LIBRARY, A 84 M COLLEGE, C A M p U S ’ E4-332-1OM-L180 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIUN A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR _ ‘ COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS ULLETIN NO. 444 MARCH, 1932 DIVISION OF FARM AND xflANCH‘ ECONOMICS ECONOMIC PHASES OF THE MOHAIR INDUSTRY lN TEXAS AGRICULTURAL AND .MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President STATION STAFFT Administration: A. B. Conner, M. S., Director R. E. Karper, M. S., Vice-Director Clarice Mixson, B. A. Secretary M. P. Holleman, Jr., Chief Clerk J. K. Francklow, Asst. Chief Clerk Chester Higgs, Executive Assistant Howard Berry, B. S., Technical Asst. Chemistry: G. S. Fraps, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. Asbury, M. S., Chemist J. F. Fudge, Ph. D., Chemist E. C. Carlyle, M. S., Asst. Chemist. T. L. Ogier, B. S., Asst. Chemist A. J. Sterges, M. S., Asst. Chemist Ray Treichler, M. S., Asst. Chemist W. H. Walker, Asst. Chemist Velma Graham, Asst. Chemist Jeanne F. DeMottier, Asst. Chemist R. L: Schwartz, B. S., Asst. Chemist C. M. Pounders, B. S., Asst. Chemist Horticulture : S. H. Yarnell, Sc. D., Chief "L. R. Hawthorn, M. S., Horticulturist H. M. Reed, B. S., Horticulturist J. F. Wood, B. S., Horticulturist L. E. Brooks, B. S., Horticulturist Range Animal Husbandry: J. M. Jones, A. M., Chief B. L. Warwick, Ph. D., Breeding Investiga. S. P. Davis, Wool Grader Entomology: F. L. Thomas, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist H. J. Reinhard, B. S., Entomologist R. K. Fletcher, Ph. D., Entomologist W. L. Owen, Jr., M. S., Entomologist J. N. Roney, M. S., Entomologist J. C. Gaines, Jr., M. S., Entomologist S. E. Jones, M. S., Entomologist F. F. Bibby, B. S., Entomologist S. W. Clark, B. S., Entomologist "E. W. Dunnam, Ph. D., Entomologist "R. W. Moreland, B. S., Asst. Entomologist" C. E.- Heard, B. S., Chief Inspector C. Siddall, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector Veterinary Science: * Francis, D. V. M., Chief H. Schmidt, D. V. M., Veterinarian I. B. Boughton, D. V. M., Veterina **F. P. Mathews, D. V. M., M. S., Veteri ‘ W. T. Hardy, D. V. M., Veterinarian» ' ———, Veterinarian Plant Pathology and Physiology: J. J. Taubenhaus, Ph. D., Chief W. N. Ezekiel, Ph. D., Plant Pathol W. J. Bach, M. S., Plant Pathologist _ O E PU O m2 (D '1 I" "0 :r .5 3 s» :1 f‘? "U s» f?‘ r:- 9.. Farm and Ranch Economics: L. P. Gabbard, M. S., Chief W. E. Paulson, Ph. D., Marketing C. A. Bonnen, M. S., Farm Managemen **W. R. Nisbet, B. S., Ranch Manageme ~ “A. C. Magee, M. S., Farm Management‘ Rural Home Research: Jessie Whitacre, Ph. D., Chief Mary Anna Grimes, M. S., Textiles Elizabeth D. Terrill, M. A., Nutrition Soil Survey: **W. T. Carter, B. S., Chief E. H. Templin, B. S., Soil Surveyor A. H. Bean, B. S., Soil Surveyor R. M. Marshall, B. S., Soil Surveyor Botany: V. L. Cory, M. S., Acting Chief S. E. Wolff, M. S., Botanist Swine Husbandry: Fred Hale, M. S., Chief Dairy Husbandry: 0. C. Copeland, M. S., Dairy Husbandmanl; Poultry Husbandry: é R. M. Sherwood, M. S., Chief ' J. R. Couch, B. S., Asst. Poultry Hsbdmi Agricultural Engineering: H. P. Smith, M. S., Chief Main Station Farm: G. T. McNess, Superintendent Apiculture (San Antonio): B. Parks, B. S., Chief A. H. Alex, B. S., Queen Breeder Feed Control Service: F. D. Fuller, M. S., Chief S. E. McGregor, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector James Sullivan, Asst. Chief Agronomy: S. D. Pearce, Secretary E. B. Reynolds, Ph. D., Chief J. H. Rogers, Feed Inspector R. E. Karper, M. S., Agronomist K. L. Kirkland, B. S., Feed Inspector P. C. Mangelsdorf, Sc. D., Agronomist S. D. Reynolds, Jr., Feed Inspector D. T. Killough. M. S., Agronomist P. A. Moore, Feed Inspector H. E. Rea, B. S., Agronomist E. J. Wilson, B. S., Feed Inspector B. C. Langley, M. S., Agronomist H. G. Wickes, B. S., Feed Inspector Publications: A. D. Jackson, Chief SUBSTA'l‘IONS No. 1, Beeville, Bee County: R. A. Hall, B. ., Superintendent No. 2, Lindale, Smith County: P. R. Johnson, M. S., Superintendent "B. H. Hendrickson, B. S., Sci. in Soil Erosion "R. W. Baird, B. S., Assoc. Agr. Engineer No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: R. H. Stansel, M. S., Superintendent H. M. Reed, M. S., Horticulturist No. 4, Beaumont, Jefferson County: R. H. Wyche, B. S., Superintendent "H. M. Beachell, B. S., Jr. Agronomist No. 5. Temple, Bell County: Henry Dunlavy, M. S., Superintendent C. H. Rogers, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist H. E. Rea, B. S., Agronomist. S. E. Wolff, M. S., Botanist "H. V. Geib, M. S., Sci. in Soil Erosion "H. O. Hill, B. S., Jr. Civil Engineer No. 6. Denton, Denton County: P. B. Dunkle, B. S., Superintendent "I. M. Atkins, B. S., Jr. Agronomist No. 7. Spur, Dickens County: R. E. Dickson, B. S., Superintendent B. C. Langley, M. S., Agronomist No. 8. Lubbock, Lubbock County: D. L. Jones, Superintendent Frank Gaines, Irrig. and Forest Nurs. No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: J. J. Bayles, B. S., Superintendent No. 10, College Station, Brazos County: R. M. Sherwood, M. S., In Charge L. J. McCall, Farm Superintendent No. 11, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County: H. F. Morris, M. S., Superintendent **No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: J. R. Quinby, B. S., Superintendent **J. C. Stephens, M. A., Asst. Agronomist p No. 14, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: W. H. Dameron, B. S., Superintendent I I. B. Boughton, D. V. M., Veterinarian W. T. Hardy, D. V. M., Veterinarian O. L. Carpenter, Shepherd . **O. G. Babcock, B. S., Asst. Entomologist No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: 1 W. H. Friend, B. S., Superintendent g S. W. Clark, B. S., Entomologist ‘ W. J. Bach, M: S., Plant Pathologist J. F. Wood, B. S., Horticulturist No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County: C. H. McDowell, B. S., Superintendent L. E. Brooks, B. S., Horticulturist No. 19, Winterhaven, Dimmit County: E. Mortensen, B. S., Superintendent **L. R. Hawthorn, M. S., Horticulturist Teachers in the School of Agriculture Carrying Coonerfliive Prfliects 0n the Statilmi G. W. Adriance, Ph. D., Horticulture S. W. Bilsing, Ph. D., Entomology V. P. Lee, Ph. D., Marketing and Finance D. Scoates, A. E., Agricultural Engineering A. K. Mackey, M. S., Animal Husbandry ‘Dean School of Veterinary Medicine. "In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture. J. S. Mogford, M. S., Agronomy F. R. Brison, B. S., Horticulture W. R. Horlacher, Ph. D., Genetics J. H. Knox, M. S., Animal Husbandry A. L. Darnell, M. A., Dairy Husbandry TAs of March 1, 1932. Texas produces about one-third of the world’s mohair and four-fifths of that of the United States. Since 1927 the pro- duction of mohair in Texas has exceeded that of any foreign country. Not only is the production of mohair in the United States confined very largely to Texas, but to a limited area in the state, the Edwards Plateau grazing area, where more than 90 per cent of the goat population of the state is found. Heretofore very little information has been available on prices received by producers. A series of average prices from 1904 to date obtained directly from firms dealing with producers is presented herein. There is an urgent need for a continuous service making available statistics on prices, consumption, stocks, and other market data on mohair. Prices of mohair fluctuate widely from year to year, but indicate no significant seasonal movement. Margins between the producers’ price and the price at Boston are likewise ex- tremely variable. From 1927 to 1931, for example, prices of the spring clip at Boston showed a differential ranging from 11 per cent to 36 per cent, or 5.8 cents to 12.6 cents per pound over the producers’ price in Texas, which is prob- ably due in part to a lack of trading on a quality basis. Prices of mohair show response to the production cycle and general business conditions. During a period of high pro- duction over several years prices tend to move downward and conversely when production averages low over a period of years prices tend to move upwandl. The depressions of 1920- 21 and 1930-31 had a marked influence on the mohair indus- try, prices of mohair being extremely low during those years. Trends of production in foreign countries show an upward tendency. The Union of South Africa passed the bottom of its present cycle about four years ago and Turkey has shown a steady recovery since the World War. The United States is still on an important basis, although re- cent imports have showna decided decline. During the period 1923-30 ‘imports averaged 29 per cent of domestic production, ranging from 75 per cent in 1926 to 7 per cent in 1930. If the trend of production for the past five years were to continue, by 1936 the United States would be producing about 24 million pounds. In order to consume this amount, we should have to increase our per capita consumption about 25 per cent over the average for the past few years, which seems unlikely. CONTENTS Page Purpose and Scope .................................................................................................. .. 