker ewes and lambs, and were received in the Western district during the sum­ mer months. The unusually large shipments of stocker sheep received from Mississippi during 1926 were sent to the West Central and Western districts for grazing and production purposes. NET MOVEMENT OF SHEEP FROM TEXAS The net outflow of sheep from Texas, indicated by the amount by which forwardings exceeded receipts, averaged 443,402 head annually from 1923 to 1928 (Table 22). This annual net movement, however, does not measure the sheep­producing capacity of the State, since it does not include the number slaughtered within the State, the death losses, or the changes in numbers on hand. Table 22 NET MOVEMENT OF SHEEP FROM TEXAS 1923-1928 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 Total Number of Sheep Shipped out of Texas __ 451,089 575,104 493,218 467,601 335,501 497,667 Total Number of Sheep Shippedinto Texas __ 31,237 27,243 34,038 23,693 14,438 29,116 Net Outflow of Sheep from Texas 419,852 547,861 459,180 443,908 321,063 468,551 Not until 1924 were there any annual estimates on local and farm slaughtering and death losses available by states. Since 1924 the Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates of the United States Department of Agriculture has pre­pared annual balance sheets for each class of livestock by states. The balance sheet for Texas showing the estimated value of sheep production (exclusive of wool) in 1929 is reproduced in Table 23. Table 23 BALANCE SHEET AND VALUE OF SHEEP PRODUCTION IN TEXAS, 1929 Number on Hand. January I 1930 1929 Total Total Thou­ Average Weight Thou- Average Weight sands of Weight (thousands sands of Weight (thouoand1 Head (pounds) of pound~) Head (pounds) of poundo) Breeding Ewes*---Lambst __________ __ 3,163 1,388 105 70 332,115 97,160 2,815 1,395 105 70 295,575 97,650 Other Sheep:L------------­On Feed_ _______________________ 916 83 120 70 109,920 5,810 897 80 120 70 107,640 5,600 Total ---------------­5,550 98 545,005 5,187 98 506,465 Debit Sheep on Hand, January 1, 1929_______________________________ 5,187,000 Lambs Saved: 2,815,000 Ewes at 77 Per CenL___ 2,168,000 Shipped in: Sheep ---------------------------------------11,000 Lambs ------------5,000 16,000 Total ----------------------------------------------------7,371,000 *One year old and older. tEwe lambs for breeding and wether and ram lamhs, one ·year old and older. iWethers and rams, one year old and older. Credit Shipped Out ---------------------------------------------------------------­Local Slaughter·-------------------------------------------------------------------­ Farm Slaughter_______________________________ ____________________________ _ Death Losses·------------------------------------------------------------------------­Total -----------------------·-------------------------------------------------------·-----------­ On Hand, January 1, 1930_ _____________ __ ______________________ _________________________ Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ Sheep Lambs Total 366,000 331,000 697,000 215,000 201,000 416,000 5,000 10,000 15,000 456,000 237,000 693,000 1,042,000 779,000 1,821,000 4,079,000 1,471,000 5,550,000 5,121,000 2,250,000 7,371,000 Pounds On Hand, January l, 1929, 3,712,000 Head of Sheep at 109 Pounds Each______________________ 403,215,000 On Hand, January 1, 1930, 4,079,000 Head of Sheep at 108 Pounds Each.____ _ ____ _ ______ 442,035,000 Difference in Sheep Inventory__ ______ ____________________________________ ______________________________ ______ ____ +38,820,000 On Hand, January l, 1929, 1,475,000 Head of Lambs at 70 Pounds Each ------------·----------103,250,000 On Hand, January 1, 1930, 1,471,000 Head of Lambs at 70 Pounds Each._______ _ __________ _ 102,970,000 Difference in Lamb Inventory____ ___ _ __________________________ __ __ _ _______ __ _ ________________________ ____________ -280,000 Sheep Lambs Number of Head Average Weight (pounds) Total Weight (pounds) Number of Head Average Weight (pounds) Total Weight (pounds) Shipped Out --------------------366,000 95 34,770,000 331,000 60 Local Slaughter --------------215,000 95 20,425,000 201,000 70 Farm Slaughter -----------------5,000 90 450,000 10,000 70 55,645,000 542,000 Minus Shipped In___________ __ ____ 11,000 100 1,100,000 5,000 60 Total -----------------------------586,000 54,545,000 Plus or Minus Difference___ _ + 38,820,000 Balance ----------------------------­ Net Production_______________________ 93,365,000 Cents per Pound_______________ _ 7.8 Value of Production_ __________ _ $7,282,000 Total Value of Sheep and Lamb Production...-----------------------------------------------------------------­Total Value of 1929 Wool Clip (estimated 41,300,000 pounds at 28c a pound)_____ _ ____ TOTAL VALUE OF SHEEP AND WOOL PRODUCTION IN TEXAS, 1929..._____ ____ 19,860,000 14,070,000 700,000 34,630,000 300,000 34,330,000 -280,000 34,050,000 10.9 $3,711,000 $10,993,000 11,564,000 $22,557,000 Source: Data furnished by C. L. Harlan, Livestock Statistician, Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates, United States Department of Agriculture. While these balance sheets are based almost wholly upon estimates, they indicate the value of annual production and furnish a method of estimating the annual net disappear­ance of sheep. The extent to which outgoing shipments, slaughterings, and death losses exceeded receipts and births from 1924 to 1928 is summarized in Table 24. Table 24 ANNUAL NET DISAPPEARANCE OF SHEEP FROM TEXAS 1923-1928 (Thousands of Head) 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 I. Number Shipped Out of Texas...... 451 575 493 468 336 498 II. Number Slaughtered: 1. At 6 Texas Markets*- ------------­--238 244 221 153 170 166 2. At Other Points_______________________ 21 15 24 20 16 t 3. On Farms and Ranches_____________ 15 15 15 15 15 t III. Estimated Death Losses ___________ _ 548 380 365 370 341 t Annual Disappearance________________l,273 1,229 1,118 1,026 878 t IV. Number Shipped into Texas______ __ 31 27 34 24 14 29 v. Annual Increase in Numbers on Hand January L _____________ ______ 594 528 530 35 200 369 Additions______________________ ______ Annual 625 555 564 59 214 398 Annual Disappearance______________ ____l ,273 1,229 1,118 1,026 878 t Annual Additions________________________ 625 555 564 59 214 398 Net Disappearance ----­----------­-------­ 648 674 554 967 664 t Source: United States Department of Agriculture. *The six designated markets are Fort Worth, El Paso, San Antonio, Laredo, Dallas, and Amarillo. tNot available. A comparison of the estimated number of sheep in Texas and the annual net disappearance indicates the rate of turnover of sheep (Table 25) . Table 25 COMPARISON OF THE TOTAL NUMBER WITH THE ANNUAL NET DISAPPEARANCE OF TEXAS SHEEP 1924-1928 Total Number Per Cent Year of Sheep of Disap­ on Farms Net Dis­ pearance and appearance to Total Ranches• of Sheep Numbers 1928 -------------------------------------------------------5,187,000 648,000 12.5 1927 -------------------------------------------------------4,593,000 674,000 14.7 1926 -------------------------------------------------------4,065,000 554,000 13.6 1925 ------------------------------------------------------3,535,000 967,000 27.4 1924 -----------------------------------------------------3,500,000 664,000 19.0 *Estimates of the United States Department of Agriculture as of January 1. The highest turnover occurred during 1925 when 27.4 per cent of the total number disappeared as a result of a prolonged drought that affected breeding and retarded expansion. An increase of only 35,000 head between Jan­uary 1, 1925 and 1926 was reported, whereas during the other years of this period annual increases in number varied between 200,000 in 1924 and 594,000 head in 1928. From 1926 to 1928, the ratios of annual net disappearance to total number of sheep on hand were 13.6 per cent, 14.7 per cent, and 12.5 per cent, respectively. These relatively lower ratios indicate that producers were holding back a larger proportion of their sheep for replacement and ex­pansion of flocks than they did during the two previous years. ANALYSIS OF SHIPMENTS OF SHEEP BY LIVESTOCK DISTRICTS, 1923-1928 INTRODUCTION The sheep industry of Texas differs from that of cattle and swine in that it is concentrated primarily in one area, the Edwards Plateau. More than 90 per cent of the sheep in Texas are in this section, which includes the lower half of District II, West Central Texas, and a few of the adjoin­ing counties in Districts III, V, and VI (Figure 4). The rapid expansion of the sheep industry from 1923 to 1928, however, was not confined exclusively to the Edwards Plateau. The favorable prices which prevailed during this period also encouraged ranchers in adjoining sections and farmers in other parts of the State to enter the sheep busi­ness. Most of the latter class, however, were owners of small-farm flocks. Because of variations in the type and quality of the live­stock produced in different sections of the State, and because of differences in geographical and climatic conditions, the Texas office of the United States Department of Agriculture divided the State into livestock districts in order to facili­tate livestock reporting work. Although these districts were determined primarily on the basis of the types of cattle produced, they have been used for all other classes of livestock. When the recording of railway shipments of livestock was started in 1923, the same seven districts were used. Even though the sheep-producing areas of the State do not conform to the districts, an analysis of shipments within, from, and to each of the districts indicates the increased activity and the shifts which took place in the different sections of Texas during the six-year period from 1923 to 1928. The distribution of sheep in each of the seven livestock districts, which is computed by multiplying the tax assessor's figures for each county by the ratio between the total number reported by the United States Department of Agriculture as of January 1, 1930, and the total number reported by tax assessors in 1929, is shown in Figure 4. COUNTY DISTRIBUTION OF SHEEP IN TEXAS ~ ONE DOT= 5,000 SHEEP LIVESTOCK DISTRICTS I NORTHWESTERN II WEST CENTRAL III CENTRAL IV EASTERN V WESTERN VI SOUTHERN VII SOUTHEASTERN *County estimates corilputed by mul· tiplying the asseSsor's figure~ for each county by the ratio' betwee11 the total number reported by the United States Department of Agriculture, January I, 1930, and the total number reported h7 tax assessors in 1929. FIGURE 4. DISTRICT I-NORTHWESTERN TEXAS The Northwestern district includes the High Plains area of the State. It is one of the most highly diversified crop and livestock sections of Texas. The principal cash and feed crops produced in this dis­trict are wheat, cotton, grain sorghums, oats, and corn. According to the 1925 Census of Agriculture, approximately 68 per cent of the Texas wheat acreage, 53 per cent of the sorghums cut for grain, 43 per cent of the sorghums cut for forage, 9 per cent of the cotton acreage, and smaller proportions of the corn and oat acreages of the State were harvested in this territory.1 Even though the acreage devoted to these crops has expanded rapidly during the last fifteen years, livestock production continues to contribute a large portion of the agricultural income in District I. Approximately 16 per cent of the cattle of the State, 2 per cent of the sheep, 10 per cent of the swine, and a considerable number of dairy cattle are located there. Beef cattle production has been, and still is, the principal livestock enterprise; between 400,000 and 500,000 head were shipped from this area annually from 1923 to 1928. Along with the increase in the acreage devoted to feed crops, there has been a rapid expansion in the swine indus­try, and during the period from 1923 to 1928 more hogs were shipped from this area than from any other district of the State. Likewise, much of the dairy development which was made in Texas during this period took place in that district. Expansion in the sheep industry in the Panhandle also was marked during the six-year period because of favorable sheep and wool prices. While there are some large flocks in this section, most of the increase is represented by small farm flocks and by sheep fed in feed lots during the fall and winter months. Most of the feeding operations during this period were conducted around Littlefield and Lubbock. 1United States Census of Agriculture, 1925. The Northwestern district is better adapted to mutton pro­duction and feeding operations than it is to wool production, because the frequent high winds and sandstorms cause fleeces to be filled with sand and dirt, which lessen the value of the wool. SHIPMENTS OF SHEEP FROM N ORTHWFSTERN TEXAS The growth and development of the sheep industry in Northwestern Texas from 1923 to 1928 is indicated by the Table 26 NUMBER OF SHEEP FORWARDED FROM THE NORTHWESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS--192.>-1928 Destination 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 Total Movement from the Northwestern District ___ 41,202 42,893 43,773 31,249 35,972 37,142 intrastate Shipments: Total Intrastate --------­ 8,892 3,916 3,870 1,466 1,936 4,298 By Districts *I. Northwestern II. West Central ____ _____ _ 23,488 3,362 6,217 1,143 6,050 8,575 3,210 656 658 113 III. Central -----­--------­ 5,004 2,330 3,870 1,466 1,219 885 IV. Eastern ---­----------­ 140 454 V. Western -------------­ 526 303 VI. VII. Southern ----------­Southeastern ________ 61 2,846 Interstate Shipments; Total Interstate -----------­ 32,310 38,977 39,903 29,783 34,036 32,844 By States and Market~ Ariwna ------------------------­ 684 Colorado: Denver -----------------------­ 135 1,622 8,959 3,710 2,936 6,571 Other Points ------------­ 5,009 7,482 7,857 4,261 5,335 2,128 Kansas: Wichita ---------------------­ 2,282 494 8 140 306 261 Other Points ------------­ 2,749 2,924 1,093 288 1,680 768 Missouri: Kansas City -----------­South St. Joseph -------­Other Points ------------­ 12,542 16,214 2,854 13,892 11,109 18,140 2,250 13,367 256 1,821 MichiganNebraska: -------------------­ 2,541 South Omaha ______ ____ _ 570 933 354 2,160 Other Points _______ 6,160 1,959 5,732 1,258 3,115 New Mexico------------------­ 1,000 2,077 2,907 3,537 1,120 Ohio ------­-----------------­ 1,731 630 500 Oklahoma: Oklahoma City _______ _ 153 Other Points -----------­ 1,512 1,962 629 1,897 Other States ---------------­ 132 276 652 229 *The shipments within the Northwestern District are not included in the total intrastate movement from the district. volume of shipments. A summary of the annual movements, showing the destinations by states and markets, is pre­sented in Table 26. The relatively heavy interstate movement during the six-year period resulted principally from the proximity of District I to the competing northern markets and feeding areas, and from the available transportation facilities. Most shippers in this territory can get to the Kansas City and Denver markets about as quickly as they can to the Fort Worth market. Intrastate destinations Practically all the intrastate shipments were billed to the West Central and Central districts. The movement to the former area represented the transfer of stocker sheep to different grazing sections, whereas shipments to the Central district included principally the movement of fat lambs and ewes to the Fort Worth market. Most of the shipments during 1928 were made during February, March, November, and December. Interstate destinations The principal out-of-state outlets for sheep from the Northwestern district where the Kansas City, Denver, and Wichita markets, and feeding and grazing areas in Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, and New Mexico. The Kansas City market was the largest outlet. More than 41 per cent of the interstate and 37 per cent of the total shipments from this district from 1923 to 1928 were billed to Kansas City. The heavy shipping seasons usually occurred during the spring and fall. The spring movement during 1928, however, started in February and extended through May, while the fall shipments were made chiefly from October to December. All kinds of sheep were repre­sented, including feeder and fat lambs, fat muttons, and ewes. Shipments to the Denver and Wichita markets from District I were irregular during this period, primarily because of keen competition from other feeding areas. When local demand for feeder stock was strong, the move­ment direct to these two markets was decreased. Likewise, when the local feeder demand was weak, shipments direct to markets increased. Feeding areas in Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas serve as important outlets for sheep producers in the Panhandle. Most of the sheep which were shipped to these points from 1923 to 1928 were feeder lambs and ewes which were placed on feed during September, October, and November. SHIPMENTS OF SHEEP TO NORTHWESTERN TEXAS The expansion which the sheep industry in the North­western district has undergone since 1926 is reflected more accurately by the movement to the district than by for­wardings, since the receipts represent either entirely new flocks or additions to existing ones. The annual receipts from 1923 to 1928 are summarized by points of origin in Table 27. Table 27 NUMBER OF SHEEP FORWARDED TO THE NORTHWESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS--192.