$35k aullazn 93o 14pm’! I959 5N7 A Changes in Milk Production and Nlarketing in Texas .$P \"* \ ti . 5 \\ --- - up‘)? i,‘ TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. DJLEWIS. D |||||| R. C LLLL GE STATlpN, TEXAS Y1 a I1 Si! u u‘ i‘ > i‘ ‘ ‘ ,1 {i} Summary While the number oi milk cows in Texas de- creased 21 percent between 1924-57, the 42-percent increase in production per cow resulted in a 12- percent net increase in total milk production. Cash receipts to Texas iarmers irom marketing oi dairy products increased irom 26 to 140 million dollars in that period, and dairy products represented more than 7 percent oi the value oi all iarm marketings in 1957 compared with less than 3 percent in 1924. During 1924-57 the value oi milk and cream used on iarms where they were produced decreased 32 percent, while gross iarm income irom dairy prod- ucts (cash receipts irom sales oi milk and cream plus value oi milk used ior iarm consumption and iarm butter churned) increased irom 7U to 169 million dol- lars and iarm value oi milk produced (gross iarm income plus value oi milk ied to calves) increased irom 72 to 172 million dollars. Although only 3O percent as much milk was utilized on iarms where it was produced in 1957 as in 1924, iarmers marketed three times more iluid milk in 1957 than they did in 1924. During 1930-57 the number oi iarms in Texas decreased 41 percent. the number oi iarms with milk cows decreased one-hali and the number oi iarmers selling milk decreased 36 percent. Only iour-iiiths as much milk and cream was utilized in manufacturing dairy products in 1957 as was used in 1929. The amount utilized in butter manufacturing decreased by more than three-iourths and represented most oi the total reduction. While prices received by dairy iarmers ior whole milk in 1957 were twice as high as prices re- ceived in 1924, the parity ratio oi prices received during 1957 and 1924 was the same. Fluid milk marketings under iederal marketing order regulations have increased greatly since the first order was established in Texas in 1951. During .1 s’; 1958, iederal orders were in eiiect in seven major Texas milksheds comprising 86 counties. About 6U percent oi the milk sold by Texas dairy iarmers} was marketed under iederal order regulations. Indica- tions are that the importance oi iederal orders in marketing milk by Texas iarmers will increase con-t siderably. Population projections indicate an increase oi 21 percent in the Texas population between 1958 and i 1968. At the present level oi consumption this indi- cates that in 1968 Texans will consume about 656- million pounds more iresh milk than they consumed during 1958. With the same rate oi increase in milk output per cow as was registered in Texas during recent years, dairy iarmers in the State can supply this added volume without increasing the number oi milk cows on iarms. As compared to 1958, more Grade “A" milk will} be sold by iewer iarmers in Texas in 1968, and that milk will be produced by iewer cows. ‘ The trend toward ownership oi milk produc manufacturing iacilities by milk producers’ coopera- tives will continue. The market in Texas ior ungrad-f ed milk and cream will continue to decline and b 1968 very iew, ii any, iarmers selling milk and w-l will remain in the "ungraded" category. Although bulk milk handling equipment v1? been in general use on Texas dairy iarms only sinc 1954, approximately 6O percent oi Texas dairy iann ers had installed bulk tanks on their iarms by th end oi 1958. Ii this trend continues, all Grade “Add milk producers in Texas will have bulk equipme by 1968. Intermarket movement oi milk in bulk -- 1 will increase in importance, and, with an improv’ highway system. the average cost oi moving y will decrease. This will contribute to reducing loci ~ tion diiierentials and to bringing more uniiorm pric =,1 - to producers located in diiierent areas. s‘ ECONOMIC WELL-BEING of the dairy industry is important t0 producers and consumers of and other dairy products. This industry sents an important segment of the agricul- production of Texas. While only slightly i-pthan 12 percent of all commercial farmers f ed selling whole milk in 1954, the farm of milk produced by Texas farmers inted to 172 million dollars, and cash re- _ from dairy products were more than 7 nt of all farm marketings in the State. The 3 value of these dairy products amounted to illion dollars, or slightly more than $110 f)»: ch family or $33 per person in the State. ere have been great technological changes dairy industry in recent years, as has been = se in other agricultural production. Among changes are the almost universal adoption milking machine and, during the past 5 ; the installation of pipeline milkers and handling equipment on about 6O percent of ‘g. farms. Through improved breeding "lecting practices, better care and feed, and j ation of higher-producing dairy cows from states, milk production per cow in Texas creased by one-third during the past 20 The establishment of federal milk mar- orders in several major dairying areas in te serves to give dairy producers greater ty and incentives for producing according Vket demands. firy farming and the dairy industry in gen- __ve become greatly commercialized. The dairy farmer is selling larger volumes _ and a larger proportion of the milk pro- f on Texas farms is marketed now than dur- I y previous time. These changes in the ltion and marketing of milk have great ic significance to the dairy industry and pgumers of dairy products. i tistical data concerning the Texas dairy ‘ y are presented in Texas Agricultural Ex- nt Station Miscellaneous Publication 317. Production Characteristics 1957 the average milk cow in Texas pro- 3 4,170 pounds of milk containing an average _ percent butterfat compared with an out- , tively, assistant professor and marketing assistant, ent of Agricultural Economics and Sociology. Changes in Milk Production and Marketing in Texas RANDALL STELLY and KENNETH MCKINNEY‘ put of 6,162 pounds of milk containing an average of 3.81 percent butterfat for the average milk cow in the United States. Thus, in 1957 the average milk cow on Texas farms produced only 68 percent as much milk as the average for the United. States and 72 percent as much total butterfat. NUMBER OF MILK COWS Slightly more than 161,000, or 55 percent, of the 293,000 farmers in Texas had 689,000 milk cows on farms on the date of U. S. census enu- meration in 1954. This was an average of 4.3 cows per farm reporting milk cows. Every year during 1932-45 there were more than 1.3 million milk cows on Texas farms. From 1930-35 the number of milk cows on farms in- creased steadily, between 3 and 4 percent each year. After decreasing slightly during the late 1930’s, the number on farms increased again dur- Contents Summary ____________________________________________________ __ 2 Introduction ______________________________________________ __ 3 Production Characteristics ______________________ __ 3 Number of Milk Cows ___________________________ __ 3 Production per Cow _______________________________ __ 4 Total Milk Production ________________________ __ 5 Herd Size and Farm Characteristics .... .. 