TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. D. LEWIS. Director, College Station, Texas Bullelin 73.2 Mme/z 195/ Livestock Auctions in Texas LIBRARY. A. a. M. causes or TEXAS N G. McNEELY CHARLE B. BROTHERTON AND TRAVIS M. McKENZIE The TEXAS AGRICULTURAL AND NIECHANICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM GIBB GILCHRIST. Chancellor Preface This bulletin is a portion of the Texas phase of a study being conducted by the Western Live- stock Marketing Research Technical Committee. The committee includes agricultural econom- ics staff members of the agricultural experiment stations of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming, and the Bu- reau of Agricultural Economics of the U. S. De- partment of Agriculture. Research is being conducted in 12 Western States on 2 phases of livestock marketing. One is an analysis of livestock auctions; the other is ' i an analysis of methods and practices followed in the marketing of cattle. The research on which this report is based was partly made possible by funds provided un- der the Research and Marketing Act of 1946. The Front-Cover, Picture The selling crew in action at the San Angelo auction. Digest ‘A major change in livestock marketing in recent years has toward decentralization. Outstanding developments include i increase in the number of local packing plants and the intro- 1 tion 0f locker plants. Local packers and locker plants obtain it of their livestock supplies through nearby livestock auc- s. Large lots of uniform cattle and sheep still are consigned fthe larger central markets but many small lots of mixed and i ker livestock needed by farmers are sold through the local rket. his bulletin describes the local auctions in Texas with empha- ' on facilities, consignments, purchases, method of sale, trans- ation services and other important‘ factors. The auctions are 1- ribed by areas to permit comparisons of regional character- ‘ics. The data summarized in the study pertain to 37 auctions cted in 4 major geographical areas. The physical data are plemented by records of 35,000 sales transactions made at - auctions in 1948. his study of livestock auctions, is mainly descriptive. No at- tion is given to relative efliciencies among individual auctions of auctions on the one hand and alternative market outlets I the other. No attempt is made to describe the ideal auction a: deviations from this ideal by the auctions studied. , his is an introductory step in what is hoped to be a continu- ti] study of the various types of market outlets available to .» ; livestock producers. CONTENTS Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Digest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t.‘ Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . z; Number and Location of Livestock Auctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.- Characteristics of Texas Livestock Auctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date of Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _ Stability of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Capacity of Auctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seating Capacity of the Sales Pavilion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Replacement Value of Auctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Condition of Auction Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sale Days . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Loading and Unloading Docks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Attendance at Auctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- Buyers at Auctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. i Packer Buyers . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farmer Buyers . . . a , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J Livestock Dealers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .§ Auction Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Livestock Sales at Texas Auctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Volume of Sales by Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sales by‘ Months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average Size of Lot Sold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Value of Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classes of Animals Sold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Sellers and Buyers . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Cattle Sales by Weight and by the Head‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sheep Sales by Weight and by the Head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hog Sales by Weight and by the Head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i.if‘ Horse Sales by Weight and by the Head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Si! Area Served by Auctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ r Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -v v4s-4s1-s i' ULLETIN 732 MARCH 1950 tarmac/m iqucliawt’ a. 1am _ JOHN G. McNEELY, CHARLES B. BROTHERTON and TRAVIS M. McKENZIE* , EXAS IS A LEADING state in the number 0f livestock auctions and in the numbers of cattle, sheep and hogs mar- eted by this method. A few Texas auctions were established efore 1930, but the greatest growth has occurred during the st 15 years. j Several factors have contributed to the growth of auctions. armers and ranchmen like the ease and convenience of selling nd buying through auctions. A few head of livestock can be itransported by trailer or pickup truck to the nearest auction. he trip can be made on the morning of the sale, and if the onsignor prefers to do so, he may wait to see his animals sold imd collect his check before returning home. If he is interested n buying a few head of livestock, it usually is easy to get them *= an auction. Farmers like the social and educational aspects of the auction. t provides an opportunity to meet friends and to discuss the erits of the animals sold in relation to the prices paid. The rge number of spectators at most auctions is an indication of hedrawing power of the auction for the people of the com- unity. This study of livestock auctions in Texas is part 0f a broader tudy covering 11 Western States. The regional study was lanned by the Western Regional Livestock Marketing Technical 4 ommittee in the fall of 1948. The work was performed inde- ' endently in each state utilizing schedules and procedures de- eloped by the technical committee. - This study was conducted in Texas on the basis of 1948 auc- ' ion operations. The State was divided into 4 general geographic i: eas and the auctions in each area were arrayed by volume of ’les. Enough auctions were selected from each of these four ;:reas to meet statistical standards established by the technical gmmittee. For example, nine sample auctions were selected in *Respectively, professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and ociology; formerly research assistant, Department of Agricultural Eco- lomics and Sociology, now assistant professor of agricultural economics, ontana State College; and formerly research assistant, Department of gricultural Economics and Sociology. 6 BULLETIN 732, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION an area having 35 to 39 auctions while 10 sample auctions selected in an area having 40 t0 49 auctions. If 10 auctions f needed in an area containing 40 ‘to 49 auctions, every foj auction in the array was taken. Selection among the first was determined by chance, and subsequent selections we equalintervals in the array. For example, auctions 2, 6 0_ might be taken, or auctions 1, 5 and 9, depending on the i_ selection. Alternates were the auction next largest in size ; starting point was auction 1 or 2, and the auction next sm, in size if the starting point was auction 3 or 4. Field schedules were taken for each of the sample auc _ or at alternate auctions if necessary. Arrangements were Q at each auction to obtain additional data covering indi I sales transactions. If the auction had 500 or less transa, in 1948, all transactions were enumerated. If there were i to 5,000 transactions, a sample of 500 was taken. The s; was increased to include a maximum of 1,200 for 80,000 or transactions. Clerks at each auction summarized pertinent data for all n actions included in the sample. This clerical work was com _ satisfactorily at all auctions but one where a series of cit stances prevented its completion. As a result, data on tr tions are available for 36 auctions while all other data cov auctions. a NUMBER AND LOCATION OF LIVESTOCK AUCTI‘ On October 20, 1950, the Livestock Sanitary Commissi Texas listed 168 livestock auctions as operating in Texas; Appendix is a directory of these auctions, and their lo a are shown in Figure 1. It is noteworthy that the 37 au included in this study are widely scattered over the Stat Livestock auctions in each part of Texas are affected b' physical characteristics of the area and the consequentf- _ pattern. Each area contains a variety of conditions but agricultural patterns predominate. Area I lies roughly west of Tarrant County. It include land County and most of the territory north of that coun I Panhandle falls in this area. This area contains many} ranches as well as a large number of irrigated and d w: farms. Auction volume is concentrated mostly in the large y, such as Amarillo, Lubbock and Abilene, but a number s: tions at country points are also established in this area. B of the distance to the major central markets, livestoc, ducers commonly send large numbers of feeder cattle t, the larger auctions. These cattle have attracted many if state buyers and have established the auctions as im_ market outlets. LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS IN TEXAS 7 i Figure 1. Seating capacity is usually fully utilized at the Mason auction. Area II has no well defined physical or climatic characteristics which would cause its auctions to be different from those of the other areas in the State. This is attributable to the fact that gArea II is relatively long and narrow and contiguous at some iiparts of its boundary to each of the other three areas. At its {northern portion, its auctions operate much like those of Area 5H1, while at the southern portion its auctions operate much like hose of Area IV. It has one large auction which is comparable ith the larger auctions of Area I. The statistics for this area, citherefore, represent a mixture of conditions. Area III is characterized by small farms with mostly small livestock enterprises, except in the southernmost part along the gGulf Coast. The auctions are relatively abundant and well pa- ,:tronized by the farmers. Most of the auction volume is supplied a iby cattle. The quality of cattle is somewhat lower on the average ;,l}l18.1’1 in Area I because of a considerable quantity of mixed dairy ‘ebreeds, and in the southern part of the area, of Brahman crosses. gThese mixed cattle are not Well suited for feeder operations but are acceptable for stocker and slaughter purposes. Auctions in Area III are smaller on the average than in the jother areas. Some auctions operate exclusively on a per-head .Pbasis and do not have scales on the premises. No auctions were included in this study where sales were entirely by the head. "elsewhere. Supplies of slaughter animals also come from the; 8 BULLETIN 732, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The ownership turnover of auctions seems to be greatest i; area and some difficulty was experienced in finding auctio, 1949 under the same ownership as in 1948. a Area IV includes the southwestern portion of Texas. Au in this area are concentrated in the eastern half with no au further west than San Angelo and Uvalde. The major ~ producing region of the State is included in this area. Ar is primarily large-scale ranching country. There are few" towns and the auctions are many miles apart. Under ; circumstances, the auctions are larger and livestock is br, to the auctions from considerable distances. The quality or cattle offered on the average is probably higher than in .