5 Sources of Data ................................................................................................. -- 5 Methods of Marketing Mohai-ir ......................................................................... _- 5 Production __ ................................................................................................ ___ 6 Imports and Consumption .................. __ ___ ____12 Demand ......................................................................... -- _14 Prices ___- l .... --16 Outlook for Future Demand and Production __ _____ -.21 Need for Statistics--- ________ __22 Summary - ____________________________________________________ BULLETIN NO. 444 MARCH, 1932 ECONOMIC PHASES OF THE MOHAIR INDUSTRY IN TEXAS T. R. HAMILTON* The increasing use of statistics by business men as a guide to production and as a basis for planning for the future has led to an accumulation of considerable statistical data and to more refined methods of analysis. Statistics relative to the mohair industry have been neglected. Very few figures on stocks, consumption, prices, etc. are available. The purpose of this Bulletin is to assemble for future reference some of the more signifi- cant data on mohair and to indicate possibilities of an analysis of these data. More statistical information as to consumption, stocks, prices, pro- duction, etc. would enable ranchmen to reduce losses by better coordination of their production with the demands of the market. The initial step in preventing periods of over-production and market gluts is to make avail- able information which will indicate when such conditions are about to take place. The rapid growth of domestic mohair production, the large proportion of the United States total produced in Texas (more than 80 per cent valued at an annual average figure of seven million dollars), and the speculative nature of the industry, make an urgent need for data which will show pro- bable future trends. SOURCES OF DATA The series of prices received by producers as shown herein were obtained from the records of dealers with warehouses at various points in the pro- ducing area. The source of Boston prices is the Boston Commercial Bulletin. The other data are mostly from governmental agencies. The producers’ prices have been obtained directly from dealers. These prices represent approximately the average at which the total quantities handled by the dea'ers were sold, which quantities amounted in recent years to over 40 per cent of all the mohair produced in Texas (see Table 1). METHODS OF MARKETING MOHAIR Most of the mohair grown in the United States is sold to dealers located in Boston. Several grades are quoted on the Boston market; such as, domestic combing, first, second, third, and fourth; domestic good carding; kid first and second; good original bag Texas kid; good original bag Texas spring; Arizona and New Mexico; and average twelve months, Oregon. Some of the grades of foreign mohair quoted are Cape summer first, winter first, summer kid, and Basutos; and Turkey fair average. Quotations for those grades and kinds are given in Table 20 in the Appendix. The kid hair is of better quality and finer than grown hair, and is usualfy about 10 cents per pound higher. Up until about 1922 kid hair was not quoted *As.sociate Professor, Department of Accounting and Statistics, College of Agriculture. Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas. 6 BULLETIN NO. 444, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION separately. In the local market mohair is usually classified into three or four grades, such as fine, coarse and fine, coarse, and real coarse. No systematic grading is done locally, practicalfy all of the grading being done at the central market. Grades proposed by the U. S. Department; of Agriculture are as follows: kid combing; kid carding; combing No. 1, N0. 2, No. 3; carding No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3. Mohair is used principally in upholstering furniture, automobiles, and railroad cars. It is also used for linings of coats, fine draperies, etc. Shearing takes place in the spring and fall, during the months of Feb- ruary, March, and April, and August, September, and October. The peak of the marketing is therefore reached in March-April and in September- October. The fall clip is usually larger than the spring clip. Shrinkage of Texas mohair averages 15 per cent, according to statements by local dealers. Most of the mohair producers in Texas sell through local warehouses on a commission basis. A few dealers operate both on a commission basis and through outright purchase. The commission, until 1930, was usually 2.5 per cent of the local price. In 1930 a large amount of mohair was consigned through the cooperatives to the National Wool Marketing Corporation which was organized under the Agricultural Marketing Act. This cor- poration advanced in 1930 about 9O per cent of the market price, which averaged in the spring of 1930 for grown and kid, 35 and 45 cents a pound, respectively; and in the fall of 1930, 30 and 40 cents. The advance was reduced in 1931 to about 80 per cent of the appraised value. Very little mohair is carried over from one season to the next by the local dealers. Table I.—Quantities of Mohair Handled by Five Texas Dealers and Total Texas Production, 1924-1930. (In 1,000 Pounds.) Amount Amount I Year Handled Handled Total Total Texas in Spring in Fall l Handled Production I l l 1925 l] - 1,670 2,043 | 3,713 I 8,519 1926 1,911 2,578 4,489 ‘ 9,887 1927 2,002 2,706 4,708 11,312 1928 2,226 3,002 5,228 12,330 1929 2,692 2,972 5,664 13,500 1930 I 2,698 f 3,062 5,760 ' 13,800 PRODUCTION The Angora goat industry of Texas is largely confined to the Edwards Plateau grazing area, comprising all or part of forty counties, in which are found over 90 per cent of all goats in Texas. Production of mohair in Texas and thelother five important states of the United States is shown in Table 2 and Table 3. Separate figures on production of kid hair are not available. The weight per fleece is obviously affected by the proportion of kids clipped, which is not known. There is little doubt, however, that the weight per fleece has been increasing (see Table 2). ECONOMIC PHASES OF THE MOHAIR INDUSTRY IN TEXAS 7 fable 2.—Goats and Mohair: Estimates* of Goats Clipped, Mohair Produced, and Average 3 Clip per Goat, 1920-1930. . (Principal Producing States.) i Goats Clipped (in Thousands) 1 19201 19211 19221 19231 19241 19251 19261 19271 19281 1929 1_1930 ._ __ ____ Texas“ ...................... ..11,834 1,984 1,750 1,797 2,008 1,857 2,367 2,579 2,800 3,00013,140 Neyv M€X1C0 124 128 110 110 127 120 135 165 170 1731 188 ér17€na_ ,,,,,,,,,,, .. 145 145 132 160 165 162 165 185 185 214' 214 _ a 1 orn _. ........ .. 2 4 59 57 57 58 56 2 45 46 43 Oregon . . . . . . . . .. 113 1151 105 103 101 1101 115 1i5 125 1201 120 MlSSOUri ...................... 58 601 55 53 60 671 61 63 66 661 75 Total ________________________ ..1 2,3461 2,5061 2,2311 2,2801 2,5181 2,3741 2,8991 3,1591 3,3911 3,6191 3,780 Mohair (Including Kid Hair) Produced (in 1,000 Pounds) Texas ............................ ..1 6,7861 7,607 6,838 7,3521 7,9961 8,5191 9,887 11,312 12,33013,500113,800 New Mexico .. 397 422 352 374' 4571 444 473 611 629 6401 658 APIZOHa ......... .. ....1 464 479 517 560 6111 599 578 685 684 7501 750 California .. ...1 230 244 207 211 217 220 207 203 176 1751 163 Oregon . . . . . . . . . . ..1 452 460 431 422 414 462 483 483 525 4681 456 Missouri 1 145 150 143 1481 162 1881 1711 176 178 1721 179 9,857110,432111,799113,470114,522115,'705116,006 Texas ........................... ..1 3.7 3.81 3.9 4.1 4.01 4.61 4.21 4.4 4.4 4.51 4.4 New Mexico ................ ..1 3.2 3.31 3.2 3.4 3.61 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.5 Arizona 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.71 3.71 3.5 3.7 3.71 3.51 3.5 California 3.2 3.31 3.5 3.7\ 3.8 3.81 3.71 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.8 Oregon ........ .. _...1 4.0‘ 4.01 4.1 4.11 4.1 4.21 4.21 4.2 4.2\ 3.91 3.8 Missouri ................... ..1 2.51 2.51 2.6 2.81 2.7 2.81 2.81 2.8 2.71 2.61 2.4 3.61 3.71 3.81 4.01 3.91 4.41 4.11 4.31 4.31 4.31 4.2 Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture Year Book and Crops and Markets, February, 1931. ‘Figures for 1923, 1924 and 1925 are revisions of the departments estimates previously published. "Most goats are clipped twice a year. In Texas, kids are clipped in the fall of the year of birth. Figures include both goats and kids clipped. ***In states where goats are clipped twice a year figures include both spring and fall clip. Approximately 18 per cent of the 1930 production was kid hair. The increase in productionof mohair in Texas has been continuous with the exception of 1922, and at a faster rate than that of other states in the United States as shown by the increasing percentage produced by Texas (Table 3). This increase has been due to the growth of the Angora goat population per ranch, to the increase in weight per fleece, and to the expansion of areas de- voted to goat raising. The estimates from 1920 to 1930 were made by the U. S. Department of Agriculture and are more reliable than commercial es- timates of previous years. The Angora goat industry is more concentrated than most other ranching and farming enterprises. According to the United States Census, goats were reported on ranches amounting to 1.9 per cent of the total farms and ranches in Texas in 1910, 2.6 per cent in 1920, and 2.1 per cent in 1925. Beef cattle were reported in 1925 on 30 per cent of the farms, and swine on 44.8 per cent. The principal areas producing Angora goats are shown in Figure 1. Production of mohair in the Union of South Africa and Turkey had reached a significant figure as early as 1875, as shown in Table 4. Since that date both countries have been im- portant in the world’s mohair production. The trend of production in the Union of South Africa during the past twenty years has been downward (Figure 2). 