6 Sales by Type of Farm and Herd Size" 6 Disposition of Milk by Farmers ______________ __ 6 Milk Production and Marketing per Capita __________________________________________ __ 8 Value and Prices ______________________________________ __10 Use of Milk in Manufacturing ________________ __11 Importance by Geographic Areas .......... __12 Marketing under Federal Regulati0ns----13 Predictions for 1968 ________________________________ __13 Tofol Milk Production (in million pounds) I ,/\\J, \ \ _ I Thousands of UniIs - _ . . _ - — -—""\. A, \‘_ _ _ . _ _ . __. \‘ / \_ \ _._ \_ - """"" w ‘Number of Cows (in thousands) \'~"\-_ I l I I I I l l l l_l L) I I I l I I ‘I I l I I I I l I l I l l I I I925 I930 I935 I940 I945 I950 I955 Year Figure 1. Number of milk cows, milk production per cow and total milk production in Texas. 1924-1957. ing World War II but began decreasing in 1946. Since 1946 the number has decreased 46 percent. Several factors account for the larger-than- average number of milk cows on Texas farms and ranches during the depression and World War II years, and for the great decline since 1946. Widespread and severe damage by the boll weevil induced greater diversification of agri- culture in cotton-producing areas and, among the alternatives to cotton farming, dairying was at- tractive to a large number of farmers. About the same time the disappearance of cattle tick fever removed one of the major obstacles to the livestock and dairy industries. During the de- pression, adding one or two milk cows to the farm herd and selling milk or cream was one way in which many small farmers could add to farm income. During World War II the increased demand for milk and butterfat with the resultant higher- than-average farm prices for dairy products in- duced many Texas farmers to milk more cows and sell more milk. However, milk production per cow decreased during both periods of increasing 600 VA Tofol Number of Forms w Forms Reporting Milk Con: 450 " . 300 - /////% I50 x\ \\\\\\\N \ \\\\\\\\\§ 7/ // fl 1950 l I954 l (D 0| O (D b O Your Figure 2. Total number of {arms and number reporting milk cows in Texas. 1930-1954. 4 milk cow numbers, which indicates that ma cows with lower-than-average output were be', milked. Since the end of World. War II the decreas demand for milk and butterfat, relatively lowf prices to dairymen combined with more rigid sa 5 tary requirements for Grade “A” milk, and t‘, higher cost of new equipment required resul in many commercial dairymen going out of m’ production. Also, the wider spread betwe f Grade “A” and ungraded milk prices caused ma smaller ungraded milk producers to go out of t, dairy business. i The general decline in the number of fa families in the State and the increased specializ tion of Texas agriculture also contributed greatl to the large decrease in the number of famil milk cows in the State. TT PRODUCTION PER COW Traditionally, the average milk cow on Te farms produced from one-third to one-fourth milk than the average for the United Stat Although the annual volume of milk product‘ per milk cow in Texas increased from 3,0 pounds to almost 4,200 pounds from 1924-57, t, output per cow in Texas during 1957 was onl two-thirds that of the United States average i 6,200 pounds. Therefore, while great strides ha ~_ _ been made by Texas farmers, dairymen in oth sections of the country also have increased greatl . the milk-producing capacity of their herds. A Since 1924, milk production per cow in Tex: has increased almost every year except durin 1932-35 and 1942-45. The largest actual yearl increase in the volume of milk produced cow occurred during the 5-year period, 1953-5 ii There are several reasons for the decline z milk output per cow during these two perio and the above-average increase during the la“ 5 years. During 1932-35, and also during Wor War II, many farmers with little or no experien _ as dairymen started milking cows and sellin milk as a _new or supplementary enterprise. _ very large proportion of the cows milked durin those two periods were of mixed types that pr duced less milk than the dairy type breeds. Lac’ of experience led to improper herd care and ma agement, resulting in inefficient production. ' During the period immediately followini World War II the relatively large increase in m' ' production per cow was due primarily to the f0 . lowing factors: f I 1. The abnormally high prices paid farme a for whole milk of Grade “A” quality resulted many dairymen shifting from ungraded to Grad “A” milk production while, at the same time, 11' grading their milking herds and improving the" _ herd management practices. T 2. Improved pastures resulted in high-quali i feed supplies throughout the year. .- High prices received by farmers for cattle e late 1940's caused many dairymen to cull P> dairy herds and to eliminate low-producing V cows. a . Artificial insemination became more wide- opted during the war and immediate postwar "ig: which resulted in further improvement airy herds. . Further elimination of 176,000 farm family A f: cows (many of which were low milk pro- __,rs) from 26 percent of Texas farms between A -54 also contributed to increasing the average . output per cow. i 7,6. Participation by a higher percentage of . "herds and cows in the Dairy Herd Improve- y Association program also has been a factor. j: average milk production of cows under the _ am amounted to 8,314 pounds of milk during 7 compared with a State average production cow of 4,170 pounds. The better dairymen i’ lly are the ones entering the program. In- cient dairymen who enter the program are easing their efficiency and, through the program, farmers are in a better position evaluate the output of individual cows and i_inate the low producers from their herds. §The large increase in milk production per cow ing the last 5 years is attributed primarily rther increases in the efficiency of dairymen, ‘ ovements in breeding practices leading to Qeased milk output and heavier culling of in- v ient or low-producing cows. Also, increasing f of producing Grade “A” milk and lower s for milk are forcing many inefficient dairy- ‘ 17 with low-producing cows out of dairying. "Probably of greater significance than any “r factor leading to increased total milk sales '* farm has been the change from 10-gallon , ' to bulk tanks and pipeline milkers on a larger entage of Texas dairy farms during recent s‘. While the bulk tank and pipeline system peration has greatly increased the efficiency 1. irymen, it also has resulted in much higher ipment cost. In order to justify those higher ts, and to utilize time and equipment closer ‘opacity, most dairymen strive to increase their , . production. They can do this only by milk- }, more cows or obtaining higher producing , or both. Most dairymen in Texas with bulk ipment are doing both, and are obtaining Hol- _ .milk cows from concentrated dairy areas he North Central states while increasing the of their milking herd and total milk output. A study conducted in 1957 indicated that dairy g ers with bulk tanks increased their milk uction by 24 percent during the 12 months i ious to the study while those without bulk ks increased output by only 3 percent. Bulk ' owners reported an average increase in milk ‘uction per cow of 1 pound per day after oper- g with the- bulk system 1 year. Results of it study are reported in TAES Bulletin 894. 