SUMMARY Grain production and use are oi major impor- tance to the Texas iarm economy. The iarm value oi grain grown in Texas aiter 1950 has varied irom 275 to 550 million dollars annually. Cash sales oi grain have amounted to about 15 percent oi total receipts irom crops and livestock in the State. Con- siderable amounts oi grain also are ied to livestock on the iarm where it is produced. Wheat production was about three-iourths oi total iood grain production in Texas in the 1940's. It declined in relative importance, while rice in- creased, in the iood grain group in the 1950's. Grain sorghum increased irom 21 percent oi total ieed grain production in 1935-39 to 72 percent in 1955-58, while corn decreased irom 52 to 14 per- cent. Texas usually grows more than one-iourth oi the total U. S. production oi rice. Production in- creased irom slightly less than 4 million bags (100 pounds) in 1935 to over 17 million in 1954. It varied irom 11 to 15 million bags aiter 1955. Acreage in- creased irom 167 thousand in 1935 to 637 thousand in 1954, but was less than 500 thousand in 1955-56, and less than 400 thousand in 1957-58. Yield per acre increased irom an average oi about 20 bags in the middle 1940's to slightly more than 30 bags in 1957-58. Wheat production in Texas increased irom an average oi 27 million bushels annually in the late 1930's to 75 million bushels in the late 1940's. Acre- age controls and drouth conditions caused a cut- back in production in the 1950's. Production aver- aged 36 million bushels annually in 1954-58. Changes in acreage harvested showed a pattern similar to that oi production averaging about 3 mil- lion in the late 1930's, over 6 million in the late 1940's and less than 3 million in 1954-58. District 1 is the heaviest wheat production district. but its relative importance has declined, while that oi it trict 2 has increased. since the late 1930's. Grain sorghum production in Texas incnih consistently and substantially during the 24- ‘ period covered in this study. Average annual - duction was only 30 million bushels in the 1930's, compared with 184 million in the 195 a period. An estimated 273 million bushel crop A grown in 1958. Acreage increased irom 2 in the late 1930's to over 6 million in 1954-58. H ever, a large portion oi the increased produ was a result oi increased yields rather than 4 creased acreage. Yields doubled in the 24- period, increasing irom an average oi 14.2 b =_ per acre in the late 1930's to_28.8 bushels in 195. Yield was estimated at 32.5 bushels in 1957 and bushels in 1958. v District 2 still contributes more acreage to - g sorghum production in the State than any o‘ district, although it declined irom 70 percent oi State acreage in 1939 to 45 percent in 1954. trict l is the second largest grain sorghum pro ing area and increased irom 12 percent oi t acreage in 1939 to 33 percent in 1954. Corn production in the State has shown a - sistent decline since the late 1930's, and the --;_ production has declined as a proportion oi -‘ U. S. production. Annual average production 76 million bushels in the 1935-39 period and 36 million bushels in 1954-58. Acreage dec'p irom an average oi 4.5 million to 2 million. Y’ averaged 21.4 bushels per acre in 1954-58, c‘ pared with only 16.5 bushels in the late'1930's. Oat production in the State has varied co‘ erably irom year to year. Average annual pr tion was 36 million bushels in the late 1930's, a 34 million in the 1954-58 period. Yield per acre 24.1 bushels in the late 1930's compared with { l in recent years. l‘ Changing Supply 0i Grains in Texas CLARENCE A. MOORE and HOWARD S. WHITNEY* iii-N PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION are impor- Iitant aspects of the Texas farm economy. The value of the seven principal grains grown State reached a peak of over 500 million in 1947. The annual farm value was 9' in 1950-57, varying between 275 and 431 n dollars, mainly because of drouth and pro- I n control programs. It again exceeded 500 an dollars in 1958. ,_.*'1‘he cash farm income from grains in Texas ent years amounted to about one-fifth of jfrom all crops and was more than one-tenth e total cash farm income from both crops iAHVGStOCR. Also, a part of the cash income "i livestock and poultry is, indirectly, income feed grains which go into their production. fiprincipal aim of this study is to determine i1 ange and trends in production of individual Qs since 1935 and the reasons for these a es. ifThe State was divided into six grain-pro- _‘ g districts for purposes of analyses and pre- ‘i tion. The district boundaries shown in Fig- were selected because (1) the study of lo- fjn and changes "in production in different of the State was based on census data, so ectively, associate professor and assistant professor, v rtment of Agricultural Economics and Sociology. nun mun ma: n. can rm uno- an nuuuicnnuiwuuniunoa u“ l l .L. on uni nu n um“ w" "In m,",_,u ‘mounts-manna ualnnhuua 1§ eoonimnaunu-llll y!!! w“ . i _ 1 n 'u nan: g Q" mqununuullfl’: mxwwuui-ulmum_w mun IlIlOl one: noun ma: d!" up "mlhlnl-u-‘iw. 1x v: """°" ' moo nu! ——- m“ i“ m." n Ive-In Q00 gum V41. ' ‘any. W. “"~ "w" ’ °“ v-ww was n; val I" a?! u?‘ “u Loun- non i") "W9 ‘A-fimw n“ ‘$31 k i?‘ kunnfilwl / ' _ ‘ convent on "lg “u” Inga-I w» m; WYOIIIMII u \ m1\/ / n i » "mum ._¢i-- u“ on; m" ’ ' mu,‘ In” mo: \__(‘_ u“ H»! \'\n "q" mm" H!“ “‘° ‘mm / ‘m’ j __ g IVIII A - u‘ | l I~7< unwfl S "II ~, ._.L°:"" “m. mm] \ '“"" . w, nuns n” -' ‘k, mun m“ w n.‘ ‘unn i “n” "n" nun .11} . w.‘ ‘m- ‘our m. ' -. pun u"! / all! was: In" '°" ‘ I" / “flwYt-sumuu u.“ m, ma; nun “u” A E come i; ~ . i" “u” .1»- 1‘ ' ._s- - “I \.. n gure 1. Grain production district boundaries used in dy. districts were outlined along census economic area boundaries, (2) the districts were outlined to conform as nearly as possible to broad under- lying differences in grain production conditions and (3) a few large districts were preferred to many small areas for clarity of description. The Southwest part of the State was excluded as a grain production district since only small amounts are grown there. The seven principal grains were divided into two groups-food grain and feed grain. Most wheat, rice and rye are used for human consump- tion and are included in the food grain group. A small part of the food grains is used as feed for livestock, and some of the feed grains are pro- cessed into food for human consumption, but most of the different grains are used according to the group in which they are classified. Grain sorghum, rice, wheat and corn ranked first to fourth in farm value in 1953-57. How- ever, the relative importance of the different grains varies from year to year. For example, part of the increase in acreage of grain sorghum was caused by a reduction of cotton and wheat CONTENTS Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Food Grains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Statewide Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 District Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Rye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Feed Grains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Grain Sorghum . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . .11 Statewide Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 District Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Statewide Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 District Trends . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Statewide Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 District Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Statewide Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 District Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 TABLE 1. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE FOOD GRAINS IN TEXAS IN TERMS OF PRODUCTION. ACREAGE AND FARM VALUE BY 5-YEAR PERIODS Five-year periods Grains 1935-39 1940-44 1945-49 1950-54 1955-58‘ — — — Percent oi total food grains — — — Production’ Wheat 68.9 75.2 78.0 45.0 57.2 Rice 30.9 24.5 21.8 54.5 42.5 Rye .2 .3 .2 .5 .3 ' Acreage harvested Wheat 92.4 90.5 92.5 81.8 84.6 Rice 7.3 9.0 7.1 17.2 14.7 Rye .3 .5 .4 1.0 .7 Farm value Wheat 70.3 69.2 74.7 42.1 51.2 Rice 29.5 30.6 25.1 57.7 48.6 Rye .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 ‘Four-year average. 2Based on bushels. acreage under production control programs. Un- favorable planting conditions in cotton areas, and wheat crop failures in the Panhandle and Roll- ing Plains, caused increased plantings of grain sorghum in those areas in some years. General drouth conditions prevailed in large parts of Texas during 1950-57. This probably distorted to some extent the grain production situation from that which would have prevailed had there been more average rainfall in the State. The price support program, the soil bank program, the export policy and other action by the Federal Government also exerted an impor- tant influence on the production and distribution of grains. STATE TOTAL- 60I639 ACRES I DOT EQUALS $000 ACRES Figure 2. Location of rice production in Texas. Based on-census enumeration of acreage harvested. 4 FOOD GRAINS The relative importance of the food in terms of production, acreage and value shown in Table 1. Wheat production avera 69 to 78 percent of total food grain (wheat, , and rye) production during 1935-49 by 5-y periods. Since 1950, it has declined in relat importance in the food grain group. Wheat is of greater importance relative: other food grains in terms of acreage rathert production. During 1935-49, the acreage a vested was 9O percent or more of total food gr acreage, but since 1950 it has only been 80 .430‘ percent by period averages. Wheat is grown in semi-arid areas of State. Only a small part of the wheat acreai‘ is irrigated. Thus, it is grown in less product areas and under less productive conditions t rice. In the early 1950’s rice production was ‘y most 55 percent of total food grain producti, However, wheat was hard hit by drouth in if years. It has recovered somewhat since 1955. During 1935-49 the farm value of the Te Ti wheat crop was 69 to 75 percent of the farm value of food grains by 5-year period av ages—-proportions similar to its importance bag on production. In the early 1950’s it was slig ly above 40 percent, and in recent years sligh . over 50 percent, of total farm value of y grains. Rice made up 25 to 31 percent of f grain value in the first three periods, but I been 58 and 49 percent in the two periods si i 1950. Rye is of minor importance in Texas c0 pared with wheat and rice. Its acreage .1 vested was 1 percent or less of total food gr acreage. Its production was half, or less, of percent and its value only two-tenths of 1 p cent, of that of total food grain production a, value by periods since 1935. . Rice Rice is grown in more than 20 counties. the Coast Prairie of Texas. Most of the produ tion is concentrated in about 15 counties, Figu, 2. The localized area of production along 5 Gulf Coast is a result of physical and econo J conditions. A comparatively level topograp with slowly permeable subsoil is preferred f efficient irrigation and mechanized productio The availability of water for irrigation from t i Neches, Sabine, Trinity, Brazos and Colora rivers, and from underground water suppli around Katy and Hockley, is favorable to p duction in the area. The area also has favorab, weather conditions, growing season (rice requir 110 to 180 days of high temperatures) and to surface drainage. a Favorable economic factors are its locati near Gulf shipping points and a system of r0 A ilwith cattle, required for “resting” rice land. _r crops have a comparative economic advant- < over rice 1n other areas where it could be fAlthough the United States contributes less r» 2 percent to the world’s total production, gs ranks first among the states producing A Annual production in the State averaged V». million barrels during 1950-57, compared 1i. 12.7 and 11.0 for Louisiana and California, ectively. Texas usually contributes slightly than one-fourth of the total U. S. produc- Figure 3. A Since 1940 an increasing proportion of the ll disappearance of the U. S. rice crop has f; exported. About 74 percent of the total dis- rance in 1940-44 was used domestically, ‘pared with only 56 percent during 1950-54 ’ 50 percent in 1955-56. .1 Less of the total domestic disappearance has , used for food and more for industrial uses, arily for beer production. Seventy-seven ent of domestic disappearance was used for i". in 1940-44, compared with less than 70 per- during 1950-56. Only 13 percent of domes- ‘disappearance went to industrial uses in 1940- fcompared with nearly 20 percent since 1950. ’ Changes in production, acreage and yield of i; are shown in Figure 4. Production increased er consistently from 3,908,000 bags (100 i‘ ds) in 1935 to 17,040,000 in 1954, the peak Auction year. Decreases in production from , previous year occurred in only 3 of the 20 i} s ending in 1954. However, production drop- ; to 14,640,000 bags in 1955, 11,687,000 in 1956 l 11,104,000 in 1957. It was estimated at 11,- "000 bags in 1958. Computation of a least- Ares trend equation indicates that production fjeased at an annual rate of 524,258 bags in -55. Acreage in rice increased from 167,000 in g» to 637,000 in 1954, the peak year. Govern- controls have cut acreage back since 1954. ~ as 480,000 in 1955, 403,000 in 1956 and an F ated 347,000 in 1957. Computation of a t-squares trend equation indicates that acre- t increased at an annual rate of 19,085 acres f. 1935 through 1955. ‘The average yield of rice was 22 to 25 bags f acre during 1935-40, but dropped to about 16 s in 1941 and remained relatively low during _1940’s. Recently yields have increased stead- to a high of 32 bags. in 1957. 1 The change in value, price and production he Texas rice crop by successive 5-year peri- A, is shown in Table 2. Since the value is com- V». by multiplying production by the average re, changes in value occur only as one or both roduction and price changes. o PERCENT F 3O v- . 2D h I no a Ijiiiixé A rnonucro was I940 1945 |95o I955 Figure 3. Proportion of total U. S. rice production grown in Texas, 1935-57. Columns 6 and 7 show the extent to which changes in value of rice from one period to another were caused by changes in price and production. The data indicate that price change was almost four times as important as produc- tion change in contributing to the increase in value from the late 1930’s to the early 1940’s, and was about one-fourth greater in contribu- l5.000 PRODUCTION l2 .500 $0,000 7,500 L000 BAGS 5,000 2,500 600 500 400 300 1,000 ACR ES 200 I00 _ BAGS l I I \ I935 I940 I945 I950 I955 Figure 4. Rice: annual and S-year moving average oi production, acreage harvested and yield in Texas, 1935-58. 