- III, but lower than in Area I. Annually large numbers of ~i and sheep are purchased in this area for feeding oper CHARACTERISTICS OF TEXAS LIVESTOCK AUCTI Livestock auctions in various sections of the United ‘*7 have striking similarities, as well as sharp differences, in operations. Auctions within a state such as Texas have‘ parable similarities and differences brought about by ph and economic factors. Data obtained from auctions in» p 4 major areas indicate the existence of specificcharacter”, Date of Organization Nineteen of the 37 auctions studied were organized L 1940, including 2 before 1935. Only five were established _d the 1940-44 period and 11 since that time. The same eco circumstances were not associated with the rapid gro ‘_ auctions during the 1935-39 period as during the 1945-48 o: The former period was one of depression for agriculture the latter period included some of the most prosperous in the history of Texas agriculture. Expansion of auctions,» ing the more recent period is usually attributed to the c p high prices for cattle, the increase in numbers of cattle; the relatively large marketing margins involved. Expa during the earlier period can be attributed to the search more economical and more convenient method of liv» marketing. ' i Stability of Operation Auctions in Texas have been characterized by a high; of turnover in ownership. Twenty-eight of the 37 auction been operated by the present owner 3 years or less alt only 11 had been established during the past 4 years. Fi, the auctions had been operated by their present owner f v or more years. Each auction owner was asked if he had op_ the auction continuously since its establishment. There A 12 examples of continuous operation. A LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS IN TEXAS 9 Several factors have contributed to the high rate of turn- over in auction ownership. Relatively high volume attained by w auctions during recent years has attracted lucrative ffers from people having funds they Wanted to invest. Farmers, fnchmen, cattle buyers and others engaged in some phase of f the cattle business have looked on the auctions as a valuable pdjunct to their other business ventures and have sought out auctions for purchase. ‘s. To avoid managerial as Well as other difficulties, many of the exas auctions are operated by partnerships with one partner e oviding the management. Partnerships and individuals do _ot operate more than one auction in most cases, although there were four auction chains in the 37 auctions studied. capacity of Auctions Auctions vary Widely in the dimensions of their pen and barn yyouts. Volume of receipts is variable and pens and auction k p rns are usually constructed with a capacity to fit the estimated ’ aximum volume. l-illigure 2. Lounge facilities for wives of buyers and sellers are a feature of the Amarillo auction. 10 BULLETIN 732, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Only 4 auctions have less than 20,000 square feet of sp’ Under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, a public mar i, where livestock are held for sale 0r shipment comes under t supervision of the Secretary of Agriculture if it has in exc of 20,000 square feet exclusive of pens, alleys and passagewa, Most of the auctions would qualify for this supervision oni size basis but very few are now under federal control. 5 auctions had 95,000 square feet or more while the other I ranged from 20,000 to 95,000 square feet. l Auction facilities are strikingly similar in their general r: out. Long rows of pens separated by alleys take up the bi of the space. The pens and alleys are planned to permit flow of livestock into the sellers’ pens before and during A sale as well as the movement of stock from the pens to ring, back to buyers’ pens and out to purchasers’ trucks l trailers. With larger volume, more sellers’ and buyers’ c. are needed and better planning is required to permit f movement of the stock through the alleys to and from the s 1 ring. Two of the auctions surveyed had less than 20 pens of 8 had 120 or more pens. Most auctions had from 40 to 100 pe Auction pens in Texas are usually open because of the " atively mild weather, although a few auctions have all the u: under one roof. Others cover a section of their pens, leaf: most of the pens open. Several auctions cover their hog r because of the hazard of over-heating during summer s._ but leave the other pens open. Of the 37 auctions, 20 had '0 than 20 pens covered and an additional 9 had less than 2' covered. Drainage is frequently a problem in the pens and posure to sunlight is an advantage in promoting rapid dry j and improved sanitation. Seating Capacity of the Sales Pavilion _ Auctions vary widely in seating capacity and the quality; construction. The general arrangement is similar, with ‘ai shaped seating area enclosing a small U or crescent-sha ring. The ring customarily borders a raised platform for ,_ auctioneer, two or more clerks and possibly the weigher ‘_ others of the administrative staff. Seating capacity of the 37 auctions ranges from about 10 1,000. Over half of these auctions can seat from 200 to people. Usually a small number of more comfortable s surround the ring. These seats are sometimes reserved for‘? major buyers. Seats at the higher levels are available for se f spectators and smaller buyers. It is usually possible to reach‘; seats from two side entrances and a middle entrance. As E turnover of spectators and consignors is high, easy acces the seating area is necessary. Some of the seating capacit. often unused because the spectators partially block the entrani LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS IN TEXAS 11 Figure 3. Cattle are usually sold one at a time in the El Campo and many other Texas auctions. Auction rings in Texas are small because of the prevailing practice of selling beef cattle singly, except for cow and calf pairs. Some of the larger auctions, however, have sufficient ring space to sell lots consisting of several animals. More than half of the auctions had from 300 to 500 square feet of ring space. The usual practice is to have doors or gates at each end of the ring so that the animals can come in through one door and leave through the other door. This arrangement does not require much space and seems to be satisfactory under Texas conditions. It facilitates rapid movement of the live- stock and the auctioneers usually take very little time on each animal. a Replacement Value of Auctions The auctions surveyed cover a wide range in age, condition and quality of construction. One new auction has an air- conditioned sales area, contains a fine restaurant, has a well ( furnished lobby, cushioned chairs, and obviously cost a great deal to construct. Other auction facilities provide only a mini- mum of comfort and convenience, but have the necessary es- l sentials for continued operation. Auctions in areas producing large numbers of Brahman cattle generally use heavier materials for pens and ring than dothose in areas producing the other breeds; This may involve the use of 2-by-6-inch boards rather than the usual 1-by-6-inch, 12 BULLETIN 732, TEXAS ‘AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION additional height on pens and ring, and extra reinforcing, pa ticularly on bull pens. ' Restaurants at auctions represent a wide range in cos Facilities range from a soft drink box to completely a' conditioned restaurants open throughout the Week. Ofiice spa varies in size and in completeness of equipment. Concrete l; heavy-duty scales, loud speaker systems and many other ite 1 increase costs at some auctions. The result is a Wide range ‘ replacement values. Thirteen of the 37 auctions had replac ment values under $20,000 and six over $40,000. Since near all the auctions operate only one day per Week and have w. _ other use for their facilities, it is apparent that a substanti volume is essential to meet overhead expenses. Y‘ Condition of Auction Facilities The auctions included in the survey covered a wide ran in the general condition of facilities. Three auctions could =f classed as superior in this respect. Most auctions had u, facilities for performing some services but were deficient f other facilities. All auctions had Wooden pens except one th. used barbed Wire and one that used woven Wire. Most p had dirt floors, although one auction had all concrete o, While several auctions had some concrete pens. Concrete floo were more common for hog pens than for cattle and sheep n; No standards were used for evaluating auction sanitatio Available insecticides give fair control of flies. Both the ins, population and general cleanliness are associated closely wi drainage and the frequency of spraying and cleaning. A auction will get filthy unless a positive program of sanitati is followed. Health authorities ordinarily exercise little sup vision over sanitation except for auctions within city limiff Most auction operators maintain fair conditions, although the ‘ is always room for improvement, particularly in the conditi of pens. Most sales rings are kept clean. '"» Sale Days Auction sales are held on every day of the Week exc, Sunday with no particular concentration on any one day. Af tion operators usually select a different day from those u_ by other nearby auctions. This permits buyers to attend se] eral auctions during the Week While conflicting sale days Wo necessarily split the buyers among the auctions. Only auctions of the 37 operated more than one day each y‘ Overhead cost is high per day of operation and large volu at a local point is more likely to increase the number of a l tions than to increase the number of sale days per week. ’ Most auctions do not start sales until about noon. This p‘ mits producers to bring their livestock in on the day of ‘Egg sale. Usually volume is not too great to prevent ending t LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS IN TEXAS A 13 iiisale by late afternoon although some auctions at some seasons of the year operate far into the night. iLoading and Unloading Docks i. _ All but one auction had more than one dock for loading and a nloading livestock from trucks. Eleven auctions had more than unloading docks and about two-thirds of all auctions had 2 r 3 docks. Ease of unloading is not determined as much by he number of docks as by the efliciency with which animals iare moved to and from docks and pens. Several alleys operating gfrom a single dock can separate cattle speedily and permit {rapid loading or unloading at the docks. At most auctions, the docks are placed adjacent to the park- ing area. Unless parking is supervised, free movement of trucks to the docks is hindered. Ideally, the movement of trucks to ithe docks and to the highway should be separated from the p; parking area. TOTAL ATTENDANCE AT AUCTIONS It is difficult to determine the number of people in attendance at any auction. Seating capacity is usually known but at any time a large proportion of the people in attendance are not seated. Some stand inside the auction barn and others are usually scattered around pens, incoming and outgoing trucks, Figure 4. Seven million dollars passed through this window to sellers at Sealy in one year. Courtesy of the Sealy News. - 1948. N0 tabulations were made on the number of livest" 14 BULLETIN 732, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION and the entrances to the barn. People come and go througho the period of the auction and, since no charge is made for mission, there is no way to check the number of persons j attendance. All but 10 auction operators estimated average a tendance at 300 or more persons. In view of the small avera size of consignments and consequent large numbers of seller and the large number of spectators, it is likely that these figur are conservative. . i Buyers at Auctions More important to auctions than attendance is the numi _ of buyers. A small number of buyers tends to result in 10w, prices and lower prices bring reduced consignments of livest ,. Many auction operators expend more effort to attract buy» than to attract volume of livestock. Most auctions had an average of from 2O to 80 buyers purchased by each buyer. Thus, no evaluation could be m, of effective competition among buyers. Some buyers are _ the market for just 1 or 2 head of cattle for slaughter or f stocker purposes. This demand is specialized and is effecti‘ to a limited extent. At the other extreme are speculators l“ will buy any class of livestock and in any amount if the pr_ is favorable. An adequate number of all types of buyers '__ required to keep prices in their proper relationship. ¢ Packer Buyers Packer buyers are present at most auctions to bid on av able fat cattle. These buyers include full-time employees of v packing companies as well as order buyers working on a n’ mission basis. A major packer located at a meat packing cen can not afford to have buyers at every auction in Texas. q volume of slaughter cattle must be quite large to attract pac buyers unless the packing company and auction are loca in the same city. Even the larger auctions do not attract a large number? packer buyers. More than half the auctions had an averagef? 