>-1928 Origin 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 Total Movement to the Northwestern District__ 51,665 29,560 57,372 18,649 18,520 8,052 Intrastate Shipments: Total Intrastate --­---­ 48,728 26,727 54,797 13,718 17,464 8,052 Br Di-stricts *I. Northwestern __ 23,448 6,217 6,050 8,575 3,210 658 II. West Central __ 37,027 20,696 48,696 13,106 10,241 8,030 III. IV. Central -----­Eastern ______ 7,084 224 1,718 2,253 344 1,371 22 v. VI. VII. Western _ ___ Southern ______ Southeastern ______ 3,4.33 960 3,100 1,836 3,848 268 5,852 Interstate Shipments: Total Interstate ------­ 2,937 2,833 2,575 4,931 1,056 Br States and Markets Colorado: Denver: -------­-Other Points _____ 850 140 New Mexico-------­ 2,525 1,803 2,095 4,174 1,056 Other States -·----­ 412 180 340 757 *The shipments within the Northwestern District are not included in the total intrastate movement to the district. The increase in the movement within the district from 658 head in 1923 to 23,488 head in 1928 indicates a con­siderable amount of local trading during the period. Receipts into the district, likewise, increased from 8,052 head in 1923 to 51,665 head in 1928. More than 92 per cent of the incoming shipments during the period originated in other districts of Texas, whereas the majority of interstate receipts came from New Mexico. Approximately three-fourths of the total receipts origi­nated in the West Central district, and represent, for the most part, the transfer of feeder lambs and sheep to feed lots during the fall months. More than 55 per cent of the 1928 shipments were made in October, while most of the rest were made during June and September. The Northwestern district received 7,084 sheep from Cen­tral Texas during 1928, most of which came from the Fort Worth market. Most of them were received during May and July, and consisted of ewes and muttons being placed on grass and in feed lots for further finishing. NET MOVEMENT OF SHEEP FROM NORTHWESTERN TEXAS The heavy flow of sheep into this district during 1926 and 1928 caused receipts to exceed forwardings. During the other four years of the six-year period under consid­eration outgoing shipments were in excess of receipts. The annual net inflows indicate the rate at which producers in this territory were building up and expanding their flocks. The net movements of sheep to and from the North­western district from 1923 and 1928 are presented in Table 28. Tabel 28 NET MOVEMENT OF SHEEP FROM THE NORTHWESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS--1923-1928 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 Total Movement of Sheep from the Northwestern District --------------------­ 41,202 42,893 43,733 31,249 35,972 37,142 Total Movement of Sheep to the Northwestern Dis­ trict ------------­-------­ 51,665 29,560 57,372 18,649 18,520 8,052 Net Outflow from the Northwestern District_ 10,463 13,333 13,639 12,600 17,452 29,090 Figures in italics represent net inflow. DISTRICT II-WEST CENTRAL TEXAS The West Central district is the most important sheep­producing area in Texas, since the lower half includes the major portion of the Edwards Plateau, in which more than nine-tenths of the State production is concentrated (Figure 4). The upper half of District II is restricted primarily to farming and cattle operations, while the lower part is largely a livestock area in which cattle, sheep, and goats are raised. Most of the agricultural income of this latter ter­ritory is obtained from the sale of livestock and livestock products. Many producers in this area find it profitable to include in their production programs cattle, sheep, and goats, in order to secure the maximum utilization of their ranges and to diversify their sources of income. These three classes of livestock eat practically all the different kinds of grasses and shrubbery that grow in the Edwards Plateau. The principal breeds of sheep in this district are the Rambouillet and Delaine, and both of them are fine-wool producers, so that most emphasis is placed upon the pro­duction of wool. At the same time, however, a large number of sheep and lambs are sold either as stocker, feeder, or butcher stock. The importance of the stocker and feeder movement is indicated by the volume of shipments to and from the district. SHIPMENTS OF SHEEP FROM WEST CENTRAL TEXAS The destinations of sheep forwarded from the West Cen­tral district during the period from 1923 to 1928 are shown in Table 29. Intrastate destinations Almost half of the sheep forwarded from the West Cen­tral district were destined to other Texas districts. Approximately 71 per cent of the heavy intrastate move­ment was consigned to District III, which includes the Fort Worth market. The trend of shipments during the period Destination Total Movement from the West Central District___ lntrastate Shipments: Total Intrastate ------------­ By Districts I. Northwestern •11. West Central ____ III. Central _________ Eastern _______ IV. v. Western ____ VI. Southern VII. Southeastern ------­ Interstate Shipments: Total Interstate _____ By States a:nd Markets Arizona ---------------­ California: Los Angeles ______ Other Points ________ Colorado: Denver --------------­ Other Points ______ Illinois: Chicago --------------­East St_ Louis -----­Other Points -----------­ Indiana Iowa Kansas: Wichita ----------------­ Other Points _______________ Kentucky ----------------­Louisiana: New Orleans----------­ Other Points _________ Missouri: Kansas City __________ South St_ Joseph -------­ Other Points _____ Michigan -------------­Nebraska: South Omalia _____ Other Points -----­ New Mexico _______ New York------------------­Ohio ------------------­Oklahoma: Oklahoma City _____ Other Points _____ Wyoming ___________ Other States -----­ OF TEXAS-1923-1928 1928 1927 1926 767,669 739,914 636,528 435,741 335,165 302,902 37,027 20,073 48,696 185,528 175,768 74,725 274,630 220,333 209,165 753 425 469 90,903 61,794 36,984 30,557 32,458 6,959 1,871 82 629 331,928 404,749 333,626 5,751 6,329 7,517 6,496 1,077 3,302 35,338 21,549 13,176 30,336 102,072 32,896 4,674 1,444 6,676 3,973 2,182 7,137 3,222 12,619 1,216 1,097 15,140 7,840 17,120 29,584 25,449 25,555 3,282 313 103,571 132,963 105,837 2,800 5,927 4,137 3,785 20,846 656 270 4,255 35,927 600 582 3,675 24,028 14,155 1,700 5,915 2,883 13,055 2,250 37,001 1,500 1,128 2,197 20,199 48,742 16,394 16,874 1,269 820 1925 435,617 138,646 13,106 67,994 104,550 100 12,990 6,114 1,786 296,971 6,116 56,536 3,296 11,870 9,962 11,574 340 10,490 16,636 115,190 15,571 4,471 1,515 12,881 6,952 1,093 5,295 7,091 92 1924 380,426 192,383 10,241 62,787 159,258 296 14,799 7,583 206 188,043 1,050 3,902 33,679 2,715 1,860 2,343 9,660 5,948 77,978 597 10,554 24,411 1,909 1,250 300 7,278 2,215 394 1923 493,804 154,294 8,030 22,538 141,322 987 3,317 638 339,510 173 19,048 14,484 16,734 6,023 1,341 898 6,262 5,753 1,151 20,364 158,507 5,866 37,139 250 1,589 9,987 5,931 3,503 20,616 3,642 249 District are not included in the total *The shipments within the West Central intrastate movement from the district. was definitely upward. The heavy shipping season during 1928 extended from March to December, with seasonal peaks in May and October. Fat muttons comprised the bulk of spring shipments, while lambs, ewes, and surplus mut­tons made up most of the fall movement. Although most of the fat stock were slaughtered at Fort Worth or shipped to some of the other market centers, the bulk of the ship­ments were stocker sheep, and were either shipped back to ranges or placed in feed lots for further finishing in Texas or in some of the mid-western states. Shipments to the Western, Southern, and Northwestern districts, consisting principally of stocker and breeding sheep, also were heavy, especially from 1926 to 1928. Some of the shipments to the Northwestern district represented the movement of feeder lambs to feed lots. The greatest expansion, however, took place in the counties in and adjoining the Edwards Plateau. Interstate destinations The importance of out-of-state outlets for sheep from District II is reflected by the annual interstate forwardings from 1923 to 1928 (Table 29). Approximately 55 per cent of the shipments during the six-year period were billed direct to points outside of Texas. The three markets receiv­ing most of the sheep were Kansas City, Denver, and Wichita. Grazing and feeding areas in Cblorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri also were important market outlets for sheep from the West Central district. Kansas City.-Shipments to Kansas City were rather irregular during this six-year period, fluctuating from 158,507 head in 1923 to 77,978 head in 1924, and then up to 103,571 head in 1928. The bulk of the animals were wethers that were shipped during the spring months, following shearing season. Lambs and ewes comprised the rest of the shipments, most of which went to market during the fall months. Denver.-Shipments to the Denver market consisted of stocker ewes and muttons and feeder lambs destined for feed lots and sugar-beet fields for further finishing. The importance of this outlet has been increasing, especially since 1926, and the demand from Colorado feeders for sheep from this district was very active during this period, even though operators contended that sheep and lambs from Texas are too heavily pelted to make the best type of feeders. Wichita.-The direct shipments of sheep from the West Central district to the Wichita market averaged 11,085 head a year from 1923 to 1928. The movement during 1928 amounted to 15,140 head, the greater part of which went to market during September, October, and December. Most of the shipments consisted of lambs going to feeding lots and to slaughter, although some muttons and old ewes also were included. "Other points" Colorado.-Feeding areas in Colorado ranked next to the Kansas City market from 1923 to 1928 as an outlet for sheep from District II. Shipments ranged from 102,072 head in 1927, the peak year, to 14,484 head in 1923. The forwardings to these feeding areas included principally feeder lambs and ewes, and were made during September, October, and November. "Other points" Kansas.-The trend of shipments to "Other Points" Kansas from the West Central district was definitely upward during this period. Shipments increased from 5,753 head in 1923 to 29,584 head in 1928. The move­ment during 1928 consisted of lambs and some muttons and ewes sent to feeding areas for further finishing. The heavy shipping months were September and October. Oklahoma.-Shipments of sheep to Oklahoma from the West Central district during the period were made only in the years 1926, 1927, and 1928. The largest volume was recorded in 1927. These shipments represented the transfer of all kinds of sheep, including lambs, ewes, and muttons, to grazing and feeding areas of Oklahoma. The shipping season during 1928 extended from May to November, with a peak in September. "Other points" Nebraska.-Direct shipments from the West Central district to feeding areas in Nebraska were larger during 1928 than were those to any other feeding section. Except for 1925 and 1928, however, this outlet did not receive many sheep from District II, because of varia­tions in the total number of sheep fed in Nebraska, and to competition from other sheep-producing areas. Shipments to Nebraska feeding sections, like those to Colorado, con­sisted primarily of feeder lambs. Some old muttons and ewes also were sent to these feeding areas for further fattening before being marketed. Ohio.-Ohio has been a good market outlet for Texas sheep, even though the distance makes transportation charges a serious market barrier. The movement from 1923 to 1928 consisted principally of feeder lambs, young muttons. and ewes. Most of the shipments were made during the fall months. SHIPMENTS OF SHEEP TO WEST CENTRAL TEXAS The movement of sheep into the West Central district during the period from 1923 to 1928 was confined primarily to the transfer of stocker ewes and muttons from other districts of Texas for grazing and breeding purposes. The annual receipts from 1923 to 1928 are presented by district and state origin in Table 30. Approximately 83 per cent of the average receipts during this six-year period and more than 90 per cent of the 1928 movement to District II originated in Texas, particularly in the Western and Central districts. Receipts from Western Texas, an adjoining district, consisted principally of stocker sheep being moved from one producing area to another resulting from a sale or from a shortage of water or grass. Most of the transfers during 1928 were made during October and November. Most of the receipts from the Central district came from the Fort Worth market. These shipments consisted of all classes of stocker sheep for breeding purposes and for wool production. The Fort Worth market serves as a clearing OF TEXAS-1923-1928 Table 30 NUMBER OF SHEEP SHIPPED TO THE WEST CENTRAL DISTRICT Origin 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 Total Movement to the West Central District___ 51,285 37,048 19,058 29,298 13,159 3,891 Intrastate Shipments:Total Intrastate___ ________ 46,376 32,636 11,784 21,456 12,718 1,757 By Districts I. Northwestern ______ 3,362 1,143 656 113 *II. West Central ____ __ 185,528 175,768 74,725 67,994 62,787 22,538 III. Central --------------13,338 3,802 1,089 12,002 1,838 722 IV. Eastern ---------------­321 22 155 120 V. Western ----------------26,104 24,681 9,351 2,159 4,666 150 VI. Southern 3,251 2,833 1,189 7,149 5,138 622 VII. Southeastern --------155 146 300 150 Interstate Shipme•lts: Total Interstate ------·------4,909 4,412 7,274 7,842 441 2,134 By States and Markets 520 California: Los Angeles ---------------­ Other Points ------------253 267 335 160 129 Iowa ------------------------­Arizona ------------------------­ 2,483 15 Illinois: Chicago ------------------­ East St. Louis -------­1,364 100 49 125 Other Points --------------610 302 125 Mississippi -------------------· 4,089 Missouri: Kansas City -------------­ 106 600 South St. Joseph _ ______ Other Points ---------------­ 532 New Mexico --------------------1,000 3,670 302 910 966 610 368 131 75 232 Ohio --------------------------------­ 85 77 166Oregon ---------------------------­ Utah ---------------------------------­ 1,219 889 373 Other States --------------------1,995 650 890 240 *The shipments within the West Central District are not included in the total intrastate movement to the district. house for both buyers and sellers. The bulk of the sheep bought at this market came originally from the West Cen­tral district. During 1928, shipments were received all through the year, but were heaviest during May and June and from August to December. Only small shipments were received from the other live­stock districts of Texas or from other states. NET MOVEMENT OF SHEEP FROM WEST CENTRAL TEXAS Since the West Central district is located in the center of the sheep-raising section of Texas, a heavy annual net out­flow of shipments usually occurs. The annual net move­ments from 1923 to 1928 averaged 550,036 head (Table 31). The heavy net outflow indicates the importance of this area as a surplus sheep-producing area. Table 31 NET MOVEMENT OF SHEEP FROM THE WEST CENTRAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS---1923--1928 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 Total Movement of Sheep from the West Central District __________ 767,669 739,914 636,528 435,617 380,426 493,804 Total Movement of Sheep to the West Central Dis­ trict 51,285 37,048 19,058 29,298 13,159 3,891 Net Outflow of Sheep from the West Central Dis­ trict --------------­ 716,384 702,866 617,470 406,319 367,267 489,913 DISTRICT III-CENTRAL TEXAS The Central district is one of the principal farming sec­tions of Texas. Of the total acreage devoted to each of the leading crops in the State, this district has approximately 40 per cent of the cotton, 42 per cent of the corn, 59 per cent of the oats, 19 per cent of the wheat, and 14 per cent of the grain sorghum.2 The importance of District III as a livestock area is based primarily upon the fact that the Fort Worth market, the largest livestock center in the Southwest, is located in it, and that many sections in the west half of the area have a mixed program of general farming and livestock pro­duction. Beef cattle is the predominating class of livestock. Prior to 1922, sheep operations in this district were restricted primarily to small flocks. From 1922 to 1928, however, the industry expanded very rapidly, particularly along the western side of the Central district, in Blanco, 2Census of Agriculture, 1925. Hays, Travis, Coryell, Hamilton, Comanche, and Bosque counties (Figure 4). Favorable wool and sheep prices during this period not only stimulated expansion in the number of sheep, but also encouraged some operators to conduct feeding operations on a small scale. The amount of feed and forage crops pro­duced in this district and the proximity to the Fort Worth market are factors which are likely to encourage even more livestock feeding in certain sections of this territory than has been done previously. SHIPMENTS OF SHEEP FROM CENTRAL TEXAS Shipments from the Fort Worth market made up prac­tically all of the forwardings from the Central district, and represented sheep which originated in the producing sec­tions of Texas, and were reshipped either to other markets, grazing areas, or feeding sections in other states or to other producing areas in Texas (Table 32). Approximately one-fourth of the forwardings were shipped to other districts in Texas, while three-fourths went to other states. The proportion of shipments going to Texas points, however, increased during the period from 1923 to 1928 because of the increased demand for stocker sheep for replacement and expansion. Approximately 46 per cent of the sheep forwarded from Central Texas during 1928 were consigned to other districts in Texas. Intrastate destinations The heaviest intrastate movement was to the West Cen­tral district, the principal sheep-producing area. These shipments, which amounted to 13,338 head in 1928, repre­sented the movement of stocker sheep back to the ranges either for breeding purposes or for wool production. Most of the 1928 shipments were made after the shearing season, when many producers were either entering the sheep busi­ness or were expanding their flocks. The movement to the Northwestern