5 ting to the change in value from the early to the late 1940’s. Since 1950, production change has been the main cause of change in value, and price change has been a realtively minor cause. Both acreage and production have been cut back considerably in the past few years, under the government's production control efforts, while price has been regulated. Wheat The wheat crop was of greater value than any other grain in Texas in the last half of the 1940’s. It made up about 37 percent of the total value of the seven principal food and feed grains in the State at that time as compared with about 12 percent for rice, 24 percent for grain sorghum and 19 percent for corn. Since 1950, the importance of wheat com- pared with other grains has declined because of unfavorable production conditions and govern- ment policy affecting acreage. In 1950-54, acre- age in wheat was 21 percent less than in 1945-49, while production was 68 percent less. Drouth in the early years of the 1950’s was especially se- vere in those areas of the State Where Wheat is grown. About two-thirds of the wheat crop is grown on the High Plains, slightly less than one-fourth on the Rolling Plains and about 8 percent in the Grand Prairie and Blackland Prairies areas of Texas. It is best adapted to the well-drained, medium and fine-textured soils. Most wheat grown in Texas is of the hard red winter wheat varieties. Spring seeding of wheat is not recom- mended in the State. Level topography has exerted considerable influence on wheat-growing practices. The de- velopment of large-scale farming methods, es- pecially the combine and the disk or sweep-type TABLE 2. RICE: CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE, PRODUCTION AND PRICE BY S-YEAR PERIODS AND THE RELAII, CONTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION AND PRICE TO THE CHANGE IN VALUE A Index of change in Change in value Periods from plows, made possible the handling of large ages. Low cost of production by these me gave wheat an economic advantage over t. crops. Therefore, commercial production wheat for the cash market has centered in- high weather-risk areas of the Great Plains I its level topography favorable for the use of machines in production. The quantity of wheat-‘used domesticall the United States has remained relatively f stant since the early 1920’s. The increas population has about offset the effect of a crease in consumption per person. In 19 F about nine-tenths of the domestic production used in the continental United States, and t. than six-tenths was processed for food. i Production in 1953-57 was more than 40F cent greater than in 1935-39. With domestic; the same quantity-wise as in earlier periods, 5 about six-tenths of the recent production _‘ used in the continental United States, and é four-tenths was processed for food. This ' cates a greater dependence on export marke, take the increased production in recent yea ' Although Texas grows an average of 43, 000 bushels of wheat annually, this makes‘ only a relatively small proportion of total "i production. Kansas ranks first among the w producing states. Acreage in Texas usually ies from 4 to 9 percent of total U. S. acr while the State’s production varies from 2 f percent of U. S. production, Figure 5. This, dicates lower yields per acre in Texas than average of the nation. i STATEWIDE TRENDS The annual and 5-year moving averag production, acreage and yield of wheat in T are shown in Figure 6. The prewar 193 average annual production was about 27 mi Amount oi change in value attributed directly to change in‘ Amount ot change j value attributed -¥ Value Production Price previous period finteractioil of Chan Production Price m production and ' '1 ' — — — — — — ——_————————Percent—-—-———------—------ .1 1935-39 100.0 100.0 100.0 p —— -—- --- i 1940-44 264.4 127.9 207.1 164.4 27.9 107.1 29.4 1945-49 521.6 172.1 303.6 97.2 34.5 46.6 16.1 1950-54 817.4 257.8 317.8 56.7 49.8 4.7 2.2 1955-583 A 698.8 224.1 313.1 —14.5 —13.1 —1.5 0.1 ‘The percentage contribution of price to the change in value shown here assumes production remains the same, and bution of production to change in value assumes price remains the same. ' “A residual of change in value not accounted for by changes in price and production under“ assumptions outlined in to, l. The sum oi the direct and indirect changes in the last 3 columns of the table is equal to the change in value from pro period recorded in column 4. . “Four-year period. 6 s, but varied between 11 million and 42 f bushels. The peak 1947 production was ' illion bushels. Production in 1950-57 was _ut the 1935-39 level, varying between 14 i" 6 million bushels. The1957 production was 1- than 33 million bushels. Favorable pro- on conditions in 1958 produced a crop esti- _;-~ at 73 million bushels with a record aver- ield of 22 bushels per acre in the State. I ' The 1935-39 average annual acreage har- was almost 3 million, but varied from 1.6 in in 1935 to 3.9 million in 1937. The peak éjharvested since 1950 has varied between 1.5 113.3 million. 5 Changes in yield may occur as a result of being grown on more or less productive g the use of higher or lower yielding varie- change in the use of fertilizer practices, e in cultural practices, more or less irriga- i, or change in weather or growing conditions. wing conditions probably have been the main uence on wheat yields in Texas, as the mark- _,.hange in yields from year to year, especially gthe 1940’s, would indicate. Average yields in ' State varied from 7 to 18.5 bushels per acre ;;1935-57, the highest occurring in 1944. The rage yield of 22 bushels per acre in 1958 was é bushels greater than the 1944 yield. .4 The fact that yields since 1950, which in- ed several years of severe drouth conditions, 1e averaged slightly higher than in the prewar 5-39 period suggests improvements were made f» adopted that increased wheat yield potentials the State. Growers may be using higher yield- ' varieties and better cultural practices. Also, ‘re has been a trend toward greater acreages élirrigated wheat. A recent unofficial estimate that 600,000 acres are irrigated at least once. _ Changes in farm value, price and produc- 1 of wheat in Texas by successive 5-year per- l’ averages, and the extent to which the change i‘ value from one period to another was caused I a change in price, production, or both to- her, are shown in Table 3. For example, the , value of the Texas wheat crop was 151 per- i; t greater in the early 1940’s than in the late 30’s, column 5. Had price been the same in f e two periods, the increase in production would vg“ accounted for a 76 percent greater value in e'later period, column 6. Or had production the same in the two periods, the increase in 'ce would have accounted for a 43 percent in- ease in value. The direct effect of price and i, duction changes, then, amounted to about 119 g the 151-percent value change-leaving 31.6 rcent unaccounted for. This 31.6 percent is a ult of the interaction of production and price l both changed simultaneously, column 8. t, Change in production caused more of the ange in value of wheat than did change in price a crop was grown on 7.3 million acres. Acre- a PERCENT I I5 I935 I940 I945 I950 I955 Figure 5. Proportion of total U. S. wheat production grown in Texas, 1935-57. from the late 1930’s to the early 1940’s. Change in price was slightly more influential as a cause of change in value from the early to the late 1940’s. A large decrease in production was the cause of a decline in value from the late 1940’s to the early 1950’s, with price averaging almost 12 percent higher in the 1950’s. The 1955-58 average farm value of wheat was 23.5 percent above that of 1950-54 (the smallest change PRODUCTION l20,000 .. l00,000 80,000 60 ,O00 |,000 BUSHELS 40,000 20,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 L000 ACRE S 4,000 3,000 2,000 YIELD I935 x940 1945 1950 1955 Figure 6. Wheat: annual and S-year moving average of production, acreage harvested and yield in Texas. 1935-58. 