25 "fit Percent Selling mun Percent Selling Cream 20- Percent 7\ 4 |94o i950 1954 Year >/ ///// //A 5 o: O Figure 3. Percent of {arms reporting milk cows from which milk and cream were sold, 1930-54. Higher prices for whole milk relative to prices for butterfat also have been a contributing factor and many Texas dairy farmers are emphasizing volume milk production more than they are high butterfat content of the milk. During 1950-57 the percent butterfat content of milk produced in Texas decreased from 4.45 to 4.05, while for the United States as a whole the butterfat con- tent decreased from 3.96 to 3.81. TOTAL MILK PRODUCTION Average yearly total milk production in Texas during the past 5 years was less than during any 5-year period for the past 35 years. Although production per cow increased 23 percent from World War II to 1953-57, the decrease by 42 per- cent in number of milk cows resulted in a de- crease of 29. percent in total milk production be- T Eirriunvfuarciol Forms 80 — Dairy Forms Z E 1o - é i’ ..- é é .. _ / % L IO- 29 30"49 5O Figure 4. Percentage of all farms, commercial farms and dairy farms by herd size. 1954. i5 500 ‘j All Commerical Farms Dairy Farms 40° “ k‘ Farms Other Than Dairy Farms % ém- z i5 § /’ i‘- 20o - % fi a A IOO -' A Less than l0 lO-29 30-49 5O or more svleéggrga‘ Number of Milk Cows in Herd Figure 5. Milk sold per farm for all commercial iarms, dairy farms and iarms other than dairy farms in Texas, by herd size. 1954. tween those two periods. Thus, total milk pro- duction in the State over the years actually has decreased because the reduction in the number of cows has been greater than the increase in production per cow. However, during the past 3 years total production has been increasing be- cause of the rapid increase in production per cow and the slowing down of the decrease in number of milk cows. Total milk production, production per cow and number of milk cows in Texas from 1924-57 are shown in Figure 1. Herci Size ancl Farm Characteristics While the total number of farms in Texas de- creased 30 percent during 1940-54, the total num- ber of farms reporting milk cows decreased 52 percent and farms reporting whole milk sold de- creased 61 percent during that same period, Fig- ure 2. In 1940, 11 percent of farms with milk cows sold whole milk and 21 percent sold cream. 75 Cl All Commercial Farms 7% Dairy Farms / 5° ' Forms other than Dairy Farms % /’ %so- éé a r -%.. / Less than IO l0- 29 30- 49 5O or more Number of Milk Cows in Herd Figure 6. Cream sold per iarm for all commercial farms, dairy farms and {arms other than dairy farms in Texas, by herd size. 1954. 6 However, by 1954 only 9 percent of farms f? milk cows sold milk and less than 6 percent cream, Figure 3. f Between 1940-54 the rate of decrease in _ ber of dairy farms in the State was about -' to the rate of decrease of all farms. There 36 percent fewer dairy farms in Texas in g than in 1940. However, the.._average farmer. ing whole milk in 1940 sold slightly less g 30,000 pounds while in 1954 he sold more t, 120,000 pounds of milk, compared with 34, pounds in 1944 and 62,000 pounds in 1949. The number of milk cows per farm whic ported milk cows increased from 3.3 in 19 5 4.0 in 1940, and 4.3 in 1954. This indicates , the average farmer with milk cows increasedf herd 33 percent during that 25-year period. Q; SALES BY TYPE OF FARM AND HERD i The 8,357 farms classified as dairy far t 1954 sold 88 percent of the whole milk but I 16' percent of the cream marketed by all T farmers. Although 99 percent of dairy fa i. reported selling whole milk, only 3 percent ' cream. Most dairy farmers and other comm farmers selling cream are small producers, , ure 4. For all commercial farms and dairy f only 32 percent of the cream sold came from ducers having 10 cows or more. Ninety-one , cent of all commercial farms and 44 perce A dairy farms selling cream in 1954 had less 10 cows. - In 1954 only 3 percent of the whole milk ‘ by all commercial farmers in Texas came from" 30 percent of farms with less than 10 cows the 70 percent of farmers who had more F" 10 cows sold 97 percent of the milk. Of the sold by dairy farmers, 99 percent was sol farmers with more than 10 cows and only 1s cent came from the 8 percent of farmers ha _, less than 10 cows. In 1954 dairy farmers‘ six times more milk and cream on the than other farmers did, Figures 5 and 6. 1 indicates by size of herd the number of f, and the average volume and value of milk? cream sold by all commercial, dairy and i! farms in Texas in 1954. » Disposition oi Milk by Farme The distribution pattern of milk produ‘ Texas farms has shifted greatly during the i- 35 years. More than 6. out of every 10 u of milk produced in Texas during 1924-28 ‘ utilized on the farms where produced, and} than 4 pounds entered commercial channels" 1953-57 about 2 out of every 10 pounds utilized on farms and almost 8 pounds were i keted. This indicates the high degree of " mercialization of the Texas dairy industry d ' recent years which resulted from the rest of dairymen to supply fluid milk to an inc g urban population, and from a greater degr specialization on the part of many dairy fa _ i. ‘ously included dairying as supplemen- jcotton or other cash crops. _ marketings of milk and cream equivalent farmers increased from about 1.1 bil- ‘znds per year in 1924-28 t0 1.7 billion “in 1930 and to more than 2.3 billion per year in 1953-57. This is an increase rcent from 1930-57 . Although total milk on on Texas farms decreased by 17 per- 'rly whole milk sales by Texas farmers Ev from 535 million pounds to more than ‘n pounds, or 31/3 times, during 1930-57 {utilization of milk on farms decreased by an 71 percent. ' = e the market for whole milk was of sec- importance in the early years, 1924-57, h‘ e of primary importance during World _, and total sales continued to increase é 1957. Three of the more important rea- f. this increase were: The rapid rate of urbanization in the State 5 this period as shown by the increase in an population in the State from 3.5 to 8.2 million, or an increase of 134 percent during 1930-57. 2. The continuous increase in consumer in- come following the end of the depression in 1936 accounts for a large part of this increase, since consumer buying power is one of the more im- portant factors affecting fluid milk consumption. 3. The large increase in prices received by farmers for fluid milk relative to pricesreceived for butterfat in cream sales during recent years caused many dairy farmers to produce more for the fluid milk market. Figure 7 indicates the percentage disposition of milk produced by Texas farmers during 1924-28 and 1953-57. The main factors indicated by this figure concerning the disposition of milk pro- duced by Texas farmers in these two periods are: 1. The proportion of total milk production consumed as fluid milk or cream on farms where produced declined from 26.7 to 14.1 percent. 2. The proportion used for farm-churned but- ter decreased from 36.1 to 6.7 percent. l. NUMBER OF FARMS. VOLUME AND VALUE OF MILK AND CREAM SOLD PER FARM BY COMMERCIAL. DAIRY k AND OTHER FARMS IN TEXAS BY SIZE OF HERD. 1954 Number oi milk cows in herd Less 50 or All _ A than 10 10-29 3049 more farms ' l: sold " .»