district represented the transfer of muttons and ewes for further grazing. Most 66 of the shipments during 1928 were made during May and July. Table 32 NUMBER OF SHEEP SHIPPED FROM THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS-1923-1928 Degtination 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 Total Movement from the Central District___ 54,427 27,769 33,815 63,273 50,065 43,536 [ntrastate Shipments: Total Intrastate __ ____ _ 25,010 8,196 4,664 17,798 10,558 1,007 By Districts I. Northwestern ____ _ 7,084 1,718 2,253 344 1,371 22 II. West Central __ _ 13,338 3,802 1,089 12,002 1,838 722 *III. Central -------------­ 46,706 43,750 50,558 44,864 40,323 31,657 IV. Eastern --------·­ 345 608 285 731 6 V. Western -------­-­ 3,850 11 401 965 2,399 VI. VII. Southern Southeastern _____ 342 51 1,906 151 621 15 1,223 2,533 751 4,199 257 fnterstate Shipments: Total Interstate -------­-­ 29,417 19,573 29,151 45,475 39,507 42,529 By States and Markt:ts Colorado: Denver -------------------­- 239 267 4,247 2,025 463 Other Illinois: Points ------­-­ 250 1,655 Chicago --------------------­East St. Louis --------­--­ 964 1,388 148 604 858 287 349 612 2,168 2,475 220 Other Points -----------­ 290 461 736 Iowa --------­----------------------­ 857 239 Kansas: Wichita ----------------------­Other Points _________ __ _ Kentucky -------­-­-------------­Missouri: 5,345 2,981 1,909 345 209 2,886 466 1,394 1,462 337 2,558 1,565 1,821 2,438 2,675 Kansas City ---------­-----­South St. Joseph______ _ Other Points ___________ ___ Nebraska: 8,939 654 430 8,463 741 11,071 481 4,991 25,504 4,554 22,531 624 1,540 29,258 2,317 820 South Omaha 363 Other Points ------------­ 5,061 1,133 New Mexico ---­-­------­---­ 2,250 1,964 Ohio -­-------------------------------­ 40 1,775 494 250 Oklahoma: Oklahoma City ________ _ 300 1,151 115 180 Other Points -------­-­--·· 2,675 1,345 4,844 3,083 286 1,037 Other States -------------····· 632 762 663 531 557 *The shipments within the Central District are not included in the total intrastate movement from the district. Shipments to the Western district, like those to the West Central, consisted principally of ewes and muttons for the re-stocking and expanding of flocks. Interstate destinations The Kansas City market and grazing and feeding areas in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri were among the prin­cipal out-of-state market outlets for sheep from the Central district during this period. Most of these sheep, however, originated in other districts and only represented reship­ments from the Fort Worth market to other market outlets. Shipments to the Kansas City market from Central Texas decreased from 29,258 head in 1923 to 8,939 head in 1928. The 1928 movement consisted principally of fat muttons that were consigned to Kansas City during March and April. The movement direct to feeding areas in Kansas increased during this period. The 1928 shipments included all classes of sheep, most of which were shipped from June to Octo­ber. The movement to Oklahoma was very similar to that to Kansas. Nebraska feeding areas received more than 5,000 head from the Central district during 1928. These sheep consisted of muttons, ewes, and yearling lambs that were shipped principally during March, June, and July. New Mexico provided an outlet for more than 2,000 head from this area in 1928. These shipments, which were made in July, consisted primarily of stocker ewes and wethers that were placed on grass. SHIPMENTS OF SHEEP TO CENTRAL TEXAS The Central district includes the Fort Worth market, the clearing place for Texas sheep. More Texas sheep were received at that market center during this period than at any other market in the United States. It is not only an important slaughtering center but also a large market for stockers and feeders. Producers with surplus sheep always have this competitive market available, and, likewise, oper­ators entering the sheep business or expanding their operations ordinarily are able to obtain their supply at this market center either immediately or within a short time. Although receipts at the Fort Worth market were rather irregular between 1920 and 1929, they were unusually heavy from 1926 to 1929 (Table 33). This increased volume may be attributed to the active demand for stocker sheep which was stimulated by higher mutton prices, especially from 1927 to 1929, and to the tendency of many producers to liquidate some of their supplies during 1929. Receipts during 1929, which approximated 540,000 head, were the highest on record up to that time. Table 33 RECEIPTS AND DISPOSITION OF SHEEP AT THE FORT WORTH MARKET-1920--1929 Local Stocker and Year Receipt• Slaughter Fe~der Shipments 1929 _____ 540,000 282,000 84,000 1928 ___ _ 1927 ___ 1926 ______ 458000 .ws:ooo 445,000 214,000 224,000 205,000 81,000 47,000 77,000 1925 ---­ 314,000 141,000 60,000 1924 373,000 155,000 50,000 1923 -----­---­ 386,000 155,000 39,000 1922 -------­ 325,000 80,000 136,000 1921 --------­ 357,000 157,000 80,000 1920 ------­ 394,000 206,000 71,000 Source: United States Department of Agriculture. The fact that the number of sheep slaughtered at Fort Worth more than trebled from 1922 to 1929 suggests that the consumer demand for mutton and lamb in the meat trade territory served by the Fort Worth packing plants is improving. Stocker and feeder shipments from this market also show some fluctuations, but they do not reflect the entire demand for this class of sheep, since a large portion of stocker and feeder requirements are secured direct from the producing areas rather than at the Fort Worth market. The district and state origin of shipments to the Central di~trict from 1923 to 1928 is presented in Table 34. Approximately 90 per cent of the sheep received in this district were consigned to the Fort Worth market. Analysis of Shipments of Texas Sheep and Goats 69 The receipts into the Central district, according to the railway agents' reports, are less than the number shown received at the Fort Worth market by the Fort Worth Table 34 NUMBER OF SHEEP SHIPPED TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS-192~1928 Origin 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 Total Movement to the Central District ------­ 334,201 288,917 267,733 140,106 201,375 175,913 Cntrastate Shipments: Total Intrastate ___________ 315,911 270,875 255,853 130,806 194,319 167,717 By Districts I. Northwestern II. West Central _____ ______ 5,004 274,630 2,330 220,333 3,870 209,165 1,466 104,550 1,219 159,258 885 141,322 *III. Central ---------­ 46,7~6 43,750 50,558 44,864 40,323 31,657 IV. Eastern ------------­ 1,265 1,413 1,000 2,113 598 854 V. Western ----------­ 6,134 14,692 17,695 10,091 3,817 9,117 VI. Southern 26,779 29,955 18,818 10,398 27,954 14,876 VII. Southeastern -------­ 2,099 2,152 5,305 2,188 1,473 663 lnterstata Shipments: Total Interstate ---­ 18,290 18,Q42 11,880 9,300 7,056 8,196 By States and Markets Colorado: Denver ---------------------­Other Points --------­Idaho --------------­--------­Iowa -----------------------------­ 1,699 7,777 1,325 250 4,333 833 550 6,201 65 663 3,733 560 2,517 476 4,108 2,242 220 Kansas: Wichita -----------------­Other Points -----------­ 14 169 125 62 Louisiana ------------------­ 956 3,108 Mississippi --------------------­Missouri: Kansas City ----­------­South St. Joseph -------­ 385 250 676 2,776 475 2,131 103 53 256 234 Other Points ------­--­ Nebraska: South Omaha ------------­Other Points ------­-----­New Mexico -------------­ 3,731 69 1,942 560 484 986 380 200 100 2,112 Oklahoma: Oklahoma City --------­Other Points -----------­Wyoming -------------------------­Kentucky --------------------­Other States --------------­ 89 1,188 484 337 1,375 467 1,064 30 840 468 1,447 312 999 300 269 74 2,084 48 *The shipments within the Central District are not included in the total intrastate movement to the district. The University of Texas Bulletin Stock Yards Company. This discrepancy arises from the fact that neither sheep driven or trucked into the Fort Worth market nor sheep which were originally consigned to some other market, with stop-over privileges at Fort Worth but which were subsequently sold at Fort Worth, are recorded on the railway agents' reports. The two rec­ords do not agree, and are not supposed to be comparable, since the data on the railroad reports are obtained at the points of origin, while the count on the Stock Yards Com­pany's report is taken at the point of destination. Origin of receipts into the central district Approximately 95 per cent of the sheep receipts of the Central district during the six-year period originated in the other six livestock districts of Texas. District II, West Central Texas, the most important sheep-producing section of the State, was the source of approximately 80 per cent of these receipts, most of which went to the Fort Worth market. Shipments during 1928 showed two definite sea­sonal movements. The spring shipping season extended from March to August, with a peak in May, and consisted principally of muttons and ewes which were marketed after shearing season. The other heavy shipping season was during the fall months of October and November, when the lamb crop was being marketed. Shipments within the Central district averaged 42,976 head annually from 1923 to 1928, but this movement represented primarily the transfer of small lots of sheep between the Fort Worth market and the producing and feeding areas of District III, principally in Bosque, Ham­ilton, Comanche, Erath, and Tarrant counties (Figure 4). During 1928 the shipments were distributed all through the year, the heaviest movements being made from January to May. Kinney, Uvalde, Dimmit, and Medina counties ship most of the sheep that go to the Central district and the Fort Worth market from the Southern district (Figure 4). Forwardings were made principally during the fall and winter months of November, December, January, and February, and during the spring months of April, May, and June. The heavy winter movement during 1928 included lambs that were fed in the Del Rio-Uvalde sec­tion, and the spring movement was made up of fat muttons after shearing season. Only small shipments were received from the other livestock districts. The distance from the Northwestern and Western districts and the competition offered by other market outlets caused receipts in District III from those areas to be light in comparison with the total shipments. The Eastern and Southeastern districts are relatively unim­portant sheep areas. The trend of receipts in the Central district from 1923 to 1928 was upward, especially during the last three years. Most of the sheep received during this period from other states came from Colorado, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. The shipments represented the movement of sheep to the Fort Worth market either for immediate slaughter or for resale for breeding purposes or for wool production, although many were billed to Fort Worth only to be dipped and inspected prior to being sent to the ranges. Some of them represented packer purchases on other markets to supply local killing requirements at the Fort Worth packing plants. Although the records of the Fort Worth Stock Yards Company do not show the origin by livestock districts within Texas, they do show the source of receipts from other states and the number of sheep forwarded direct to packers or driven and trucked to this market. Further­more, they indicate the extent to which the Fort Worth market depends on Texas sheep for its supplies ; more than 95 per cent of its receipts during 1928 and 97 per cent during 1929 originated in Texas. The sources of sheep receipts at Fort Worth for 1928 and 1929 are presented in Table 35. Table 35 SOURCES OF SHEEP RECEIPTS AT THE FORT WORTH MARKET 1928-1929 (Number of Head) State Total___________________ _______ Arkansas_ ____ _________ ___ Colorado...___________ _ __ Idaho__________________________ Illinois_______________________ Iowa._________________________ Kansas____ _ _______________ Louisiana -----·-----------­ Missouri_____________________ Montana -------···----·--··· Nebraska___________________ Ohio_____________ __ __________ Oklahoma _______________ Pennsylvania--·--------­ TEXAS _____________________ Utah ··-----------------------­ Wisconsin_________________ Wyoming__ _ ______________ 192 ------., 1928 Railroad Direct Railroad Direct Market To Driven Market To Driven Total Receipts Pac kers Jn Total Receipts Packers In 489,828 2,633 46,278 538,739 391,490 12,684 48,627 452,801 290 290 300 300 2,019 2,019 6,095 6,095 225 225 808 808 259 259 279 279 209 91 300 56 90 146 2,177 2,177 1,715 1,715 511 511 743 743 125 125 198 270 468 3,464 3,464 308 308 434 434 5,904 658 6,562 4,107 1,251 5,358 310 310 480,087 12 45,620 525,719 384,370 478 47,376 432,224 163 163 81 81 457 457 Source: F-ort Worth Stockyards Company. Seasonal distribution of sheep receipts at the Fort Worth Market Since more than 95 per cent of total receipts at Fort Worth originate in Texas, and since shipments from all the sheep-raising sections of the State are represented, monthly receipts at Fort Worth reflect the seasonal variations of intrastate shipments. The average monthly receipts at this market for the nine-year period from 1920 to 1928, there­fore, are presented in Figure 5. The heavy seasonal movement during April, May, and June accounted for 44 per cent of the total receipts in Dis­trict III and represented principally the marketing of fat muttons and old ewes after the spring shearing season. Another smaller seasonal peak which appeared in Septem­ber and October represented chiefly the movement of feeder lambs to feeding areas by way of the Fort Worth market. Some old ewes and muttons also were marketed during the 100 SHEEP RECEIVED AT FORT WORTH AVERAGE MONTHLY RECEIPTS 1923-1928 90 80 JAN \ f°'EB MAR APA MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC FIGURE 5. fall months, when producers cull undesirable animals from their flocks and readjust their production programs. There is quite a contrast between the seasonal distribution of intrastate shipments and the interstate movements shown in Figure 3. It will be remembered that the latter move­ments, which consisted principally of feeder lambs and ewes, were heaviest during the fall months, when feeding operations begin. NET MOVEMENT OF SHEEP FROM CENTRAL TEXAS The net movement of sheep to the Central district from 1923 to 1928 was heavy, since the number slaughtered at Fort Worth is included. Most of the sheep were shipped in from other sections. When the number slaughtered annually at Fort Worth is deducted, there is a net outflow or surplus prior to 1926.3 Since then, however, more sheep were received in District III than were shipped out. The fact that the net inflow from 1926 to 1928 increased, indi­cates that the expansion which was going on in the Texas sheep industry as a whole during that period also affected the industry in this area (Table 36). Tahir; 36 NET MOVEMENT OF SHEEP TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS-1923-1928 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 Total Movement of Sheep to the Central District.__ 334,201 288,917 267,733 140,106 201,375 175,913 Total Movement of Sheep from the Central District 54,427 27,769 33,815 63,273 50,065 43,536 Net Inflow into the Central District -·­-------------­------­- 279,774 261,148 233,918 76,833 151,310 132,377 DISTRICT IV-EASTERN TEXAS Agriculture in the Eastern district is restricted primarily to lumbering and general farming operations. Livestock production is confined largely to beef cattle, dairy cattle, and swine; most of these operations are conducted on a small scale, and usually as a joint enterprise with farming. Cotton and corn are the two cash crops grown most exten­sively, and are supplemented with a few fruit and truck crops, including peaches, tomatoes, and potatoes. The sheep industry is relatively unimportant in the eastern part of Texas. Limited grazing lands, unsuitable climatic conditions, and competition from farming and lumbering operations have restricted the raising of sheep. The Census of Agriculture of 1925 shows that District IV had only 14,481 head, or about one-fourth of 1 per cent of the total number in the State. Jasper County, with 2,563 head, was the only county reporting more than 1,500 head. Practically all of the flocks in this area are small and are kept primarily to utilize the limited amount of available feeds and to supplement farming operations. Most of these 3The number of sheep slaughtered annually at Fort Worth is given in Table 33. are mutton-type breeds; hence only small quantities of wool are produced. The relative unimportance of sheep-i:aising in the Eastern district is also reflected in shipments to and from that area. Less than 2,000 head were forwarded annually from Dis­trict IV during the period from 1923 to 1928, and only 1,000 head were shipped into this territory from other sections. The majority of the forwardings were sent to Fort Worth, and most of the receipts came from that market center. DISTRICT V-WESTERN TEXAS The Western district is primarily a livestock-producing area. Farming operations are confined largely to the lim­ited irrigated sections near El Paso, where cotton and alfalfa are the principal crops, and to the northeastern corner of the district, where grain sorghums are produced. Beef cattle occupy the most important position in the livestock production program of Western Texas. Some of the largest and finest herds of beef cattle in the State are to be found in this district. Prior to 1925, sheep production was confined chiefly to Terrell and Pecos counties (Figure 4). Between 1925 and 1929, when favorable mutton and wool prices encouraged expansion in the sheep industry, the large amount of available range lands made possible increased production in the Western district. On many of the ranches sheep even replaced