5 or less packer buyers. At some seasons of the year, fat ca are scarce at Texas auctions, while at other seasons, grass a cattle are rather plentiful. There are always some two- cattle present, suitable both for stocker or feeder purpof and for slaughter. The purchase of slaughter cattle is correlaf with wholesale meat prices while factors such as range , ditions and feed prices have an effect on the demand for sto I and feeder cattle. Packer buyers take the fat cattle and L’ the other classes only when the price is attractive. “ It is likely that a minimum volume of purchases is requ" to compensate for the expenses of packer buyers at aucti LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS IN TEXAS 1E Figure~ 5. Catwalks provide a view of livestock without interfering with yard operations at San Angelo. Courtesy of the West Texas Livestock Weekly. Auctions having less than this volume must depend on order 5‘ buyers to maintain their market demand for slaughter classes of cattle. J Farmer Buyers All auctions have farmer patrons who buy primarily stocker cattle. About two-thirds of the auctions average less than 30 buyers of this type and 13 auctions averaged less than 20 farmer buyers. Farmers buy most actively during the seasons when they have a surplus of feed or need to increase their breed- ing stock. Most of the spectators at auctions are farmers. Many of l" them are potential buyers if suitable livestock are offered for , sale. Farmers can use such a Wide variety of cattle, as compared gwith the more specialized needs of feeders, that they may bid j on almost any class of livestock. While their individual pur- igchases are small, they form an important source of buying volume. Livestock Dealers The major speculative group at auctions are the livestock dealers. While the packer buyers buy only livestock for slaughter land the farmers buy little except stocker or feeder livestock, lthe livestock dealers buy anything that can be sold at a profit. jThey are usually well informed on market conditions and buy § on one market for resale on another. 16 BULLETIN 732. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION At some auctions, dealers are permitted to buy livesto from consignors outside the ring for resale through the rin Dealers often buy animals by the head for resale by the poun or vice versa. Active bidding among the dealers promotes J active market. Dealers who bid only on bargains do little “ strengthen the market. Seven of the auctions had less than 10 dealers present i’ the average, while 9 auctions averaged 25 or more. The m common number was from 10 to 14 dealers. Individuals va f so widely in the size of their purchases that numbers little as an indication of dealer importance. It is an establish fact, however, that regardless of numbers, dealers are an i‘ portant influence at all livestock auctions. AUCTION CHARGES Each auction operator has developed his own schedule u charges. In establishing these charges, the operators necessar‘ compromised between charges high enough to bring maximut returns per head of livestock sold and low enough to attra the maximum amount of business. A further choice is w’ between percentage commissions and flat charges per head per dollar range. Y Eighteen of the 37 auctions used percentage commissi’ charges for cattle. Charges ranged from 1 to 5 percent, wi 3 percent the most common. Four auctions made percenta charges for specified ranges in sales value and a flat char for values outside the range. Several auctions lowered the peg centage charge for sales above a specified dollar value such $1,000. Nineteen auctions sold cattle on the basis of a flat char per head or per range in dollar value. For example, one aucti charged $2.00 for pairs, $1.00 each for all other cattle up 1 $30.00 in value and $1.50 each for cattle about that val Another auction charged $1.50 for pairs, $2.25 for bulls a $1.25 per head for all other cattle. A third auction charg $1.20 per head for all classes of cattle. The usual charge "j from $1.00 to $2.50, although one auction charged $3.50 f selling a bull. - Percentage commission charges for livestock other than tle ranged from 2 to 5 percent. Five auctions charged 3 perc for sheep, while 4 charged 5 percent and 4 used other i: centage rates. Similarly hog commissions ranged from 2 t; percent, with a concentration at the 3 and 5 percent level simi to that for sheep. Several auctions made the same charge sheep as for hogs and numerous other auctions sold only one " the other of these two species. All horses and some sheep and hogs sold for a dollar char LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS IN TEXAS 17 i mounts ranged from $1.00 to $2.50 each for horses with a few Auctions varying the charge with the sales value 0f the animal. § eep commissions usually vary with numbers sold rather an with dollar value, frequently being lower for sales above i minimum number. Hogs were usually sold on a flat per-head is, but a few auctions varied the price with the sales value the animal. i-"A few auctions levied yardage charges of about 25 cents per imal. Others made a weighing charge which was usually _ cents. At those auctions where brand inspectors were sta- ned, a brand inspection charge of 5 cents was made, except _ at a few auctions absorb this charge themselves. A Two of the auctions operated under the regulations of the ackers and Stockyards Administration. Their commission arges were subject to review by this federal agency. All other .3. were established and revised under competitive con- tions. LIVESTOCK SALES AT TEXAS AUCTIONS iilnformation on sales at Texas auctions was obtained by Vmmarizing the data from a sample of the transactions at v h of the auctions surveyed. At the smaller auctions, every insaction during 1948 was used for both consignors and pur- asers. At the larger auctions, part of the transactions were orded with sampling rates determined by auction volume. r example, at a medium-sized auction, data might be recorded ,1 each tenth transaction. These samples were expanded to tain totals for each auction and auction totals were combined ijgive area and state totals. Data from one auction were in- i‘ plete so the state totals include only 36 auctions. lume of Sales by Areas tThe relative importance of the classes of livestock is shown {Table 1. Over half the cattle sales were recorded in Area I; area together with Area II included about three-fourths ., all cattle sales. This high proportion is attributable in part ,Lthe large individual volume of the western auctions included. i. Table 1. Volume of livestock sold by species and by areas, 1948 (36 auctions) eas Cattle Sheep Hogs Horses Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 843,290 53.1 406,540 33.6 9,120 6.8 6,580 4.4 348,207 21.9 22,071 1.8 32,632 24.3 3,243 24.4 . 172,240 10.9 5,840 .5 52,620 39.3 2,550 19.2 ‘ . . . . . . . . 223,210 14. l 774,380 64.1 39,640 29.6 6,905 52.0 . . . . .. 1,586,947 100.0 1,208,831 100.0 134,012 100.0 13,278 100.0 18 BULLETIN 732, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT’ STATION Table 2. Volume of livestock sold by species and by months, Texas, l9, (36 auctions) o~ Months Cattle Sheep Hogs Horses Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Perc January. . .. 125,952 7.9 76,480 6.3 12,172 9.1 874 6._ February... 103,986 6.5 35,472 2.9 7,610 5.7 670 5., March..... 149,160 9.4 41,675 3.5 12,606 9.4 1,126 8. April . . . . . .. 169,093 10.7 94,274 7.8 12,018 9.0 1,190 9. May . . . . . .. 167,532 10.6 106,303 8.8 9,210 6.9 1,291 9.. June . . . . . .. 134,784 8.5 69,276 5.7 11,493 8.6 1,108 8.’ July . . . . . .. 91,367 5.8 133,151 11.0 10,220 7.6 670‘ 5. August..... 125,242 7.9 88,910 7.4 9,837 7.4 909 6. SeptembeL. 134,105 8.4 287,616 23.8 13,719 19.2 1,115 8. October. . .. 120,619 7.6 153,468 12.7 11,375 8.5 2,028 15. November. . 166, 802 10. 5 96,676 8.0 13 .038 9. 7 1 ,453 10. _ December. . 98,305 6. 2 25 , 530 2.1 10 ,614 7. 9 844 6.‘ Year . . . . . . . l 586,947 100.0 1,208,831 100.0 134,012 100.0 13,278 100,0 Sheep sales are concentrated in Area I and to an even grep extent in Area II, which includes the Edwards Plateau. k other two areas produce very few sheep and most of th produced are marketed through agencies other than aucti A considerable volume of sheep is required to justify separ sale days for sheep. Such separate days occur only in the m sheep producing areas. “ Hogs are most important to auctions in Area III, with o’ IV ranking second and Area II third. Hogs are relatively; important in Area I. Most of the consignments are small volume builds slowly. Many auctions do not provide facili for selling hogs because of the small numbers consigned. '1 Since the total for the sample auctions was only 13,278 h it is apparent that horses and mules are not a major so of income for Texas auctions. Sales of horses and mules __ concentrated in Area IV with over 50 percent of the ’ Areas II and III had some consignments while Area IV; less than 5 percent of all horses and mules sold at auctions. f Sales by Months y Sales of cattle, sheep, hogs and horses by months are , marized in Table 2. The cattle movement had two peaks co in the March-April-May spring period of lush pastures q November when pastures are usually dry. The low month-l July with 6 percent of the cattle and the high month was ; with 11 percent. Cattle sold in 1948 totalled 1,586,947 head, or an avera over 1,000 per week for the 36 auctions. A considerable o: this volume is concentrated in the larger auctions. These. emphasize, however, the considerable volume attained by 1 auctions in recent years. ‘I’ Variation in monthly consignments was much more e I LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS IN TEXAS 19 1' for sheep, with a range of from 2 percent of the total in De- -cember to 24 percent in September. This peak movement in- {eludes large numbers of stocker ewes culled from the breeding T herds at this season of the year together with the lower grades 30f slaughter sheep and feeder lambs. Total sales of 1,208,831 sheep are concentrated in a few of i the Western auctions since most auctions do not sell many sheep. i The auctions selling large numbers of sheep usually have sep- "arate sale days for sheep and cattle. é Movements of cattle and sheep to auctions are correlated primarily with availability of feed and the maturity of the annual calf and lamb crops. There is, moreover, a constant i, interchange of stocker animals taking place together with the T culling of animals no longer in the stocker class. If there are suflicient livestock producers in the area served by the auction, v Qthey provide throughout the year some classes of livestock for sale. ~' .The Texas auctions sell relatively few hogs, with consignments fat the 36 auctions amounting to 134,012 head in 1948. This volume was distributed quite evenly throughout the year. Feb- ruary was the low month with 6 percent of the total, but Jan- _;uary and March had a large volume. September was the high i; month with 10 percent of the annual total. . Horses constitute a minor phase of the auction picture with lonly 13,278 sold in 1948. Sales were distributed quite evenly _' through the year, except that October and November were high ' months. It is the usual practice at many auctions to sell horses at the beginning of the sale. Volume is never great enough at ‘i most auctions to warrant special days for horse sales. {Average Size of Lot Sold Texas auctions customarily sell animals singly through the ~j ring. Exceptions to this are beef and dairy cow and calf pairs, lhog litters and sorted lots of ‘cattle and sheep. Producers Jbringing several head of livestock to the auction usually prefer that