-- ercial {arms 1- er {arms reporting 3,723 4.321 2.652 1.867 12.563 gm of farms 29.6 34.4 21.1 14.9 100.0 _ds oi milk per farm 14.931 91.678 191.855 441.894 142.129 H nt oi all milk sold 3.1 22.2 28.5 46.2 100.0 1 1 value oi milk sold per iarm 815 5.006 10.475 24.127 7.760 f. {arms er oi iarms reporting 675 3.282 2.502 1.772 8.231 _‘ ent oi mm... 9.2 99.9 90.4 21.5 100.0 it ds oi milk per iarm 34.687 106.357 194.659 446.953 200.649 j m: oi all milk sold 1.4 21.1 29.5 40.0 100.0 value oi milk sold per iarm 1.894 5.807 10.628 24.404 10.955 ' other than dairy {arms -- er iarms reporting 3.048 1.039 150 95 4.332 " an: qi {arms 70.4 24.0 3.5 * 2.1 100.0 1.. oi milk per iarm 10.557 43.305 145.233 175.789 30.937 , ent oi all milk sold 2.8 12.0 38.5 46.7 100.0 T" ar value oi milk sold per iarm 576 2.474 7.930 9.598 1.689 _ in cream sold mmercial iarms ber iarms reporting 7.259 662 23 18 7.962 I on! of farms 91.3 8.2 .3 .2 100.0 U- butterfat per iarm 232 947 1.977 6.310 310 lent oi all butteriat sales 68-2 25-4 1.0 4-6 100.0 l. ar value oi cream sold per iarm 116 474 989 3.155 155 f‘ iarms 1-~-- {arms reporting 120 120 16 18 274 , ent oi {arms 43.8 43.8 5.8 6.6 100.0 nds butterfat per iarm 1.153 1.282 1.578 6.310 1.573 cent oi all butteriat sales 32.1 35.7 5.8 » 26.4 100.0 llar value cream sold per {arm 577 646 789 3.155 787 _, other than dairy {arms ber {arms refiprting 7.139 542 7 7.688 l‘ gent of {(111315 "i. 92.9 7.0 .1 100.0 funds butterfat per iarm 216 1.057 2.889 265 a cent oi all butteriat sales 5.1 25.4 69.5 100.0 lllar value oi cream sold per farm 108 529 1.445 133 rs. _ : Census oi Agriculture, Volume 1. Pt. 26. Texas. U. S. Department oi Commerce. Bureau oi the Census. 1954. ' oi whole milk and cream sold was determined by multiplying volume sold per iann by the average prices received by 7 ~—~‘__ f g /~ Q /.»/ ‘mn 3 // o\o >_-\__= >_ \§I'Vo <3?’ E g3 / Delivered g {,9 c‘,'.-';:§:"§flk°‘ ‘é 2 ° '0 3 é 7 Q o E c to Plants i; 31f or cmom "3- m 1:15. o Consumed us °5 C"°°'“ '4 8 l A Delivered to Plants Fluid Milk ‘L’ i, S’ us Cream or groom E E / / ‘E 7 l’ u . ¥ Z ( p 2 >¢ Delivered to Plants as -,-' Whole Milk l __ i \ Delivered to Plants as Used forsFotrtgir- churned whole Milk U f / o0 \ o"? \\ NM“ Jy/l/r L‘ vs ‘1 \MARKETED sv FARM‘ i\ 1924-28 AVERAGE 1953-57 AVERAGE Figure 7. Percentage disposition of milk produced by Texas farmers. 3. The percentage of total output utilized on and milk products imported into Texas for human farms decreased from 64.3 to 22,5, consumption is _not available. However, if the o 4_ Whole milk Sold by producers increased average _Texan in 1957 consumed as much fresh from 11.1 to 71.0 percent of total milk production. Whole mllk and mllk. prqducts as the average U‘ S’ i citizen did, production 1n Texas fell short of sup- . 5- Sales t0 Plants and dealerS-QS Cream dc- plying the demand in the State by the following creased from 17.8 to 2.4 percent while the volume amounts; 153 million pounds of fresh Whole milk’ of milk and cream retailed by farmers themselves 70 million pounols of oi-oamoi-y button, 42 million 1 decreased_from 6.7 to 4.0 percent of total milk pounds of American choose, 35 million pounds of Droduced in Texas. cottage cheese and 12 million gallons of ice cream. . 6- Combined marketings 0f milk and Cream _In those areas _of Texas that are seasonally o by farmers lncrfi-‘flwed from 35-6 t0 77-6 Percent deficient 1n fresh milk supplies, considerable quan- A 0f tOtaI PPOdUClIIOII- tities are brought in from surplus milk producing * _ _ _ areas of the State or from other states. However, _ Mllk PrQduCflQn and Markehng indications are that such imports of fluid milk - C . from other states normally comprise only a small u p€l' aplta portion of total. consumption in Texas. On a per capita basis less than one-half as About 820 producers from out of the State much milk is produced 1n Texas as is produced in delivered milk regularly to handlers operating in the United States. Data on volume of fluid milk Texas federal order markets. An indication of TABLE 2. PER CAPITA MARKETING AND UTILIZATIYOEIIlRCgF MILK PRODUCED BY FARMERS IN TEXAS FOR SELECTED ’ T l 1k Total milk Utilization on iarms 2 ta ' k t cl - Population in Tex-as disaiapezixnce cgpzilaeoi 115:1; Per cupim of 5085;111:223 c: Year Urban Farm Pf" calm“ and rufal farm population iarms with a 1n Texas population 1 milk cows l without milk cows Thousand Thousand Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds 1930 5.s25 2.359 618 3s7 s24 1.255 1940 6.415 2.160 644 498 837 1.037 1950 7.740 1.3s7 43s 343 764 1.12s 7 1954 s.479 1.12s 352 29s sss 1.064 1957 9.13s 1.01s 32s 2ss 520 1,099 Percent change 1930-57 +57 -57 —47 —-26 _37 _17 Source: Computed from data contained in “Production oi Manufactured Dairy Products." Agricultural Marketing Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, ior appropriate years. ‘Amount fed to calves excluded. 8 ABLE 3. POUNDS OF MILK UTILIZED PER CAPITA IN ODUCTION OF MANUFACTURED DAIRY PRODUCTS IN TEXAS FOR SELECTED YEARS Per capita of urban population and on tarms without milk cows All products Per capita of total population ' All products Butter Ice Cream Butter — — Pounds oi milk equivalent per capita — — 79 12 97 108 132 101 21 155 139 213 29 39 79 33 89 14 29 52 15 56 12 28 49 13 52 031930-57 ~85 +133 ~50 —88 ~—61 gurce: Computed from data contained in “Production oi anutactured Dairy Products," Agricultural Marketing Serv- e. U. S. Department of Agriculture. for appropriate year's. f he volume of milk brought into Texas for bottling processing into manufactured products is ob- gltained from analysis of records of milk market éadministrators in the State. In 1957, 362 million ipounds of milk equivalent from other sources gwere marketed in the six federal market order areas in Texas. Of this amount, 135 million . ’unds were delivered by producers residing out- ide of Texas. This was 5 percent of the 2,464 illion pounds of milk and cream equivalent mar- vyeted by Texas farmers, or 9 percent of the 1,430 illion pounds marketed by Texas producers un- ier federal order regulations and 7 percent of the ,896 million pounds utilized by plants and dealers perating in federal order marketing areas. Although a large portion of the manufactured * iiry products consumed in Texas is imported 0m other states, the volume of milk and milk i oducts brought into the State for manufactur- ‘ g by Texas processing plants is relatively small. study conducted in 1957 of milk supply areas pf Texas processing plants indicated that only one lant obtained part of its fluid milk supplies di- iectly from producers residing in another state four plants used in their manufacture of dairy » gproducts about 14 thousand pounds of milk pow- der per operating day which they obtained from ftwo other states. a While combined milk and cream marketings .;by Texas farmers increased 49 percent in 1930-57 and total milk production decreased by I17 percent, total per capita disappearance of this milk and cream in Texas decreased from 618 ipounds to 328 pounds, or by 47 percent, Table 2. here are several reasons for this decreased per g pita disappearance: _ _ 1. Farm people With milk cows traditionally Tconsume more milk and cream than do urban Qpeople. The farm population in Texas decreased from 40 percent to 11 percent of the total popu- Flation during 1930-57. As farm families moved “to the urban areas, many decreased their per icapita milk consumption. 