8 BULLETIN NO. 444, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION . The downward trend in Turkey, however, stopped in 1919 and since L there has been a gradual upward movement. Production of mohair in Te, beginning with 1927, exceeded that of the Union of South Africa, the lard producing country, since which time Texas has continued to lead. l I DOT= /0000 HEAD ;v~n Figure 1——Angora Goats and Kids: Number on Farms in Texas on April 1, 1930, Accord-ll ing to the U. Census. I ' No official figures are available on total world production, but an estimate? may be obtained for 1930 as follows: six important states in the United and the Union of South Africa produced 20,150,000'p011ndS; the United», Kingdom imported from countries other than the three mentioned above? 352,000 pounds. Adding these figures gives a total of 37,502,000 pounds, or if minor countries are included, a world total of about 38 million poundsffl The tendency for production to move in cycles or alternating periods of high and low production is shown by Figure 2 and Figure 3. Allowing If ECONOMIC PHASES OF THE MOI-IAIR INDUSTRY IN TEXAS 9 ‘for the long-time upward movement by expressing production as per recent of this upward trend, there is a tendency for production to run in cycles. High prices stimulate production to the point of excessive supply, where profits decline and then the rate of production.The Union of lfgIyears, counting from peak to peak. The bottom of the present cycle was Table 3.—Mohair Production in the United States and Texas. l . Texas as Year 1 United States i Texas .1 Percentage. ; (In 1,000 lbs.) 1 (In 1,000 lbs.) a of U_.S. , Per cent 1909 .................. .. 3,779*' i ........ -- a 1910 ' ......... -. 3,8391‘ ________ __ ' 1 1911 3,9001‘ _________ _- i _, 1912 ..... -- - 4,0001: _________ -_ ‘ 191s 4,500: ________ ._ " - 1914 5,3001 ________ __ , _ 1915 ............................ -. 6,0001: ________ __ ~ ' _ 1916 6,5001‘ ._,_ _ 1917 7,1001‘ ________ __ _ _ 1918 7,5001" ________ __ _ _ 1919 8,0001% .. , 5,085* _ 1920 74 ‘ 6.780 s0 1921 9,362 7,607 81 1922 8,488 6,838 81 1923 9,067 7,352 81 1924 ____ -. 4 9,857 7,996 81 1925 10,432 8,519 82 1926 11,799 9,887 84 1927 13,470 11,312 84 1928 14,522 12,330 85 1929 15,705 13,500 86 1930 ................................................................ -_ 16,006 13,800 86 ‘U. S. Census. ‘tlnterpolated. iCorriikmeaciaxllgglgstimates from Bulletin of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, pr1 , . 1920-30 from U. S. Department of Agriculture Yearbook, 1930, and Crops and Markets, February, 1931. Kid hair is included. Production for United States includes the six principal producing states only——-Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Oregon, Missouri. These states produce about 95 per cent. of the total U. S. production. In 1919 the above states produced 96 per cent of the U. S. production, according to Census reports. apparently reached in 1927, since which time the Union of South Africa. has been in the upward phase of the cycle. In the United States the bottom of the present cycle was apparently reached in 1922. It will “be noted that there is considerable fluctuation in imports, the an- nual range for the period 1914-30 being from 1.1 million pounds to 10.0 mil- lion (Table 8). Mohair imports are determined largely by the relationship between foreign and domestic prices. Figure 4 shows that, with the excep- tion of 1925, whenever the ratio of prices of foreign mohair to domestic has become smaller, imports have declined, and when the ratio has become larger imports have increased (see Figure 4). In spite of the rapid increase in, mohair production in the United States, this country is still on an import basis. As shown in Table 6, imports since 1923 have been as high as 75 per cent of our production, and not until 1930 did the records show a proportion of imports less than 17 per cent of production. The very large imports in ‘éSouth Africa shows "one complete cycle of six years and another of four » 1926 were due to the fact that a considerable amount of mohair was re-ex-‘ 10 BULLETIN NO. 444, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION‘ ported from the United Kingdom, which was experiencing a severe bus" depression (see Table 16, Appendix). N0 figures are available on cons tion. and stocks, with the exception of stocks of foreign mohair remainin’ bonded customs warehouses and census reports on consumption in ce _ j industries. " The world’s principal markets for mohair are the United Kingdom, i,’ many, the United States, and Japan. Table 15 in the Appendix shows those countries take practically all of the South African clip. The Un’, Table 4.—Mohair: Production in the Union of South Africa and Turkey. (In 1,000 Pounds) a i v r Year Union of Turkey Year Union of Turkey Year Union of Turk So. Africa So. Africa So. Africa 1839 ...... _- 1,247 1892 7,900 7,800 1912 23,400 1857 1 2,900 1893 9,500 8,000 1913 17,970 1867 51 4,800 1894 12,500 6,900 1914 16,600 1875 1,200 5,321 1895 11,100 11,000 1915 17,190 1876 1,900 4,420 1896 10,000 ........ -_ 1916 17,374 1877 2,000 5,984 1897 10,400 11,600 1917 ....... __ 1878 2,500 4,641 1898 11,200 11,600 1918 19,700 1879 3,000 5,831 1899 12,400 11,800 1919 15,600 1880 2,800 8,250 1900 11,990 12,000 1920 9,900 1881" 3,000 4,200 1901 12,000 12,500 1921 16,212 1882 3,600 9,060 1902 13,500 12,700 1922 19,560 1883 5,200 7,260 1903 15,300 12,800 1923 15,630 1884 6,700 9,000 1904 16,800 12,600 1924 14,343 1885 7,200 6,400 1905 17,000 12,500 1925 13,038 1886 6,500 9,900 1906 16,500 12,500 1926 12,007 1887 6,500 5,700 1907 18,600 12,400 1927 8,788* 1888 5,400 7,500 1908 18,200 12,500 1928 9,183* 1889 7,350 8,800 1909 19,650 12,200 1929 9,338* 1890 6,600 4,100 1910 17,800 12,600 1930 10,250* 1891 6,800 6,500 1911 21,000 12,600 1931 ________ __ *Exports for seasons ending June 30 following year and includes 2,000,000 to 2,500,0 pounds from Basutoland. From Miscellaneous Circular No. 50, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, “Angora Goat and Mohair Industry,” except 1920-31, which was compiled from sources indicated below by the Division of Statistical and Historical Research, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. 8.5 Department of Agriculture. Union of South Africa: -_Years 1857-1922, Angora Goatand Mohair Industry, page 85,? Series—Miscel1aneous Bulletin 50, published jointly by the United States Department of, Agriculture and United States Department of Commerce. The bulletin states that ex-I port figures were used for certain years when production statistics were lacking. Also ;, the figures from 1913 on are estimates of receipts at Port Elizabeth, compiled by Han-j, nam and Co. of that city. These figures were used instead of exports as, representingq production for the reason that in some years there has been a considerable carryov from one year to the other. Official estimates of mohair produced on farms for the years beginning September 1 are as follows in 1,000 of pounds: 1920, 8,449; 1921, 8,623;"'. 1922, 9,454; 1923, 8,099; 1924, 8,051; 1925, 7,880; 1926, 5,653; 1927, 5,268; 1928, 6,270. __ These figures are considerably smaller than either receipts at Port Elizabeth or exportsfi the difference apparently being accounted for by mohair pulled from slaughtered goats and goats which died from disease as also by mohair shorn by speculators which is not; taken into account in the production figures. For 1927, 1928, export figures have beent? used, as receipts at Port Elizabeth are not availab . 1929 and 1930 exports, May 15:1 Monthly Review, Standard, Bank, London and South Africa, Ltd. ' Turkey: --Years 1839-1921, Angora Goat and Mohair Industry, page 86, Series—Miscel1ane- ous Bulletin 50, published jointly by the United States Department of Agriculture and 7 the United States Department of Commerce. The bulletin states that export figures»; were used for certain years when production statistics were lacking. Years 1922-1930, commercial or unofficial estimates, those from 1924-1928 being furnished by Commercial Attache Julian Gillespie, May 20, 1929, and July 21, 1930. Wool Record and Textile, World, Sept. 25, 1930. Quot. British Chamber of Commerce of Turkey. 1931 Com. Att. T Gillespie, 2-10-31. . ECONOMIC PHASES OF THE MOHAIR INDUSTRY IN TEXAS 11 N) i P N) N .._- CD 4-. fired/chow w m/fl/a/zr 0/ paw/a’? ‘_ _. ‘l0 H l’). '15’ l4. ‘l5 l6 17 ‘lb l9 "Z0 ‘ZI ‘Z? ‘Z3 "Z4 "Z5 Q6 ‘Z7 “Z5 '29 ‘Z70 Figure 2.—Mohair Production in Turkey, the United States and the Union of South Africa. \55 79 -\ III\\ \) .50 __ ’ \ \ 65 , I \ ' g " , " ‘X 6o a x ' ' w ~ 2 \ " ‘\ 55 a \‘\ / so \’ Q 1' “ \ ls _ I ‘x H ‘b k “ 4o \9 ' p 4 55 Q x ‘ , ‘v _ §\ g e5 ’ _ 5° x \ I b \ Q 9O x I’ ___ 25 Q!) Q a ‘*5 l: ‘I 2° QQ sq | . . § '\5 ‘so w we, .9 '20 m '22 22> Q4- <29 as ~27 2e Q9 so Figure 3.—Mohair Production in the United States as Per Cent of Trend Line and Price " Received by Producers Adjusted for the General Price Level. A straight-line trend describing the general upward movement was fitted to production and each year expressed as a per cent of the trend line, thereby obtaining a measure of the cyclical movement. The price of mohair has been adjusted for the general price level by dividing by the Bureau of Labor Statistics index of wholesale prices. mama. 12 BULLETIN NO. 444, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION IMPORTS AND CONSUMPTION Tables 5 and 6 show imports for consumption. Table 5.—Mohair (Hair of the Angora): United States Imports, 1923-1930, January-March, 1930 and 1931. 1 Remaining G l Imports iré Bonded eneral 1 for ustoms Year Ended December 31 Imports Consumption Warehouses (Pounds) f (Pounds) December 31 l (Pounds) l I 1923 ............................................................ ..