the animals be sold singly. The records show each sale jlisted separately and each sale is considered a separate con- a 1_ signment. Auctions in Area I varied in the average size of individual Ilsales through the ring. Five of the auctions had sales of cattle iaveraging between 1 and 2 head while average sales at two ‘auctions were between 2 and 4 head and at the other two auctions were between 4 and 10 head. Consignments are usually larger at the larger auctions, while animals tend to be sold ‘individually at the smaller auctions. a Five auctions in the area did not sell sheep. Of the others, 1 20 BULLETIN 732, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION had average sales between 1 and 2 head, while the other 3 ha average sales of over 10 head. Only four auctions had ho sales and only one of these averaged over 4 head per sale. A the auctions selling horses had average sales of between 1 an 2 head per sale. Lots of cattle sold in Area II tended to be small at all auction, Nine auctions had lots averaging between 1 and 2 head and th‘ lots at the other auction averaged between 2 and 4 head. h‘ Sheep sales were larger than cattle sales in Area II with fiv auctions having lots averaging 4 to 9 head and others havi , somewhat smaller lots. Six auctions had lots of hogs averagi j less than two per lot while the other four had larger lot Average lots of horses and mules were below two per lot _‘ eight of the 10 auctions. One auction did not sell sheep and o . did not sell horses. i. Livestock sales in Area III were comparable in size with tho in Area II but much smaller than in Areas I and IV. The f’ auctions had cattle sales averaging less than two head per 1. This indicates that most of the cattle were sold singly. Pro ably the major exceptions were beef and dairy pairs. i, Four auctions in Area III did not sell sheep; of those th did, only one averaged over 10 head per lot sold. This is n a major sheep producing area and the sales were primari. from small farm flocks. All but 2 auctions sold hogs, one h" lots averaging over 4 head while the other 6 averaged fro 1 to 4 head. Two auctions did not sell horses, the other , averaged from 1 to 2 head per lot sold. = Cattle sales at auctions in Area IV were variable in si with 4 auctions having average sales under 2 head per sale a, 4 averaging between 2 and 4 head. Most auctions have so ' larger sales but the large number of single animal lots ten’ to keep the average down to a low figure. I Sheep are sold in larger lots in Area IV, with 5 auctions h' ing average sales of 10 or more head per sale. One other auct" had sales in the 4 to 9 head group and only 2 auctions hi average sales below 2 head. Hog sales were mostly in gr0* of 2 to 3 head with one auction having average sales in lar lots and one in smaller. Horses were usually sold singly, and o; one auction had sales averaging 2 or more head. Table 3 shows the average size of lot sold by species for -=I area and for the State. All animals sold are divided by total number of lots to get these figures. * 3 Average lots of cattle are largest in Areas I and IV wh it is customary to sell beef cows, calves and steers in unifo lots for breeding or feeding purposes. The stocker sales J LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS IN TEXAS 21 Table 3. Average size of lots sold by species by areas, 1948 (36 auctions) 5 Areas Cattle Sheep Hogs Horses f: Number Number - Number Number . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.3 46.5 2.3 1.2 l I1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 5 7 . 0 2. 0 1 . 1 III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.5 5.0 2.1 1.2 IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.7 33.4 3.0 2.2 .State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.6 32.7 2.3 1.5 5. relatively more important in Areas II and III. Few producers have sufficient animals of a particular class available for sale ; to provide large, uniform lots. a. Sheep in Areas I and IV are sold in rather large lots. They are graded into quite uniform bunches suitable for stocker, lslaughter or feeder purposes. It is possible for the producers to ' do this since their flocks are larger in these two areas. Pro- . ducers in Areas II and III have smaller flocks and consignments ~; average much smaller. The average of 5 to 7 sheep for these areas includes many small lots and a few large “ones. a . Hog and horse sales are much more uniform by areas. There is no marked tendency to group these species for sales purposes and animals are sold singly or in small groups at all points in fthe State. Value of Sales _ The total value of sales at the 36 auctions in 19-48 were: cattle $150,316,104, sheep $10,574,321, hogs $4,901,301 and horses $448,996 (Table 4). Thus, the value of cattle was far {in excess of the combined values of sheep, hogs and horses. i. It represents a sizable proportion of the total returns to livestock producers from sales of livestock by all methods. These returns ;are distributedthrough the year in about the same way as are ‘ble 4. Value of monthly sales of livestock by species, Texas, 1948 (36 auctions) A - Months Cattle Sheep Hogs Horses Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent 12,462,734 8 3 538,710 5.1 413,955 8.4 106,491 23.7 9,214,904 7 1 353,064 3.3 231,158 4.7 25,577 5.7 14,468,071 9.6 404,700 3.8 441,869 9.0 38,783 8.6 . . . . . . . 16,010,452 10.7 879,789 8.3 394,265 8.1 83,931 18.7 ‘ . . . . . .. 16,438,103 10.9 820,720 7.8 344,344 7.0 30,419 6.8 1' . . . . . . . 12,735,536 8.5 502,647 4.8 418,498 8.5 20,990 4.7 . 8,782,581 5.8 1,031,212 9.8 365,136 7.5 16,565 3.7 12,769,663 8.5 870,597 8.2 415,479 8.5 21,531 4.8 13,576,088 9.0 2,971,749 28.1 490,033 10.0 29,012 6.5 9,933,000 6.6 1,086,970 10.3 517,682 10.6 40,825 9.1 14,176,197 9.4 931,821 8.8 520,329 10.6 23,086 5.1 .. 9,748,675 6.6 182,360 .7 348,553 7.1 11,786 2.6 __ . . . . . . . .. 150,316,104 100.0 10,574,321 100.0 4,901,301 100.0 448,996 100.0 22 BULLETIN 732, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 5. Value 0f livestock sold by species and by areas, 1948 (36 auctions l Areas Cattle Sheep Hogs Horses Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Perc _ I . . . . . . . . .. 85,081,825 56.6 2,885,580 27.3 333,660 6.8 16,680 3' I II . . . . . 30,230,107 20.1 189,726 1.8 1,179,151 24.1 84,071 l8 III . . . . . . . . .. 14,117,595 9.4 47,410 .4 2,000,540 40.8 76,130 l7 IV . . . . . . . . .. 20,886,577 13.9 7,451,605 70.5 1,387,950 28.3 272,115 60' State . . . . . . . . . 150,316, 104 100.0 10,574,321 100.0 | 4,901,301 100.0 448,996 100” the numbers of livestock, which indicates that price was no the major factor in determining total returns. I Cattle sales were the most uniform by months, with only 2; months having over 10 percent of the annual volume. Hogs were; slightly less uniformly distributed With 3 months each having-Q more than 10 percent of the annual volume. Monthly sales of sheep, on the other hand, Were concentrated in Septembe and horse sales Were relatively heavy in January and April. Value of livestock sold by areas is correlated closely wit numbers sold since price per head varies but little among th areas. Auctions in Area I sold 85 million dollars Worth of cattli or over half the value of cattle sold at the 36 auctions. Ar II sold 30 million dollars Worth or about one-fifth of the to f. of 150 million dollars with the other two areas selling les,“ than 25 percent between them (Table 5). Over two-thirds the returns from the sale of sheep were in Area IV and mos of the balance Was in Area I. Hog sales were over 1 millioi‘ dollars in 3 of the 4 areas, but Were comparatively low Area I. Horse sales amounted to over a quarter of a millio‘ dollars in Area IV and were unimportant in the other thrf areas. 1 t. Classes of Animals Sold Individual sales of livestock were divided into major clas, to determine the characteristics of the livestock sold at auction Table 6 summarizes these data for cattle for the four areas a’ Table 6. Cattle: Percentage sold by class and by areas, 1948 (36 aucti Classes Areas of cattle I l n n1 l 1v Percent Dairycows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .9 2.1 1.5 2.9 Beefcows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.0 15.2 16.1 15.4 Steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.1 17.9 8.7 15.8 Heifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.8 9.0 9.0 8.1 Heifers and steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 2.4 1.1 4.2 Calves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.8 30.8 45.5 23.3 Bulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.3 2.3 3.1 5.5 Dairypairsl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.6 3.8 3.8 1.0 Beefpairsl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.8 16.5 11.2 23.8 All classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1A cow and calf. LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS IN TEXAS 23 Table 7. Sheep: Percentage sold by classes and by areas, 1948 (36 auctions) Classes Areas of sheep 1 l 11 l 111 1v State Percent Ewes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.8 35.9 35.3 37.3 30.9 w ms 2.1 4.1 1.5 1.2 1.6 _Ewesandlambs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.6 2.4 11.1 3.6 4.7 ‘jwethers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.9 ~ 1.5 .6 .8 4.8 j Ewelambs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .8 29.3 .5 .9 1.2 QRam lambs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .3 .3 .8 .9 .7 q Mixed lambs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.6 21.1 42.2 51.8 37.7 {Goats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45.9 4.8 7.5 3.5 18.4 All classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 j for the State. Area I is outstanding in its high proportion of s, steers and heifers, relative to the other areas. Calves are the a most important class in Areas II and III, while beef pairs (a 1. cow and calf) are slightly more important than calves in fArea IV. Dairy cows, bulls and dairy pairs (a cow and calf) are ' relatively unimportant in all areas. For the State, steers rank ;highest with 27 percent of total volume, with calves next at 26 percent, heifers at 13 percent, beef cows at 11 percent and j; beef pairs at 11 percent. g Sheep sales are summarized by class in Table 7. Area I jhas an exceptionally large proportion of goats, with ewes as the next most important class. In Area II, ewes constituted 36 percent of total sales, with mixed lambs and ewes amounting to 29 percent of the total and mixed lambs to 21 percent. rl-In the other two areas, mixed lambs and ewes accounted for ;over three-fourths of all sheep sold. For the State, mixed flambs accounted for 38 percent of all sheep sales, ewes 31 percent, and goats 18 percent, with the other classes each amounting to less than 5 percent of the total. l Hog salesfluctuate less by class than the other types of livestock (Table 8). About 90 to 95 percent of all hogs are listed Tas hogs and feeders, while the other two classes, boars and reeding sows and gilts are relatively unimportant. This would indicate that auctions sell predominantly slaughter and feeder ihogs. Area differences were slight except for a relatively small jproportion of feeder pigs in Area IV. lTable 8. Hogs: Percentage sold by class and by areas, 1948 (36 auctions) Classes h Areas of hogs 1 l 11 l 111 l 1v l State Percent ~ V m . ‘ - \ ' w ERT . - .1 JEFF: on KER“ \_ \/Q“5T8P AUSTIN g ‘ . . la.__-L\ x m. vanes cowanns IKENQAL _ . .1 , éma . ; x NARRIS mu“ ‘ . com/u. “W ‘N / ‘ ' - w" REAL R , x _ Q . a °+ . emu: A o o Fem, . l: | . GUAM“ . c L AD BEND s. LIE / Q a . \‘ ‘f’ BEXAR _ ‘GONZ LES L CA \_ , xauncv UVALDE MEDINA fwu-SOQK A “MARTON ‘Kr-BRAZORM E" . ' ' 05311’ .\ - JACKSON \_ ZAVALA F“ ATASOOSA xmuzs ' . TAGOROA E 5 ' . vxrom A ' E ,- GOUAD - u v E5 S5-I-Lj[)\{ Q _ . r1.‘ cuwwn ‘ . 