8.00 6.00 '- Actuol Prices Received X 4.00 - 2.00 ' IIIIALIIIlflllllllllllllllllllII|A I925 I930 I935 I940 I945 I950 I955 Your ‘Computed by dividing prices received by farmers for whole milk by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Index of Wholesale Price, adjusted (1935-391100). Figure 8. Annual average prices received by Texas farmers for whole milk, 1924-1957. 2. The decrease in per capita utilization of milk and cream on farms Where it is produced indicates that consumption per capita decreased along with less feeding of milk to farm animals other than calves. The amount of butter churned on farms in 1957 was less than one-fifth the vol- ume churned in 1930. Most of the skim milk from farm butter Was fed to farm animals in the earlier period. 3. Total milk utilized per capita in manu- facturing dairy products in Texas decreased 50 percent during 1930-57. Most of this is repre- sented in decreased per capita production of but- ter which declined 85 percent during that period, Table 3. Competition by oleomargarine has been TABLE 4. PERCENT OF TOTAL MARKETINGS OF MILK AND CREAM, AND INDEX OF VOLUME OF WHOLE MILK. UTILIZED IN THE PRODUCTION OF MANUFACTURED DAIRY PRODUCTS IN TEXAS. 1929-57 Total marketings of h Year milk and cream. Index ot volume percent 1929-57 - 100 1929 35 79 1930 34 75 1931 39 90 1932 43 104 1933 48 112 1934 45 96 1935 42 94 1936 44 117 1937 45 130 1938 44 142 1939 45 135 1940 43 133 1941 46 157 1942 45 153 1943 42 145 1944 40 133 1945 37 120 1946 37 107 1947 37 104 1948 31 84 1949 29 82 1950 26 81 1951 23 67 1952 20 59 1953 21 65 1954 19 59 1955 19 58 1956 18 58 1957 18 60 I00 Evaporated and ll Ice Cream and Other ‘ Condensed Milk=§ Frozen Products it 8° ' §§:§:§:§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§:; I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O 60- Percent 40- I I I I I I I I I I I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O I I I I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I I I I I I O O O O O O O O O O I I I I I I I I I O I O I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O O I I I I I I I 20- the greatest factor. In 1958, consumption of oleo- margarme surpassed butter consumption. 4. Although commercial production of ice cream per capita more than doubled during 1930- 50, the output per capita decreased by 38 per- cent between 1950-57. The decrease in per capita consumption of ice cream since 1950 results from increased consumption of mellorine, the produc- tion of which increased in Texas from 6.3 to 19.1 nnvqv noon‘ bu! 5mm “no: Une dot = 25 farms sun Figure 10. Number of dairy farms by major economic areas in Texas. 1954. 1O | Q Q o Q - ¢ - ¢ ¢ u Q Q ¢ Q Q ¢ - - Q ¢ Q n o o Q - ¢ ¢ ¢ Q o Q o a a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O I I I O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o o o o o o o ¢ Q ¢ ¢ o Q o Q ¢ Q Q Q ¢ Q ¢ Q ¢ ¢ ¢ Q o Q Q o o Q o o e Q o o Q ¢ e Q Q o ¢ o Q Q Q Q ¢ Q a Q ¢ ¢ Q ¢ - ¢ _ ¢ _ Q , Q _ Q _ o o o o o o e » Q Q Q Q Q Q ¢ Q n ¢ Q ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ o o Q o o o I I I I I O O O O O I O O O O O I I I I I I I . . . z . . . . . z . . . . . . Creamery suite‘, szssézszi: IIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II o Q o o e o o Q o o o 0 0 o e a Q o Q o0 Q Q o o ¢ o o o o Q o Q Q o Q Q o Q o o no o ¢ Q . o o o o o Q Q 0 Q o Q e o o o e Q no Q o o O o o o o n ¢ Q Q Q Q Q o o o o 0 OO Q o o o o 0 o o c o o Q o o Q o n Q o o 0o 9 o o Q o o o o o o 0 0 o Q o Q a o n Q o o0 o o Q Q Q o o u o o Q Q Q Q Q Q o o Q Q 00 o o o o o o o o n Q Q ¢ Q o ¢ a e Q o o o Q c o o o o o Q Q Q 0 e o 00 n o Q o o a o o o o o o o o ¢ o o Q o o o Q o Q o o o o Q Q 0 Q 0 Q on I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I Q Q‘ n Q o o Q o o o o o o n o o o o o Q o o o o Q o Q Q o o o Q Q Q Q Q o0 o o o o o o o o o o o Q u o o o o Q o o o Q o o n o o 0 o 0 Q 0 Q 0 e0 D I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O I O I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II | n o o Q o o o Q Q o o o o o o o o Q o o o o o Q o o 0 o Q Q 0 Q I 00 Q o o o o o o o o o Q Q o Q Q o o o o o Q o n o o o u o Q Q 0 Q O 0 on | o Q o Q o o - o o o Q o n u o Q o Q o Q Q u o o o Q o o o O o 0 Q 0 00 O I O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O IO | o o o o o Q o o Q o o Q o o o o o o o o Q Q Q o o o o Q 0 0 O O 0 OI Q o o o o o o o o o o Q u o o o o o Q o e o o o Q 0 0 0 Q OI I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I IO o O Q 0 o o o o Q 0 o Q o o Q o u ¢ o o o o o o o o o o Q Q 0 O 0 0 OI I O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I O II O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O II D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O IO o o o 0 Q Q o o Q o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Q o Q 0 0 O O O 0 0 IO o Q Q Q Q Q o o o o o o o Q o o o o o o o o o o Q o Q o Q Q 0 0 O 0 OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OI D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O II O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O I I II I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I I II o Q o 0 Q Q o o 0 o Q Q o Q o o Q o Q Q o o 0 o o 0 O O 0 O O O O O OO O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I I I I I II O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O I II I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O I I I I II . Q Q o o Q o Q Q 0 Q o Q Q O Q Q o e o e o o o Q Q o 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O OO u Q o Q o o o O Q o Q o Q o Q Q Q o c o Q Q Q o o Q o 0 0 O O O 0 O OO 0 0 Q o o Q 0 0 Q Q Q Q o o Q o o o o Q o o o o o o o Q 0 0 O Q O Q OI IOOOOOOOOOOOOOO o o o o o Q o o Q o Q Q o Q 0 0 O O O OO O O Q Q 0 0 Q 0 a Q Q . Q . ' o . o . . o . O o Q o o . o . . . . ‘ O O O O . .. O O O O O O O I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O I I I I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ‘ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O I I I I I I I I I I I I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O I I I I I I I I I O I I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O I I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I I O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O I O I O O O I I O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O I O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I O I O I I O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I I I I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O I I I I I I I I I O O O I O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I. O O I O O I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . I . I . I . I . I . I ‘ I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I. I I I I I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O I I I I I I I I Year Figure 9. Percent oi whole milk utilized in the production of specified dairy products in Texas, 1929-57. a lent utilized in manufactured products in t Qlulc a "i , , ¢ Q - ~ I . . ' . ' . I ‘ Q . Q ' O . I ' O . ¢ . "' II.I Q . I I 0 0 0 O ' O 0 I o g g c ' ~ o u ¢ ¢ ¢ - ' ' 0 , v a O.I.I'O...g:.:.: O 0.0 a . .. O O1 o 3. I O I I o e o o o o o 0 1'91‘??? 