| 4,603,526 3,888,833 .............. J‘ 1924 3,990,089 3,160,637 I 3,553,457 1925 I 1,768,353 1,783,994 3,396,958 1926 10,666,493 8,886,951 10,328,117 1927 2,498,804 4,712,087 4,088,396 _ 3,263,214 l 2,941,344 3,820,296 3 1,968,393 2,865,749 3,282,560? 19 0 .................................................... ._ 427,119 1,122,521 .............. ._ January-March 1930 _. 95,487 350,524 3040,9761 January-March 1931 ............................. _. 165,746 70,380 .............. ..T Compiled by the Foreign Agricultural Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, from For- eign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1923-1929; official sources of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce and Monthly Summary of Foreign Com- merce of the United States, December issues, 1923-1930. *N0t available. (Owing to much confusion in the figures on account of the change in the tariff, these figures were never published and are not available in the Bureau of For- eign and Domestic Commerce.) tNot available. IRemaining in bonded customs warehouses March 31. l Table 6.—Mohair: U. S. Imports for Consumption and Production, 1923-1930. I g Imports as t Imtrtagrts Pro- Q Total Percentage Year Consumption ductlon (1,000 lbs.) °f PTO‘ (1,000 lbs.) (1,000 lbs.) dlmtw" 1 (Per Cent) 3,889 9,067 12,956 42.9 3,161 9,857 13,018 32.1 1,784 10,432 12,216 17.1 8,887 11,799 20,686 75.3 4,712 13,470 18,182 35.0 2,941 14,522 17,463 20.3 2,866 15,705 18,571 18.2 1,123 16,006 17,129 7.0 Table 7.—United States: Imports of Mohair by Countries, Calendar Years 1923-1930, and January-April, 1930 and 1931. (In 1,000 Pounds.) Countries of Origin Union - _ Other Year ‘ of S0. Turkey Ilmted China Au? Mexico Canada Coun- Total Africa Kingdom tralla tries 1923 ___.l 1,142 i 1,649 1,705 ‘ 64 .... __ 14 l 9 21 4,604" 1924 803 913 2,045 47 148 25 9 ____ ._ 3,990 1925 1,004 268 487 9 . . . . . . . . . . __ l * ____ _. 1,768 1926 .. 3,886 ' 3,889 2,874 5 “ 6 i 2 4 10,666 1927 1,047 1,274 80 92 I . . . . _ . . _ . _ ._ 5 1 2,499 1928 _ 512 2,104 509 ____ -_ . i .... .. 137 l ____ .- 3,263 1929 ---l 734 1,120 95 -- * 1s 1 .... .. 1,968 1930 .. | 336 9 82 . . . . . _ . . . . ._ I _ _ . . . _ _ . . . _ . . _ . _ .. 427 Jan.-Apr 1930 - 55 ____ __ 40 _ _ . . . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _- 1 96 1931 -.. 131 34 .... .. l . _ _ . . _ . . . _ .. ’ .... _- 1 166 I I Compiled by the Foreign Agricultural Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, from For- eign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1923-1929; and official records of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. *Less than 500 pounds. ECONOMIC PHASES OF THE MOHAIR INDUSTRY IN TEXAS 13 Table 8.-—Mohair: Imports Into the United States by Fiscal Years, 1914-1930. ' Aver. Import Year Ending June 30: (1 t%lz)antltyd ) (1 Oogaéu; Value per Lb. ' pmm s ' ° a“) in Cents (a) 1914 _____________________________________________________________ .. 1,717 ¢ 572 33.3 1915 1 . 5,302 1,633 30.8 1916 ............................................................. .. 9,145 2,403 26.3 1917 8,162 3,096 37.9 1918 .... _. 2,312 1,068 46.2 1919 7,908 4,047 51.2 1920 _. 8,184 4,596 56.2 1921 3,612 1,128 31.2 1922 .............. .. .. 4,246 1,146 27.0 1923 .... ._ 10,072 3,926 39.0 1924 .... __ 3,583 1,805 50.4 1925 ____ .. 2,404 _ 1,236 51.4 1926 .... .. 6,463 3,230 50.0 1927 ____ .. 6,547 2,967 45.3 1928 2,204 1,053 47.8 1929 3,291 1,581 48.0 1930 ............................................................. .. l.,074 451 42.0 - (a) Computed from quantity and value. Quantity and value from “Foreign Trade of the United States” by Caroline G. Gries, Divi- sion of Statistical and Historical Research, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, except 1930, which is from monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce of the United States, for June, 1930. Mohair not separately classified prior to 1914 but included with hair of the alpaca and other like animals. The value in the second column is the foreign value or the export value, whichever is high- er; that is, the market value or the price at which the merchandise, at the time of ex- portation to the United States, is offered for sale in the principal markets of the country from which exported, including the cost of containers or coverings and all expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition ready for shipment to the United States. ZOO \ \ \ l :90 \ 5 i 11?» 1 :€$ ;5O l ;',. - 1_____1_____1____1_____l 4000 no i i 5500 ‘ 1 = sooo ‘Z500 G 6- o o 2000 ~ l 2500 (§Z3?v" CfZa/7/§/ ,-, Iooo @940. T - I II II I i 1 K //77/00//5 /M////0/7s o/f/aoa/r "i925 l9Q4 I925 1926 1927 192B ‘Q99 I950 Figure 4.—Mohair Imports into the United States from the Union of South Africa and Ratio of Foreign Prices to Domestic. 14 BULLETIN NO. 444, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Kingdom also imports considerable quantities of mohair from Turkey as well as from minor countries. A large amount of the raw material is manufactured into yarn and exported (Tables 16, 17, and 18 in the Appen- diX). _ - The total of imports for consumption and production does not accurately represent consumption, since it does not take account of the carryover of stocks, which varies considerably from year to year. The discrepancy is shown by the fact that the total mohair consumed by the woolen industries alone in 1925 (see Table 9) was 15,688,000 pounds, or 3,472,000 pounds more than the total of imports and production. In 1927, however, the woolen industries used 2,494,000 pounds less than the production plus im- ports. Table 9.—Mohair: Quantities Consumed in the Woolen Industries. (In 1.000 Pounds.) Year | Domestic I Foreign Total I I I 1904 _, | 2,685 | 2,936 [ 5,621 1909 4* 2,454 l 787 [ 3,241 1914 l, 6,929 j 2,446 9,375 1919 7,549 I 4,723 12,272 1925 4 . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ , . . . .. 15,449 1927 f I _ 15,688 U. S. Census. Includes the principal branches of the woolen industries; woolen goods, worsted goods, felt goods, wool hats. An estimate of average annual consumption can be made by taking the total of imports and production over a period of years,- since the dif- ferences in stocks would tend to offset each other and since our exports are negligible. Accordingly the annual average estimated consumption for the period 1923-30 is 16,278,000 pounds. It should be remembered that this figure is an average and probably does not represent the consumption for any one year. DEMAND The importance of demand factors in determining the price of mohair, especially over a short period of time, makes an analysis of demand of particular interest to the producer. His margin from year to year is greatly influenced by fluctuations in demand. An adjustment of produc- tion to demand conditions, in so far as feasible, is essential to the most profitable development of the industry. Prices of mohair show that generalbusiness activity is an important demand factor; when‘ times are good the price of that commodity is re- latively high, and when times are bad the price is low, even when adjust- ments are made to take account of the changes in the general price level. One of the principal products in which mohair is used, the automobile, has a highly elastic demand and hence sales are greatly influenced by changes in incomes. The other principal product, furniture, can be used for a long ECONOMIC PHASES OF THE MOHAIR INDUSTRY IN TEXAS 15 time and purchases may be postponed during a business depression. Fur- niture, therefore, is likewise a commodity the sales of which are much affected by changes in the purchasing power of the consumer. Figures compiled by the Federal Reserve Board on wholesale sales of furniture show a decided slump in 1921 and 1930, years of business depression. Automobile production in the United States has proceeded at a rapid rate, with no indication of having reached the saturation point. How- ever, the maximum rate of increase has apparently been passed and in the future the rate may be expected to slow down. It was not until the development of the closed type of car that the automobile industry be- came an important factor in the demand for mohair. This is clearly illus- trated in Figure 5, in which the total production of automobiles, the pro- duction of closed cars, and the production of mohair in the United States from 1913-30 is shown. From this figure it will be seen that there was no material rise in the trend of production of automobiles during the period 1923-30. On the other hand, it will be noted that the number of closed cars produced increased very rapidly, accompanied by a marked in- crease in mohair production during those years. In this connection it is significant that the annual production of mohair in Texas has approxi- mately doubled since 1923. N MOHAIR PRODUCTION (MILLIONS or gounos) 3 AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTION N u b u: 004006 IO I9I3 I9I4 l9l5 l9l6 I9l1 I9l8 I9l9 I920 I92I I922 I923 I924 I925 I926 I927 I928 I929 I990 Figure 5.-—Production of Mohair, all Passenger Automobiles, and Closed Passenger Cars in the United States. Note.