cattle either partially or entirely. SHIPMENTS OF SHEEP FROM WESTERN TEXAS Because producers in the Western district wanted to enlarge their flocks, shipments during 1928 from this area decreased as compared with those of the two previous years. Most of these sheep were shipped out of the State direct (Table 37). Intrastate destinations The intrastate movement increased rapidly from 1923 to 1928. Even the shipments within the Western district, Table 37 NUMBER OF SHEEP SHIPPED FROM THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS---1923-1928 Destination 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 Total Movement from the Western District _____ 74,125 118,150 94,891 63,304 45,990 31,781 Intrastate Shipments: Total Intrastate ____ 39,560 46,501 35,802 12,250 10,873 9,975 By Districts I. Northwestern -3,433 3,100 3,848 II. West Central _ 26,104 24,681 9,351 2,159 4,666 150 III. Central ______ 6,134 14,692 17,695 10,091 3,817 9,117 IV. Eastern -----­ •v. Western _____ 21,158 8,180 6,082 3,013 1,742 846 VI. Southern 3,889 4,028 4,908 2,390 708 VII. Southeastern __ Interstate Shipments: Total Interstate ____ 34,565 71,649 59,089 51,054 35,117 21,806 By States and Markets Ariwna 30 946 8,645 249 California: Los Angeles ···--··-----1.,435 293 Other Points ---------2,020 640 17,389 12,268 3,414 Colorado: Denver ------·-----·--911 2,286 874 4,715 Other Points ---------14,978 12,090 2,987 7,699 12,961 1,000 Illinois: Chicago --------350 East St. Louis -----2,537 2,662 Other Points -----263 1,088 394 3,525 Indiana ------------1,492 Iowa ---------489 3,351 -------· Kansas: Wichita ----------------1,814 1,549 700 335 2,371 4,441 Other Points ______ 5,577 3,990 1,310 1,200 Kentucky 1,224 Missouri: Kansas City _________ 7,468 25,398 8,753 12,824 8,320 10,921 South St. Joseph _ _ Other Points _____ 150 1,572 1,387 664 2,000 Nebraska: South Omaha ______ 3,724 1,612 Other Points _______ 2,732 New Mexico----------1,227 9,850 4,118 536 337 30 Ohio ------------897 7,369 2,160 Oklahoma: Oklahoma City -------­ Other Points _____ 280 6,660 707 163 Wyoming ------2,469 Other States ____ 260 *The shipments within the Western District are not included in the total intrastate movement from the district. which represented the transfer of sheep from one section of the district to another, increased from less than 1,000 head in 1923 to more than 21,000 head in 1928. The West Central district received the largest number of the intrastate shipments from District V, especially during 1927 and 1928. These movements consisted principally of stocker ewes and wethers being transferred to the western range areas. The majority of the 1928 shipments were made during September and October. Because of the tendency of producers to retain and expand their flocks, the movement direct from District V to the Central district, practically all of which went to the Fort Worth market, was considerably less during 1928 than it had been in the two previous years. The heaviest shipping months during 1928 were February, April, and October. The forwardings to the Southern and Northwestern dis­tricts represent movements to the producing and feeding sections which center around Del Rio and Uvalde in the former and around Littlefield in the latter. Interstate destinations The Kansas City and Wichita markets and grazing and feeding areas in Colorado, Kansas, California, and New Mexico received the bulk of the interstate shipments from the Western district. The light movement in 1928 from this district resulted from the strong local demand for stocker and breeder sheep. Most of the 1928 shipments were made during March, April, May, and November. The spring movement consisted prin­cipally of grass fat muttons, while most of the fall shipments were lambs. Feeding areas in Colorado and Kansas took a consider­able volume of sheep from this territory, especially during 1927 and 1928. The shipments included feeder lambs and some muttons and old ewes, most of which were shipped from September to December. Feeding areas in California, likewise, received sheep from this district during September and October. These sheep, which included many old ewes, were placed on alfalfa pastures during the winter for fur­ther finishing. The shipments to New Mexico represented primarily the transfer of stocker sheep to producing areas. SHIPMENTS OF SHEEP TO WESTERN TEXAS Receipts of sheep into the Western district increased from 11,850 head in 1923 to 109,543 head in 1928. This large increase indicates the rate at which the sheep industry expanded during this period. More than 90 per cent of the shipments originated in the other districts of Texas (Table 38). The principal source of receipts into District V was the West Central district, the lower portion of which is in the Table 38 NUMBER OF SHEEP SHIPPED TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS-1923-1928 Origin 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 Total Movement to the Western District ______ 109,543 76,739 52,038 17,800 23,223 11,850 Intrastate Shipments: Total Intrastate -----------­ 104,867 74,915 39,898 16,241 21,200 6,639 By Districts I. Northwestern ----­ 526 303 98 II. West Central ----­ 90,903 61,794 36,984 12,990 14,799 3,317 III. Central ----------------­ 3,850 11 401 965 2,399 IV. Eastern -----­----­-----­ *-V. Western --------------­ 21,158 8,180 6,082 2,013 1,742 846 VI. VII. Southern ------------­Southeastern ------­ 9,588 12,807 2,513 2,286 4,002 3,322 Interstate 'Shipments: Total Interstate --------­ 4,676 1,824 12,140 1,559 2,023 5,211 By States and Markecs Arizona -------­--------------­ 2,709 538 13 144 California: Los Angeles --------------­Other Points ---­--------­ 110 536 Kansas: Wichita ----------------------­Other Points ----------­- 277 4,197 Louisiana ------------------­ 840 Mississippi ----------------­ 9,800 New Mexico ---­-------------­Other States ----------------­ 1,887 80 1,286 1,235 142 475 127 2,023 1,014 *The shipments within the Western District are not included in the total intrastate movement to the district. center of the sheep-producing section of the State. Pro­ducers were very active in buying and moving sheep from this important sheep-raising area to ranges across the Pecos Riv"~r. The rail movements during 1928 alone amounted to 90,903 head. Tbe heaviest shipments occurred from Sep­tember to December and during May and June, following the two shearing seasons. Shipments within the district, which amounted to 21,158 head during 1928, also indicate the activity of trading in this area. A considerable number of stocker and breeding sheep, likewise, were received from the Southern and Central districts. Most of the receipts from other states, which represented purchases of stocker sheep from producers, came from Arizona antl New Mexico. The shipments from Mississippi during 1926 represented an abnormal movement. They consisted of a large number of stocker sheep that were brought into Texas and distributed in different sections of the sheep-producing area. NET MOVEMENT OF SHEEP FROM WESTERN TEXAS Expansion of the sheep industry in the Western district was so rapid during 1928 that incoming shipments even exceeded forwardings, although normally District V is a surplus-producing area. This change was brought about because of a considerable increase in receipts and a large decrease in forwardings. The annual net shipments to and from this district from 1923 to 1928 are summarized in Table 39. Table 39 NET MOVEMENT OF SHEEP FROM THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS-1923-1928 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 Total Movement of Sheep from the Western Dis­ trict -------­----------------------­--­ 74,125 118,150 94,891 63,304 45,990 31,781 Total Movement of Sheep to the Western District .. 109,543 76,739 52,038 17,800 23,223 11,850 Net Outflow of Sheep from the Western District______ 35,418 41,411 42,853 45,504 22,767 19,931 Figures in italics represent net inflow. DISTRICT VI-SOUTHERN TEXAS District VI, Southern Texas, is one of the most widely diversified agricultural sections of the State. It includes the Lower Rio Grande Valley, one of the important citrus­fruit and truck-crop producing areas of the United States, and also the Winter Garden Section, an irrigated area in the western part of the district, which produces large quantities of truck crops, particularly spinach, onions, and cabbage. This district has approximately 12 per cent of the State cotton acreage, 14 per cent of the corn acreage, 6 per cent of the grain sorghum acreage, 19 per cent of the cattle, 15 per cent of the goats, and 5 per cent of the sheep of the State. The major field crops are produced principally in the northern and eastern portions of this area. The cattle are distributed over the entire district, with the center of pro­duction at the middle and western part. Sheep-and goat­raising is confined largely to the northwestern corner, heaviest production being in Kinney, Uvalde, Dimmit, Medina, and Comal counties (Figure 4). Sheep producers in this area, like most operators in Texas, place special emphasis on the production of wool and on stocker and feeder sheep. During the last few years, however, some operators around Del Rio and Uvalde have been feeding lambs for market. The operations were reported to be successful. Most of the feeds, including cane, hegari, milo, and corn, were produced locally. SHIPMENTS OF SHEEP FROM SOUTHERN TEXAS Shipments from the Southern district averaged 71,450 head annually from 1923 to 1928. Approximately 45 per cent of these forwardings were shipped to other districts in Texas, while 55 per cent were billed direct to other states (Table 40). Intrastate destinations The largest outlet for sheep from the Southern district during this period was the Fort Worth market. Shipments to this market in 1928 amounted to 22,237 head. The prin­cipal shipping months included April, May, June, January, February, November, and December. The heavy spring movements consisted chiefly of fat muttons sent to market Table 40 NUMBER OF SHEEP SHIPPED FROM THE SOUTHERN OF TEXAS-1923-1928 Destination 1928 1927 1926 1925 Total Movement from the Southern District ---------­ 63,169 87,652 52,723 63,112 Intrastate Shi pm en ts: Total Intrastate ----------­ 41,038 48,010 22,705 20,101 By Districts I. Northwestern ______ 960 1,836 268 II. West Central _____ 3,251 2,833 1,189 7,149 III. Central -------------­ 26,779 29,955 18,818 10,398 IV. Eastern ----------------­ V. Western -------------­ 9,588 12,807 2,513 2,286 *VI. VII. Southern ----------­-­Southeastern ________ 21,660 460 4,898 579 3,777 185 5,042 Interstate Shipments; Total Interstate ---------­ 22,131 39,642 30,018 43,011 By States and Markets California: Los Angeles -----------­Other Points -------------­ 910 1,856 3,123 Colorado: Denver ------­----------·----·--­ 560 Other Points -----------­ 2,240 540 Illinois: Chicago ------------------­East St. Louis -----------­ 900 1,540 252 3,764 2,670 Other Points ------------­ 734 Kansas: Wichita --­--------------------­ 988 480 1,416 Other Points -----------­ 1,295 6,233 2,635 14,172 Missouri: Kansas City -------------­ 13,612 21,690 17,704 12,620 South St. Joseph ------­Other Points -------­----­New Mexico------------------­Ohio -------------------------------­ 5,109 1,502 1,663 1,871 264 3,996 2,649 4,150 Oklahoma: Oklahoma City ---------­Other Points ----­-------­Other States ---------------­ 280 333 133 348 250 23 296 DISTRICT 1924 82,165 43,367 5,852 5,138 37,954 4,002 6,661 421 38,798 428 4,400 2,130 940 5,686 24,199 890 135 1923 79,876 18,987 622 14,876 3,322 4,593 167 60,889 2,801 4,274 4,283 44,226 1,150 3,552 203 400 *The shipments within the Southern District are not included in the total intrastate movement from the district. after shearing season, while the fall and winter shipments included the lamb movement from the ranges and feed lots to market. Some ewes and muttons also were shipped out during the winter months. The Southern district also shipped a considerable number of stocker sheep to ranges in the Western and West Central districts. The shipments within the district, especially during 1928, reflect the trading activity and expansion which the sheep industry in this area experienced. lnterstate destinations The principal out-of-state market outlets for sheep from the Southern district were the Kansas City market and feeding areas in Missouri, Ohio, and Kansas. Approximately 57 per cent of the interstate shipments and 31 per cent of the total shipments from District VI during the six-year period from 1923 to 1928 were billed direct to the Kansas City market. This movement fluctuated between 44,226 head in 1923 and 13,612 head in 1928. The small volume during 1928 was shipped during the first six months and during October and November. The spring shipments consisted primarily of fat lambs that were fed in the Uvalde section and grass-fat muttons which were marketed after the shearing season, whereas the fall move­ment included feeder lambs going to market either for slaughter or for reshipment to feeding areas with feed-in­transit privileges, which permitted shippers to unload and feed them and then ship on to market, with only a slight additional freight charge. More than 5,000 sheep were billed direct to feeding areas in Missouri from the Southern district during 1928. These shipments included both muttons and lambs that were shipped during May and October. Most of the shipments to Ohio were made during Sep­tember, representing the movement of feeder lambs to feed lots. Operators in Kansas formerly secured some feeder sheep direct from the Southern district of Texas, but the number billed during 1928 was light. Most of the ship­ ments to Kansas during 1928 were made in January, and consisted principally of young ewes and muttons. SHIPMENTS OF SHEEP TO SOUTHERN TEXAS Receipts into the Southern district from 1925 to 1928 came almost exclusively from the other districts of Texas, according to the record of railroad shipments presented in Table 41. Table 41 NUMBER OF SHEEP SHIPPED TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS-1923-1928 Origin 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 Total Movement to the Southern District ---------35,386 39,011 12,918 7,791 15,024 18,119 lntrastate Shipments: Total Intrastate -------------35,061 38,879 12,749 7,740 11,261 4,781 By Districts J_ Northwestern ------61 2,846 IL West Central -----30,557 32,458 6,959 6,114 7,583 638 III. Central -----------------342 1,906 621 1,223 751 257 IV. Eastern ------------------206 130 129 126 105 V. Western ----------------3,889 4,028 4,908 2,390 708 *VL Southern 21,660 4,898 3,777 5,042 6,661 4,593 ------------· VII. Southeastern --------67 357 132 277 371 332 lnterstate Shipments: Total Interstate --------------325 132 169 51 3,763 13,338 By States and Markets New Mexico -------------------3,668 12,140 Other States 325 132 169 51 95 1,198 *The shipments within the Southern District are not included in the total intra­state movement to the district. Approximately two-thirds of the receipts into the South­ern district during the six-year period originated in the West Central district, the lower half of which is the center of sheep production in Texas. These incoming shipments were unusually large during 1927 and 1928 because of the increased demand for stocker sheep in District VI. Most of the transfers during 1928 were made from May to Novem­ber, with June and October the high months. Stockers also were brought in from the Western district, especially from 1926 to 1928, when expansion was being made rapidly. The University of Texas Bulletin 84 NET MOVEMENT OF SHEEP FROM SOUTHERN TEXAS Forwardings of sheep from the Southern district ex­ceeded incoming shipments by an annual average of 50,075 head during the last six years (Table 42). Table 42 NET MOVEMENT OF SHEEP FROM THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS-1923-1928 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 Total Movement of Sheep from the Southern Dis­ trict ---­----------­ 63,169 87,652 52,723 63,112 82,165 79,876 Total Movement of Sheep to the Southern District .. 