0 o Q 0 e e I I I I I I I O . O . O . O . O . O .0 O . O . O . O . O . I ‘I O . O . O . I . I . I ‘I u:o:o:o:o:o:o . . . . . . . . . . . O 0 I 0 . O . I . O . O . O . O ‘ 0 Q O O I O O o o 0 e O . I . I . I ‘I Q . e . o . o '0 o o o a 0 e o o 0 o . o . o . 0 . o , .o.o'o.e.l O 1' Q 0 0 Q O O O ~ I I I I I I 0 0 I I O O O » O O I I . . I. I I I I I I I I I I I O I I I I I I I I I O I I I I I I I I O I I I I I I I I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I . I . I ‘I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I . I . I ‘I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I million gallons during 1952-57. Every year 1952 Texas plants have produced more percent of all mellorine produced in the f States, and in 1957 the Texas output was? times larger than that of any other state. 7' 5. While bothtotal and per capita disap ance of whole milk and milk fat decrease tween 1930-57, the volume of skim milk eq doubled during that time and amounted to million pounds or 24 pounds per capita in t‘ Part of the decrease in whole milk disappea per capita is explained by increases in ance of the nonfat portions of milk whic not included in the computations for whole Value and Prices The gross farm income from dairy pr and the farm value of milk produced by I farmers in 1957 were 99 percent greater they were in 1930. However, the peak in; value and gross farm income occurred in when the milk produced in Texas had a farmi of more than 217 million dollars. In 195. farm value amounted to 172 million doll. 21 percent less than in 1952, although L percent less milk was produced. I The decrease in farm value of milk (v by Texas farmers during the past 5 yet sulted primarily from reductions in the p ceived by farmers for whole milk-from; to $5.56 per hundred pounds-and in the received for butterfat—from 65 cents to 5 per pound—in 1952 and 1957. i 0m the standpoint of actual value of the received from sales of milk, 1957 was the year since 1941 for Texas dairy farmers. e 8 indicates prices received by Texas farm- whole milk during. 1924-57 . Farmers re- an average of $2.40 per hundred pounds ilk in 1941 and $5.56 in 1957. However, I1 prices received should be compared with ,1 level changes and, since 1941, the wholesale level has more than doubled. In terms of Texchange value, or “parity,” the Texas dairy er’s milk dollar was worth $1.09 in 1957 and in 1941 compared to the dollar he received Qilk in 1935-39. The price he received for f in 1957 was worth only 86 percent of the ge price he received in 1935-39. Therefore, of 1935-39 prices, the $5.56 per hundred received by Texas farmers for milk in was worth only $2.48 and the 50 cents per f. received for butterfat was worth only 22 i; _ s; se of M|||< |n Manutacturmg ring the 10-year period, 1936-45, an average than one billion pounds of whole milk "Eutilized per year in the production of manu- red dairy products in Texas. The yearly ige amount utilized during that period was frcent more than the yearly average utliiza- gduring 1929-57 and twice the amount utilized g any year since 1950. For the 10-year p52‘. 1933-42, the amount of milk and cream ed in manufacturing dairy products repre- eted by Texas farmers, compared to an av- of less than 20 percent since 1950. Table * fws the percent of total marketing of milk Scream, and the index of volume of whole milk i. 45 percent of the total milk and cream. utilized in the production of manufactured dairy products in Texas during 1924-57. Most of the decline in the volume of milk and cream utilized in the manufacture of dairy prod- ucts resulted from decreases in production of creamery butter. Production of butter in Texas decreased in 1941-57 from 41.2 million pounds, representing the butterfat of 735 million pounds of milk, to 6.1 million pounds, representing 111 million pounds of milk. About one-seventh as much butterfat was utilized in butter manufac- turing in Texas in 1957 as in 1941. The volume of whole milk equivalent utilized in the manufacture of other major dairy products in Texas also declined. From the peak of 191.8 million pounds of milk utilized in American cheese in 1941, only 44.4 million pounds, or 23 percent of the 1941 volume, were utilized in 1957. For evaporated milk, 86.8 million pounds were utilized in 1941 and only 41.5 million pounds in 1957, a decrease of 52 percent. In ice cream manufac- turing, slightly more than 372 million pounds of milk were used in 1946, but only 254 million pounds of milk went into ice cream manufacturing in 1957. Figure 9 indicates the percent of whole milk utilized in the production of specified manu- -- - factured dairy products during 1929-57. Increased marketings of milk for utilization as bottled fluid milk and competition from oleo- margarine and mellorine account for a large part of the decrease in the volume of whole milk equi- valent used in manufactured dairy products. However, increases in the quantity of skim milk equivalent used by Texas plants in specified proc- essed skim milk products during recent years also are a factor. In 1953-57 the quantity of skim milk equivalent going into cottage cheese manufacturing in Texas increased 88 percent, the 5. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF DAIRYING BY ECONOMIC AREAS IN ‘TEXAS. 1949 AND 1954 Value of Number d . f d . Value Number Value ‘zlryt oi any of dairy of dairy of dairy p"; ufi s ‘Erma products farms products ‘Ear; colgmgrcial of State of State sold per marketing iarms total total farm 1949 1954 1949 1954 1949 1954 1949 1954 1949 1954 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — ---Percent———————————— ——Dollars—— 9.9 5.4 2.2 1.9 2.4 4.1 .4 .9 51.159 145.999 .9 1.9 2.9 .9 .5 .4 .9 .2 7.449 29.952 4.9 4.7 .9 .9 9.9 2.9 9.9 9.9 7.919 9.479 2.9 5.9 4.4 9.9 1.7 2.1 1.7 2.2 9.779 19.742 1.4 1.1 2.1 1.9 9.9 9.9 2.5 2.5 19.799 19.299 1.9 .5 1.2 .7 2.5 1.9 1.9 1.9 19.929 14.799 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.1 5.5 4.9 5.5 4.7 a 9.749 9.915 9.9 9.2 4.4 4.4 1.5 1.9 2.9 1.7 9.512 19.997 19.9 21.5 9.9 12.9 7.9 9.9 9.9 11.7 l 7.195 9.972 29.5 29.4 19.5 19.9 19.7 19.7 19.4 11.; 19.499 9.9 4.9 2.4 2.9 1.1 1.9 1.9 1. . 9.594 5.9 =-=*7.7 9.9 9.4 14.9 19.9 19.5 19.7 7.955 19.999 5.9 9.9 2.9 2.9 2.5 9.2 2.9 2.5 11.122 19.991 7.9 9.7 9.9 4.9 4.9 4.4 4.9 5.9 7.279 9.127 9.2 9.2 5.1 5.9 19.4 19.2 7.9 9.4 12.994 17.299 11.5 19.5 5.9 9.9 11.9 19.9 17.9 19.5 5.949 7.745 19.1 15.5 9.9 9.4 2.9 2.9 9.9 9.9 7.449 9.955 9.7 5.7 9.9 4.2 12.5 » 19.9 9.9 9.7 12.999 19.954 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.5 1.9 12.994 19.979 4.9 7.4 4.9 4.9 199.9 199.9 199.9 199.9 9.972 19.927 ll +20 +lo O r a "l g .. c ._ v -lo / 4 a / / = l» / / 4 . 