—'1_‘he vertical scale is constructed so as to show percentage or ratio changes. Equal vertical distances on the scale represent equal percentage changes. Automobile pro- duction from U. S. Department of Commerce Year Book. 16 BULLETIN NO. 444, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION If the automobile industry continues to expand abroad, some increase may take place in the foreign demand for mohair. Exports to take ad- vantage of these markets would meet with difficulties in. the way of tariff barriers and increasing competition from other producing countries. How- ever, this is not contrary to past experience. In 1923 and 1927 appre- ciable quantities were exported from the United States to the United Kingdom, according to British returns as shown in Table 18, Appendix. The demand for mohair is affected by the prices of competing textile fibers, but lack of statistical data makes it impossible to ascertain to what extent other fibers are substituted for mohair when the price of that commodity is relatively high. The demand for mohair in upholster- ing railroad car seats has not shown an increase during the past few years, according to statistics on cars held by railroads, as published by the U. S. Department of Commerce. The use of mohair in men’s summer suitings, in linings for coats, and in draperies and rugs, may be expected to increase with the growth of population, but other fibers compete strong- ly for these uses. There is the further possibility of increasing the de- mand for mohair through the development of new uses. A thorough study of demand would include an analysis of statistics on sales and price of mohair and the consumption of rival commodities such as wool, cotton and rayon, and on stocks and retail sales of finished goods in which mohair is an important item of cost. The collection and analysis of such data would be valuable to both the producer and manufacturer in coordinating production and demand. PRICES Mohair prices show wide fluctuations from year to year. The average of all the deviations of each annual price from the average for the whole twenty-one-year period was 12.9 cents. Prices, on the average, do not show a significant seasonal movement. An index of prices is shown in Table 10. The prices quoted at Boston of good combing mohair have been adjusted for the change in the purchasing power of the dollar, or the general price level. This adjustment has been, made by dividing the mohair prices by the index of wholesale prices of “all commodities” as constructed by th'e Bureau of Labor Statistics. Table 10.—Seasonal Index of Prices of Mohair at Boston. 1915-1930 January ................................................................................................. "101 February __ March ...... .. April ...... ._ May ................ _. June ........................................................................................................ a July August .................................................................................................... .100 September ............................................................................................... .. 98 October ............................ .. ...... W a 99 November . . . . . _ . . _ _ . .. _ "--'l02 December ........ .. ".102 An average was taken of all the January’s, all the February’s, etc. and these twelve averages were expressed as percentages of their own average. (av/s fikr fioz/fla/ ECONOMIC PHASES OF THE MOHAIR INDUSTRY IN TEXAS 17 The price of grown hair received by producers was higher in 1923-28 than during the pre-war period. As supplies have increased, this would indicate that demand has considerably increased (see Figure 6). Prices 7O 65 60s 55 50. 7 451M 40? 551 30 75 Z0 l5 l0 0 [___ L '04 '05 '06 '01 0e '09 1o 1| v2 w: w '15 no w was '19 '20 '21 "r1 '2: m ~25 ‘ze '21 20'?» '50 Figure (Sr-Prices of Kid and Grown Mohair Received by Producers in Texas, Actual and justed for Changes in the General Price Level. show the effect of the business depressions of 1908, 1920-21, and 1930-31. Part of the effect of the business cycle on mohair prices was removed when they were adjusted for changes in the purchasing power of the dollar. Actual prices as obtained from local dealers are shown in Table 11, which are plotted with prices adjusted to changes in the general price level in Figure 6. Table 12 gives an average price for kid and grown hair com- bined. In most cases the prices are weighted arithmetic averages, the quantities sold in pounds net being used as weights. The tendency for cycles of production and prices to have an inverse re- lationship is shown in Figure 3. A line has been fitted to production, measuring the average long-time movement. Production for each year has been expressed as a percentage of this trend line, thereby eliminating the long-time upward movement and showing the cycle in production. The high point of the production cycle is accompanied by the low point of prices. In 1922-25 the cycle in production reached its lowest point, and prices were relatively high. The recovery of prices in 1922 was also accelerated by improvement in general business activity and changes in the tariff. The cyclical effect of production on prices is not so evident prior to 1920, but this may be due to the fact that production estimates were not so accurate then as in later years. Foreign production does not appear to exercise as great an influence on prices as domestic production, _ . ...\_......._vnm 18 BULLETIN NO. 444, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 11.—Mohair: Prices Received by Producers in Texas, 1904-1931. (In Cents per Pound.) Year Spring Fall 28.0 27.4 26.1 21.7 19.6 19.1 25.5 30.7 25.4 19.4 24.7 23.8 27.0 28.1 32.0 55.3 40.0* Prices obtained from the principal warehouses in the producing areas and weighted by the quantities sold. *Advances by the cooperative associations. Table 12.—-Value and Average Price of Grown Mohair and Kid Hair Produced in Texas, 1920-1930. Y Value Average Price “a” (in 1,000) (Cents) $2,280 26.9 1,872 20.0 4,414 52.0 4,755 52.4 6,436 65.3 5,836 55.9 7,242 61.4 7,301 54.2 10.007 68.9 7,747 49.3 5,442 I 34.0 Value obtained by multiplying production by price to growers as reported by local dealers. Kid hair estimated at 15 per cent of total production. Kid hair not reported separately prior to 1923. which is to be expected in view of the importance of the United States in world production. The instability of the market for the period 1923-30, is shown by the fact that a change of direction took place in producers’ ECONOMIC PHASES OF THE MOHAIR INDUSTRY IN TEXAS 19 prices every year except 1929 (see Figure 6). A thorough study of the factors affecting price, showing the causes of each of the year-to-year changes, would require considerably more statistical data than have been assembled in this Bulletin. For example, figures on stocks in this country and abroad are necessary to get an estimate of supply. Margins between Boston prices and prices received by producers are shown, in Table 13. The basic data from which these margins have been Table 13—-Prices Per Pound of Grown and Kid Mohair, Boston and Texas, 1927-1931 Year 1927 I 1928 I 1929 i 1930 I 1931 TEXAS SPRING GROWN: i Price at Boston (cents) ........................................ .. 58.0 65.3 62.0 47.6 I 28.7 Producers’ Price in Texas (cents) 52.2 71.0 51.1 35.0 | 22.2 Margin Boston over Texas (cents) .............. .. 5.8 —5.7 10.9 12.6 \ 6.5 Margin as Percentage of Price in Texas ......... .. 11.1 ____ .. 21.3 36.0 29-3 TEXAS SPRING KID: Price at Boston (cents) ......................................... .. 6 . 8 6 8 90 Producers’ Price in Texas (cents) 2.2 Margin Boston over Texas (cents) .................... ._ 6.8 Margin as Percentage of Price in Texas ....... .. 10.9 TEXAS FALL KID: \ Price at Boston (cents) ....................................... .. 74-0 85-0 67-7 50-3 ---- -- Producers’ Price in Texas (cents) ...... .. 63.2 74-1 55.3 40-0 l ---- -- Margin Boston over Texas (cents) ................... .. 10.8 10-9 12-4 10-3 \ ---- »- Margin as Percentage of Price in Texas ..... .. 17.1 14.7 22.4 25.8 Boston prices are averages for the shearing months: February, March, and April, and August, September, and October. computed are shown in Tables 19 and 20, Appendix. It is very difficult to get an accurate comparison for the purpose of showing margins between markets or marketing agencies. There is probably some dif- ference in grade and quality, since the Texas price is for all grades, whereas the Boston price is for good quality. Furthermore, the period of time during which the commodity is sold by producers does not correspond with the dates on which it is sold at the central market. To get an accurate com-_ parison of prices it would be necessary to have the producers’ price for each clip and the price for which the same clips were sold at the central market. The significance of Table 13 is that it shows a wide variation in the margins, ranging from 11 per cent to 36 per cent, or from 5.8 cents to 12.6 cents per pound on the Boston market over the producers’ price in Texas, indicating the speculative nature and risk involved in the mohair business. Lack of trading on a quality basis in the local markets is one of the factors causing the price spread. As shown by Figure 7, the difference between prices of good grades and of poor grades increases as average prices increase, and likewise de- clines with a fall in prices. Business conditions, in addition to the rela- tive supply of different grades, influence the differences in price. When times are good and prices are rising, there is a premium for the better grades. Figure 8.——’Prices of Woo] and Mohair Received ‘by 20 414/107,; xflr/ke 0/ pa/ver/éb Figure 7.—Spread Between High Grades and Low Grades in 260 I Z40 Z20 BULLETIN NO. 444, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 75 70 65 60 55 50 a o G uv G o 3 uv E o $5 fr/re fla/nwx/Fcoflej/ 4r 64/ (m/ Q/a/r/aj/ L» L,‘ C» LI l). Q i3 Q I\) LII ZI- F‘d1:’~""+* 4 x 1d ~22 '25 '24 252s '27 '25 '29 no I:T‘*‘F~_i‘ '15 ‘I6 ‘l7 '16 ""1"" ' a 1 '19 ‘YO '21 Mohair. Q \ 12L I I A 4 J 200 I60 56C ‘ F W 1 1/ ' I / I [I \ u‘ ’ Is \ N j / I ’ l, i40 !Z0 r”?