35,386 39,011 12,918 7,791 15,024 18,119 Net Outflow from the Southern District _ _____ 27,783 48,641 39,805 55,321 67,141 61,757 Even though the net outflow was maintained during this period, production in this district expanded just as it did in the other sheep sections of the State. The forwardings continued large principally because of the commercial feeding operations that were conducted each year and because fat lambs were always shipped to market immedi­ately. The increase in receipts, especially during 1927 and 1928, however, reflects the tendency for expansion in the number of sheep which was common in this district during those two years. DISTRICT VII-SOUTHEASTERN TEXAS The Southeastern district, like the eastern section of the State, is a relatively unimportant sheep-raising area. The low altitude, humid climate, and limited grazing areas, common in a large part of this territory, are not suitable for successful sheep production. The Census of Agriculture for 1925 reported only two counties in this district, Harris and Lavaca, with as many as 3,000 sheep, and they had only 12,057 and 3,085 head, respectively. Practically all the sheep in this area are found in small flocks and are kept primarily to utilize the available feeds and to supplement general farming operations. The agricultural importance of this district is based pri­marily upon the production of cotton, corn, rice, and cattle. Approximately 4 per cent of the cotton acreage, 7 per cent of the corn acreage, all of the rice acreage, and 10 per cent of the cattle of the State were located in this group of coun­ties, according to the 1925 Census of Agriculture. The relative unimportance of sheep raising in this terri­tory is indicated also by the volume of shipments, to, from, and within the area from 1923 to 1928. An annual average of only 3,000 head was forwarded from this district during that period, most of which went to the Fort Worth market. Receipts amounted to an annual average of less than 2,400 head during the same period. METHODS OF MARKETING TEXAS SHEEP PRINCIPAL METHODS USED IN TEXAS Marketing sheep in Texas involves the handling of more than 1,000,000 head a year, or approximately one-fifth of the total number in the State. This heavy volume includes not only the shipments out of the State and the number slaughtered in T'exas, but also the heavy intrastate move­ments which represent principally the transfer of stocker, feeder, or breeding sheep from one district to another. Many of the latter transactions represent local sales which do not appear in railroad shipping records at all. Never­theless, the methods by which these transfers are effected form a part of the marketing system. The most important methods of marketing sheep used by Texas producers, according to returns received from a reP­resentative group of sheepmen operating in different sec­tions of the State, are summarized in Table 43. Table 43 METHODS OF MARKETING SHEEP IN TEXAS Based upon 1928 Sale's Records of 127 Texas Sheep Producers Number Per Cent of Reported Sold Total Sales Methods of Marketing Reported During 1928 Reported Total Number Reported Sold______________________________ 165,4{)5 100.0 I. Sold locally: 1. To local buyers__________________________________________________ 90,121 54.5 2. To non-resident buyers____________________________________ 9,309 5.6 3. To local butchers____________ ___________________ ___________ 158 0.1 II. Slaughtered on farms and ranches_________ ________ 126 0.1 III. Shipped direct to markets____________________________________ 19,371 11.7 IV. Shipped to other sections for further fattening __ 45,520 27.5 V. Other methods used ________ ___________________________ _ 800 0.5 Selling locally is the most common practice of Texas sheepmen, especially during the years when prices are rising and trading is unusually active. The majority of these sales were made to local buyers who were buying for themselves or only filling orders for other operators. It is not uncommon for the ownership of flocks of sheep in Texas to change several times during a season before they are shipped to market, or sometimes without their even being moved from one pasture to another. This practice is espe­cially common during seasons of rising prices, when con­tracting for future delivery is active. Many producers prefer to sell locally, in order that they may know the sale price of their sheep before the animals are taken from the ranges. Then, too, the distances from large parts of the sheep producing sections to shipping points encourage many producers to sell locally. The usual way of selling on the range is on a per-head basis, except for feeder lambs, which frequently are contracted for several months in advance on a per-pound basis. Non-resident buyers, who were either order, feeder, or packer buyers, bought locally more than 5 per cent of the total sales during 1928. They bought not only from local sheepmen, but also from local buyers who had previously purchased the sheep, secured an option, or were acting as agents for the owners. Hence, a part of the sales made to local buyers, as shown in Table 43, eventually represented resales to non-resident buyers. Sales to local butchers or as farm-and ranch-slaughtered meat constituted only a small portion of total marketings, primarily because of the relatively small volume of mutton consumed in Texas and because of the small number of finished sheep available for slaughter. Most of the mutton consumed was processed by packing houses who either fed Texas sheep or secured finished animals from other states. Direct shipments to market was one of the principal ways of disposing of Texas sheep, even though the summary of returns shown in Table 43 gives this outlet credit for but 12 per cent of the total number marketed. This low figure is attributed to the fact that a considerable portion of sheep sold locally ultimately were shipped to one of the primary markets by other operators. Shipments of Texas sheep direct to market consisted largely of muttons, fat lambs, and ewes, while most of the stocker and feeder lambs were used either for replenishing and expanding the flocks or for shipment direct to feeding areas for further finishing. Since Texas is primarily a producer of stocker and feeder sheep rather than of finished animals, shipments to other sections for further fattening constituted a large portion of total sales. Returns from the reporting sheep producers show that more than 27 per cent of their sales during 1928 represented shipments to feeding areas, principally in Colo­rado, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. While a few Texas operators shipped their sheep to feeding areas and conducted their own feeding operations, most of them sold to feeders either direct or through order buyers. Only a few sales by correspondence or mail orders were reported, a method which has been used by quite a number of cattle feeders in purchasing their feeder supply in Texas. Difficulties in marketing sheep in Texas The favorable prices which sheep and wool yielded in the few years prior to 1929 caused sheep producers to make relatively few complaints about the present system of mar­keting. The lower levels of both sheep and wool prices during 1929, however, naturally prompted some of the oper­ators to voice disapproval. Most complaints came from producers in the principal sheep-raising belt, the Edwards Plateau. Lack of transpor­tation facilities was the most serious handicap mentioned. Many producers living in Edwards, Sutton, Crockett, Schleicher, and Kimble counties report that they are located from fifty to seventy-five miles from a railroad, and that it is difficult to reach a shipping point without taking a heavy shrinkage. Private lanes and "traps" are available along some of the routes, but many operators are forced to use the public highways, on which traffic is usually heavy and where suitable watering and grazing places are limited. Some producers suggest the designation of livestock lanes, closed to traffic and equipped with adequate water and feed­traps. Unquestionably, such "lanes," with proper super­vision, would help the situation in these sections. The construction of better highways has encouraged the increased use of trucks as a means of reaching the shipping points. Many small operators have found this type of service very satisfactory, but only a few large operators, principally around Sonora, have provided themselves with adequate trucking facilities to handle their marketing requirements. This region will be relieved of most of these transportation difficulties, now that an extension of a branch of the Santa Fe Railroad has been built from San Angelo south to Sonora, in Sutton County. Another frequently mentioned complaint pertained to the problems of selling locally, the most common method of sell­ing sheep in Texas. While many producers who sell locally prefer this practice, and find it satisfactory, some of them contend that they do so by necessity, either because of the distance and difficulties in reaching a primary market or because they do not have a sufficient volume at any one time to warrant their shipping to market. They elect to sell locally to buyers who are better equipped and who are will­ing to assume the risks of getting the stock to the shipping points. Many small operators in several of the mid-western states, who have only a few head of livestock to sell at a time, have found it advantageous to become associated with cooperative shipping associations, through which they com­bine their shipments to be forwarded direct to a primary market. The development of such organizations, however, has been slow in range areas where large-scale operations predominate. Still another problem which is encountered in local sell­ing arises principally when contracts for delivery at a future date are made. Usually a formal contract is executed stating the exact terms under which the sale is to be made, but occasionally the terms of the contract are not definite, and differences arise, particularly with respect to the amount of shrinkage, the time of weighing, and the per cent of "cut" allowed. Care should be exercised in drawing these contracts in order to avoid misunderstandings. A typical form of contract which has been used successfully Table 44 <:.o No. ___________ __ ________ _ ____ SHEEP BILL OF SALE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19________ THIS IS TO CERTIFY, party of the first part, have this day sold and agree, to deliver or as soon thereafter as cars can be obtained, at option of purchaser, the following described sheep unshorn. Said sheep to be free from body wrinkles, from scab, sore mouth and all other diseases. Free from all debts and liens of any ~ kind whatsoever. Inspection and weighing paid. I further agree that I will not top my herds before making delivery on this ~· (.'::> contract. At the time delivery is made, said --------------------------------------are to be in good merchantable condition, to have dry fleeces after same have been in dry corral without feed or water for at least twelve hours, immediately preceding weighing and loading on ~ .... cars, otherwise 4% for shrinkage. ""'" ~ The abbreviation "Min. Wt." as below used to mean no single animal to weigh less than the number of pounds stated. _______________Good smooth lambs, Min. Wt ________________________ Average Wt. _ ____ _________ __ ____________________________ _ at ------------------------per ~ _ _____ __ ______ Cull lambs, Min. Wt. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------at ------------------------per ""3 (.'::> _______________ Old ewes (shells to be thrown out)_______________________________________________ _ _____________________________ __ at ------------------------per ________________ yearling wethers (runts out) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------at -----------------------per ~ _______________ Grown wethers (stags, broken mouths and shells out) ---------------------------------------------------at ----------------------per O;:i ________ ____young ewes (aged l's to 4's) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------at ----------------------per ~ .... Bucks and long tail lambs and all sheep affected with screw worms or where wounds have not healed up, excluded. (.'::> Received on this bill of sale, as part payment, the sum of ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------DOLLARS, balance ""'" ~· to be paid when delivery is completed. Seller agrees to pay $1.00 per head on all lambs sold and not deliverd on this contract. Party of first part agrees to pay__________________________ _ ____ __ ______ten cents (lOc) per head on all sheep delivered to party of second part. WITNESS: REMARKS: by some operators in the principal sheep-producing sec­tions of the State is reproduced in Table 44. Not many shippers complained of the railroad service, probably because of the relief that has been obtained during the last few years through a reduction in the rates on sheep from many points in the sheep-producing belt to the prin­cipal market outlets.1 Some contend, however, that the rates are still too high, and others report that watering and weighing facilities at some of the shipping points are inadequate. Only a few producers offered serious complaints about the conditions existing at the central markets. Some pro­ducers were dissatisfied with the price fluctuations. Price changes, however, are not due to, nor controlled by, agen­cies at any of the markets. They are governed largely by the relation between the available market supply of, and the demand for, mutton, lamb, and wool. The maintenance of a reasonable and stable price will require the coordinated support and cooperation of all livestock agencies, including producers, railroads, primary market agencies, bankers, and packers. THE FEDERAL FARM BOARD LIVESTOCK MARKETING PROGRAM The sheep industry, by virtue of being a part of the live­stock industry, is one of the major agricultural enterprises that has been designated by the Federal Farm Board to be eligible to obtain financial assistance from the Revolving Fund created by Congress in 1929. The plan of the Federal Farm Board is to function through producer-owned and producer-controlled marketing associations affiliated with a national marketing agency. The Board has sponsored the organization of separate national marketing agencies to handle the marketing of wheat, cotton, wool, and mohair. The organization of a 1Annual report of A. H. Priest, Manager, Livestock Traffic Asso­ciation, Stock Yards Station, Fort Worth, Texas. similar sales agency for the marketing of livestock was effected in April, 1930. It is known as the National Live­stock Marketing Association. The membership of this national marketing agency, at the time of its organization, comprised fifteen cooperative livestock marketing associa­tions, operating in most of the prineipal terminal markets of the United States, who handled approximately 52 per cent of the livestock sold cooperatively on the terminal markets and about 9 per cent of all livestock sold in termi­nal markets during 1929. The proposed plan of the National Livestock Marketing Association is "to bring together the various cooperative marketing agencies into one centralized organization, in order to pool their forces and strengthen their bargain­ing by eliminating duplication of efforts and unnecessary costs in marketing, and by controlling and directing the movement of livestock from farms and ranches to places of slaughter." Another feature of the plan is that the control of sales and policies of member cooperative sales agencies will be vested in the national association. This control will be effected by a sales board of three executives of the national organization. The National Livestock Marketing Association plans to finance producers by assisting the member associations in establishing regional credit corporations which will func­tion through the National Feeder and Finance Corporation, owned and controlled by the national marketing agency. Membership in the National Livestock Marketing Asso­ciation is not restricted to cooperative agencies operating on terminal markets. Other types of cooperative associa­tions, such as the Western Cattle Marketing Association of California, already belong, and other state and regional organizations are being sponsored in several states in order to serve producers who do not use the facilities of the termi­nal marketing agencies. The Texas Livestock Marketing Association, which was organized by a group of producers and indorsed by the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers' Association in 1929, has become affiliated with the National Livestock Marketing Association. The marketing agreement of the Texas Livestock Mar­keting Association provides this agency with the exclusive right to sell, market, or dispose of all livestock which the individual producer-member sells. A member may sell his livestock outside the Association, if for stocker or feeder purposes, provided he has permission and pays a commis­sion to the marketing agency. Any member may cancel this agreement by withdrawing from the Association at any time. It is impossible to foresee the ultimate influence which the Farm Board's marketing system will exert toward a more orderly and stabilized marketing program. Its influ­ence will depend largely on the degree to which producers and feeders are willing to cooperate with their local agen­cies, and on the extent to which they adjust their produc­tion and marketing programs to the plan recommended by the Farm Board. MARKET OUTLETS FOR TEXAS. SHEEP NATURE OF OUTLETS Since most Texas sheepmen place more emphasis upon the production of wool than upon the raising of mutton, the relative proportion of the total number of sheep pro­duced which are marketed annually is smaller in Texas than it is in areas where mutton production is emphasized. At the same time, however, the surplus number of ewes, weth­ers, and lambs not retained on farms and ranches for breeding purposes and for wool production must be disposed of through some market channel. The number of sheep seeking outlets annually varied between 700,000 and 800,000 from 1923 to 1928. Approximately 38 per cent of the number disposed of during 1928 were slaughtered in T'exas at the six designated public markets, at local points, or on farms and ranches.1 Disposition through market outlets in other states amounted to 62 per cent of the total, or 451,089 head during 1928. These sheep were distributed through several types of mar­keting channels and over a wide area. The preceding analysis of shipments of sheep shows that the initial desti­nations of the interstate movement during 1928 were divided about equally between primary markets and feeding areas. A considerable portion of the shipments made direct to markets, however, were stocker and feeder sheep which were reshipped to feeding areas for further finishing. The butcher stock consisted principally of grass-fat muttons and fat lambs, while most of the feeder stock were lambs and old ewes. Supplying feeder stock to mid-western feeders, therefore, has been one of the most important market outlets for Texas producers. It is an outlet that not only took increased numbers of Texas lambs from 1923 to 1928, but also one that offers possibilities of even further expan­sion in the future. 