7 a TABLE 3. WHEAT: ‘CHANGE IN THE AVERAGE VALUE, PRODUCTION AND PRICE BY S-YEAR PERIODS AND THE TIVE CONTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION ANDPRICE TO THE CHANGE IN VALUE _ t _ l Amount _oi change in Amuuttt 0t change '_ _ Index oi change 1n Chqngf m V“ 11° value attributed _d1rectly value attributed tat Petmds . . . r°m . 1° ‘mange m1 interaction oi chang Value Production Price previous period in reduction and ti» Production Price p p _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —— Percent-—————————5;+————-—— 1995-99 100.0 100.0 100.0 -_- -_ -- 3'» - 1940-44 ' 251.1 176.3 143.2 151.1 76.3 43.2 31.6 1945-49 648.6 ‘ 276.8 234.6 158.3 57.1 63.8 37.4 1950-54 249.0 a 95.7 201.7 -01.5 -s5.4 11.0 -7.7 1955-503 900.0 195.0 220.4 20.5 41.5 _12.7 -5.0 “ ‘The percentage contribution oi price to the change in value shown here assumes production remains the same. and co bution oi production to change in value assumes price remains the same. 7 2A residual oi change in value not accounted ior by changes in price and production under assumptions outlined in iootn1 1. The sum oi the direct and indirect changes in the last 3 columns oi the table is equal to the changes in value irom pro"; ous period recorded in column 5. “Four-year period. recorded from one period to another). A rather southwestern tip of the district. Production t large increase in production (influenced by the District 3 is scattered rather thinly in the upp 1958 crop) overweighed a decline in average part, with little or no wheat grown in an ar price to cause the increase in the average value covering the lower part and extending up on t‘ of recent years. east side to about the middle of the east boun ary. ‘ DISTRICT TRENDS The location intensity of wheat in terms of acreage harvested based on the 1954 census enu- meration is shown in Figure 7. Most of the wheat is grown in Districts 1, 2 and 3. In Dis- trict 2, heavy production is along the east side, with scattered production extending into the western part, and little or no wheat grown in the The proportions of the State’s total acreage harvested in Districts 1, 2 and 3 bas on census data and for the last 4 census yea are shown in Table 4. District 1 showed a decl'i ing proportion of the total acreage since 1939. t_ grew 77 percent (over three-fourths) of the to acreage in 1939, only 72 percent in 1944, 62 pe cent (the most marked decrease) in 1949 and percent in 1954. District 2 showed a consiste; increase in proportion of total wheat acreage ha, vested from one census to another, having 11 pe. cent in 1939 and 28 percent in 1954. District s; TABLE 4. PROPORTION OF STATE WHEAT ACREAD HARVESTED IN SPECIFIED DISTRICTS BY CENSUS YE I: Proportion oi State total wheat acrea Districts harvested by districts t 1999 1944 1949 19 ——-——-—Percent———- 1 77.0 72.9 52.2 5a a 2 11.4 15.0 25.0 27.. 01 10.7 a 10.4 10.7 10. § Rest oi State 9.9 1.7 2.1 9. STATE TOTAL- 9119.179 ACRES State 15101 100.0 100.0 100.0 100. t 1 DOT EQUALS 5,000 ACRES » ‘Small acreages were reported in economic areas 9 and ' in the southern part oi District 3 in 1939. 1944 and 19A Such information was not included in the 1954 census = those areas. but was thrown in with the State total. Figure 7. Location oi wheat production in Texas. Based other parts oi District 3 where this information was not r’, on census enumeration oi acreage harvested in 1954, ex- corded in some counties by the 1954 census, crop repo ': panded by an adjustment based on AMS crop reporting estimates were used. The adjustments described here estimates in those counties omitted irom the census enumer- so minor they would have little or no eiiect on results pr ation. The census-reported State total was 3.022.518 acres. sented in the table. 8 [id about the same, excepting a slightly ,.iproportion in 1954 than in previous cen- yrs. _nual data 0n wheat are available from the eporting Service estimates and can be down and arranged by districts. For the years (1939, 1944, 1949 and 1954) the h ions of acreage harvested by districts, Ion the crop reporting estimates, were al- identical to those based on the census enu- Z-on, differing only by tenths of a percent. ‘owever, the annual data were somewhat evealing of the relative trends of wheat ‘e in the three districts than that provided census. Annual data tend to register 'ng proportions from year to year because erences in weather conditions among the hits. Therefore, the proportions of the total e harvested in each of the three districts 1.» puted on the basis of 5-year period aver- in Table 5 to “average-out” the effect of any u?» annual weather differences between dis- y, e Crop Reporting Service data show an "se in the proportion of wheat acreage in ct 1 from the late 1930’s to the early 1940’s. 3' a time when wheat acreage was increas- the State as a whole. The data indicate e increased more rapidly during that time trict 1 than in Districts 2 and 3, since both r itter districts showed a lower proportion of r: te total in 1940-44 than in 1935-39. Since rly 1940’s, District 1 has harvested a lower 1 ion of the total acreage each subsequent period, and Districts 2 and 3 have har- a greater proportion. District 1 averaged three-fourths of total wheat acreage in rly 1940’s but has harvested less than half ent years. Rye is considerably less important than t} and rice as a grain crop in Texas. In gen- it is a byproduct since most rye acreage is , for winter pasture and is harvested only makes grain after pasturing. . the 1935-39 period, the Texas rye crop [nly two-tenths of 1 percent of total U. S. ction, and acreage harvested was in the proportion to the U. S. total acreage. 53-57, Texas production was 1 percent of 7U. S. production. This slightly greater pro- '3. in recent years was due both to an in- in rye production in the State and a de- 1- in the Nation. However, the Texas crop jharvested from 1.7 percent of total U. S. ‘ge in the recent 5-year period, indicating tate’s yield per acre was not as high rela- y average U. S. yields as it was in the late s. TABLE 5. PROPORTION OF TOTAL STATE WHEAT ACRE- AGE HARVESTED BY DISTRICTS, CROP REPORTING ESTI- MATES. 5-YEAR PERIOD AVERAGES Period Districts 1935-39 1940-44 1945-49 1950-54 1955-57‘ — — — — ——Percent—-———- 1 62.4 74.4 64.4 51.3 49.6 2 20.0 15.0 23.2 31.5 29.5 3 16.1 9.2 10.6 15.5 20.1 Rest of Estate 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.7 0.8‘ State total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ‘Three-year period average. Rye can be grown in all states, but the chief areas of production are in the northern and east- ern states. Highest yields are obtained on rich, well-drained loam soils, but it is more productive than other grains on infertile, sandy or acid soils. It usually yields less grain than winter wheat un- der conditions favorable to the latter crop and, as a consequence, is usually sown on poorer soils and with poorer seedbed preparation than is wheat. The annual and 5-year moving averages of rye production, acreage and yield in Texas are PRODUCTION 360 300 (I) _l LL] i, 24o D D Q IBO O 9 12o so 6° _ ACREAGE HARVEST§D (l) LU I Q <1 O O 3 BUSHELS I935 I940 I945 I950 I955 Figure 8. Rye: annual and S-year moving average oi production. acreage harvested and yield in Texas. 1935-58. 