‘ _ _-— \_> IOO 6O 60 I ! mo '1: '|2 '15 '14 '15 we '17 no 19 '20 '21 '22 '25 '24 '25 '26 21 '26 '2e'so Producers in Texas, Relative to the Average for 1910-14. Boston Prices of Domestic ECONOMIC PHASES OF THE MOHAIR INDUSTRY IN TEXAS 21 A comparison of producers’ prices of wool and mohair in Texas is shown in Figure 8, where both series of prices have been expressed as relatives of the five-year average, 1910-14, and adjusted for changes in the general price level. Wool and mohair prices show a close relationship, both being influenced by general demand and business conditions. Wool showed the greatest margin over mohair, relative to 1910-14, during 1918 and 1919, when wool prices were influenced by governmental control of foreign stocks. The difference between the two during the past three years has been relatively small. The year-to-year changes in the difference between the two series are more significant than the difference for any one year, since a change from 1910-14 to some other base period would change the spread between the two series. Prices of mohair have shown little var- iation between producers, no regard being paid to differences in quality. Dealers tend to offer a flat price for grown hair and another for kid hair. Beyond this differentiation, little attempt is made to classify mohair. Discounts are made from the prevailing price if the hair is poorly packed, contains dirt, burrs, grass, etc., or if it is dark or very short. In early years prices on the local market varied considerably as shown in Table 14, for example, indicating that there was considerable variation in the price of mohair, with about three distinct grades predominating. Under the present system of marketing, it appears that the grower gets very little, if any, premium for extra good quality. Table 14.—Prices and Quantities of Mohair Sold by a Representative Dealer in Texas. Spring, 1907 I Fall, 1907 Price Price (Cents per lb.) Number Lbs. Sold i (Cents per lb.) iNumber Lbs. Sold 15.0 — 16.4 166 l 26.0 —- 26.9 1,311 16.5 —- 17.9 922 , 27.0 —— 27.9 5,622 18.0 —— 19.4 2,214 | 28.0 —— 28.9 29,097 19.5 ——- 20.9 2,647 29.0 —~ 29.9 14,197 21.0 ——- 22.4 4,963 30.0 —— 30.9 35,337 22.5 —— 23.9 47,702 31.0 —— 31.9 11,295 24.0 —— 25.4 41,075 l 32.0 —— 32.9 , 9,458 25.5 —— 26.9 728 33.0 —— 33.9 87,551 27.0 —~ 28.4 4,373 34.0 —- 34.9 ‘ 44,104 28.5 -— 29.9 8,305 35.0 —- 35.9 2,147 30.0 ——- 31.4 92,214 ______________________ __ l ____ _; ____ __ M ‘ 240,119 TOTAL ...................... ._ 205,309 Prices are net to the grower. OUTLOOK FOR FUTURE DEMAND AND PRODUCTION How long can the present trend of ‘production of mohair be maintained without the supply becoming burdensome? The supply has been burden- some during periods of extremely low business activity, as exemplified in the low price in 1920-21 and 1930-31. The producer should look ahead and anticipate the probable short-time cyclical effects of general business con- ditions and also the long-time position of supply and demand. A recovery 22 BULLETIN NO. 444, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION in business activity may indicate a temporary scarcity of supplies, when in fact the long-time trend of production may be at a faster rate than the trend of consumption. If the trend of production which has obtained for the past twenty years continues for the next five years, the United States would be producing approximately 19 million pounds. If the trend for the past five years were to continue, by 1936 the United States would be producing about 24 million pounds, and Texas about 20 million. Prac- tically all of the foreign mohair is produced in two countries, Turkey and the Union of South Africa. The trend of production in Turkey has been upward since 1921. In the Union of South Africa the bottomof the cycle was apparently reached in 1927. The normal growth in the United States popula- tion will cause some increase in demand, but most of the increase in the past has been due to new uses for mohair, new tastes of the consumer, and, consequently, an increased consumption per capita. Assuming that we supply all of our needs and cease to import mohair, in order to consume the 24 million pounds in 1936, we should have to increase our per capita consumption about 25 per cent over the average for the past few years. It is to be expected that some new uses for mohair will be developed, but on the other handflncreasing competition with other textiles is likely. The automobile industry, which absorbs a large proportion of the mohair pro- duction, will continue to grow, but the rate of growth has already begun to decline. It seems unlikely that we shall have an export market for our mohair in the near future at least. In view of the foregoing, the con- clusion seems warranted that the rate of mohair production in Texas can- not continue as it has during the past few years without danger of over- production. The increase in Angora goat population should be checked and greater efforts made to increase the clean weight per fleece, to con- tinue improving the breed and the quality of mohair, to eliminate kemp, and to handle and pack the fleeces in a more careful manner. Trading on the basis of standardized grades in the local markets would do much to recognize quality and encourage growers to make further im- provements in their breeding. NEED FOR STATISTICS A study of the local market indicates the urgent need for more infor- mation and statistics on the mohair industry. A current market news service directed by an impartial agency would strengthen the producers’ position and establish a more competitive price in the market. Statistics on central market prices can be obtained from reliable sources, while fig- ures on imports and production in the United States and abroad are being furnished through governmental sources. If mills and dealers at the cen- tral market would make available monthly figures on consumption, stocks, and sales, such as are now being compiled by the cotton and wool indus- tries, it would result in mutual benefit to the trade; periodic gluts and scarcity would be lessened, and the position of the producer and trade as a ECONOMIC PHASES OF THE MOHAIR INDUSTRY IN TEXAS 23 whole would be materially improved. There is‘ an especial need for a con- tinuous service which would bring together and issue promptly all the available information on mohair. Table 15.—Union of South Africa: Exports of Mohair by Countries, Calendar Years, 1913, 1922-1930. (In 1,000 Pounds.) Countries of Destination Year United ' United Other i Kingdom i Germany i Belgium States i Japan Countries Total 1913 ----------------------- - 17,133 140 77 (*) i -------- .. 1 17,356 1922 . 21,634 72 3 4,047 i ________ ._ 37 25,793 1923 14,099 132 ........ ._ 727 1 29 14,988 1924 12,240 25 1,391 ........ _. 10 13,666 1925 10,937 59 535 13 16 11,560 1926 6,465 26 4,592 11 47 11,141 1927 9,787 24 755 22 93 10,681 192s 6.89s 5 794 i ........ .. s 7,704 1929 8,889 9 ........ _. 1,000 21 119 10,038 1930 prelim." , _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ -_ i __________________ ,1 6,374 Trade and Shipping of the Union of S Union of South Africa and Southwest ‘Less than 500 pounds. "Not available by countries. Compiled by the Foreign Agricu Table 16.—United Kingdom: Consumption and Exports o Imports of Mohair, Re- f Mohair Yarn (Including ltural Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. outh Africa, 1913 and 1922-1929, and Trade of the Africa, December issue, 1930. Exports and Amount Retained for Average 1909-1913, 1921-1925, Calendar Years 1923-1930. (In 1,000 Pounds.) Alpaca and Cashmere), i Mohair Yarn , Including Mohair Alpaca and Cashmere Year i Amount Total Re-Exports Retained for Exports Imports Consumption Average 1909.-1913 .......................... .. 30,168 i ~ 964 29,204 16,378 Average 1921-1925 .... .. .. 21,883 2,045 19,838 7,371 1923 .............................. .. 22,550 1,794 20,756 9,538 1924 20,883 2,539 18,344 8,380 1925 . 13,413 701 12,712 8,059 1926 _____________________________________________ _. 11,069 4,543 6,526 6,336 1927 ________ _. 20,396 238 20,158 9,007 1928 14,537 640 13,897 8,880 1929 ____________________________________________________ __ 12,721 329 12,392 7,927 1930 (Preliminary) 13,893 242 13,651 5,901 January-April 1930 3,380 60 3,320 2,115 January-April 1931 3,413 102 3,311 1,244 Compiled from Annual Statement of t counts of Trade and Navigation o 193 . 1 Compiled by the Foreign Agricu he Trade of the United, Kingdom, 1909-1929, and Ac- ltural Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. f the United Kingdom, December, 1930, and April, 24 BULLETIN NO. 444, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 17.—United Kingdom: Re-Exports of Mohair by Countries, Calendar Years, 1913, 1923-1930, and January-April, 1930 and 1931. _ (In 1,000 Pounds.) l Countries of Destination Year l United Other Foreign‘ British Total l Germany l States ‘ Countries Possessions 3 1,490 l 1,495 56 1,651 l 1,794 228 2,209 l 2.539 94 529 l 700 18 4,377 l 4,543 2O 155 238 13 5 515 I 640 1929 (Preliminary) 27 97 l 329 1930 (Prelim.)* . . _ _ . . . _ . . . . . . _ . . . .. l 242 60 102 Jan.-April 1931* l Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom, 1913, 1923-1929 and Accounts Be- lating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom, December, 1930, and April, 1931. ‘Not available by countries. Compiled by the Foreign Agricultural Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Jan.-April 1930* l ......... __ Table 18.