2 ' 0mm LA SALLE uutfisn‘ W; % _ REFUGIO ' i OAK / | PATRICK) I? t wane ouvm. NUEC / T ' § KLEBERG ZAPATA m‘ ganooxs amasov , I; - o ’ s {O ’ _/ sum: - ' WILLACY HIDIwO l 0 / . CAMERON flfiflfiiifln 0f 79x04 11- flucliaw fir; flaead Area I Includes the Panhandle Wheat, Canadian River Grazing, High Plains Cotton, Rolling Plains, High Plains, No-rth-central Grazing and West Cross Timbers Farming areas. Area II Includes the Grand Prairie, Blackland Prai- rie and southern part of the Post-Oak areas. Area III Includes the Northeast Sandy Lands, Piney Woods Lumbering, northern part of Post- Oak and Coast Prairie areas. Area IV Includes the Trans-Pecos, Edwards Plateau Grazing, Upper Rio Grande Valley, Rio Grande Plains, Lower Rio Grande Valley and Corpus Christi Cotton areas. ___,__-~ aovm _ cuaaanson ZR aaavas JEFF DAVIS \fi. FRESIDIO l HUOSPETH V. THE 37 AUCTIONS IN OTHER OPERATING BASED on THE RECQR SANITARY COMMlssw MAN HANSFORD OCHILTREE LIPSCOMB 0R5 HUTCHIN- ROBERTS HENPHILL SON -—-_--_-- YER CARSON GRAY QA DALL STRONG .-__, oc-j- SWISHER _ BRISOOE . HALL R WHEELER ___ L. LFl-I. T HILD- 35g . nagaman ' 1 m.’ _ FLOYD nonav cowna \--\ ° romo , uaocn cnosev a-i-in evnn GARZA xanr ' T aoaoen HOWARD MITCHELL LWALL SCURRY i FISHER |_-1o—-- ‘ QR noun _ n L GER ‘ . ' ' CLAY - xnox an on ARCHER _ DICKENS _ nuns ’ 57°"? k HASKELL, CROCKETT UTTON T” a1}, ’ ' ' VAL venoe \ aowaaos <15?‘ Frwél; . 1 i» i i time STUDY. § ilIvasTocK m L._I_ 5? KINNEY ' A UNNBS ‘COLEMAN . 4 CONCH _M<:cuI.L.ocv-1_ safl s 0 EEN ' _ ‘ ABA l. scne ICHER MENARO ‘ ‘ _ MASON , LLANO . S MAVERICK CALLAHAN. AQTEAND y’! WILBAR- ‘ WICHITA I o0 & .GRAYSON . FANNIN LAMAR MONQUE 1 T KAUF- ‘ MAN ZANDT S J0 son- fins -——-- 8 HENDKRaI . Pm ' ' k nooo \ ennn \;p,»° \. N- GQANCH . _ Anoaion A . MQO . HQ FRsE1Eona/_ _I . - McLE N s n . MILL‘ ‘ \ . LEO’ W” ORYELL - . FALLS nnoison “A? DELTA o Q I Q 9 O ' z m . __\'-' 3 a ' , x t "R°°"' YOUNG ' a n . DENTON - coeun Ilnunr new? g noaron- ’ 8 g . . - ' ' _ _ ' Y ' . --——-' - - - 1331i AINS- ' mmon . ' wooo _uPsnuR. - was $"'~°KE\-' stamens "I-%. PARKER TARRA 1' wafi l’ A ~ FORD ' v ~ L_. ‘ A AS --- - LAW BE L L x. R 0 8 ‘ I 11uw Q E CASS o I 2 ' . HAR§ON E % _ PAN.OLA . I , MILK NAVQO GEE. .L—. ' sue m: NAOOG- _ o s ' W é E I \s“°'" ANGELINA ' ' - .aa" a P08 \.rvQa g W aunnar -\ / . MILAM ' m . WALKER ' RA ‘Y'“"*"S°" ~ / ‘s. \.\-\..._-\.::."... .i-—- _ KWLE _ \".~. _ Q BURLESO g _ “mo.” - I . “LE2; fil-ANCO T ‘\ E WASHM- _ ‘nonvsonanv- ounce ' . s . K . ' ' . w ERTY . - 8A5, P» - 4 _ ‘fl Jeaeaxon _ KER“ _ HAY-M 8/ AUSTIN a’ . "Nuns. menu/n. . FAYE& ‘ ; ‘ enm- l ' X _ COMAL CALD ELL . ~ DU" REM- . BANOERA - ‘ - ‘ ‘ I ‘COL ADO roar\‘ o‘; - ' °”‘°"/- I ' aano '\ o L a - _ . gaXAR -GONZQLES/'\LMCA \_ /.__. uvAuva MEDINA - QQ . wH RTon BRAZORIA _/ wuaso ‘ A - .0 \ . "'_‘—" '. ‘ ‘ JACKSO Y T ORDTD. ZAVALA F“ , ATASCOSA nARnes I View 4- ‘G _ ‘ _ - coemo - ._ l. ‘ . cnuvoun unnrr LA SALLE ‘mrteul a _ REFUGIO. L . OAK / _ _ , SAN PATRIOIO I? ouvm. I NUEC / z ' E nuzaenc i '3 ZAPATA . ‘I'M ganoons manaov , l noes . J - l \ l STARR WEBB ~ju—-—o WILLACY _ ZHIDAbGOI . Ac CAMERON Table 10. Percentage of livestock sold by types of sellers and percen ‘l: 26 BULLETIN 732, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 9. Horses: Percentage sold by class and by areas, 1948 (36 auctio i‘ Clasfses Areas _ 0 _ horses 1 11 111 l 1v l Statef Percent Draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.5 10.6 .8 1.7 Light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.4 57.5 70.7 83.8 Colts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.9 5.5 8.8 6.9 Mules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.2 26.4 19.7 7.6 All classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Because of relatively small numbers sold, proportions horses in different classes are subject to considerable variatip Table 9 shows a minor emphasis on draft horses and m I’ used primarily for heavy Work purposes and major emph on light horses used for riding and light Work. Colts are r atively unimportant except in Area IV. Types of Sellers and Buyers Over half of each species of livestock is sold by farmer ; ranchmen and the proportion is even greater for hogs a horses (Table 10). The only other important type of seller the livestock dealer. These two major groups, producers j dealers, furnished over 90 percent of all consignments of catt sheep, hogs, horses and mules. Auction operators sell relativ small numbers of livestock at their own auction and operat of other auctions are also relatively unimportant consignors; Proportions on the buying side are quite different. Ranchm" and farmers are the major buyers of cattle and hogs, who dealers are the major buyers of sheep and horses. Purcha by order buyers and packers are also important except ’ packers buy few horses. Some of the livestock purchases s; bought by types of buyers, Texas, 1948 (36 auctions) Types of sellers Cattle Sheep Hogs Horses A and “ buyers Seller Buyer Seller Buyer Seller l Buyer Seller I Bu“ Percent Ranchman. farm- er or feeder. . 55. 8 43. Livestock dealer or truck buyer 34.5 21. Operator of this auction....... 3.1 3. Auctioneer or employees... . 5 Operator of other auction....... 4.1 Order buyer. .. . .9 Packer . . . . . . . . . .9 13. Other . . . . . . . . . . .2 . All types . . . . . . . 100.0 100. 59. 34. 31 79 31 16. 2 l 17. 15. 1001 m omwnw m c m m c¢Q5L Q F c m amaab h Q 3 Q bhhkm N 5 L 5 10o. 100. LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS IN TEXAS 27 ii Figure 7. Dairy and mixed breeds, such as these sold at Decatur, make up a large part of the volume in Texas auctions. order buyers undoubtedly go to packers While others go to feeders. The dealers’ livestock go to packers, feeders, or are i resold through the central markets or other auctions. The relative importance of stocker and feeder animals moving through auctions, as compared with slaughter livestock, is also emphasized by Table 10. Practically all the purchases made by the greatest volume buyers, farmers, ranchmen and feeders, g- are necessarily stocker and feeder animals. It is logical to as- sume, also, that the next largest buying group, livestock dealers, handle more stocker and feeders than they do slaughter live- stock. Thus, the auction company is placed in the role of a middleman mainly functioning as a gathering and distributing point for stocker and feeder livestock. It does not indicate clearly, however, the function performed by the livestock deal- er because the source and destination of his livestock are not known. ‘ Auction operators in Area I are characterized by a relatively high proportion of dealer activity, particularly on the selling side. About two-fifths of all cattle and two-thirds of all sheep were consigned by dealers. Producers in comparison consigned slightly more cattle but only a third as many sheep as the dealers. This indicates that dealers do a considerable amount of buying at the farm or ranch for resale at auction, particu- larly sheep. 28 BULLETIN 732, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Auction operators consign more livestock than they purchase i in this area, probably by means of country buying in advance § of the sale. Packers and order buyers, on the other hand, A purchase far more than they consign since they use the auction ‘ as a source for the particular livestock they need. Heavy’ - producer buying at these auctions indicates that auctions pro- I vide a market for the purchaser of stocker cattle. Farmers and ranchmen consigned about two-thirds of the ~ cattle and horses, nine-tenths of the sheep and four-fifths of ~' the hogs at auctions in Area II. Livestock dealers provided " most of the remaining consignments. Auction operators con- _ signed substantial numbers of cattle but very few of the other i" species. Farmers and ranchmen were the major purchasers of cattle, but their volume Was about equal to that of dealers, packers v and order buyers combined. Auction operators were also sub- i * stantial purchasers of cattle. Over half the sheep Were pur- chased by farmers and ranchmen and 28 percent were purchased by dealers. Surprisingly small percentages Went to packers and i order buyers, probably because sheep volume was too small at _* these auctions to bring a normal representation of sheep buyers. Major purchasers of hogs Were farmers and "ranchmen and 5 packers in about equal proportions. It is likely that the packers A Were purchasing the heavier types while the farmers con- centrated on feeder pigs and stocker animals. Hogs bought by j order buyers could be for packers or for stocker purposes and the same would be true of purchases by auction operators. Livestock dealers were the major horse buyers. These pur- o chases were probably speculative since the demand for horses - and mules is neither strong nor steady at most Texas points. i, The only other important buyers of horses were farmers and i ranchmen. The major consignors of livestock to auctions in Area IIIJ were ranchmen and farmers, with livestock dealers the second. most important group except in the case of sheep. Sheep con- 1, signments other than by producers were unimportant in size. ;~ About two-thirds of all cattle were consigned by producers; and three-fourths of all hogs were consigned by this group. i This indicates the reliance ofthe auctions on farmer business. ~¥ The more speculative dealer consignments are substantial in ’ number but far less important than the movement from the _; farm. Purchases by farmers and ranchmen of the major livestock 7 classes, cattle and hogs, were less than a third of total sales. I Livestock dealer purchases exceeded those of farmers for cattle '_ and were nearly as great for hogs. This indicates either are LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS IN TEXAS l 29 small stocker movement or else a stocker movement handled in part through dealers. Purchases by packers and order buy- jf: ers were next in importance, indicating some sales of slaughter cattle at auctions. The central markets probably handle the bulk of the slaughter cattle direct without previous sale through an auction. Farmers and ranchmen consigned about two-thirds of the cattle, four-fifths of the sheep, nine-tenths of the hogs, and two- thirds of the horses sold at auctions in Area IV. The livestock Q dealers were next in importance of consignments for all types y; of livestock. Purchases of livestock by farmers and ranchmen were less proportionally than in other areas, but they were still the l_ most important single class of buyers for cattle, sheep and hogs. Order buyers were the second most important group for cattle and were of equal importance with livestock dealers 1T as buyers of sheep and hogs. Purchases by packers were im- .» portant and it is likely that much of the order buying Was done for packers. Speculative buying by dealers Was apparently less _ than in other areas, and both consignments and purchases by auction operators were of minor importance. Cattle Sales by Weight and by the Head Figur 8. Three-fourths of the cattle moved through the Texas auctions his cutting chute permits examination and sorting of sheep prior to sale at San Angelo. Courtesy of the West Texas Live- stock Weekly. 30 BULLETIN 732, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 11. Sale of cattle at auction by classes, by method of sale, by areas,“ (36 auctions) ‘ Areas Classes . of I 11 III IV - cattle . Weight Head Weight l Head Weight l Head Weight Head weigh Percent l Dairy cows . . . . . . . . .. 74.6 25.4 86.5 13.5 76.7 23.3 78.8 21.2 782*" Beer cows . . . . . . . . . .. 92.8 7.2 89.8 10.2 79.2 20.8 91.7 8.3 89.5‘. Steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90.9 9.1 94.4 5.6 85,2 14.8 97.4 2.6 91.7, Heifers . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79.6 20.4 91.6 8.4 64.1 35.9 97.6 2.4 81.s= Heifers and steers.... 82.0 18.0 80.7 19.3 61.6 38.4 70.8 29.2 79.683 Calves . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86.5 13.5 90.0 10.0 83.8 16.2 95.7 4.3 88.1 Bulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 84.8 15.2 91.2 8.8 79.1 20.9 94.9 5.0 88.0 Dairy pairsl . . . . . . . . .. 8.1 91.9 .5 99.5 .2 99.8 .3 99.7 4.4 Beefpairsl . . . . . . . . . .. .0 100.0 .1 99.9 .4 99.6 4.6 95.4 1.6. All classes . . . . . . . . . .. 