9 TABLE 6. RYE: CHANGE IN THE AVERAGE VALUE. PRODUCTION AND PRICE BY S-YEAR PERIODS AND THE RE CONTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION AND PRICE TO THE CHANGE IN VALUE 0 Index of change in Periods h - 1 . . Value Production Price previous period to c cmge m irllnterlfcffigzioxffafllaa Production Price p _'_ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —— Percent——-————————Ar————-—-—I 1905-09 100.0 100.0 100.0 - -_ - = k —- 1940-44 285.7 244.7 117.2 185.7 144.7 17.2 23.8 1945-49 714.3 ' 306.6 234.4 150.0 25.3 100.0 24.7 1950-54 675.5 335.5 203.1 —5.4 9.4 —13.3 —1.5 i 1955-58” 387.8 255.3 153.1 --42.6 —23.9 —24.6 5.9 ‘l A Change in value Amount of change in _ _ Amount ot change i value attributed directly value attributed t ‘The percentage contribution of price to the change in value shown here assumes production remains the same, and c » bution oi production to change in value assumes price remains the same. 2A residual of change in value not accounted for by changes in price and production under assumptions outlined in --" 1. The sum of the direct and indirect changes in the last 3 columns of the table is equal to the change in value from pr ous period recorded in column 5. “Four-year period. shown in Figure 8. Excepting a slight setback in 1938, production increased from 36,000 bush- els in 1935 to 196,000 in 1941. Since 1941, it has registered ups and downs due to change in both acreage and yields. The general trend, as indicated by the 5-year moving average, has been one of increasing production. A least-squares trend equation shows an annual increase of al- most 8,500 bushels during 1935-55. The 1954-58 average annual production of 237,200 bushels was slightly more than three times the average annual production of 76,400 bushels in 1935-39. Acreage harvested in the State shows a pat- tern similar to that of production. The move- ment upward was fairly consistent, however, through 1944. The 22,000 acres harvested in 1944 compared with 3,000 in 1935. Since 1945, acreage registered ups and downs from year to year, with a long-run pattern trending upward. A least-squares trend equation shows an annual increase in rye acreage in the State of about 1,200 acres during 1935-55. The 48,000 acres harvested in 1954 was the largest rye crop grown in the 24-year period in Texas. The 1954-58 average annual acreage of 25,800 Was slightly more than three times the 1935-39 average of 8,200. The annual yield per acre is low, varying be- tween 6 and 14 bushels during the 24-year period studied. There appears to be no long-run trend of either increasing or decreasing yields. The 5-year average yield during 1954-58 was 9.1 bushels compared with 9.3 bushels in 1935-39. The annual farm value of rye produced in Texas in the early 1940’s was almost three times the annual value in the late 1930’s, Table 6. Pro- duction increase was considerably more import- ant than price increase in contributing to the change in value between the two periods. How- ever, higher prices were more important in con- l0 tributing to a 150 percent greater value of t rye crop in the late 1940’s than in the 1940’s. The value of the rye crop decrea, from the late 1940’s to the early 1950’s, and r istered a more marked decrease from 1950-54 1955-58. Lower prices accounted for the ear A decline in value and both production and pry were lower in 1955-58 than in 1950-54, contri ting to lower value of the rye crops. “ FEED GRAINS Total production of the four feed grains Texas varied from year to year during the years studied. There was no discernible te I ency toward a long-run increase or decrease i production, although the average production d g ing 1955-58 was considerably higher than p, TABLE 7. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE FEED GR I: IN TEXAS IN TERMS OF PRODUCTION, ACREAGE " FARM VALUE BY 5-YEAR PERIODS, 1935-58 Five-year periods 1940-44 1945-49 1950-54 1955 Grains _ 1935-39 — — — Percent oi total teed grains — — 5 Production , Grain sorghum 20.9 38.1 47.7 58.9 72.13 Corn 52.5 41.0 30.9 24.4 14.0‘ Oats 25.2 17.8 19.7 15.7 12.1’ Barley 1.4 3.1 1.7 1.0 1.8 Acreage harvested Grain sorghum 25.6 37.1 48.7 57.0 65.75 Corn 54.7 46.0 33.2 27.4 17.1 ' Oats 18.1 13.8 16.2 14.3 14.7? ' Barley 1.6 3.1 1.9 1.3 2.5 . . Farm value i: Grain sorghum 21.5 39.2 49.9 59.3 73.1. Corn 61.0 46.0 36.1 29.5 17.0 Oats 16.2 12.1 12.5 10.3 8.1 Barley 1.3 2.7 1.5 .9 1.8} ‘A 4-year average. periods. However, there were marked es and trends in the production of indiv- p grains. These are reflected in a change in elative importance of the grains in the feed 3| group. Overall, grain sorghum showed a i '2 ed increase, corn a marked decline and oats “ht decrease in their relative importance in peed grain group during 1935-57, Table 7. l-fGrain sorghum increased from 21 percent of f 935-39 production of the four feed grains to rcent of the 1955-58 production. Corn de- ti. from 52 percent in the earlier period to g 14 percent in the recent one. The increase " ain, sorghum, and the decrease of corn, in ive importance was consistent from one per- to another. Oats dropped from 25 percent in flate 1930’s to 12 percent of total production 55-58. ; The gain in relative importance of grain sor- F» Was about the same in terms of the total ‘u value of feed grains as in production, in- ‘ing from 22 percent in 1935-39 to 73 per- g in 1955-58. Corn was more important in ;.. of value than production, but showed a "lar decline in importance by both measures. ropped from 61 percent in 1935-39 to 17 per- in 1955-58. Oats were less important in i“ of value than production, although the pat- i; of change in relative importance was the ‘e by both measures. In 1935-39 grain sorghum was harvested ‘a about one-fourth, and corn from over half he total feed grain acreage. In recent years ._,relative status of the two grains in terms of Was reversed, with corn acreage only 17 jjent and grain sorghum acreage 66 percent ital feed grain acreage. Oats acreage was 18 l» ent of the total in 1935-39 and about 15 per- in 1955-58. Barley is of minor importance compared with er feed grains, regardless of which measure sed. It varied from less than 1 to 2.7 per- t 0f total value, from 1 to 3.1 percent of total uction and from 1.3 to 3.1 percent of total "eage of the feed grains by period averages. Grain Sorghum Grain sorghum is adapted to a Wide variety fnvironmental conditions and can be grown "essfully over a large part of Texas. Tech- f== developments, such as improved varieties n hybrids and irrigation, plus economical and ftical developments played an important role he expansion ofgrain sorghum production by Tng it a more preferred position profitwise v other crops with which it competes. l? Short types of grain sorghum suitable for 7-. hanical harvesting with combines were de- ped in the late 1930’s. Supplemental irriga- in the more arid areas where the grain is PERCENT I I00 80- so' 4O 20 0 /TEXAS bnooucrlou |s45 I935 I940 Figure 9. Proportion of total U. S. production of grain sorghum grown in Texas. 1935-57. grown has been increasing and has received im- petus in drouth years. Acreage controls in the late 1930’s and after World War II on crops com- peting with grain sorghum for land favored the expansion of grain sorghum production. More recently, the development of higher yielding hy- brids has made possible increased returns per acre. This, along with improvements in ferti- PRODUCTION 300,000 - 250,000 200,000 l50,000 L000 BUSHELS |oo,ooo 50,0 0O 7,000 epoo 5,000 |,ooo ACRES 4,000 3,000 2,000 BUSHELS -.|--1|-..||A4..ln I935 I940 I945 I950 I955 Figure 10. Grain sorghum: annual and 5-year moving average oi production, acreage harvested and yield in Texas, 1935-58. 