1The six designated public markets in Texas are at Fort Worth, San Antonio, El Paso, Dallas, Laredo, and Amarillo (Table 24). SURVEY OF FEEDER SHEEP OUTLETS The United States Department of Agriculture estimated the number of sheep and lambs on feed January 1, 1930, at 5,886,000 head. Only 83,000 head of these were in Texas. The principal feeding areas are in Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Kansas, Illinois, and Missouri. The number fed in each state annually from 1927 to 1930 is shown in Table 4. The principal sources of supply for the feeder sheep, other than the limited number of natives, are in the western range states, where most of the cross-breeds or mutton types, the more desirable kind of feeder animals, are produced. Since Texas producers have been giving more emphasis to wool types of sheep than to mutton breeds, they have been furnishing only a very small portion of this feeder supply. The favorable sheep and lamb prices which prevailed from 1922 to 1929, however, caused many oper­ators to make stronger bids for a part of this business by producing lambs that satisfy the feeders' requirements and at the same time yield a fine grade of wool. In order to ascertain the most important factors which enter into the competition between producers in Texas and those in other producing areas in furnishing these supplies, more than 500 questionnaires were sent to feeders in Colo­rado, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and in other feeding areas. While most of the feeders who answered these schedules had been or were feeding some Texas sheep or lambs, some of them had never secured any of their stock from Texas. A partial summary of the information collected is presented in Table 45. RESULTS OF THE SURVEY Type of sheep preferred by feeders The fact that more than 90 per cent of the sheep slaugh­tered are lambs and yearlings, indicates the consumer and feeder preference for lambs. At the same time, however, many wethers and old ewes are fed out and slaughtered. Table 45 METHODS AND PRACTICES FOLLOWED BY BUYERS OF TEXAS SHEEP Average Average weight in number pounds of days Sections of Texas from which States from which the rest Factors determining the when in feeding States the sheep were secured of the ahecp were secured purchase of sheep bought period Colorado Barnhart, San Angelo, Colorado, Wyoming, Price, Quality, 61 128 Marathon, Ft. Stockton, New Mexico, Utah, Transportatiol), Sterling City, Menard Nevada, Oregon, Idaho Weight, Breed Illinois _____ Barnhart, Big Lake Montana, Idaho, Price, Quality, 61 104 Ne-vada, Colorado, Transportation, New Mexico Past Record [ndiana Barnhart Oregon, Montana Size, Price, 65 100 Quality Kansas Barnhart, San Angelo Nevada, Oregon, Price·, Quality 68 102 Kansas, Idaho, Utah Missouri _ ___ Del Rio, Ft. Worth Nevada, Oregon, Price, Quality 60 109 Kansas, Idaho, Utah Michigan Chicago market 65 90 Nebraska _ San Angelo Wyoming, Colorado, Quality, Weight, 60 140 New Mexico, Montana Transportation Ohio _ ___ Barnhart Montana, Idaho, Quality, Hardiness 60 90 Ohio, and markets Oklahoma San Angelo, Barnhart Colorado Price, Quality, 64 91 Transportation TEXAS ____ West and Southwest Quality, Weight 65 80 Texas Utah ------Utah, Oregon, New Weight, Breeding 65 90 Mexico, Arizona Quality Markets to which feeders generally ship Kansas City, Denver, St. Joseph, Omaha, Chicago Chicago Buffalo, Chicago Kansas City, St. Joseph St. Joseph, St. Louis, Chicago Buffalo, Chicago Omaha, Chicago, Kansas City Clc·veland, Buffalo Kansas City, St. Joseph Ft. Worth, Kansas City Missouri river markets Average weight in pound"' when sold 90 85 90 87 81 92 90 93 88 85 95 Most of the reporting feeders expressed a preference for cross-bred lambs ranging in weight from 44 to 65 pounds at the time they are placed on feed. The more common crosses which they mentioned were Rambouillets, with Cots­wolds, Lincolns, or one of the Down breeds. The Ram­bouillet strain, which is a fine-wool sheep, when crossed with one of these mutton types, possesses the capacity and quality of a desirable feeder. Most of the feeder lambs pro­duced in Texas are Rambouillets. Some feeders criticize this Merino strain because of heavy pelts and wrinkles. They argue that the dressing percentage is lighter, and that packers consider this condition when buying the sheep. Feeders, however, anticipate this difference in dressing per­centage, and offer a correspondingly lower price for Texas lambs. A Denver commission house explained this differ­ence as follows: "While T'exas lambs do not give quite as good satisfaction as Wyoming and Colorado lambs, or even New Mexicos, from a mutton standpoint, still they give a good account of themselves, as they are purchased any­where from 50 to 75 cents per hundred less than good Wyo­ming or Colorado lambs sell for. The freight rate on Texas lambs runs anywhere from 15 to 30 cents per hundred more than on Wyomings and Colorados, and, when it comes to marketing them, there is generally a spread of 25 to 50 cents per hundred between good Texas lambs and Wyomings or Colorados." The head sheep buyer for one of the large packers at Fort Worth, who has been feeding several thousand Texas lambs, contends that the very wrinkled or "washboard" type lambs are unprofitable as mutton producers because they are ordinarily "cut back" and sold the following year as yearlings, at lower prices. Furthermore, they are the last to get fat, have heavy pelts, low dressing percentages, and sell at relatively lower prices than the smooth lambs. He states, further, that the desirability of a lamb for feeding or killing purposes is in proportion to its light pelt and freedom from wrinkles. This buyer says that the quarter­blood Mexican type, mixed with the Rambouillet, makes good feeders and sells at a premium over the straight Rambouillet-Delaines. They are lighter in weight and finer in bone, and more similar to the Rocky Mountain type of feeder lambs, the Rambouillets crossed with Shropshires, Lincolns, Cotswolds, or Hampshires.2 J.M. Jones, Chief, Division of Range Animal Husbandry, Agricultural Experiment Station, Agricultural and Mechan­ical College of Texas, is of the opinion that the Rambouillet makes a satisfactory type of feeder lamb, and that, espe­cially since this breed seems to be best suited to Texas conditions, there is little need for T'exas sheepmen to cross­breed unless it is for the purpose of raising early lambs on farms. Mr. Jones contends that the feeders' objection to the heavy pelt is lessened when they secure the lambs at a relatively lower price, and that wrinkled sheep can be avoided by proper breeding, since only approximately 15 per cent of Texas sheep are of the folded type. More serious objections are raised by feeders against Delaine lambs because of their small size. These fine-wool producers, however, are kept primarily for the production of wool; mutton and lamb production is secondary. Never­theless, some producers have crossed Delaines with Ram­bouillets or one of the larger framed mutton-type breeds, thereby securing a more desirable feeder lamb. Even though buyers in the principal feeding areas may consider that Texas lambs are not as good feeders as those produced in the intermountain or western states, the differ­ence in the value of wool produced by Texas sheep usually more than offsets the price difference between the two types of sheep as feeders. Furthermore, Texas producers are in a position to compete with operators in the western states, since the lambs from these states are disliked also for being very heavy at the time of delivery to the feeders and for their lateness in being ready for the feed lots. Because of the smaller type of sheep and because of milder climatic conditions, Texas sheepmen are in a position to produce 2Harry J. Butz, Head Sheep Buyer, Swift and Company, Fort Worth, Texas. lighter lambs and have them ready for the feed lots earlier than do operators in the intermountain states. Sections of Texas furnishing feeder sheep The areas most frequently mentioned by the reporting feeders as the sources of supply for Texas sheep and lambs were the sections around San Angelo, Big Lake, Ozona, Barnhart, Mertzon, Menard, Sterling City, and Del Rio, in the West Central district ; around Marathon and Fort Stock­ton, in the Western district ; the Uvalde section, in the Southern district; and at the Fort Worth market (Figure 4) . Most of these places are trading centers and shipping points from which most of the sheep produced in surround­ing localities are loaded, and are located in the sections where Rambouillet sheep predominate. Crockett County lambs seemed to be the most popular type of feeder sheep. Some of the feeders reported the purchase of Delaine­Rambouillet cross-bred lambs, but very few of them selected the straight Delaine strain for feeding stock. Competing areas of feeder sheep and lambs Although mid-western sheep feeders have provided one of the best market outlets for T'exas sheep, only a small part of the total number fed in the feeding areas originated in this State. The small proportion is based upon the fact that the producers in the intermountain states not only produce more cross-bred sheep, which are preferred by the feeders, but also have less transportation charges to pay to reach the feeding sections. The states furnishing the bulk of feeder sheep are Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Mon­tana, Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas (Table 45). Factors influencing the purchase· of feeder sheep The principal factors influencing the purchase of feeder sheep, according to the reporters, are price, weight, and quality. Price is an important factor, since the margin from which operating profits are obtained is usually not very wide. Price, to the feeders, includes not only the amount paid to the producers, but also transportation charges and other expenses incurred in getting the sheep to the feed lots. At the same time, however, weight and quality are not ignored. Most of the feeders will give more for lambs weighing between 55 and 65 pounds than for those weigh­ing over this range, because, when finished, they are more nearly the weight desired by packers, which is 85 to 95 pounds. Quality is the other important factor. The feeders include under this classification sheep that are well bred, healthy, uniform in size, and that are not too heavily pelted and are capable of making economical gains during the feeding period. Health is an important consideration. Unless the lambs are free from diseases and pests when they enter the feed lots, they cannot make satisfactory progress. Many of the Colorado and Nebraska feeders complained of the prevalence of stomach worms among Texas lambs, which causes a higher death loss than among lambs that are not infested. Some of the feeders in the Corn Belt States, feeding Texas lambs during 1929, also complained of lung worms in the lambs. Distance frequently was mentioned as a limiting factor in purchasing Texas feeder sheep. Either transportation costs, competition from closer areas, or heavy shrinkage losses from long hauls often make it impractical for feeders in some of the more distant states to secure their feeding stock in Texas. Methods of buying fe-eder sheep in Texas Most sheep feeders secure their stock in Texas either personally from producers or through livestock commission agencies. The method or type of agency selected depended largely upon the geographical location of the feeders, the number of sheep wanted, and the previous experiences of the purchasers with the several agencies. Buying personally from producers.-Many feeders insist upon seeing the sheep before buying them, in order to be assured that the animals are of the proper quality and condition to make good feeders. Frequently they insist upon doing their own cutting and selecting before loading sheep into the cars. Moreover, many of the feeders prefer to secure their sheep direct from the ranges because the animals are fresher and more likely to be of uniform breed­ing than those secured at primary markets. Then too, many feeders claim that they buy their own stock direct in order to eliminate the marketing costs incurred at the central markets. On the other hand, this method of buying is rather expen­sive, if personal trips are made to Texas, unless a considerable number of sheep is purchased. A few feeders, having made previous contacts with producers, have elimi­nated these expenses by securing their feeding stock by correspondence. Another disadvantage of personal buying, especially to those unfamiliar with market conditions, is that the buyers must rely solely upon their own judgment in making the purchases. Buying through commission agencies.-Most feeders prefer to place their orders with an order buyer or with a commission agency rather than to rely upon their own judgment. Reliable commission agencies have buyers who know how to select good feeder stock at current market values, and the commission charges amount to only a rela­tively small part of the total cost of the animals. Feeders­at least, those not familiar with local conditions-ordi­narily are better satisfied when they place their orders with responsible buying agencies. There are several types of these organizations operating in Texas. Private commission companies.-Private livestock com­mission organizations in Texas are of three general types: those operating only at the central markets, those operating exclusively in and between the producing areas, and those doing business both on and off the market. Most of the private commission houses of the first type are at the Fort Worth market, and, with but few exceptions, fill their buy­ing orders from the supplies available at this market. Frequently the orders cannot be filled immediately and are left with the agency until the desired kind of sheep appear on the market. One of the larger companies that receives a considerable number of feeders' orders secures a part of the feeder stock in the producing areas and sends them direct to the feeders. While the number of Texas sheep secured through these organizations is relatively not large, the feeders using this form of contact were satisfied with the service given. Many of the buying orders are placed with agencies oper­ating at some of the other markets, who turn them over to an associated agency in Texas to be filled. Generally these orders are given to order buyers operating in the producing areas, because they are in a better position to locate the type of lambs desired. Frequently commission agents make personal trips to the sheep-producing areas preceding and during the lamb-moving season, and buy direct either from producers or from local commission houses. Buying through cooperative commission companies.­ Some of the feeders report the purchase of lambs through the National Producers' Feeder Pool, a department of the National Livestock Producers' Association. This coopera­tive organization receives orders from its members prior to the feeding season, and then sends a representative to Texas and other producing areas to buy direct from pro­ducers. Frequently the agent represents both the buyer and seller, in which case he undertakes to set the most equitable price. This feeder pool was started in 1925 and has been oper­ating each year since then. More than 23,000 sheep were purchased direct from Texas by this organization during 1929, and distributed to feeders principally in Ohio, Michi­gan, New York, Illinois, and Iowa. The feeders expressed satisfaction with this method of securing lambs, since they were carefully selected, uniform in size, and fresh from the ranges, which insured minimum shrinkage losses and marketing expenses. Since the National Livestock Producers' Association has become a part of the National Livestock Marketing Asso­ciation, the activities of the feeder pool probably will be handled by the National Feeder and Finance Corporation, a subsidiary of the Federal Farm Board's sponsored mar­keting agency. Buying sheep on contract for future delivery.