80.5 19.5 71.3 28.7 68.2 , 31.8 70.1 29.9 75.5»: 1A cow and calf. were sold by weight and the other fourth by the head (Tabl, 11). Percentages varied by classes of cattle with sales by weigi ranging from 92 percent for steers down to 2 percent f, beef pairs. Sales by the head were predominant onl pairs and dairy pairs. Most farmers consigning cattle to an auction sell everythin except dairy and beef pairs by weight because they are if qualified to estimate weights and would not know what pri to accept. Dealers usually can estimate the weight of the cattl They may sell by Weight and if the price is unsatisfactory, the same animals by the head or sell first by the head and thh by Weight. Sometimes dealers buy cattle on the auction by 1J1 head or by weight and later in the da the other method of sale. Even With this speculative selling by the head, beef a dairy pairs account for over half the sales by the head (Ta 12). All other classes were sold by the head to some exte Table 12. Relative importance of classes of cattle b (36 auctions) y sell the same cattle L y method! of sale by are y for beg . s Areas Classes ’ of I II III IV _ cattle ‘ Weight Head Weight I Head Weight I Head Weight Head Wei| Percent f» Dairycows . . . . . . . . . .. 1.8 2.5 2.6 1.0 3.6 2.3 3.3 2.1 2." Beefcows . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.1 2.6 20.6 5.7 17.6 9.9 20.7 4.4 13.? Steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.7 17.7 19.6 2.9 11.0 4.1 21.8 1.4 31; Heifers . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.4 18.4 12.0 2.7 8.8 10.5 10.7 .6 14_ Heifersandsteers.... 5.7 5.2 2.9 1.7 .9 1.2 4.4 4.2 I Calves . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.5 14.5 39.6 11.0 54.1 22.4 32.3 3.4 3 Bulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.4 1.0 3.1 .8 3.9 2.2 5.2 .7 * Dairy pairsl . . . . . . . . .. .4 17.0 .9 14.2 .0 16.5 .0 5.4 Beefpairsl . . . . . . . . . .. .0 21.1 .0 60.0 .1 30.9 1.6 77.8 '.. All classes . . . . . . . . . .. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100,» 1A cow and calf. LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS IN TEXAS 31 Figure 9. The scale face exposed to the public view inspires confidence at the Amarillo auction in this carlot sale. Sales by weight were roughly proportional to the gross sales by classes except for beef and dairy pairs which rarely sold by weight. Eighty-one percent of the cattle were sold by weight at auc- tions in Area I and the remaining 19 percent were sold by the head. Dairy pairs and beef pairs were the only classes sold predominantly by the head (Table 11). Some stocker cattle in all classes were sold by the head while slaughter and feeder cattle tended to be sold by weight. Auctions in Area II sold cattle predominantly by Weight. As in other areas, dairy pairs and beef pairs were the major ex- ception. Beef pairs made up 6O percent of all sales by the head while dairy pairs amounted to 14 percent and calves about 11 percent. Other classes included very few sales of this type. Relative numbers of the various cattle classes are shown by the percentages each class comprised of the total sales by weight. »- Calves made up about two-fifths of all sales of this type and both beef cows and steers made up a fifth each. Heifers in- cluded over half of the remaining fifth. More than two-thirds of the cattle sold at auctions in Area III were sold by weight (Table 11). Practically all beef pairs and dairy pairs were sold by the head but all other cattle classes were sold predominantly by weight. It is common practice at some auctions to sell some cattle by weight or by the head for the original consignor and resell the animal by the other method for the purchaser. This type of speculation accounts for some of the variation in methods of sale for cattle. Sales of cattle in Area IV were 70 percent by weight and 30 32 BULLETIN 732, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 13. Sales 0f sheep at auction by classes, by method of sale, by area (36 auctions) " Areas Classes of I II III IV sheep Weight Head Weight l Head Weight I Head Weight Head Percent Ewes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.6 74.4 49.1 50.9 85.8 14.2 65.8 34.2 Rams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56.2 43.8 11.5 88.5 20.5 79.5 65.2 34.8 Ewes and lambs . . . . .. .0 100.0 40.3 59.7 .0 100.0 .3 99.7 Wethers . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.7 66.3 71.6 28.4 100.0 .0 99.5 .5 Ewe lambs . . . . . . . . . .. 11.4 88.6 38.3 61.7 .0 100.0 81.7 18.3 Ramlambs.......... 6.2 93.8 100.0 .0 100.0 .0 96.0 4.0 Mixedlambs . . . . . . . .. 71.0 29.0 68.9 31.1 82.5 17.5 90.4 9.6 Goats . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.9 69.1 7.5 92.5 8.4 91.6 25.6 74.4 All classes . . . . . . . . . .. 32.8 67.2 42.2 57.8 63.9 36.1 72.7 27.3 percent by the head. All classes of cattle sold predominan by Weight except beef and dairy pairs. Beef pairs made up 0 three-fourths of all sales by the head and the remainder ~ scattered among the various classes. Calves, steers and =_ cows made up about three-fourths of all sales by weight. Sheep Sales by Weight and by the Head Sales of sheep by weight and by the head were more vari by class than those of cattle (Table 13). Over two-thirds of g mixed lambs, ram lambs and rams sold by Weight. Over thirds of the goats and almost all the ewe and lamb pairs s,’ by the head. Ewes, Wethers and ewe lambs had more 40 percent falling in each of the sale categories. Usually stoc sheep were sold by the head while feeders and slaughter t g. were sold by weight. Speculative purchases for resale by anotf method of sale were less common for sheep than for cattleif About two-thirds of the sheep at auctions in Area I sold by the head. As in the case of cattle, the method of was affected greatly by the relative suitability of the ani .5 for stocker, feeder and slaughter purposes. Slaughter ani tend to sell by Weight to a greater extent than stocker feeder animals. Sheep sales in Area II were divided fairly evenly bet ,§ sales by weight and sales by the head with the latter me somewhat more prevalent. Mixed lambs, ewes and ewe made up about four-fifths of the sales by weight while g‘ ewes, ewe lambs and mixed lambs ranked in that order of is portance for sales by the head. On the whole, slaughter :j mals were sold by weight while stocker animals were sold, the head. 5 Ewes, Wethers, ram lambs and mixed lambs sold largely,’ weight in Area III. Ewe lambs and goats sold almost exclusi by the head, while ewe and lamb pairs and rams varied in z method of sale. " f { ,1 z LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS IN TEXAS 33 Sales of sheep by weight included 73 percent of all sales in Area IV. Wethers and lambs sold almost entirely by Weight together with about two-thirds of the ewes and rams, while pairs and goats usually sold by the head. I The areas varied widely in the relative importance of the e individual sheep class by method of sale (Table 14). For sales ble 14. Relative imp-ortance of classes o-f sheep by method of sale by areas, 1948 (36 auctions) A Areas Classes - of 1 11 111 1v State sheep ' a Weight Heed Weight l Heed Weight l Heed Weight l Heed Weight l Heed Percent a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.7 20.9 30.1 22.3 39.2 11.4 33.7 I 46.7 30.0 31.6 .9 .3 .6 3.1l 2.3 15.7 1.5 2.1 1.4 1.2 Iandlambs . . . . .. .0 11.9 5.5 6.0 .0 31.0 .0 17.9 .1 14.3 hers . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.2 12.7 3.2 2.4l 1.2 .0 1.1 .0 3.5 7.1 lambs . . . . . . . . . .. .3 1.1 17.4 20.5 .0 .5 1.2 .7 1.2 1.4 lambs........... .1 .4 .4 .0’ 1.3 .0 1.2 .1 1.0 .3 adlambs . . . . . . . .. 27.4 5.4 34.0 11.2 54.9 29.7 59.2 16.7 52.7 10.3 43.4 47.3 3.3 34.0 1.1 20.7 2.1 15.3 10.1 33.3 [asses . . . . . . . . . .. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 0 100.0 n; ; by weight, mixed lambs were the most important class in p Areas II, III and IV, and for the State as a whole, while goats were most important in Area I. For sales by the head, goats were most important in Areas I and II while pairs were most i common in Area III and ewes in Area IV. For the state, goats and ewes were the major classes sold by the head. steel posts at the Sealy auction. Courtesy of the Sealy News. Areas Classes ; ~ hof 1 ‘ 11 ‘ 111 ‘ 1v ‘ sum; ogs » 1 _ I Weight ‘ Head‘ Weight ‘ Head‘ Weight ‘ Head‘ Weight ‘ Head‘ Weight ‘I Percent Breedingsowsandgilts 11.6 3.6 3.6 8.5 .9 8.2l 2.8 4.0 2.7 Hogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.4 16.7 74.1 23.5 69.1 35.1 77.5 6.9 72.7 Feederpigs . . . . . . . . .. 10.1 78.6 21.5 66.8 29.7 56.5 17.1 86.5 23.; ,B08IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.9 1.1 .8 1.2 .3 .3 2.6 .6 . All classes . . . . . . . . . .. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ‘ 100.0‘ 100.0 100.0 100.0 34 BULLETIN 732, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 15. Sales of hogs at auction by classes, by method of sale, by areas, 1‘ (36 auctions) ‘ Areas Classes _ of 1 11 111 ‘ 1v sun ; hogs Weight ‘ Head Weight ‘ Head Weight ‘ Head‘ Weight ‘ Head‘ Weight‘ 3 Percent Breeding sows and gilts 84. 7 15.3 54. 6 45. 4 31 . 8 68. 2 69. 7 30. 3 56. 7 Hogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88.4 11.6 90.0 10.0 88.9 11.1 97.3 2.7 91.2 Feeder pigs . . . . . . . . .. 18.0 82.0 4718 52.2 68.2 31.8 38.6 61.4 52.6 Boats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85.7 14.3 64.9 35.1 85.3 14.7 93.4 6.6 85.2 All classes. . .. . . . . . .. 63.1 136.9 74.0 26.0 80.4 19.6 76.5 23.5 76.6 Hog Sales by Weight. and by the Head About three-fourths of thehogs were sold by weight (Table L 15). Feeder pigs and breeding sows and gilts were divided , almost equally into sales by weight and by the head While i other classes sold predominantly by weight. Since numbers i of boars and breeding sows and gilts sold at auctions are rel- . atively small, 73 percent of sales by weight were classed as I “hogs” and 23 percent as feeder pigs (Table 16). Sales by the _ head were 70 percent feeder pigs and 23 percent “hogs.” . Slaughter hogs were predominately purchased by weight and §_ stocker and feeder hogs were sold in part by the head. There 2 was a considerable amount of speculative buying and selling by both methods. Hogs sold predominantly by weight in Area I with the excep- Q tion of feeder pigs. Most of the hogs that sold by weight were l. probably destined for slaughter, while a larger proportion of the classes sold by the head such as feeder pigs were destined ; for stocker or feeder purposes. About three-fourths of the hogs in Area II were sold by 5 weight and the other fourth was sold by the head. Two-thirds s of those sold by the head were feeder pigs and most of the l, others Were in the slaughter "hog class. The sales by weight i were primarily slaughter hogs with feeder pigs as the next . Table 16. Relative importance of classes of hogs by method of sale by areas, A (36 auctions) LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS IN TEXAS 35 ,Figure 11. Pickup trucks and car trailers bring most of the livestock to the Temple auction. most important class. Breeding sows and gilts and boars were relatively unimportant in numbers. , Hogs were sold at auctions in Area III almost entirely by Weight. Breeding sows and gilts were an exception to this 1, tendency but they were relatively unimportant in numbers. In the other areas, most feeder pigs sold by the head but this was not true in this area. The distribution of sales by Weight and by the head for hogs in Area IV were very similar to those for cattle and sheep ’ in that about three-fourths of all sales were by Weight. As in other areas, feeder pigs were the only hog class selling mostly by the head. Most classes other than feeder pigs were destined for slaughter and such sales tend to follow central market prices. Since these prices are quoted by weight, consignors usually i specify this method of sale to permit comparison of prices. Horse Sales by Weight and by the Head Sales of horses at auctions were 77 percent by the head and 23 percent by Weight. Most of the sales were light horses and = mules used for Work or riding purposes. The older animals of i; these types together with smaller numbers of heavy draft horses g Were sold by weight, primarily for processing into dog food, tankage and the like. Horse sales are a minor part of the ac- a tivities at most auctions and both sellers and buyers are rel- p, atively scarce. lArea Served by Auctions v. “my. . ‘p. .- - Most consignments of livestock to auctions came from nearby farms and ranches. Almost half of the cattle and over half the other classes of livestock were transported less than 25 miles. On the average, cattle were transported the greatest and hogs 36 BULLETIN 732, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 17. Percentage 0f livestock transported by species and by distance; Texas, 1948 (36 auctions) Mileage Sellers Buyers intervals V Cattle l Sheep l Hogs l Horses Cattle l Sheep l Hogs l Horses. Percent 0— 24 . . . . . . .. 