9 -20 / / / 8 / / / / / / / / i i 4O K ? Number of Doiry Forms fi-gg Z I Number of All Forms f IA IB 2 3 4 5 5A 6B 7A 7B 7C 8 9 IO ll l2 l3 l4 l5 State Economic Areas f Figure ll. Percent change in number of dairy farms and the number of all farms in Texas from 1949 to 1954. by econoki CIIGGS. volume processed into unsweetened condensed skim milk increased 36 percent and the amount manufactured into nonfat drv milk solids in- creased 350 percent. These three products ac- counted for 119 million pounds of skim milk equi- valent in 1953 and 223 million pounds in 1957, or an increase of 88 percent. Importance by Geographic Areas According to the 1954 U. S. Census of Agri- culture, commercial dairy farmers were operating in 250 of the 254 counties in the State. However, despite this wide geographic distribution, dairy- ing is concentrated in the North Central, South and Southeastern portion of the State and mostly adjacent to large centers of population. There Were only 74 counties in the State in 1954 where the value of dairy products sold by farmers amounted to $300,000 or more. Farmers in 21 of those 74 counties reported selling da' products amounting to more than 1 million d lars While farmers in each of Hopkins, El Pa’ Bexar and Tarrant counties sold dairy produ valued from 3 to 4 million dollars. In 1954, Hi ris county with 5.4 million dollars led all ot i, counties in the value of dairy products sold farmers. ? A better concept of the relative importan and concentration of commercial dairying in State is obtained by considering dairy produ marketing as a percent of total agricultural m ketings. While cash receipts from dairy produc sold in 1954 were almost 8 percent of cash ceipts from all farm marketings in the Sta the value of dairy products sold comprised percent or more of the value of all farm produ in only 56 counties. Dairy products brought i; percent or more of all cash receipts from f products in 24 counties, 30 percent or more in counties and 40 percent or more in 2 counties; 45 so i 84 i r Z 7 . i i ., Z i . g , a l5 a a a a z i i -= i i i i '1 / i i i if, ,,4.4.i. 4241.7 s i z i '/ '1 a I 8 i i i i 4 I a a g A Value of Doiry Products 3O é I Value of All Form Products 45 IA IB 3 4 5 6A 6a 7A 7a 7c 8 9 lo ll l2 l3 I4 I5 Figure 12. Percent change in the value of dairy prodIfcfiZnErTdCofALQIi-farm products marketed by Texas farmers from to 1954. by economic areas. 12 1950 and 1954 the U. S. Bureau of the thus compiled agricultural statistics by major I nomic areas in each state. This facilitates sentation of data on a regional basis and makes possible to compare the relative importance of p , various agricultural enterprises between pas. Each state was divided into several areas such a manner that all of the counties within if, economic area have similar agricultural aracteristics and can be used for describing, yl'th reasonable accuracy, the characteristics of e agriculture in the counties within each area. was divided into the 15 major economic pleas shown in Figure 10. The importance of dairying in each area rela- e to the State as a whole is indicated in Table nd Figure 10. In 1954, economic areas 7a, 7b, and 12 contained 56 percent of all dairy farms Texas. The value of milk sold by farmers in these four areas amounted to 47 percent of the aralue of all milk sales by Texas producers. In 1949, dairy farmers in these areas comprised 54 percent of all dairymen in the State and sold 44 percent of the milk. The relative agricultural importance of dairying in these areas is higher than it is for the whole State. While Texas dairy- men comprised 4.6 percent of all Texas farmers ‘and marketed whole milk amounting to 7.4 per- cent of the value of all farm marketing in 1954, iairy producers in these four areas comprised 5 percent of all farmers in these areas and sold airy products valued at 22 percent of all agri- _ultural marketings. Between 1949-54, areas 3, 9, 7a and 13 had an erage increase of 10 percent in number of dairy , rms compared to a decrease in the State of 14 p ercent in dairy farms and 19 percent in all com- ercial farms, Figure 11. During that period a iry farmers in areas 1a, 3, 7a, 9 and 12 had an . a; crease of 30 percent or more in the value of iry products sold, Figure 12. arketing uncler Federal Regulations Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement f ct of 1937 the U. S. Secretary of Agriculture is mpowered to regulate the price producers re- p ive for whole milk. The Secretary can do this whenever he determines, from evidence received a public hearing, that existing milk prices are aiot reasonable in view of the price of feeds, the i‘ m arid for milk and milk products in a marketing rea. The intent of this authority is to provide roducer prices that will tend to equate supply demand over a reasonable period of time fter proper allowances for seasonal and cyclical 5 uctuations in production and consumption are .9 ade. " ' This atmosphere is attempted by issuing fed- ral milk marketing orders which are legal in- truments defining the terms under which andlers who engage primarily in handling milk » or fluid distribution in a regulated city market, urchase the milk from dairy farmers. The first federal milk marketing order in the State was established in October 1951, for the North Texas milk market. Since that time orders have been established in the San Antonio, Central- west Texas, Austin-Waco, Corpus Christi, Texas Panhandle and Red River Valley marketing areas, Figure 13. The designated marketing areas of theseseven federal orders include 86 Texas coun- ties, and regulated handlers obtain milk from Texas dairy farmers located in 125 counties. In October, November and December 1951, a total of 2,400 Texas dairy farmers marketed whole milk under federal order regulations and, in 1957 about 5,100, or 62 percent, of the 8,300 Grade “A” dairy farmers in Texas, SOld milk un- der federal regulations. Texas farmers operating under the regulations of federal orders marketed slightly more than 1.4 billion pounds of milk in 1957. This was 60 per- cent of the 2.3 billion pounds of whole milk de- livered to milk plants and dealers by Texas dairy farmers. The value to farmers for that milk sold under federal regulations amounts to 85 million dollars. Predictions for 1968 Population projections indicate that the civil- ian population of Texas will reach 11.3 million by 1968. This is 21 percent more than the 9.3 mil- lion people residing in the State in 1958, Table 6. If the average Texas resident consumes as much fluid milk in 1968 as he did in 1957, the State will be a market for 3,706 million pounds of milk, or 656 million pounds more than during 1957. Milk production per milk cow increased 38 per- cent in 1954-57. If the same rate of increase is registered during the next 10 years, Texas dairy cow owners will be producing 4,190 million pounds uvvou IIII t s PSEOS vvvv u. uuuuu cl 1. North Texas 2. Austin-Waco 3. San Antonio 4. Corpus Christi 5 B 7 4 § Y l II .CentraI West Texas .Red River Valley QTexas Pannandle Federal milk marketing order areas in Texas. 