-Mention has already been made of the fact that a considerable part of the feeder lamb crop is sold by Texas producers several months prior to the time of delivery. The proportion con­tracted annually depends largely upon the success which the operators experienced the previous year and upon the pros­pects for the approaching feeding season. If the buyers feel that prices are likely to go higher, contracting will be very active, as was the case during 1928. On the other hand, if they have reason to believe that prices are likely to be lower, only a small volume will be contracted; such a condition existed in Texas during 1929. This method of buying lambs is used especially by oper­ators in Colorado and Nebraska, who may be either feeders or only speculators anticipating a rise in prices between the time when the contracts are made and the time when the lambs are ready for delivery. Many producers and feeders condemn this practice on the grounds that it creates artificial values and works a hardship on both the producer and the feeder, since the contracts usually are made before an intelligent estimate of the available supply of lambs or the probable demand for mutton is known to either the buyer or especially the seller. They contend that it is a highly speculative practice which performs no real func­tion to an orderly system of marketing. These criticisms possess some merit. Either the producer or the feeder loses on each transaction. If market prices decline during the period from the time the contract is executed until the lambs are delivered, as was the case in 1929, the feeder enters the feeding operations with a loss which may not be overcome even by the end of the feeding season. On the other hand, if prices advance, the producer loses by making the "premature" sale. The practice, there­fore, tends to disrupt the orderly transfer of feeder lambs The University of Texas Bulletin from the producing sections to feeding areas. Commercial feeding operatiorrs would be more stabilized, and both pro­ducers and feeders probably would be better off, in the long run, if contracts were made at or near the delivery dates rather than several months prior to the time of deliv­ery, when little is known about the price-making factors. Although contracting for future delivery performs no per­manent function in an orderly marketing system for feeder lambs, this practice is likely to be continued by producers who are not willing to bear the risks of possible price declines until the lambs are sold and delivered. Difficulty in securing sheep of uniform grade and quality Very few of the feeders who had bought Texas lambs experienced much difficulty in securing uniformity of grade and quality, because of the large flocks from which the lambs were selected, and because of the liberal cut usually permitted by the terms of the contract with producers. Be·ginning date of feeding perio'd Sheep-feeding operations usually begin between Septem­ber and December. Most of the lambs bought in Texas are placed on feed during September and October. Some of the feeders and buyers in Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana indicated a desire to secure their sheep between August 20 and Sep­tember 20, in order to have them ready for market soon after the Christmas season. Texas lamb producers might do well to prepare their lambs for this earlier delivery date in order to satisfy the feeders' demand. Length of feeding period The length of the average feeding period, as reported by the feeder correspondents, varied from 80 days in Texas to 140 days in Nebraska (Table 45). The most frequently mentioned feeding period ranged from 90 to 120 days. The variations depended upon the kind of feed available, the degree of finish desired by the feeders, and the condition of the market for fat lambs. Feeders in the southern sec­tions of the feeding belt usually feed for a shorter time than do the Corn Belt feeders, because of the different kinds and quantities of available feeds. Some sheep in the former areas even are reshipped to feed lots in the Corn Belt for further finishing before going to market. Feeders in the Corn Belt states feed for longer periods, finding it more profitable ordinarily to market their feed crops in the form of livestock rather than to sell them separately. Market outlets for fat sheep Upon the completion of the feeding period, finished sheep and lambs are ready for immediate slaughter. Practically all are disposed of at the primary markets to packers. The principal markets receiving them, according to the report­ing feeders are shown for the several feeding states in Table 45. Packing plants at some of the primary markets are not able to secure an adequate supply of fat lambs to supply their killing orders, and they secure them at other markets or direct from feeding areas. This condition fre­quently prevails at the Fort Worth market, and the local packing plants either have to do their own feeding or buy additional supplies in some of the feeding areas or at the Denver, Omaha, Wichita, or Kansas City markets. MOVEMENTS OF GOATS THE ECONOMIC POSITION OF THE GOAT INDUSTRY WORLD DISTRIBUTION OF ALL BREEDS OF GOATS The United States Department of Agriculture issued a report in 1924 showing the estimated number of all breeds of goats in the world. The estimated aggregate number, which approximated 139,000,000 head, includes Angora goats, producers of mohair; the Llamas or South American goats, from which alpaca is obtained; the Cashmere or Indian goats, producers of cashmere hair; the different breeds of milk goats; and numerous strains of "native" goats. The Mexican short-haired or "common" goats, which are found in different sections of the United States, are typical native goats. The principal commercial breed of goats in the United States, however, is the Angora. Most of the discussion of this study will be restricted to this breed. DISTRIBUTION OF ANGORA GOATS The distribution of Angora goats was confined principally to a Turkish province in Asia Minor until some importa­tions of this breed were made to South Africa at intervals from 1838 to 1896, and to the United States at intervals from 1849 to 1901. Prior to 1831, and since 1901, the Turkish Government forbade the exportation of Angoras, in order to restrict further expansion of this breed in other countries.1 Nevertheless, a sufficient number of high-quality Angoras had been received in the Union of South Africa and in the United States so that producers were able to improve and expand their native herds. New blood lines were added to herds in the United States, also, by importations from South Africa prior to 1904, and again since 1925. This series of 1united States Departments of Agriculture and Commerce, The Angora (}oat and Mohair Industry. importations of high-quality breeding stock has made it possible for producers to improve the quality of Angora goats in the United States to a point where they now com­pare favorably with those of any other Angora-producing area. The principal Angora goat-producing countries are the United States, Turkey, and the Union of South Africa (Table 46). Table 46 NUMBER OF ANGORA GOATS IN THE PRINCIPAL ANGORA GOAT PRODUCING COUNTRIES---1920--1929 Year United States* Union of South Africa Turkey 1929 --------------------------------3,619,000 1,438,000 2,805,000 1928 ---------------------------------3,391.000 1,318,000 3,111,000 1927 ------------------------------3,159,000 1,499,000 3,162,000 1926 -------------------------------2,899,000 1,831,000 2,741,000 1925 ------------------------------2,374,000 2,151,000 2,560,000 1924 ----------------------------------2,518,000 2,140,000 2,252,000 1923 ---------------------------------2,280,000 2,285,000 2,024,000 1922 --------------------------------2,231,000 2,272,000 t 1921 --------------------------------2,506,000 2,285,000 t 1920 ---------------------------------2,346,000 2,240,000 t *Annual figures for only six states: Arizona, California, Missouri, New Mex­ico, Oregon, and Texas. These states, however, have more than 95% of all fleece goats in the United States. tNot available. Source: United States Department of Agriculture. The trend of production in these three countries has varied considerably. Since 1923 the number of goats increased in both the United States and in Turkey, and declined in the Union of South Africa. The decided drop in South Africa was brought about by a drought which extended from 1925 to March, 1928, and which was fol­lowed by a destructive flood. Expansion in the United States and Turkey was stimu­lated by the decrease of production in South Africa, and by the increased demand for mohair, which strengthened prices and made production more profitable from 1923 to 1929. DISTRIBUTION OF ANGORA GOATS IN THE UNITED STATES The commercial production of Angora goats in the United States is restricted primarily to the southwestern and western range states. The principal producing areas are in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Missouri, and Cali­fornia. More than 83 per cent of the number of fleece goats in the United States in 1929 were in Texas (Table 47). Table 47 NUMBER OF GOATS CLIPPED IN THE UNITED STATES* 1920--1929 (Thousands of Head) Principal Goat Producing States 1929 1928 1927 1926 1924 1922 1920 Total ------------­------­ 3,619 3,391 3,159 2,899 2,518 2,231 2,346 TEXAS ------------­Arizona -------­-------­ 3,000 214 2,800 185 2,579 185 2,367 165 2,008 165 1,750 152 1,834 145 New Mexico ______ 173 170 165 135 127 110 124 Oregon ---------------­Missouri ____ _________ 120 66 125 66 ll5 63 115 61 101 60 105 55 113 58 California ---------­ 46 45 52 56 57 59 72 Source: United States Department of Agriculture. *More than 95% of the fleece goats of the United States are in the si.x states shown in this table. The increase of 61 per cent in the number of goats in the United States from 1922 to 1929 was encouraged by the relatively high mohair prices prevailing during that period, by an improvement in the quality of breeding herds, by the manner in which Angoras have become adapted to range conditions in the Southwestern and Western States, and by tariff protection afforded American mohair producers against foreign competition. CHEVON CONSUMPTION IN THE UNITED STATES Prior to 1916-1917, goat meat was sold as mutton. Some operators, however, felt that, since goats were not selling as high as sheep, packers were capitalizing on this practice. Accordingly, the United States Department of Agriculture was requested to require packers to stamp or tag goat car­casses as goat meat. As a result of this order, the sale of chevon was seriously affected, as shown by the number of goats slaughtered under Federal inspection in the United States and Texas during the fiscal years ending June 30, 1916, to 1929 (Table 48). Table 48 NUMBER OF GOATS SLAUGHTERED AT FEDERALLY INSPECTED PLANTS IN TEXAS AND THE UNITED STATES 1916-1929 Vea r Ending June 30 Te xas United States 1929 -·········----------------­ 10,150 21,284 1928 ···--------------­---­ 7.672 20,396 1927 ········-··-··--······-·····­ 8,991 30,437 1926 --······----····-­----·····--···­ 8.712 42,774 1925 ··························------­ 7.082 26.570 1924 ··················-·-·····-·····-· 7,573 31-279 1923 -------·········-·····-······-··· 4.693 25,129 1922 ······--··········-·····--------­ 829 13.758 1921 ·······················----­----­ 5,138 20,027 1920 ·········-············----------­ H .459 17.210 1919 . ··········-···········­--------­ 32,000 126,000 1918 -······--····--·········-···----­ 34.000 150.000 1917 -----·-····-··------············­ 41,000 175.000 1916 ···--------------------------­ 34,000 180,000 Source: United States Department of Agriculture. The number slaughtered under Federal inspection, of course, does not measure total chevon consumption, since it does not include goats slaughtered on farms and ranches and in smaller packing houses that do not have Federal inspection. The figures for Texas especially are too small, since a considerable number of goats are slaughtered on farms, ranches, and in local markets in South T'exas and along the Mexican border. Mexicans, who are heavy con­sumers of chevon, do their own slaughtering or buy meat from local markets. Several attempts have been made to stimulate the demand for goat meat. One of the first steps taken was the selec­tion of an appropriate name by which goat meat would be known to consumers. The name "chevon" was officially approved by the Secretary of Agriculture in 1924. Goat­raisers, however, have found that obstacles other than the mere lack of a suitable name must be overcome before the demand for chevon can be increased materially. Some have advocated that a separate name or distinction be applied to the different grades of meat. One suggestion is to label the meat of kids, or young goats, chevon, and the meat of older goats something else, in order to differentiate between the two. The principal difficulty that has existed in the past is that the majority of goats offered on the market for slaughter have been old goats that were no longer desirable for production of mohair, for breeding purposes, or for clearing underbrush and shrubbery from pasture lands. Such goats are usually in an undesirable flesh condition, and frequently possess a peculiar odor. On the other hand, kids or young goats have a very palatable meat, and, if their car­casses were labeled as such, the consumer prejudices against cnevon could be overcome more easily. The mere naming or labeling of the different grades of meat, however, will not increase consumption materially. It must be followed by an educational campaign to acquaint people with the excellent flavor of chevon and to overcome the consumers' prejudices. The consumers are the buyers, and it is to them that the appeal must be made. Further­more, adequate quantities of chevon must always be avail­able at the markets. Factors which are frequently overlooked by producers in attempting to encourage chevon consumption is that the available market supplies of desirable slaughter stock are limited, and that the difference between the value of goats as butcher stock and as mohair producers is great. These factors have been, and still are, among the dominating ones affecting chevon consumption, because producers refuse to ship kids and young goats to market when they can realize more from the sale of the mohair which these animals can produce. This condition existed especially from 1923 to 1929, while favorable mohair prices prevailed. During that period, producers found adequate demand for their young goats either for replenishing and expanding their own herds or for sale to other operators for similar purposes. Until expansion in the number of goats ceases, supply of chevon is likely to remain light, because goats are worth more as mohair producers than they are as meat producers. When mohair prices decline to a level that will not encourage fur­ther increases in production, the consumer outlet will become more important. Producers then will be likely to be more interested in stimulating and expanding consumer outlets for chevon. THE GOAT INDUSTRY OF TEXAS The importance of Texas as an Angora goat-producing area is indicated by the fact that more than four-fifths of the number of Angora goats in the United States and more than one-third of the total number in the three principal Angora-producing countries are located in the State (Fig­ure 6) . The number of fleece goats in Texas increased from 1,750,000 head in 1922 to 3,000,000 head by January 1, 1930, an increase of 71 per cent during the eight-year period (Table 47). FIGURE 6. The Angora goat industry in Texas, like the sheep indus­try, is concentrated in the Edwards Plateau. This area, which is shown in Figure 7, includes the lower half of the West Central district and the adjoining counties in the Cen­tral, Western, and Southern districts. No official estimates of the number of fleece goats have been issued by counties since the Agricultural Census of 1925, but more than 93 per cent of the goats were located then in Edwards, Kimble, Real, Uvalde, Sutton, Val Verde, Kerr, Terrell, Gillespie, Kinney, Bandera, Menard, Crockett, Mills, Blanco, Medina, Schleicher, Brewster, Kendall, Mason, McCulloch, San Saba, Burnet, Presidio, Webb, Llano, Hamilton, and Lam­pasas counties (Figure 7). The number of goats in Texas has increased 62 per cent since the 1925 Census, and most of the expansion from 1925 to 1930 occurred in these coun­ties, particularly in the Trans-Pecos region. The counties immediately east and south of those in which goats were produced in 1925 also have shared in the expansion of the goat industry of the State. There is considerable overlapping in the distribution of sheep and goats in Texas (Figures 4 and 7). Many pro­ducers run both of these classes of livestock together. Some operators have found it profitable to include cattle also in their enterprises, since these three classes of animals, col­lectively, eat practically all the different types of vegetation grown in this section of the State. Goats, however, are bet­ter rustlers, and seem to do better in rough areas than do either sheep or cattle. This difference principally accounts for their predominance in the more rugged sections of the Edwards Plateau. Another factor that has encouraged the development of goat-raising in the southwestern part of Texas has been favorable climate. Goats seem to thrive in a high and dry climate where sufficient grasses and underbrush are avail­able; however, they are easily chilled, especially soon after shearing seasons, and occasionally heavy losses have occurred during cold and rainy weather when adequate pro­tection was not available. Goats are more uniform in type than are any other class of livestock in Texas. The bulk of the goats in the State are Angoras, the producers of mohair, and most of them are of high quality. Goat-raisers have been constantly improv­ing their herds by the importation of well-bred stock from other producing areas and by careful selection and breeding. Angoras are kept primarily for their fleeces and for breeding purposes until they die or become unproductive. The kid crops replenish the herds, furnish a source of supply for producers just entering or expanding operations, and satisfy the prevailing demand for chevon. ANALYSIS OF SHIPMENTS OF GOATS TO, WITHIN, AND FROM TEXAS 1923-1928 Shipments of goats to and from the State do not have the significance that shipments of other classes of livestock do. Neither the size nor trend of production is indicated by the volume of forwardings and receipts. Even though the number of goats in Texas during the period from 1923 to 1928 exceeded 2,500,000, only approximately 30,000 were shipped from and received into the State annually during this period. This small movement is attributed largely to the fact that most of the income derived from goat-raising was secured from the sale of mohair, that market outlets for goats were limited because of the light consumer demand for chevon, and that goat-raising was highly con­centrated in a relatively small area of Texas. Hence, there was little demand for Texas Angora goats in any place other than in the local producing areas and in the local markets. Since more than 80 per cent of the goat shipments in Texas from 1923 to 1928 were intrastate movements, they reflect the growth and development of the industry better than do interstate shipments. Accordingly, the two move­ments are analyzed separately. SHIPMENT'S OF GOATS WITHIN TEXAS Goat shipments within the State from 1923 to 1928 were compiled by districts by the Texas office of the United States Department of Agriculture. The seven livestock dis­tricts were designed primarily on the basis of cattle pro­duction, but they have also been used in tabulating shipments of all other clasess of livestock. The distribution of goats in the principal producing section of the State, which includes the lower half of the West Central district, the upper border counties of the Southern district, the eastern portion of the Western district, and a few western counties of the Central district, is indicated by counties in Figure 7. The bulk of intrastate goat shipments represents the transfer of breeding and mohair-producing stock from one range area to another. The relatively small number enter­ing market channels were slaughtered at Fort Worth, Laredo, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, several small South Texas points, and on farms and ranches. Annual receipts and forwardings within and between the seven livestock districts of Texas from 1923 to 1928 are shown in Table 49. Table 49 SUMMARY OF INTRASTATE GOAT SHIPMENTS BY LIVESTOCK DISTRICTS OF TEXAS 1923-1928 LIVESTOC K DISTRICTS Year Total Intrastate Shipments I North­western II West Central III Central IV Eastern v Western VI Southern VII South· eastern RECEIPTS Av. 1923-1928 ........ 