11 TABLE 8. GRAIN SKORGHUM: CHANGE IN THE AVERAGE VALUE, PRODUCTION AND PRICE BY 5-YEAR PERIODS '1 THE RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION AND PRICE TO THE CHANGE IN VALUE » Amount of change in value attributed directly to change in‘ Amount of change _ value attributed t. interaction oi chant Index <51 change 1n Change in value Periods irOm Value Production Price previous period Production Price in production and p i - - — - — — — — — — — — — — —— Percent——————————-._——————— ' 1935-39 100.0 100.0 100.0 —— —- —-H‘ i‘ —- 1940-44 323.0 214.3 150.0 223.0 114.3 50.0 58.7 1945-49 583.1 ' 234.5 246.3 80.5 9.4 64.2 6.9 , 1950-54 707.7 307.1 227.8 21.4 30.9 -—7.5 —2.0 f‘ t‘ 1955-583 1202.4 646.2 185.2 69.9 110.4 —18.7 -—21.8 5i ‘The percentage contribution of price to the change in value shown here assumes production remains the same. and co bution of production to change in value assumes price remains the same. _ 2A residual oi change in value not accounted for by changes in price and production under assumptions outlined in fool 1. The sum of the direct and indirect changes in the last 3 columns of the table is equal to the change in value from pr ous period recorded in column 5. “Four-year period. lizer use and other production practices, improv- ed its economic advantage. A favorable position for export markets, the development of grain sor- ghum marketing and processing facilities and an increasing awareness of the feeding value of grain sorghum favored producers in the State with an increasing demand for their product as their production expanded. Texas contributes a large part to the Na- tion’s total grain sorghum production, Figure 9. The State’s production has varied from 40 to 74 percent of the Nation’s total since 1935. Acre- age harvested in the State has varied from 35 to 70 percent of the Nation’s acreage. Thus, yield per acre in Texas averages slightly higher than in the United States as a whole. STATE TOTAL- 5,620,095 ACRES l DOT EOUALS 5,000 ACRES Figure I1. Location of grain sorghum production in Texas. Based on census enumeration of acreage harvested in 1954. 12 STATEWIDE TRENDS The trend is one of rather marked incr in grain sorghum production in the State, F111 10. But there has been rather sharp reversals some years. From a low of 20 million bush in 1936 it climbed to almost 100 million in ‘f but dropped to 59 million in 1945. It climb again to almost 145 million bushels in 1950, a again reversed itself to reach a low 54 million’ 1952. With the exception of a slight setback 1956 it has shown marked increases since. ‘v 238 million bushels grown in 1957 were 60 f cent greater than the previous record of 148 1 lion in 1955. The 1958 crop was estimated’ 273 million bushels. The 1954-58 average 4 duction of 184 million bushels was about é times as large as the 1935-39 average of 30 i. lion. A least-squares trend equation showed p duction increased by about 4.5 million bushels: year during 1935-55. " The pattern of acreage harvested is simi to that of production, although increases ha not been as large. There were three exceptio TABLE 9. PROPORTION OF TOTAL STATE ACREAGE ‘ GRAIN SORGHUM GROWN IN SPECIFIED DISTRICTS CENSUS YEARS = Census years District " 1999 1944 1949 1 f - — — — —— Percent —— ——— 1 12.2 22.9 25.5 9 _ 2 71.2 54.5 49.5 - if 9 9.1 4.9 9.9 1 - 4 9.2 5.5 11.9 11 5 .5 .9 .5 9 .5 .1 .2 Other districts 3.2 2.7 6.0 _ State 15141 100.0 100.0 100.0 1o Q10. RELATIVE CHANGE smcn 193s m ACREAGE I SORGHUM rmnvzsrzn BY ms-rmcrs AND ' census YEARS Census years 1939 1944i 1949 1954 — — — — ——Percent—————— 100 410 327 686 100 201 102 160 100 104 161 208 100 378 579 909 100 122 145 427 100 35 48 36 1101a!" 100 222 157 255 f! 39 acreage harvested increased but produc- .decreased, from the previous year; in 1949 ‘ge harvested decreased, but production in- ‘ed, over 1948; and in 1953 there was a ; decrease in acreage harvested accompanied ’ slight increase in production over that of 5 A least-squares trend equation showed an 1;: of 150 thousand acres a year during 55. rYields show considerable change from year ,r, a result of seasonal weather variation eas where grain sorghum is grown. How- i, there was a rather consistent upward trend I te yields throughout the period studied. al average yields varied from 11 bushels in .01 to an estimated 35.5 bushels in 1958. The average yield of 1954-58 was 28.8 bushels ‘acre, twice the 14.2 bushel average in 1935- least-squares trend equation indicates yield Iased by about one-half bushel per acre per _ in 1935-55. Factors contributing to the increase in yields pot be identified separately and their effect ured. The adoption of improved varieties, T oped in the 1930’s, and an increase in sup- ental irrigation probably were major con- g ting factors. Increased use of higher yield- iihybrids no doubt helped improve yields be- ing in 1957. Possibly better land prepara- p, seeding and cultivation, as well as increased 0f fertilizer, contributed to higher yields. f as acreage controls were put into effect on i and wheat, land formerly used for those was shifted to grain sorghum. This di- @- acreage may have been more productive neral than land formerly used for grain sor- 5 u ?‘The change in value, price and production _-year periods, and the relative importance of _ and production in contributing to the Ige in value from one period to another, are in Table 8. The increase in production ll the late 1930’s to the early 1940’s was about ~- as important as the change in price in con- ting to an increase in value of the grain sor- PERCENT l 5 . _.;_...._.....~. ....__. .. aLaa?;>a;2>.W/.?%w% I935 I940 I945 I950 I955 0 Figure 12. Proportion of total U. S. production of corn grown in Texas. 1935-57. ghum crop to more than three times its 1935-39 average. Price was the main factor in the in- crease in value from the early to the late 1940’s. Increases in value of the crop in the two periods since 1950 were a result of increases in produc- tion sufficiently great to more than compensate for decreases in the average price that occurred in both periods. 9 0,000 PRODUCTION 80,000 g 70,000 _ " \, I ‘ o-Annuul ‘g . m 60,000 _ ~ o \\o—5-yr. 0v. O 50,000 _ \ Q \ /’*\ 40,000 _ \ 30,000 \\ HI 4,000 3,000 1,000 ACRES 2,000 1,000 _ 26 24 22 20 l8 . I6 BUSHELS l4 g n 1 n n l n l n 1 I l | n | I 1 | | | l a n I935 I940 I945 1950 1955 Figure 13. Corn: annual and S-year moving average of production, acreage harvested and yield in Texas. 1935-58. 13 TABLE 11. CORN: * CHANGE IN THE AVERAGE VALUE, PRODUCTION AND PRICE BY 5-YEAR PERIODS AND THE TIVE CONTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION AND PRICE TO THE CHANGE IN VALUE - Amount oi change in Amount of change Index oi change in Change in value value attributed directly value attributed ~ Periods Value Production Price Previoiugniieriod to change inl - interact“? oi ch '9 Production Price m productmn and '3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ pement....___________&________7 1905-09 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- -- -- 3'» -— 1940-44 133.7 91.9 144.3 33.7 ——8.1 44.3 —2.5 1945-49 149.0 . 60.8 244.3 11.4 —33.9 69.3 —24.0 1950-54 124.4 50.8 242.6 —16.5 —-l6.4 —0.7 0.6 1955-583 98.4 50.0 195.1 —20.9 —1.5 —19.6 0.2 ‘The percentage contribution oi price to the change in value shown here assumes bution oi production to change in value assumes price remains the same. y changes in price and production under assumptions outlined in io, ct changes in the last 3 columns oi the table is equal to the change in value from - 2A residual oi change in value not accounted ior b 1. The sum oi the direct and indire ous period recorded in column 5. HFour-year period. DISTRICT TRENDS The location and concentration of grain sor- ghum acreage in the State are shown in Figure 11. There are scattered small acreages in some counties and districts not shown on the map. The only data available for discussing changes that occurred in the major production areas in Texas are that provided by the census for 1939, 1944, 1949 and 1954. These data have been analyzed for each of the districts outlined on the map. Since data by districts are not available for other years, highly favorable or unfavorable weather, or other conditions, in census years possibly may distort the district changes. The STATE TOTAL-l,665,892 ACRES I DOT EOUALS 5,000 ACRE$ Figure 14. Location oi corn production in Texas. Based on census enumeration oi acreage harvested 1n 1954. 