—United Kingdom: Imports of Mohair by Countries, Calendar Years, 1913, 1923- 1930, and January-April, 1930 and 1931. L (In 1,000 Pounds.) Countries of Origin“ Year British l l United Other Total So. Africa l Turkey l States Countries 1913 ....................... - 18,523 10,402 (*) 391 29,316 1923 13,823 | 7,318 1,194 215 22,550 14,044 l 5,612 337 890 20,883 10,730 2,119 l 75 489 13,413 5,804 4,961 l 37 267 11,069 10,335 8,365 | 816 880 20,396 6,977 7,024 269 267 14,537 8,176 4,286 13 246 12,721 1930 (Prelim.) 6,910 6,631 u) 352 13,893 Jam-April 1930 1,633 1,535 (*) l 212 3,380 Jan.-April 1931 1,681 l 1,250 (*) I 482 3,413 I Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom, 1909-1929, and Accounts of Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom, December, 1930, and April, 1931. *If any, included in “other countries.” Compiled by the Foreign Agricultural Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Table l9.—Texas Mohair: Average Price per Pound on the Boston Market, 1927-1931 Year Jan. l Feb. Mar.‘ Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. l Oct. Nov. Dec. Aver, I _I_____~_________T Good Original Bag, Texas Spring‘: l l l l 1927 l l 58 58 l 69 l 72 74 74 74 78 l 72.2 1928 62 l 62 | 62 72 76 l 91 91 91 82 82 82 82 I 85.5 1929 62 62 62 62 58 69 69 69 68 66 65 64 l 72.2 1930.. 51 51 48 l 44 41 51 51 51 51 49 48 48 l 53.5 1931 36 31 29 l l l ____ __ l l l . I l Good Original Bag, Texas Kidzl l l l 1927.. l l 69 69 59 59 59 59 59 l 59 l 60 l 58.8 1928 82 l 82 82 88 91 76 76 76 62 62 62 62 l 58.8 1929 82 I 82 81 l 81 71 58 58 58 57 54 52 l 51 l 57.8 1930... 64 64 60 54 51 41 41 41 41 37 36 36 l 42.3 1931 48 48 48 48 48 - l _ _ .. l l .... _. Boston Commercial Bulletin. Compiled in the Division of Statistical and Historical Research, Bureau of Agriculture. ‘Texas “spring" apparently signifies adult hair. 25 ECONOMIC PHASES OF THE MOHAIR INDUSTRY IN TEXAS mm Hm 8 3 mm “a E mm mm S Hm mm fi Y... 8 mm mm .6 mm E. . i. Hm mm mm g mm fi S H5 1w Hm mm H. mm mm fi mm E i. Hm mm S mm mm H. mm E mm Hm mm mm mm mm fi 3 Hm S. 8 . S. Hm 3 3 o.“ E mm mm S mm .................................. mfiwsanwm mm 2 S» 2 fi mm mm 555:2. S2 mm mm 1v HQ 3 mm 3 Y .................................. .. ponEmowQ mm mm HQ 3 3 mm mm ................................ .. HQHEEEZ mm E mm 5.. 2. E 3 ....................................... .. “£1.30 .-.. mm vm mm 3 3 3N 3 ................................ -- hwnfiwfiwm fi Hm mm 2. . 3 3 on ...................................... .. wwnus< 3Q 3 mm 3 3 5 3 . ...................................... .. 35H. 3 wm mm 3 S. 3 3 .......................................... .. 25H. mm mm om mm 3 mm 3 3» ........................................... .. zwSH wm wm 5 Hm mm mm mm mm ......................................... -- $.54 wm vm 5 Hm mm mm mm. mm ......................................... .. £0.32 wm Hm 5 m 3 mm 3 mm .................................... .. Ewsanwm wm .--. mm mm Hm mm mm mm mm , .................................. .. E253. 23 mm mm mm 3 mm mm mm mm .................................. .. uwnfiwuofi mm mm mu 3 wm mm mm mm .............................. .. .. hfifiwéz mm mm mm 3 mm mm mm mm ...................................... m. Hwfizoo mm i“ mm mm mm mm wm mm .................................. .. nwpfiuagwm mm Hm mm mm mm mm mm mm ......................................... z 53:4 mm 2 3 3 mm mm mm mm om wm 3.. mm wm Hm in 5 mm Hm 3 mm wm Hm wm 5 mm i“ mm mm Hm Hm Hm pm mm i“ 3 3 wm Hm i“ 5 wm wm 3 mm wm Hm 2 hm .................................... .. isfigwm mm wm 3 mm ¢m Hm wm 5 ...................................... z i952. _ _ _ _ I53 _ _ _ _ aim“: 550V TBcwOV ABEGV 2269 HmuEwOV E58 HmfiHwOV 22w“: HEcwOV www~w>< mQPHFH mmmfih auwcmwuO wooU 3mm PHQEHZO _ H.000 i 5mm bah moaflmdm .3213 HQGHEHHM . .5 on.» ME a.» ME E0 >§ a O .H. O . b O sucoHZ Him Haw? nwmwaoh ofiwwfiofl .HmmH-mHmH fisaios .3 Joana: ion-mama Go 155M non oomuh owauo>4 “umasosldu Sada. 26 BULLETIN NO. 444, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION H5 S Hw i. 3. S Hm S mm 3 .................................... .. >§=S$H .3 S S .3 i. 3 S S S 3 ..................................... .. .2563. £2 S S S S 3 S S S S S ................................... .. ~wpifian E. S S H; w... S . S S S S .................................. .. poQEmZvZ E. S S 3 S S S S S S ....................................... .. pwpfloo . . S No o» E. S S S mm S ................................. : bhifigww S S E fi S S S S S S S S S. S S S. S S S S. S ma. S S S. S S S S S ma. S S S S Nw S S S 3 w... S 3 S S S S NH. S w... Nw S. S w“. . S g 8 i... S S S Hé S ...................................... .. ifizfim 3 S. 3 S i. S. Sm S. 3 ...................................... .. >$=E§ 22 .3 E. 3 9. E. E. S m» ow uwAEoowO i. S S NH. wH. S E. S ww kfismsoz Hqw wN. E. H6 S 3. g 3L E. ....... .. H3800 Hw w» E. Hw 3 NH. S m» w“. .................................... z Qmfifiwfiwm S mH. m» S. 3 S S S m» ........................................ 1 Hmswsdx Hm S Hw 3 ma. S Hm S S ............................................... .. fish. 2 S S HQ 3. S 3 mm 3 ............................................ : 95H. i. S S i. 3 S S S S ........................................... .. mug .:. i. Hm S HQ 3 S S H}. S ............................................. .. $.54 S. i. S. HQ i. S. S HS S .......................................... .. nopfia 2. E. S HQ 3. S. S g S Ewuhpwm S. H? S .3. S. S 3 Him w... 2.22.223. m2: 3. 9. S i. 3. S 3 S w... SQERaQ B. S. S HQ 8. S Hm S S HoQEw>oZ S Hm S 3. S 3 S w... S gwaoto AmafloOv AwunoOv AmHHHQUV HwaioOv HmfiHwOV TBEWOV HwwiwOv HmfiHwOV HmHcwOV HwHcQOV @202 magi _ fiwbh iwamzo 26w fi 52H 55520 $00 awn bah mopswam uopcfi? . nwfifism _ .3 b» wax ME Hm ME E0 H e o a o b o sfioz E5 b3.» cmflfioh ofimwfiofl AHEHHHHHHGQOV|HmQH$HmH 6.35.2 .3 Joxuas Ezmom cc HZEPH non 02am @9234 "HHEHQEILQN v2.2. 27 ECONOMIC PHASES OF THE MOHAIR INDUSTRY IN TEXAS _ Hm mm mm Hm mm mm m» mm mm m» .................................... .. nwnfiwoofi Hm mm mm Hm mQ mm mm mm 8 Hm .................................... l. HwnEw>oZ mm mm mm Hm mm mm mm mm mQ mm ........................................ .. “£8.00 mm mm mm Hm mm Qm mQ Qm mm Hm .................................... .- uonfiwmmwm mm mm mm Hm mm mm mQ mm mm mm ......................................... .. pwsmsHm mm mm mm Hm Qm mm mm om mm HQ .............................................. ., is? mm mQ mQ mm mQ mQ mm mQ mm mm ............................................ .. 25H. WW MQ mQ mm mQ mQ mm mQ mm mm .............................................. .. 3E m mm mm Hm mm mm mm mm 3 ............................................ 1 HH§H< Hm . mm mm mm mH Hm Hm mm mm om ......................................... .. HHPHHQHH Hm mm mm mm mH Hm Hm mm mm mm ............ .. zbvzinwh Hm mm mm mm mH Hm Hm mm mm om ...................................... .. FEEHQH. mmmH Hm mm mm mm mH Hm Hm mm mm om .................................... .. awnfiwuwfi Hm mm mm mm mH Hm Hm mm mm mm .................................... .. HQQQHQ/oz Hm mm mm mm mH Hm Hm mm mm mm ....................................... .. uwnopuc Hm mm mm mm wH Hm Hm mm mm mm .................... .. nwniwmmwm Hm mm mm mm mH Hm Hm mm mm mm ..................... : $5.54 Hm mm mm mm mH Hm Hm mm mm mm ............................................... .. bum Hm mm mm mm mH Hm Hm mm mm mm .............................................. .. mcsm Hm mm mm mm mH Hm Hm mm mm mm ............................................. : ~§H>H Hm mm mm mm mH Hm Hm mm mm mm ............................................ .. HH§H< mm Hm mm om mH m Hm mm mm om ......................................... m, s3mH>H Qm mm mm mm mH mm mm Hm mm Hm ..................................... z >Hmspnwh Hm mm mm mm mH mm wm Hm mm Hm ...................................... .. zmwsswm _ HmmH mm om Hm mm Hm mm om mm mm § mm HQHEwQwQ HQ Hm mm mQ mm Hm Qm mm mm HQ #095952 mQ mm mQ mQ mm Qm mm mm HQ _ HQ ....................................... .. HwnoHuO Hm HQ 5 mQ Hm mm mm HQ HQ mQ ........................ .. awnfiwpnww Hm HQ S“ 3 Qm mm mm HQ HQ mQ E mm Hm S HQ HQ mQ mQ om mm 5 mm Hm mm HQ mQ 3 mm mm Qm Hm mm mm Hm mQ mQ mm Hm Hm mm Hm _ mm . Ho Qm HQ om Hm 2m mm _ 8 Qm { mm Ho H6 HQ 3 Qm om mm d 3 556V HwfiEOV HwHcoOH H358 HBHBOH HBHEOV HmHcwOV E50. H52: $288 QMGHQHKQ m mumufm mvmawm hHNHHMMYHO @006 pmmfl FHQHHMMYHQ 600w l Hmwm fish moHHHmmmH .3553 noEEHHm hwxuflm. 09x0 wHHHHZmO M52500 HHHHHQHHHH was asyfl cwHouonH oHHmwHboQ ..Ia:.-....:)f|ionu|a...».- 6:525! h: Jew-ads GQHMOMH £0 Hufisch 3a Quinn owauo>4 HHHQHHHHSI5N 055R. 28 BULLETIN NO. 444, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION _ w... i ww ww ww ww w. w. ww ww ww ww ww w. w. ww i. S. w... ww ww ww w... w. w. .w w. E. ww E ww w. ww w. ww ww w. E. ww i. S. w. ww .w ww w. w. E. w... ww w. w. ww ww ww .......................................... .. @852 ww w. E. ww ww w. w. ww ww ww .................................. 52.5mm ww w. E. ww ww w. w. ww ww ww ...................................... - 2.35.. % www. w. w. E. w... ww w. w. ww ww ww ................................... .. .6..Ew85 E i. ww w. ww ww w. ww w. ww .................................... .. 5.55.62 S i. ww E. .... ww S. ww w. .w ....................................... .2 .6.......0 . ww ww ww . w... C. .... ................................. ,. wwwfiwwnww w. w... ww ww ww ww ww ww C. w. .......................................... .. .253. w... ww Hw ww ww ww ww H. w. .. ............................................. z .23. ww ww Hw ww w... ww w. ww w. ww ........................................... .. 2.3. ww w... m... ww ww ww w. ww w. ww ............................................. ,. 5E w... ww Hw ww ww ww E. ww w. ww .......................................... 1 =34 ww ww 1w ww ww ww w. ww w. ww ....................................... 1 @982 ww ww Q ww ww ww w. ww w. ww .................................... .. 