44.9 51.4 70.9 59.8 29.1 38.3 44.4 38.1 25- 49 . . . . . . .. 18.6 17.1 22.8 22.3 12.2 11.3 14.2 14.7 50— 99 . . . . . . .. 15.8 14.8 5.3 11.0 16.7 13.6 11.7 19.6" 100-199 . . . . . . .. 11.9 9.0 .8 6.9 18.8 6.6 19.3 26.7 , 200—299 . . . . . . .. 4.2 4.9 .3 .0 8.1 13.5 8.5 .9 . 300-399 . . . . . . .. 3.3 2.7 .0 .0 4.0 6.9 1.8 .0" 400&over..... 1.3 .1 .1 .0 10.6 9.8 .1 .0. Total.......... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 the shortest distance, as shown in Table 17. Auctions are f cated at so many points in the State that most potential con v signors are located within 50 miles of an auction and a verj large percentage are within 25 miles. The livestock shipped thf greatest distances were probably owned by speculators whcq} anticipated higher prices at the more distant auctions. o For the 36 auctions, the purchased livestock were transporte longer distances than the consigned livestock. The consignmen came to the auction from nearby farms and a sizable proportio of the stocker animals returned to these farms. Slaughte. livestock were sometimes killed locally, but large numbers wer taken to packing plants at the major livestock centers. Feede livestock were usually diverted to feeding areas in distan states. The greatest diversity of movement was for cattle wit‘ about a third remaining Within 25 miles of the auction bu_ about a fifth moving more than 100 miles. Substantial number of sheep were moved more than 25 miles also, with about ha g going more than 50 miles. Hogs Were transported mostly leg than 300 miles which would indicate that the major movemen of any distance was the important packing areas of Fort Wort San Antonio and Houston. The purchasers of horses rarely cam from a distance of more than 200 miles. 5; The auctions in Area I received consignments of cattle froth a Wide areawith only 28 percent coming from the area With' 25 miles of the auctions (Table 18). Consignments from 25-45 Table 18. Percentage of livestock transported by species and by distan Area I, 1948 (9 auctions) Mileage Sellers Buyers intervals Cattle l Sheep l Hogs l Horses Cattle l Sheep l Hogs l H Percent 0- 24 . . . . . . .. 28.3 62.2 79.9 79.3 23.1 59.4 59.0 27., 25- 49 . . . . . . .. 18.2 13.3 11.0 13.8 7.2 15.4 16.0 18.; 50— 99 . . . . . . .. 19.8 17.2 6.8 .0 19.8 24.0 22.0 55. 100-199 . . . . . . .. 18.8 6.9 2.3 6.9 17.7 .0 3.0 . 200—299 . . . . . . .. ,7.0 .4 .0 .0 7.7 .0 .0 4.; 300-399 . . . . . . .. 5.9 .0 .0 0 6.5 .0 .0 . 400&over..... .0 .0 .0 0 .0 .0 .0 ._. Total . . . . . . . . .. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.“ LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS IN TEXAS 37 i? 50-99 and 100-199-mile areas Were about equal and consignments p were substantial up to 400 miles. Sheep, hogs, horses and mules originated closer to the auctions than cattle, with horses coming the shortest and sheep the longest distances on the average. Purchased livestock were transported longer distances than j consigned livestock. It is especially noteworthy that over 18 percent of the cattle were shipped more than 400 miles. This involves a feeder movement almost exclusively since the major packing areas for Texas slaughter cattle are Within 400 miles of the auctions in Area I. The substantial percentages of all species remaining within a relatively short distance of the auctions probably represented stocker livestock purchased by " farmers or by dealers for ultimate resale at other auctions or to farmers. A large part of the consignments of livestock in Area II originated within 25 miles of the auctions. This can be at- tributed to the relative abundance of auctions in this area and the consequent availability of the auctions to the average farmer and ranchman. About a third of the cattle and about a fourth of the hogs, but less than a tenth of thesheep and horses, were ‘T transported over 25 miles (Table 19)., Purchases of livestock in this area were characterized by relatively small percentages which were transported long dis- tances. This is attributable to its location in or close to the cities containing the major packing plants. This area is not a big supplier of feeder animals and the stocker livestock is - ~ - w... Figure 12. Shed roofs over pens, like the one shown above at the Mt. Pleasant auction, are common in Area III. 38 BULLETIN 732, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 19. Percentage of livestock transported by species and by dista \ Area II, 1948 (10 Auctions) ‘ Mileage Sellers Buyers intervals Cattle i Sheep i Hogs iHorses Cattle i Sheep i Hogs iHori Percent 0- 24 . . . . . . .. 65.1 94.9 74.4 91.4 32.8 73.0 41.4 25-49 . . . . . . .. 22.4 3.3 19.7 6.7 21.6 19.9> 9.0 50- 99 . . . . . . .. 9.5 1.3 5.8 1.9 12.8 .6 10.9 100-199 . . . . . . .. .0 .5 .1 .0 23.7 1.3 21.3 200-299 . . . . . . .. .1 .0 .0 .0 7.9 5.2 17.3 300-399 . . . . . . .. .2 .0 .0 .0 7 .0 .1 400&over..... .7 .0 .0 .0 .5 .0 .0 Total . . . . . . . . .. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 retained in the area. Movements of cattle and hogs were siderable compared with sheep and horses. f A large proportion of the consigned livestock in Area came from a distance of less than 25 miles (Table 20). N '_ bers of sheep and horses Were small, which probably accoul. for the fact that none of the consignments of these spec came from over 100 miles. Two-thirds of the major speci sold at these auctions, cattle and hogs, originated Within g first 24 miles; Shipments coming 25 to 49 miles amoun f to 16 percent of the total for cattle and 24 percent for sh Shipments from longer distances were relatively unimport Purchased livestock were moved greater distances, but sh“ and horses Were purchased by buyers living within 200 m" of the auctions. The proportion of livestock remaining wit _ 25 miles of the auction‘ were less than 50 percent for ca and hogs. This indicates a considerable stocker movement f nearby farms but also substantial shipments to slaughter, -; feed lots, and speculative purchases for resale elsewhere in t State. i“ Consignments of livestock to the auctions in Area IV ca from much longer distances on the average than in Areas. and III. Almost a third of the cattle and more than a thlrdg Table 20. Percentage of livestock transported by species and by dist Area III, 1948 (9 auctions) ; Mileage Sellers Buyers intervals Cattle i Sheep i Hogs i Horses Cattle i Sheep i Hogs Percent 0- 24 . . . . . . .. 70.0 82.3 69.6 80.4 49.5 57.1 44.8 25- 49 . . . . . . .. 15.9 6.6 24.3 11.6 18.4 10.0 15.6 50- 99 . . . . . . .. 7.2 11.1 4.2 8.0 12.0 .2 7.7 100-199 . . . . . . .. 2.6 .0 1.2 .0 12.7 32.7 23.5 200-299 . . . . . . .. 3.3 .0 .5 .0 3.6 .0 7.4 j, 300-399 . . . . . . .. .3 .0 .0 .0 .4 .0 .8 .’ 400&0ver..... .7 .0 .2 .0 3.4 .0 .2 .I Total . . . . . . . . .. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 l g LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS IN TEXAS 39 Table 21. Percentage of livestock transported by species and by distance, Area IV, 1948 (8 auctions) Mileage Sellers Buyers intervals Cattle i Sheep ~ Hogs ‘Horses Cattle i Sheep l Hogs ‘Horses Percent 0- 24 . . . . . . .. 54.9 44.2 67.4 35.6 27.8 28.8 44.0 22.9 25-49 . . . . . . .. 16.6 19.7 26.2 34.4 14.2 9.5 15.9 9.6 50— 99 . . . . . . .. 17.6 13.9 6.3 17.2 15.6 9.9 17.3 21.0 100-199 . . . . . . .. 9.2 10.5 .1 12.8 20.3 9.2 13.2 45.6 200-299 . . . . . . .. .7 7.5 .0 .0 13.6 19.2 4.4 .9 300-399 . . . . . . .. 1.0 4.1 .0 .0 3.4 9.9 5.2 .0 400&over..... .0 .1 .0 .0 5.1 13.5 .0 .0 ll . . . . . . . . .. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 0 100.0 : the sheep were transported more than 50 miles (Table 21). s anches are relatively large and auctions are farther apart in _ his area. _ Purchased livestock were transported longer distances than Iwere consigned livestock. Over half the sheep and over 40 per- §€Icent of the cattle were transported over 100 miles. Hogs were ransported the shortest distances on the average. Slaughter Qlivestock would necessarily travel substantial distances to reach lany of the major packing plants. Feeding areas are even more distant from this area. Stocker cattle travel the shortest dis- tances but many of the ranchmen patrons of these auctions glive at considerable distances. Types of Transportation p; Most of the livestock consigned to Texas auctions are delivered jby trailers and various types of trucks, including pickup, bob- Ytail and trailer trucks. The important role of trucks and trailers, which are considered trucks in this study, is the transportation ;_of all types of livestock to the 36 auctions is shown in Table g22. A small number of cattle, about 3 percent of the total, Table 22. Percentage of consignments by types of transportation by species ’ of livestock by areas, 1948 Species of livestock by areas Rail Truck Foot II Total 1 Percent Area I . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.2 96.6 .2 100.0 Area II . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .2 99.8 . . . . .. 100.0 Area III . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.2 95.4 2.4 100.0 Area IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.2 86.9 .9 100.0 State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.0 96.3 .7 100.0 Area I . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .2 99.8 . . . . .. 100.0 Area II . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .0 100.0 . . . . .. 100.0 Area III . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .0 100.0 . . . . .. 100.0 Area IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .0 100.0 . . . . .. 100.0 State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .1 99.9 . . . . .. 100.0 State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 . . . . . . 100.0 tate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 100.0 . . . . .. 100.0 40 BULLETIN 732, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION were transported to auctions by rail, and a still smaller nu .3 ber of cattle, less than 1 percent, were driven on foot to t auction markets. Rail shipments of sheep to Texas auctio were insignificant and none were “trailed in.” One hundr percent of the hogs and horses and mules were brought in 1 truck. . The preponderant use of truck transportation may be. a tributed largely to the fact that most livestock traveled re' tively short distances when moving to auctions. This fact w‘ indicated in previous tables. Another contributing factor w, the usual small size of consignments. Most consignments go' to the sample auctions were less than carload lots. Other r1 sons for the common use of trucks for hauling livestock be found in the general characteristics of truck transportati; Trucks provide a flexible schedule which may be adapted Y the convenience of the shipper. In many cases, trucks 1 faster than alternative methods of transportation, and requj less handling of the livestock enroute. _ It is likely that trucks provide the most economical mea of getting livestock to market for the average producer. It g a common occurrence to see a farmer or ranchman drive i i an auction with a trailer load of calves or hogs hitched :1 his family automobile. He usually brings his wife and fam to town with him, making it possible to do the Weekly shoppi attend to other business, and sell livestock in one trip. Unp such conditions, it would be difficult to appraise the mone _ cost of hauling the livestock to market, but it is likely that cost is negligible. SUMMARY This study describes the livestock auctions in Texas , terms of the physical characteristics and the volume and sou of livestock handled. The data cover the calendar year 19, Information was obtained from 37 of the Texas auctions loca in four major geographical areas. The data were analyzed the State as a Whole except where differences in type of liq. stock or methods of operation necessitated comparisons areas. ‘ More than half the auctions studied were organized bef 1940. A considerable expansion in numbers of auctions j, taken place since the end of World War II. Turnover in ership of these auctions has been rapid. ‘ All but four auctions studied had 20,000 or more square f_ in barn and pens and were subject to supervision by the U; Department of