14 production remains the same, and State data in Figure 10 show that 1944 . age was high, compared with that of years. fore and after, and that 1949 acreage was Thus the higher 1944 acreage compared to ~ shown for the State and some districts exag ates the trend during that period. Similarlyfi lower acreage of 1949 compared to 1944 dis 5 the change in the late 1940’s. _ In spite of the high and low status of ._ 1944 and 1949 data from that which prec and followed those years, the 1954 census Q compared with that of 1939 probably indi :» fairly accurately the changes that took pla = the State and its major districts. This chat teristic of the 1944 and 1949 census data ~f not affect its reliability in determining cha in the relative importance of the different tricts in contributing to the State’s total pro tion. é The relative importance of the districts’ tribution to total State acreage by census -t_ is shown in Table 9. The proportion grown District 1 showed a consistent increase from 1 TABLE 12. PROPORTION OF TOTAL STATE ACREAG CORN GROWN IN SPECIFIED DISTRICTS BY =11 YEARS Districts Census years 1939 1944 1949 — — — — — — Percent — — — — J 1 0.4 0.6 0.4 2 3.7 4.2 2.6 3 55.7 56.6 56.9 4 5.7 11.1 11.7 5 8.0 6.7 7.5 s 20.0 . 15.7 16.1 Rest oi State 3.5 5.1 4.8 State 10ml 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 year to another, contributing 12 percent 39, compared with 33 percent in 1954. iAlthough the greatest proportion of the 7's total acreage of grain, sorghum is grown istrict 2, this acreage showed a consistent de- l" from one census year to another. It was 71 p ent of total acreage in 1939 and only 45 per- in 1954. While other districts grow relatively small portions of the State’s total acreage, District panded considerably in the late 1930’s and _ e 1940’s. The district contributed over 11 ent of the total State acreage in 1949 and I, compared with only 3 percent in 1939. L. The data show a change in the relative im- nce of the districts in the State’s overall i ge in grain sorghum. While the proportion j he State’s total acreage grown in District 2 " only about 45 percent in 1954 as compared 2| 71 percent in 1939, the total acreage grown istrict 2 was almost 60 percent greater in ‘_ than in 1939, Table 10. While District 4 slightly more than 11 percent of the State in 1954 compared with 3 percent in 1939, district had more than nine times as much f ge in grain sorghum in 1954 as in 1939, the ’ ‘f- percentage expansion in acreage among zdistricts. These two examples show that over- creage in Texas was expanding during the Ad, and a decrease in importance, such as oc- _l ed in District 2, was because acreage did not ¢ase as rapidly in that district as it did in rs. lThe 1954 acreage in District 4 was nine as large as in 1939. Acreage expanded in 'ons and on farms where it was previously in the district, but acreage also expanded other sections in the district—for example, ,, the four counties making up the lower tip exas. f District 1 showed the next greatest change 1 1954 acreage almost seven times that of >8 The increase occurred by grain sorghum nding north and east in the district as well f eater intensity of acreage in the southwest 61'. 1 District 5 also showed considerable increase V1954 acreage over four times as large as l However, the district is relatively unim- jnt in grain sorghum production; rice is the i» crop. §Gom l Corn can be grown in most of Texas. How- p, competition with corn produced under op- m conditions in the Corn Belt States, and _ crops that have economic advantages or etter adapted, has limited its production in f; a1 areas of the State. TABLE 13. RELATIVE CHANGE SINCE 1939 IN ACREAGE OF CORN HARVESTED F OR GRAIN BY DISTRICTS, CENSUS YEARS _ Census years Districts 1939 1944 1949 1954 — — — — —— Percent—————— 1 100.0 146.3 56.7 49.2 2 100.0 94.8 36.9 i 7.3 3 100.0 85.5 53.0 42.6 4 100.0 163.8 106.0 69.1 5 100.0 69.9 48.3 50.9 6 100.0 57.5 36.2 26.2 Rest oi State 100.0 121.5 714.2 18.9 State total 100.0 84.1 51.9 38.9 Corn, unless irrigated, grows best in Texas east of the 30-inch rainfall belt. In addition to soil moisture conditions, high temperatures and low humidity frequently damage corn west of this area, except on the High Plains. Insuffi- cient moisture late in the growing season, lack of adequate soil fertility and poor soil physical conditions probably are most responsible for low yields of corn in the State. Texas acreage and production have decreas- ed as a proportion of the Nation’s total corn crop 6 0,0 00 _ PRODUCTION 50,000 .3 O O O 30,000 1,00 0. BUSHELS 20,000 _ 10,000 |,soo 1,400 1,200 1,000 ACRES 1,000 800 600 3O 25 20 BUSHELS 25' 3:...|....|....|....|. 1935 1940 1945 19 50 1955 Figure 15. Oats: annual and S-year moving average of production, acreage harvested and yield in Texas, 1935-58. 15 TABLE 14. OATS: CHHANGE IN THE AVERAGE VALUE, PRODUCTION AND PRICE BY S-YEAR PERIODS AND TIVE CONTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION AND PRICE TO THE CHANGE IN VALUE Index of change in ’ Change in value Amount of chanf value attributed. Amount of change in value attributed directly Periods v 1 P d t. P . . . d 1° dmnge i111 interaction of -~-l a ue ro uc ton rice previous peno Production Price in production and p — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —— Percent———--——————-T————-—-‘ 1935-39 100.0 100.0 100.0 —-—— —— —-— i 1940-44 131.2 83.2 155.9 31.2 —16.8 55.9 --7.9 1945-49 193.1 _ 80.7 238.2 47.2 —3.1 52.8 ~2.5 1950-54 151.9 67.8 235.3 ——15.1 —-15.9 -—-1.2 1.0 1955-583 175.2 89.8 194.1 32.5 —17.5 —8.2 ‘The percentage contribution oi price to the change in value shown here assumes production remains the same, and bution oi production to change in value assumes price remains the same. 1 "A residual oi change in value not accounted Ior by changes in price and production under assumptions outlined in I“, 1. The sum oi the direct and indirect changes in the last 3 columns of the table is equal to the change in value from -, ous period recorded in column 5. “Four-year period. from the late 1930’s to recent years. Annual pro- duction has varied between 5.4 and less than 1 percent of total U. S. production since 1935, Fig- ure 12. State acreage was a larger proportion of total U. S. acreage than was production, vary- ing from 6.7 to 2.4 percent. This indicates lower yields per acre in Texas than the average for the Nation. STATEWIDE TRENDS Corn production in Texas declined from an annual average of 76 million bushels in 1935-39 to an average of 36 million in 1954-58, Figure 13. The trend of declining production was apparent throughout the 24-year period, although annual ups and downs occurred. A least-squares trend STATE TOTAL- M19353? ACRES I DOTEOUALS 5,000 ACRES Figure 16. Location ot oat production in Texas. Based on census enumeration of acreage harvested in 1954. ex- panded by an adjustment based on AMS crop-reporting estimates in those counties omitted from the census enumer- ation. The census-reported State total was 742.020 acres. 16 equation shows an annual decrease of 2.6 m'l bushels a year during 1935-56. Acreage harvested declined from an ave of 41/2 million a year in 1935-39 to less t =; million in 1954-58. A least-squares trend w, tion indicates an annual decrease of 179,250 I during 1935-56. The average annual yield per acre in State varied between 14 and 24 bushels. Y have been somewhat higher in the 1950’s, previously. The average annual yield was’; bushels per acre during 1954-58, compared \ 16.5 bushels in 1935-39. 