2.5:... ww ww ww ww ww ww E. ww w. ww ...................................... ; isms... www. w... ww ww ww ww ww w. ww E. ww .................................. 1 5.15.50 ww ww ww ww ww ww E. ww E. ww ................................... .. 5...5>..Z ww ww ww ww w... ww E. ww w. ww ....................................... .. .5..8..0 ww w... ww ww ww ww w. ww w. ww .................................... .. ..w..Ew3wm ww ww ww ww ww ww E. ww E. ww ....................................... .. ..w:w=< w... ww ww ww w... ww E. ww w. ww ............................................. .. 23 ww ww ww ww ww ww E. ww w. ww ............................................. .. 2.3. ww ww ww ww ww ww E. ww w. ww ............................................... .- .82 ww ww ww ww w... ww E. ww w. ww ........................................... .. =3... w... ww ww ww ww ww E. ww w. ww ......................................... .. =32... ww ww. ww ww ww ww w. ww w. ww ..................................... .. 2.2.2.... ww w... ww 3 w... ww w. ww w. w. .................................... .. 5.5.3. _ www. 0.050. 2.5.0. 2.50. E50. 2.5.0. 2.50. 2.50. 2.50. 2.50. 2.50. wmwuw>< mamnwm mumbh 5.50.0 @000 uwom znmcmwnO @006 wmwm awwrm mownmsm .5533 nmifism >0 a: was ME u.» m5 E0 w a 0 w 0 ... 0 5.52 9:. .5.» Fmmwworm umwmofiofl Awozcflzonvvlfimww-mfiww 6-3-52 .3 JOMMQS 5.30M G6 €=5¢m HUG 001m UMNMO>< ?ia.._0§|.cu 01nd,? 29 ECONOMIC PHASES OF THE MOHAIR INDUSTRY IN TEXAS .53 iua< wwwfifi. =sfiuuamfio i. w.» mm .3. 2 Q mm w» ww N... ......................................... .. nuuwfi 3 mm mm 3. i. E mm mm aw i. ..................................... .. muwunnoh 3 mm ww i. o... m... 3 3 o». E. ..................................... .. maadflaw 52 3 w” 3 3. Hm mm Hm Hm S. 3. ................................. .. nwnEoomQ 3. mm m; i. Q 3 Q 5 S. S .................................. .. nonEo>oZ 3 mm mm .3. E S H. m. NN. E. ....................................... .. hiofio Q fi “a N“. .. mm mm mm w“. NP ................................... .. hoafimzavw s. E i“ N“. N... w... M... w“. fi ........................................ ., $2.34.. S. i.“ § Q S w... w... w“. 5. .3 i“ w” fi N.“ mm mm ww NN. S. 3 .2 Q. 3 m; w... E 3 ww 3 i.“ i" .1... fi 3 S Q Nu Ms ma. 3 2 3 3 mm m. 3 8. m» N... 3 S. mm S S 3 mm N» E ifiinwm w... 3 s mm S H. ms w... NN. M; 2.35.5“. £2 3 3 .3. mm mm Nu 3 2 Q. ma. ................................... 1 “$558.5 3 3. S. m... S mm 3 mm mw E. ................................... .. uwnEo>oZ 3 i. Q mm S $ ma 3 N». 2. ....................................... .. “@0630 fi 3. S. mm N... 8 w“. 2 Q. m: ................................. .. hfiifinow 2268 Amaze‘ E58 E50. Amfiaov $260. AWEwO. ., was“: E58 35.52 oucuw>< Bmnrw mambh muucfliO wooU 59$ znwflfiiO _ ucoU umom hunk non-imam n35? nwiisw , . o .5 was w... an ME E0 > M. a o a o b o 55.2 E5 .53» cmmwnorm uwumwiofl iwoncmuicUYlflnmTm~m~ izuios MA .HOJHGE Gcamofl G6 $556k HOG 001k QMGEQP< "hmdpmOS-ll-ON Umfifikr 30 BULLETIN NO. 444, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION _ _ _ m... t. S .1.. 3 N» 3. m” 2. .5 i. N» 3 ............ .. .2330 1v .1. .1. mm mm E. t. S. N“. Nm w... H. vm Mm ..... z awfiswuflwm N. i. 3 2. 2. E. w. N. mm .3 3 .3 S ............ .. ..........< N... t. 8 2. 3 3 2. N. mm m... 3 w... S .................. .. .23. w... :: .1. 3 S. E. E wv Q S .3 9. mm um ............... -- 25;. 2. .1. .5 C. E. ow _ ww Nv mm w... 9. E N... ............. .. .32 i. .1. .1. .1. .1. m. 3 w“. fi. Nm mm. mm m... w... ............ i ZAQAN ma. .1. .1. .1. .1. m. um w“. Q. N... Q. M... m... 3 ............. .. .1952 o... .1. .1. .1. .1. mw _ M... E. S. 3 3 S. mm w... ....... : ifiznwm Hm .1. .1. .1. .1. i. mm wv ma. mm mm. 2. 3 w... ......... l zfiwbidh 33 fin .1. .1. 1... .1. i. ww ma. w. mm 3 5 3 w.“ ....... .- uwnfiwowm S. .1. 1:1 . .1. .1. S. mm 2. w. mm ww ma. .6 mm ....... .. .§_S@>..Z E .1. .1. .1. .1. S. » mm mw ma. mm ma. w» 3 w... ........... .. MQQQQQQ fin .1. .1. .1. .1. i. mm w. 2. w... M... wb 2.. ME ..... .. ....._E....m.w mm .1. 1. .1. .1. mm mm w... wm .3 w» ww C. m6 mm .1. .1. .1. .1. mm mm mm w... M3 w» ww I. mo m... .1. .1. .1. .1. Na .3 w... mm M... wN. ww S. 3 mm .1. .1. .1. .1. mm mm mm mm ww wb ww S. ww m... .1. .1. .1. .1. mm 2 mm mm ww wb ww ww mm 3 1. .1. .1. 1S i. ww 3 w“. w... ww w» m... w“ w. .1. .1. .1. .1. i. mm ma. ma. mm ww wv m... w... ...... .. .h.~.w5unw.w S. .1. .1. 1. 1. vw mm wv 2. M3 ma. E. m... S. ......... .. muwzflwfi $2 B. .1. .1. 2. S. Nw 5 _ B. B. m... 3 E. w» mm ....... -. Bafiwvwm i. .1. .1. 2. S. ow 3 N. Nw fi 3 S. m... E 5.1.52.2 3. .1. .1. 3 B. ow mm mw N“. S mo fi. mm w... ......... .- .$.._......o 3.. .1. .1. 2. 2. ow 3 N. Nv N... 3 NN. w» .1.. fipfimannew i. i. .1. 3 B. 3 mm E. fi. mm ww N» mm vm -- umsws< .3. .1. .1. 2. mw om ww m“. Nw mm 3 fi. w» mm .......... .. 35H. 3. .1. .1. . . S. wv mm ww m4. mm Nu Nv 3 m... ............... .. QGSH 3. 3 w... i. . . . mm .5 ................ .. .32 m“. 3 3 3. E um .............. .. $.54 _ _ A @N@. Amufio. AmQGmOV $.50. $260. A3200. Ease. 5:5. G260. .352 c556. .350. TREQUV $260. $.50. umarm EM “warm flowopO 03.32 QWNHQ>< HUP§@g nofiaflm HQEEW-w vcoumm umarm @096 sunfish figOUfiw amfirm mflufiog >902 harm mousmwm .wi?~wD mfi win ~AQMQMSE UQNO . MQTQEOO .N§QNT~< SHFOE fig.“ RGQ> cwmwnoh omawmiofi Auoniwuficnvvlwmmfi-mwmw 655.2 .3 Joxuuum ceumofl no $5.5m non vuT-h @9223. "umnscsléu 03a? 31 ECONOMIC PHASES OF THE MOHAIR INDUSTRY IN TEXAS AJQQZDQ 12305500 soawom us» cm mcowfifiosv 02x00? 50C 0020500 domfiocoumm fiwnsufifiomum< m0 flwwusm fiuasommfi flwomaoammm via fldufl-wmpaaw m0 0223a" 405502 435v 0.80:: us» m0 265.80 o» 000.35 .©GO£ 5 was @9015 iwmmaow mama 35h. Mcwccmwmml... m“ 3 3 £ 3 E 3N 3 3N K mm mm 3N ............... .. >03 5 3 3 3 3 3m 3N 3 3N 5 N” 3 3N .............. .. 0.54 mm 0N S. mu 3 3m 0m mm 3 g 5.. 1m ma ..... .. £0.22 3N 3 3m 5 3 3m 3 3N mm wm 3 m wm znwsanom mu 0m S S S 3. N” mm 2 3 3 w» 3m ........ .- mauzcfi. _ $3 3 0N E S mm w». mm 3 N» 3 3 3 3m ...... .. 55:02.0 am 0N S E fi 3 mm 0N S 3 3 3 3m ....... .. 0.055032 3 3 E S S mm mm 5 mm 3 3 pm mm .......... .. kfiofio E i. S 2 fi 3 3m mm 0m 3 E 3 mm kfifiwavm 5 ** 5 2 mm 3 3m w“ 3 3 S 3 w” ........... .. 025:2. 5 .1. S mm mm 0m 3 mm mm 3 S mm mm ................ .. >30. S i E mm S 3 E ma 3 3 S. 2w w” .............. .. 33. 5 I 5. 2 N.“ 3 E w“ w” 3 E 3 w” ................ .. ~32 S .2. 0m mm mm S S 0m 3 3 E 3 3 ............... .. F54 3w i. S 3 S 3w 3 mm 3 mm w». 3 3 ............ .. A8202 a” i. S 3w _ 2. ww 3 mm 3 ME . S 3 3 ....... ,. Efiznvm mm . i. S 3m 3 ww 3 0m 3 m; E 3 3 ......... -- 2.252. _ _ _ $3 2w t, S i“ m; 3 3 3U 3 S. S 3 3 ; ...... .. 002E025 am i. S 3m m; S. 3 wm _ 3 3. _ N0 S _ 3 _ ...... .. $080202 _ _ m AwuGQOV @3500. iaflwOv Amacwnvv 30:000. pwwcwOv pmaflmOv pmwflwOv AwPCQQY AMQCQQV AVwaflwOV AwQGwOV @259 FmPCQOV uwarm EM 037w comwnO 00162 wwmnw>< .5053 aofiism HQEEDW wcooom umfirm @000 $950M UHMSF wflouww uwfirm msunog 302 huh mowzmwm MQSZmO NH Una 20x55. wQmO EM 0mwau>< 025x34 4.2.52 wcd Haw? . M55500 QEMEO cwflwuok umamwfiofl Awodiaionvvlfimmfi-mwafi 6-3502 h: £00105 5030M :0 1:50am .30 Quinn omauo>< uhwzcs|éu 030a. 32 BULLETIN NO. 444, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Sales of mohair by growers in Texas are handled largely through local warehouses on a commission basis. Little attempt is made at grading in the local markets. It is highly desirable that trading be done on a quality basis, and that growers be encouraged to give more attention to quality and methods of packing. Texas accounts for four-fifths of all the ‘mohair produced in the United States and over two-fifths of the world production. The Texas Angora goat industry is confined to a relatively small area, the Edwards Plateau region, in which is found about 90 per cent of the goat population. The i rate of increase in production of mohair in Texas has been extremely rapid for the past nine years. In the Union of South Africa the trend of production during the past twenty years has been downward, but in, Turkey the trend has been up- ward since 1919. In spite of the increase in domestic production of mohair, the United States is still on an import basis; imports for consumption for the past seven years, excepting 1930, averaging over one-fourth of the domestic production. The estimated consumption in the United States for the eight- year period 1923-30 is 16,278,000 pounds per annum. Prices of mohair are influenced by general business conditions and cycles in production. The influence of the business cycle is accounted for by the fact that industries using mohair, such as automobile and furniture in‘ dustries, have an elastic demand for their finished products and hence sales are greatly influenced by changes in the incomes of consumers. Al- though production of mohair from 1923 to 1930 increased at a rapid rate, production of closed passenger automobiles proceeded at a much more. rapid rate. Since the trend in automobile production is not expected to continue at the rate it has in the past, a continuation of the present rate- of increase in production of mohair for the next few years may result in over-production and a large surplus. Consequently, growers should be- able to benefit by checking expansion. Prices of mohair show wide fluctuations from year to year. Margins between prices on the Boston market and those received by producers in Texas, are extremely variable; the percentage differential of Boston over Texas prices ranged from 11 per cent to 36 per cent for the period 1927-31, or from 5.8 cents to 12.6 cents per pound. There is an urgent need for statistics and market information on the mo- hair industry. A continuous service of assembling and issuing promptly all available data on mohair would be beneficial to the producer and to. the trade.