Agriculture. Most of this space was in the 1 area. The pens are largely open. The usual seating capacity was from 200 to 400 persons, LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS IN TEXAS 41 eluding space for buyers, consignors and spectators. Facilities ranged from poor to excellent but were usually sufficiently elaborate to bring replacement costs above $20,000. Conditions of facilities varied widely since there was no effective super- vision by federal, state or local authorities. There Was no particular concentration of sales on any one day in the Week. Staggering of sale days permits buyer at- tendance at several nearby auctions each week. Attendance at auctions was usually heavy, utilizing the seat- ing capacity quite fully at most auctions. All but 10 auction operators estimated average attendance at 300 or more persons. This usually included from 2 to 7 packer buyers, 10 to 30 farmer buyers, more than 10 livestock dealers and a large number of consignors and spectators. The number of each type tend to vary directly with the volume of livestock handled. Auction charges were extremely variable, including both charges by the head and percentage charges. Percentage charges ranged from 2.5 to 5.0 percent and dollar charges ranged from a low of $1.20 per head for all classes to a high of $3.50 per head for butcher bulls. Sampled auctions in Area I had over half the cattle volume, while Area IV had over half the volume of sheep, horses and mules. Volumes of hogs was not concentrated in any one area. The livestock volume was divided quite evenly among the months of the year with peak movements usually occurring in the spring and fall. Consignments were small, averaging under 3 head except for sheep. This is attributable to the patronizing of auctions i by small producers and the custom in Texas of selling most types of livestock in single head lots. Cattle provided the bulk of the sales revenue with sheep second and hogs third. Steers and calves were the major cat- tle classes and ewes and lambs made up the bulk of sheep sales. Over half of each species of livestick Was consigned by farmers and ranchmen, with livestock dealers the second most important ‘group. Ranchmen and farmers are also the major buyers of cattle and hogs while livestock dealers are the major buyers of sheep and horses. About three-fourths of the cattle were sold by Weight and l; the remainder sold by the head. Slightly more than half of the sheep and about three-fourths of the hogs sold by weight while about three-fourths of the horses sold by the head. Most consignments of livestock come from the area close to the auctions With almost half of the cattle and over half the a other classes of livestock transported less than 25 miles. This 42 BULLETIN 732, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION is attributable to the relatively heavy concentration of auct" in the major livestock areas. Purchased livestock tend toT transported somewhat longer distances with about two-thif of the cattle and three-fifths of the sheep transported I than 25 miles. Truck transportation predominates for y’ consigned and purchased livestock. Characteristics of the livestock consignments in each =p are shown in the area tables and are discussed in the t companying text. Differences among the areas are attribu ‘ to the larger ranches in Areas I and IV and the smaller fh in Areas II and III. There are no significant differences am the Texas auctions in methods of buying and selling lives Q . sm-Qn‘: LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS IN TEXAS 43 APPENDIX Livestock auctions operating in Texas, October 1950.* County Name of auction Town Sale day Anderson Palestine LS Auction Palestine Wed. Angelina Huntington Auction Sale Pollok Wed. Austin Sealy Auction Company Sealy Wed. Bailey Muleshoe Livestock Comm. Muleshoe Wed. Bastrop Smithville Livestock Comm. Smithville Thur. Baylor Gilstrap & Shawver Seymour Fri. , Bee Beeville LS Producers Beeville Wed. f - Bee County LS Auction Beeville Mon. t Bell Temple Auction Co. Temple Tue.—-Thur. Bosque Clifton LS Commission Clifton Wed. Walnut Spgs. Auction Sale Walnut Springs Thur. Bowie Texarkana Stockyards Co. Texarkana Daily Owen Brothers H & M Co. Texarkana Fri.—Sat. Brazos Bryan LS Comm. Co. Bryan Wed. Brown Brownwood LS Auction Brownwood Mon.-——Wed. Ead & Cole Comm. Co. Brownwood Thur. Burnet Burnet Commission Co. Burnet Mon. Caldwell Adams Auction Sales Lockhart Thur. Cameron Arroyo Sales Yard San Benito Tue. Camp Pittsburg LS Comm. Co. Pittsburg Wed. Cass Morriss & Son Douglasville Wed. Cherokee Jacksonville Auction Sale Jacksonville Sat. Childress Childress LS Commission Childress Wed. Coleman Coleman LS Auction Coleman Mon. i_ Collingsworth Joe Roundtree Comm. Wellington Mon. - Colorado Columbus LS Comm. Columbus Thur. Comanche McDougal Barn Comanche Sat. Cooke Muenster Auction Barn Muenster Sat. Gainesville Auction Sale Gainesville Wed. Coryell Gatesville Comm. Co. Gatesville Sat. Evant Comm. Co. Evant Thur. : Dallam Rexford LS Comm. Dalhart Fri. ‘ Dallas Carrollton Sales Barn Carrollton Fri. a Dallas Stockyards Co. Dallas Tue. McNalley’s Trading Post Mesquite Sat. Dawson Lamesa Auction Lamesa Mon. DeWitt Cuero LS Comm. Co. Cuero Fri. Eastland Ranger LS Comm. Co. Ranger Fri. Sig Faircloth LS Comm. Eastland Tue. Eastland County LS Exch. Cisco Mon. Ellis Ennis LS Comm. Ennis Wed. Hill Brothers Sales Barn Midlothian Tue. Waxahachie LS Auct. Sales Waxahachie Fri. Erath Stephenville LS Comm. Stephenville Wed. Fayette Schulenburg LS Comm. Schulenburg Wed. Flatonia LS Comm. Flatonia Mon. LaGrange LS Comm. LaGrange Fri. Frio Frio Co. Comm. Co. Pearsall Thur. Gillespie Gillespie Sale Barn Fredericksburg Wed. Gonzales Gonzales LS Comm. Co. Gonzales Sat. Grayson Howe LS Comm. Howe Fri. Denison LS Comm. Denison Mon. Gregg Longview LS Exch. Longview Thur. *Information in the appendix was supplied by the Livestock Sanitary Commission of Texas. 44 BULLETIN 732. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION County Name of auction Town Sale day Guadalupe Seguin LS Auction Seguin Wed. Hale Plainview LS Auction Plainview Tue. Hall Hall County Comm. Co. Memphis Thur. Hamilton Hamilton Comm. Hamilton Tue. Hico Comm. Co. Hico Sat. Hardeman Quanah LS Comm. Quanah Fri. Harris Crosby Auction Crosby Tue. N. Houston Stockyards Houston Fri. Gray Auction Company Hockley Thur Harrison Marshall LS Exch. Marshall Mon Hartley Dalhart Weekly LS Auction Hartley Tue. Hays Green Valley LS & Comm. Company San Marcos Tue. Henderson Athens Comm. Co. Athens Fri. Henderson County Comm. Company Athens Thur Hidalgo Valley LS Yard Mercedes Mon Haggard Sale Yard Pharr Thur Hidalgo Community Sale Barn Edinburg Sat. Hill Hubbard Auction Co. Hubbard Mon Hopkins Sulphur Springs LS Comm. Sulphur Springs Mon Houston Houston County LS Comm. Crockett Mon Crockett LS Auction Crockett Tue. Howard Big Spring LS Auction Big Spring Wed. Jack West Texas Comm. Co. Jacksboro Thur Jasper Jasper LS Comm. Jasper Wed Jefferson Coastal Sale Assn. Beaumont Tue Jim Wells South Texas Auc. & Comm. Alice Tue. Alice LS Comm. Co. Alice Fri. Johnson Cleburne LS Auction Cleburne Sat. Jones Stamford LS Exchange Stamford Wed. Karnes Kenedy LS Exch. Kenedy Thurs. Kerr Kerrville Auc. Kerrville Tue. Kimble Rancher’s Commission Co. Junction Wed Knox Munday LS Auction Munday Tue. Lamar Paris Comm. Co. Paris Thurs. , Lamar County LS Comm. Paris Wed. .1 Lampasas Lometa Comm. Co. Lometa Fri. " Lampasas Comm. Co. Lampasas Wed. Lavaca Hallettsville Auction Co. Hallettsville Mon.—Tue.; Lee Lexington LS Comm. Co. Lexington Sat. g Leon Buffalo LS Comm. Buffalo Sat. 1 Liberty Cleveland Auc. Co. Cleveland Wed ‘ Liberty Dayton Auction Co. Dayton Mon. Limestone Groesbeck LS Comm. Groesbeck Thur. M Mexia LS Auction Mexia Tue. 5 Live Oak Three Rivers LS Comm. Three Rivers Wed. lano Llano Auction Sales Co. lano Wed. i Lubbock Lubbock Auction & Comm. Lubbock Wed.—Thu1{ McCulloch Heart of Texas Comm. Brady Tue. i McLennan MacArthur Comm. Co. Waco Monr-Wedl Leggett LS Auction Waco Mon.—-Fri.. i Mason Mason LS Auction Mason Thur. Matagorda Gulf Coast LS Comm. Palacios Mon. Medina . Hondo LS Auction Co. Hondo Wed. Midland Midland LS Auction Midland Thur. Mills Mills County Comm. Goldthwaite Mon.—-Fr1 Mitchell Mitchell Co. LS Auction Colorado City Sat. Montague Nocona Sale Barn Nocona Thur. a-ww pi~wfl"‘fv LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS IN TEXAS 45 g County Name of auction Town Sale day 5 Montgomery Conroe Comm. Co. Conroe Thur. fj Nacogdoches Nacogdoches LS Exch. Nacogdoches Fri. Navarro Corsicana Auction Co. Corsicana Sat. _ Nolan Webster Auction Co. Sweetwater Wed. ; Nueces Robstown LS Comm. Co. Robstown Thur. Ochiltree Perryton Sale Co. Perryton Fri. Palo Pinto Mineral Wells LS Comm. Mineral Wells Sat. f1 Panola Carthage Auction Sale Carthage Tue. a Polk Livingston LS Exch. Livingston Sat. Potter Amarillo LS Auction Amarillo Mon.——Tue. Texas LS Auction Co. Amarillo Wed. _ Robertson Franklin Auction Co. Franklin Tue.—Fri. -. Calvert LS Auction Calvert Tue. Runnels Ballinger Auction & Comm. Ballinger Tue. Winters Auction Barn Winters Wed. . Rusk Henderson Auc. Sale Barn Henderson Mon. _ Tatum Livestock Auc. Tatum Sat. Nix LS Auction Henderson Mon. H San Saba San Saba County Comm. 7 a Company San Saba Tue. j‘ San Augustine Renfroe LS Auction San Augustine Thur. Shelby Center LS Auction Center Wed. ‘ Sherman Augustine LS Sales Co. Texhoma Mon. . Smith Smith County Auc. Barn Tyler Tue.—Fri. l» Tyler LS Comm. Co. Tyler Wed.~—Sat. Stephens Breckenridge LS Exch. Breckenridge Thur. ‘r Swisher Tulia LS Auction Tulia Fri. f Tarrant Arlington Auction Arlington Thur. Q Crowley Auction Crowley Mon. ‘ Taylor Abilene LS Comm. Abilene Tue.—Thur. Producers Comm. Co. Abilene Mon.—Fri. Titus O. L. Colley Co. Mt. Pleasant Tue. Tom Green Producers LS Auction San Angelo Tue.—Wed. San Angelo Auction San Angelo Mon.—Sat. . Mid-West Feed Yards San Angelo Travis Union Stockyards Austin Daily Austin Stockyards Austin Tue. a y Capitol Auction Co. Austin Mon.—Fri. _ Trinity Groveton LS Comm. Co. Groveton Thur. Tyler Woodville LS Comm. Woodville Tue. Upshur Johnson Comm. Co. Gilmer Tue. Uvalde Uvalde LS Sale Co. Uvalde Sat. Van Zandt Wills Point LS Comm. Co. Wills Point ~ Mom-Thur. Victoria Victoria LS Comm. Co. Victoria Wed. Washington Brenham LS Auction Brenham Tue. Wheeler Mobeetie Sales Co. Mobeetie Sat. Shamrock LS Auction Shamrock Fri. Wichita Burkburnett LS Sale Burkburnett Sat. Wichita LS Auction Wichita Falls Wed. Wilbarger Vernon Stockyards Co. Vernon Thur. k Williamson Taylor Comm. Co. Taylor Wed. Georgetown Comm. Sale Georgetown Mon.—Fri. Wilson Nixon Auc. Sales Barn Nixon Fri. Floresville LS Comm. Co. Floresville Tue. Wise Decatur Auction Decatur Wed. Bridgeport Auction Co. Bridgeport Sat. Wood Jones & Gorman LS Comm. Winnsboro Fri. Young Olney Auction lney Tue. Graham LS Comm. Graham Mon. 46 BULLETIN 732, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Auctions Closed at the Present Time* County Name of auction Town Sale day Anderson Sherwood Cook Palestine Tue. Bastrop Bastrop Livestock Comm. Bastrop Tue. Blanco Blanco Comm. Co. Johnson City Sat. Burleson Caldwell LS Exchange aldwell Tue. Cameron Community Sale Yard Harlingen Tue. Cherokee Cherokee County LS Auc. Jacksonville Thur Collin Anna Comm. Co. Anna Wed. Collingsworth Dodson LS Comm. Dodson Thur Comanche Gustine Sales Co. Gustine Wed Dallas Diamond D Auction Co. Dallas Fri. Pleasant Mound Sales Barn Dallas Fri. Ellis Silver Dollar Midlothlan Tue. Freestone Fairfield LS Auction ' Fairfield Mon H. C. Granberry LS Exch. Fairfield Wed Fannin Bonham Auction Barn Bonham Wed Trenton Auction Sale Trenton Tue. Foard Crowell LS Comm. Crowell Wed Grimes Navasota Auction Navasota Tue. . Hill Hillsboro Auction Co. Hillsboro Thur Howard West Texas LS Auction Big Spring Tue. Kaufman Kemp Comm. Co. Kemp Sat. , Lipscomb Higgins LS Sale Higgins Tue. " McCulloch George Dutton Brady v Sat. Matagorda Gulf Coast LS Exchange Matagorda Qfl’ Wed T Polk Polk County LS Comm. Co. Livingston I’ Mon. 1, Rusk Mt. Enterprise LS Auction Mt. Enterprise Sat. L Tarrant Ft. Worth H & M Comm. Company Fort Worth Mon. . Trinity Trinity LS Auction House i Trinity Fri. i Grand Saline Auction Grand Saline Tue. Van Zandt *Information in the appendix was supplied by the Livestock Sanitary C‘ mission of Texas.