77,762 410 19,052 16,218 568 8,591 32,264 660 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 ------­--­--·····­····­-···· ---·······--···· ····---···-···­····­··-····­·­···-····-···-·­ 160,795 120,977 62,897 49,032 42,216 30,673 790 1,545 125 34,995 36,342 21,706 12,529 17,267 1,478 29,657 22,518 12,754 12,198 9,998 10,187 180 1,093 150 1,315 40 628 18,493 9,649 6,254 7,291 5,673 4,185 75,743 49,210 21,669 14,560 18,391 14,019 937 620 239 1,139 847 176 FORWARDIN GS Av. 1923-1928 -----­ 77,762 122 42,365 4,121 1,719 12,323 16,759 363 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 ····················­········-···-······· ·············-··­··· -·-··········--·­··--·······­······· --­----­- 160,795 120,977 62,897 49,032 42,216 30,673 5 12 25 312 380 88,108 63,948 37,790 27,919 23,157 13,272 5,688 4,922 3,401 3,800 3,169 3,749 2,383 6,306 51 645 889 44 18,331 21,126 10,594 6,625 9,518 7,746 46,280 23 .495 10,860 9,622 4,436 5,862 1,168 176 109 667 Total intrastate shipments increased from 30,673 head in 1923 to 160,795 head in 1928. This tremendously increased activity occurred principally in the West Central, Southern, Central, and Western districts. A part of the increased receipts in the Central district represented ship­ments of goats to the Fort Worth market, where some were slaughtered, others were shipped to different points in the southern and western counties of that district, while still others were reshipped to producing areas in other districts. The increased movements in the other districts also reflect COUNTY DISTRIBUTION OF GOATS IN TEXAS* ONE DOT: 5,000 GOATS LIVESTOCK DISTRICTS I NORTHWESTERN II WEST CENTRAL III CENTRAL IV EASTERN V WESTERN VI SOUTHERN vn SOUTHEASTERN *County estimates computed by mul­tiplying the assessor's figures for each county by the ratio between the total number reported by the United States Department o} Agriculture, January I,, 1930, and the total number reported by tax assessors in 1929. FIGURE 7. ~ Table 50 ien DISTRICT ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS OF TEXAS GOAT SHIP MENTS-1928 ~- ~ Distric t Origins o f Shipments 1928 Total Forwardings Total Interstat e Shipments Total I North-western II West Central Intrastate Forwardings Ill IV Central Eastern v Western VI Southern VII South-eastern VJ ~ ~- ~ Total Receipts, 1928 ______ Total Interstate Receipts, 1928 --­------------­ -----­----­ -----­-­ 182,986 22,191 790 -----­ 35,922 927 30,185 528 460 280 22,517 4,024 92,175 16,432 937 ~ ;::!.,..,. en c- Total Intrastate Receipts, 1928 --------------­-168,858 8,063 160,795 790 34,995 29,657 180 18,493 75,743 937 ~ ~ 8 I. Northwetitern ---­-----­5 II. West Central ______ ____ 92,873 III. Central ----­------------­5,821 IV. Eastern ------­------­-------­2,383 v. Western ------------------­-20,311 VT. Southern -------­-----­--­47,465 VII. Southeastern --­4,765 133 -----­1,980 1,185 5 88,108 5,688 2,383 18,331 46,280 -----­790 -----­---­-- -­-----­ -----­21 ,832 1,088 206 2,225 9,644 5 32,601 1,927 820 272 3,032 155 25 -----­-----­-----­ 6,714 --­--­-----­9,697 2,082 34,416 2,648 1,340 6,137 31,202 600 17 320 ~ VJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c;".l c ~ ....... ....... ~ the trading and expanding activities of operators, especially from 1926 to 1928. A more detailed analysis of intrastate shipments during 1928 is available from the data in Table 50, which shows the origins and destinations by livestock districts of Texas. The largest movement occurrej from the West Central district, the lower half of which includes the principal goat­raising section of the State. Total forwardings from this district exceeded 92,000 head during 1928, 88,108 head of which were intrastate shipments. Of the intrastate ship­ments, approximately 25 per cent went to other sections within the district, 39 per cent of the shipments were sent to the Southern district for replacement and expansion of flocks, 27 per cent were consigned to the Central district, which includes the Fort Worth market, and the remaining 9 per cent were shipped to the other four districts. Most of the receipts of goats in the West Central district originated within the same territory and in the Southern and Western districts. The principal goat-producing coun­ties of the West Central district are Edwards, Kimble, Real, Sutton, Val Verde, Kerr, Gillespie, Bandera, Mason, Crockett, Menard, Mills, Blanco, Schleicher, Kendall, Burnet, Llano, McCulloch, San Saba, Lampasas, Concho, and Tom Green (Figure 7). The second largest movement during 1928 was made to the Southern district. Only 18 per cent of the 92,175 head that were received in this territory originated in other states. The bulk of the intrastate receipts came from the West Central district or represented the movement within the Southern district itself for the purpose of replacing and expanding flocks. Much of the expansion in the goat industry in Texas since 1922 occurred in this area. The counties in which most of the goats in District VI are located are Uvalde, Kinney, Medina, Webb, La Salle, Zavala, and Hidalgo (Figure 7). Receipts of goats in the Central district amounted to 30,185 head during 1928. Most of them originated in the West Central district and were shipped either to the Fort Worth market or to producers in the western half of Dis­trict III, where a considerable increase in the number of goats occurred from 1925 to 1929. The counties in the area where most of the expansion was made are Hays, Travis, Williamson, Bell, Coryell, Hamilton, Comanche, and Bosque (Figure 7). Forwardings of goats from the Central district were restricted primarily to reshipments from the Fort Worth market to other producing areas, principally in the Southern, Central, and West Central districts of the State. The greatest increase in the number of goats since 1925 occurred in the eastern part of the Western district. Ani­mals were shipped to the West Central and Southern dis­tricts or back from those same areas, the direction of the shipments, which consisted of stocker and breeding goats, depending upon local demand and upon range conditions in the different localities. The principal goat-raising coun­ties of District V are Terrell, Brewster, Presidio, Pecos, and Jeff Davis (Figure 7). SHIPMENTS OF GOATS FROM TEXAS The insignificance of markets in other states as outlets for Texas goats is indicated by the relatively small volume of forwardings from the state during the six-year period from 1923 to 1928 (Table 51). Forwardings fluctuated considerably during this period. The peak, which was reached in 1924 when 16,319 head were shipped from the State, was attained because of unsually dry range conditions. More than one-half of the goats were consigned to Kansas City, one of the principal goat markets of the United States. Most of the other goats were sent to grazing areas in Colorado, New Mexico, and Kansas. Forwardings were small during 1925, 1926, and 1927 because range conditions improved and mohair prices rose; both of these factors encouraged producers to increase the size and number of flocks of goats. Interstate shipments during 1928, which amounted to 8,063 head, were destined principally to grazing areas in Oklahoma and New Mexico. Table 51 NUMBER OF GOATS SHIPPED FROM TEXAS-1923-1928 Destination 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 Total Number of Goats Shippedfrom Texas ____________ 8,063 3,342 2,944 2,050 16,319 7,855 Arizona -----------------­ 408 Colorado: Other Points ____ 133 404 2,630 205 Illinois --­-----------­ 498 30 175 Indiana -------------­ 1,326 Iowa-------­ 300 Kansas: Wichita ---------­ 420 Other Points __ 1,055 250 Louisiana ----------­ 50 153 230 Missouri: Kansas City ______ 300 952 583 915 9,027 3,376 Other Points ____ 193 100 Minnesota ------­-----­ 190 Montana ---------­ 791 New Mexico __ 2,629 2,074 1,496 1,080 Oklahoma: Oklahoma City _ 109 188 Other Points ___ 4,218 266 503 193 651 2,000 Utah --------­Wisconsin _______ 92 280 These shipments, which consisted primarily of breeding stock, indicate that the goat industry expanded also in those producing areas. Most of the shipments of goats during 1928 were made during April, May, and October, the months following the spring and fall shearing seasons during this period. Kansas City has been an important goat market for many years for both stocker and butcher goats. Receipts of the latter type of animal at that market decreased considerably after 1918, when the packers were required to label the carcasses "goat" or "goat meat," rather than mutton. The importance of Kansas City as a market outlet for Texas goats, therefore, declined during the last few years. Direct shipments of Texas goats to this market decreased from 9,027 head in 1924 to only 300 head in 1928. This down­ward trend resulted primarily from the increased demand for breeding stock in Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. The shipments to Oklahoma and New Mexico represent the transfer of breeding goats for the purpose of replacing and expanding production in these areas. Practically all goats forwarded from the State during 1928 originated in Districts II, V, and VI, since the goat­raising area of the State includes a part of each of these three districts (Table 52). Table 52 NUMBER OF GOATS SHIPPED FROM TEXAS---1928 ~----Origin by Livestock Districts of Texas Total number Destination by shipped I II III IV v VI States from North -West Texas western Central Central Eastern Western Southern Total Forwardings__ 1928 -----------------·--·-8,063 4,765 133 1,980 1,185 Colorado 133 ------133 Illinois --------------498 498 Missouri 493 493 New Mexico ---------2,629 2,249 380 Oklahoma ---------------4,218 2,018 1,600 600 Utah ------------------------92 92 SHIPMENTS OF GOATS TO TEXAS Even though more than four-fifths of all the goats in the United States are in Texas, the normal increase in pro­duction in the State was not adequate to meet the demands of producers who were expanding their operations or enter­ing the goat business from 1925 to 1929. Additional goats were brought in from other states, especially during 1927 and 1928 (Table 53). Table 53 NUMBER OF GOATS SHIPPED INTO TEXAS 1923-1928 Destination 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 Total Number of Goats Shipped into Texas --­--------­ 22,191 12,333 6,363 2,868 1,490 1,840 Ariwna ---------------­Louisiana ---------­New Mex!co -----------­Oklahoma ----------­Other States ----------­ 12,448 3,493 4,336 1,386 528 4,581 270 5,977 1,345 160 690 4,595 200 878 2,729 139 338 1,008 24 120 958 631 97 154 VII Soutb­ eaetem The increase of receipts of goats in Texas was stimulated by the favorable mohair prices which prevailed during those years. Most of the receipts came from Arizona and New Mexico. During 1928 additional numbers also came in from Louisiana and Oklahoma. District destinations of goats received in Texas Approximately three-fourths of the goats shipped into Texas during 1928 went to District VI, Southern Texas (Table 54). The principal goat-raising counties of this dis­trict are Kinney, Uvalde, and Medina (Figure 7). Most of the receipts at this area came from Arizona. Others origi­nated in Louisiana and New Mexico. The shipments from Arizona and New Mexico consisted primarily of fleece goats, while most of those from Louisiana were "short­haired" or "brush" goats. The greater portion of these shipments entered the State during the spring months of March and April and the fall and winter months of Sep­tember, November, and December. District V, the extreme western portion of the State, received 4,024 goats from other states during 1928, most of which came from New Mexico and Arizona (Table 54). These shipments represented the movement of fleece goats into this area for the purpose of increasing the size and number of flocks. Table 54 NUMBER OF GOATS SHIPPED INTO TEXAS--1928 NET MOVEMENT OF GOATS INTO TEXAS Total ---­ -Destinations by Livestock Districts of Texas•----­ Origin by Sta tes number shipped from Texas J North· western II West Central III Central JV Easter n v Western VJ S outhern VII South eaatem Total Receipts 1928 -----­--­------­ 22,191 927 528 280 4,024 16,432 Arizona -------­Arkansas ------------­Louisiana ------------­Nebraska ---­--­--­----­New Mexico --­----­­Oklahoma -------­----­- 12,488 298 3,493 230 4,336 1,386 127 800 298 230 248 32 1,958 2,066 10,490 3,245 2,143 554 The rapid expansion which the goat industry experienced in Texas from 1923 to 1928 is reflected by net shipments. Receipts exceeded forwardings the last four years of this period. The net inflow amounted to 14,128 head during 1928 because of the unusually large receipts (Table 55). This net inflow into the State is another one of the factors which caused the number of goats in Texas to increase 71 per cent from 1922 to 1929 as compared with an increase of 61 per cent for the United States as a whole. Table 55 NET MOVEMENT OF GOATS INTO TEXAS-1923-1928 Total Number of Goats Shipped into Texas __ Total Number of Goats Shipped from Texas ________ 1928 22,191 8,063 1927 12,333 3,342 1926 6,363 2,944 1925 2,868 2,050 1924 1,490 16,319 1923 1,840 7,855 Net Inflow of Goats into Texas ---------­------­---­- 14,128 8,991 3,419 818 14,829 6,015 Figures in italics represent net outflow. MARKETING GOATS IN TEXAS METHODS OF MARKETING Since only a relatively few Texas goats are received at primary markets or are shipped to other states, the meth­ods of marketing goats differ in some respects from those used in disposing of other classes of livestock. In the first place, marketing operations are confined largely to local trading within the producing sections. Most sales are made to local buyers who may be producers replacing or increas­ing their flocks, commission agents :filling orders for other operators, or buyers for small slaughtering establishments. Price quotations, therefore, depend primarily upon the demand for goats as mohair producers and, secondarily, upon a limited local demand for chevon. The majority of goats shipped to the Fort Worth market are stocker rather than butcher goats, since the packers do not have adequate regular and continuous outlets for chevon. Most of their orders are :filled by arranging through commission houses to have producers ship the number and quality of goats needed. Many of the stocker goat receipts also are solicited by commission houses and order buyers in order to :fill orders for producers who are just entering the goat business or expanding their operations. The rest of the goat receipts consist of shipments from producers who are cutting down the size of their flocks or who are unable to sell locally. MARKET OUTLET FOR GOATS Since goats are kept primarily for their fleeces, mohair producers, rather than consumers, provide the principal market outlets for goats. Figures in Table 48 show that the number of goats slaughtered at plants under Federal inspection in 1929 amounted to 21,284 head, or less than 1 per cent of the number of fleece goats reported in the United States in 1929. Approximately 48 per cent of the goats slaughtered were accredited to Texas plants, prin­cipally at Fort Worth. In view of the small proportion of goats that are slaugh­tered annually, questions are frequently raised as to what becomes of the others. There are two other ways in which to account for them. In the first place, a large number of goats are slaughtered on farms and ranches and in meat markets and small packing houses that are not under Federal inspection, and, therefore, no record of total slaugh­terings is available. The other explanation hinges around the fact that, since Angoras usually are worth more as mohair producers than as meat producers, they are gen­erally kept in the flocks as long as they produce mohair and are never sent to market. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH A. B. Cox, Director F. A. BUECHEL, Assistant Director Staff Elmer H. Johnson Rudolph Grossmann R. V. Shirley Herschel C. Walling Arthur H. Hert I. B. Williamson Martha Ann Zivley, Secretary Publications The publications of the Bureau of Business Research comprise the following series: Series P-Periodical Series 1. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW (Monthly) 2. Periodical services to trade organizations or groups of business concerns Series M-Research Monographs Series S-Special Reports Questions concerning these publications should be addressed to the Bureau of Business Research, The University of Texas, Austin. Publications Ready for Distribution M-1. The Possibilities of Cotton Manufacturing in Texas. Price, 50 cents. M-2. A Market Analysis of the Cattle Industry of Texas. Price, $1.00 M-3. What Place Has the Advertising Agency in Market Research? Price, $1.00. M-4. Methods for the Study of Retail Relationships. Price, $1.00. M-5. A System of Accounting Procedure for Livestock Ranches. Price, $1.50. M-6. An Analysis of Credit Extensions in 23 Texas Department Stores by Occupational Groups. Price, $1.00. M-7. An Analysis of Shipments of 'Texas Sheep and Goats. Price, $1.00. M-8. The Natural Regions of Texas. Price, $1.00