13 ' Figure 13. POPULATION DATA FOR ECONOMIC AREAS TABLE 6. IN TEXAS State - Percent economic 1950‘ 1958’ 19683 change areas p 1958-683 — — — —- Number — —— — -— Percent 1a 253.101 353.134 427.571 +21 lb 75.662 74.344 78.764 + 6 2 188.106 185.860 202.536 + 9 3 170.163 176.567 135.024 —24 4 269.408 334.548 427.576 +28 5 340.251 483.236 585.104 +21 6a 458.680 427.478 495.088 +16 6b 61.825 46.465 78.764 +70 7a 145.369 120.809 180.032 +49 7b 456.154 631.924 776.388 +23 7c 65.064 46.465 33.756 —27 8 1.486.519 1.840.014 2.272.904 +24 9 151.915 139.395 123.772 -11 10 132.783 111.516 123.772 +11 11 862.765 1.170.918 1.474.012 +26 12 670.838 557.580 641.364 +15 13 193.218 176.567 191.284 + 8 14 1.422.837 2.053.753 2.565.456 +25 15 306.536 362.427 438.828 +21 TOTAL 7.711.194 9.293.000 11.252.000 +21 ‘Data from 1950 Census oi Population. Tstimated. 3Projected. of milk by 1968, if they maintain the same num- ber (728 million) of milk cows that they had 1n 1957. If there is no change in per capita con- sumption of fluid milk in Texas between 1958-68, the State’s civilian population by 1968 Wlll con- sume as fresh whole milk 87 percent of this pre- dicted production. This compares to the 81 per- cent of total production by Texas farmers that was marketed in 1957. The number of dairy farms in Texas decreased 33 percent between 1944-54. However, the vol- ume of milk sold per farm increased 32 percent between 1952-57. This indicates that many smaller dairymen went out of the dairy business and those remaining are increasing the volume of milk marketed on the average. By 1968 Texas dairy farmers selling whole milk probably will have decreased below present numbers, and those remaining in the business will increase the size of their herds and sell more milk. This likely will be true as stronger demands are made by handlers of producer milk to install high-cost bulk milk handling equipment and farmers attempt to util- ize that equipment more economically by increas- ing output. 'In one large market area of Texas, 94 percent of the producers owned bulk tanks in November 1958, and those producers delivered 98 percent of producer milk to plants. The ten- dency of bulk plant owners to increase output after obtaining that equipment is shown in a previous study in North Texas which indicated that the average owner increased the volume of milk sold by 24 percent within 1 year after in- stalling the equipment. With increased production per cow through better breeding, culling, importation of higher milk producing cattle from other states, and better management, indications are that by 1968 14 more milk will be sold by fewer farmers, and t milk will be produced by fewer milk cows. The number of dairymen selling milk ot than Grade “A” decreased from 12,600 to 4,_ or by two-thirds, between 1949-57. Many d_ farmers previously selling ungraded milk q either obtained Grade “A” status or quit the d a business. The Texas markéft for ungraded s: and cream has decreased ‘greatly during re years as fewer processing plants utilizing t product remain in operation. Since a market ungraded milk and cream probably will not e in the State, it is doubtful if there will be but Grade “A” dairy farmers operating in T in 1968. ' Except cottage cheese plants, the number processing plants operating in Texas has r- decreasing during recent years. A large c: portion of fluid milk handlers presently are gaged solely in milk bottling and distribution. i‘ several of the major Texas milk producing a =' producers’ associations are acquiring man turing facilities and are making efforts to ut all surplus milk of their producers in their i manufacturing plants. This trend undoubt‘ will continue and few manufacturing facili will be under private ownership by 1968. As the trend toward ownership of bulk eq l ment continues and improvements in the high g network progress, producer milk will travel ther to market. Packaged milk sales areas of 1 dividual handlers also are likely to increase. ‘ Marketing milk under federal order 1" tions will increase in importance and by 1968 yj represent more than 90 percent of all milk n- keted by Texas farmers if a federal milk ing order is issued in the Houston-Gulf y milkshed. Since dairy producers’ associations will con most dairy products manufacturing facilities, will utilize most of the seasonally surplus in their own plants, and only small quantitie milk will be sold to handlers as Class II. a producer prices for milk in the various pa : Texas will be nearly uniform and will vary. by the cost of moving it from surplus to de, markets. However, with bulk movement an improved highway system, these costs will minimized. .» “ Milk handlers will increase the volume of j distributed on the average, expand their i areas and retail more milk. The number of tributors is likely to decrease as the smaller { A are unable to (1) compete with larger ind dents and chains in expanded market areas o benefit from economies of scale. As distrib, areas expand further, per unit margins likel ' be narrowed. This, coupled with higher if new equipment to remain in the fluid milk bo i, and distributing business, will probably “i small handlers and producer-distributors to with one another or sell out to the larger on [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] Location oi field research units oi the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and cooperating agencies ORGANIZATION OPERATION Research results are carried to Texas farmers, ranchmen and homemakers by county agents and specialists of the Texas Agricultural Ex- tension Service joc/ay 3 macaw/t .95 junior-row? regress State-wide Research The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station; is the public agricultural research agency? oi the State oi Texas. and is one oi ten i parts oi the Texas A6=M College System p IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are 16 subj matter departments, 2 service departments, 3 regulatory services and it administrative staff. Located out in the major agricultural areas of Texas 21 substations and 9 field laboratories. In addition, there are 14~ coopera stations owned by other agencies. Cooperating agencies include the T Forest Service, Came and Fish Commission of Texas, Texas Prison Sys , U. S. Department of Agriculture, University of Texas, Texas Technolo College, Texas College of Arts and Industries and the King Ranch. S0 experiments are conducted on farms and ranches and in rural homes. A THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 400 active research projects, grou, in 25 programs, which include all phases 0i agriculture in Texas. Amo these are: Beef cattle Dairy cattle Sheep and goats Swine Chickens and turkeys Animal diseases and parasites Fish and game Farm and ranch engineering Farm and ranch business ‘ Marketing agricultural products 5. Rural home economics ‘ Rural agricultural economics Plant diseases Conservation and improvement oi soil Conservation and use of water Grasses and legumes Grain crops Cotton and other fiber crops Vegetable crops Citrus and other subtropical fruits Fruits and nuts Oil seed crops Ornamental plants Brush and weeds Insects Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and central servi, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH seeks the WHATS, the WHYS, the WHENS, the WHERES and the HOWS oi hundreds oi problems which confront operators oi iarms and ranches, and the many industries depending on or serving agriculture. Workers oi the Main Station and the iield units oi the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station seek diligently to find solutions to these problems.