7 The farm value of corn for grain was percent higher in the early 1940’s than the __ 1930’s, Table 11. An increase in price more 1* offset a decrease in production in contributi ‘ the increase in value. From the early to the p 1940’s, the price rose 69 percent to bring a an 11-percent increase in value in spite of a percent decrease in production. The declin production from the late 1940’s to the a 1950’s, with the price only slightly lower, ca a 16.5-percent decline in value. Lower pi- caused most of the 20.9-percent decline in 1 of the corn crop in the past 4 years from“ 1950-54 average. — DISTRICT TRENDS The concentration of corn acreage in T based on the 1954 census, is shown in Figure’, Some corn is grown in all districts, but does I show up in some districts on the map, since ' counties had less than 2,500 acres. i The heaviest concentration of corn acr is in District 3, but little is grown in the no i. west part of the district. Most of the acreag District 4 is in the northern part. = The proportion of the State’s total acr by districts and census years is shown in T l, PROPORTION or TOTAL stars ACREAGE or ' owN IN SPECIFIED DISTRICTS BY CENSUS . YEARS Census years 1999 a 1944 1949 ————Percent———— 2.2 9.9 1.9 9.4 19.5 19.9 11.5 59.9 59.0 .2 1.1 1.9 1.0 .5 2.9 1.2 .9 a, 1.9 11.4 21.1 91 100.0 100.0 100.0 __ ere has been little change in the concen- of corn acreage for grain since 1939. The ion of the State acreage grown in District i“ 61 percent in 1954 compared with 56 per- ,1 1939. District 3 grows 55 to 60 percent i. total State acreage, District 6 grows 15 to g- ent, and Districts 4 and 5 grow 6 to 12 gt, respectively. e 1954 State acreage was only 40 percent we as that of 1939, Table 13. Acreage in 3 was 43 percent of the 1939 acreage. ‘e in Districts 4 and 5 did not decrease as §~ percentagewise as did the overall State District 6 grew only 26 percent as much in 1954 as in 1939. Oats '9 are adapted to a wide range of soils but , best on deep, fertile, well-drained loams. fluctuations occur in harvested acreage be- Y of winterkilling (1942, 1943, 1948 and .,, diseases and drouth. Oats are a low-value {nd when conditions are not favorable for maturity the farmer continues using them ter pasture and grazes them off. t production for grain in Texas is a small g of total U. S. production. Annual pro- V. in the State varied from less than 1 to ‘frcent of total U. S. oat production during 4-years studied. The State acreage har- g. for grain was a somewhat greater pro- n of the national acreage, varying from 1.4 it 19. RELATIVE CHANGE SINCE 1999 IN ACREAGE = TED or 0111's IN DISTRICTS 1 AND 2 BY CENSUS ; YEARS Census Years 1939 1944 1949 —————-Percent———-—— 100.0 203.5 144.6 100.0 76.3 61.7 to 4.7 percent. Texas generally has a lower yield than the U. S. average. STATEWIDE TRENDS The principal characteristic of oat produc- tion in Texas is the large year-to-year change, Figure 15. However, there appeared to be a tendency toward decreasing production from the late 1930’s to the middle 1950’s. The 5-year average production was 36 million in the late 1930’s compared with 25 million in 1950-54. Pro- duction during 1935-57 varied between a high of 44.6 million bushels in 1940 and a low of 7.5 mil- lion bushels in 1951. The large 1958 crop was estimated at 53 million bushels. A least-squares trend equation showed a decrease of 726 thous- and bushels a year during 1935-56. Acreage harvested for grain also changes widely from year to year. It varied between a high of 1.8 million acres and a low of .5 million. A least-squares trend equation showed a decrease of 19 thousand acres a year in 1935-56. The trend toward less acreage for grain may be caus- ed by increased use of the crop for livestock pas- ture. Yield per acre varied between 27 bushels and 15 bushels. The 5-year average yield of 24 bush- els in the late 1930’s was only slightly greater than 22.6 bushels in 1954-58. l2,000 _ PRODUCTION |0,000 0,000 6,000 1,000 BUSHELS 4,000 . 2,000 520 4B0 440 400 360 320 2B0 240 200 I .000 ACRES I20 \lllllllll1lll \\ BUSl-E LS I935 I940 I945 I950 I955 Figure 17. Barley: annual and 5-year moving average oi production, acreage harvested and yield in Texas. 1935-58. 17 TABLE 17. BARLET: CHANGE IN THE AVERAGE VALUE. PRODUCTION AND PRICE BY 5-YEAR PERIODS AND ATIVE CONTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION AND PRICE TO THE CHANGE IN VALUE v Periods . . . from . 1° change m1 interaction oi chan Value Production Price Previous Period Production Priae in production and — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —— Percent————-———————————--—— ' 1935-39 100.0 100.0 100.0 i? i __ l 1940-44 386.6 259.2 147.8 286.6 159.2 47.8 w 79.6 1945-49 300.9 121.2 245.7 —22.2 —53.2 66.2 ——35.2 1950-54 186.4 76.7 241.3 —38.1 —36.7 —1.8 0.4 . 1955-583 467.4 242.8 191.3 150.8 216.5 —20.7 —45.0 A- ‘The percentage contribution of price to the change in value shown here assumes production remains the same, and bution of production to change in value assumes price remains the same. 2A residual of change in value not accounted for by changes in price and production under assumptions outlined in foo 1. The sum of the direct and indirect changes in the last 3 columns oi the table is equal to the change in value from Index of change in Change in value ous period recorded in column 5. “Four-year period. A 56-percent increase in average price more than offset a 17-percent decrease in average pro- duction from the late 1930’s to the early 1940’s to cause a 31-percent increase in the value of the Texas oat grain crop, Table 14. Increase in price also accounted for the increase in value from the early 1940’s to the late 1940’s, with production only slightly lower. A decline in production was the major cause of a decrease in value in the early 1950’s. In summary, price was the more dominant factor contributing to value change in the 1940’s but was more stable than production in the 1950’s. DISTRICT TRENDS Oat production in the State is heavily con- centrated in District 3, Figure 16. However, there is little production in the lower eastern and southern tip of the district. There also is a con- STATE TOTAL - l29,809 ACRES I DOT = I000 ACRES Figure 18. Distribution of barley in Texas. 1954. 18 Amount oi change ' value attributed t Amount of change in value attributed directly 2?" centration of oat production along the eas . boundary of District 2. " District 3 grows over half of the States tal acreage, Table 15. In 1939 over 77 per, of total acreage was grown in the district, _ the proportion dropped to 57 and 58 percenti 1944 and 1949, respectively. Because of p plete county coverage by the 1954 census, d; for years later than 1949 are not available. ' District 2 grew about 9 percent of the S I acreage in 1939, compared with over 18 per ‘_ in 1944. It grew slightly less than 17 percent 1949. » Acreage grown in District 3 in 1944 " only 76 percent of the amount grown in 1f Table 16. The 1949 acreage was even lowe only 62 percent of the 1939 acreage. " The 1944 acreage in District 2 was o twice the amount grown in 1939, but the 1 acreage was only 45 percent above the 1939 a ag-e_ ' Acreage in other districts is relatively s There has been an increase in oat acreage si 1939 in areas bordering the lower western bo dary of District 3 and below the southeast ner of District 2. Barley Barley ranks well below other feed grain_ acreage and farm value as a Texas crop. f it can be grown on many soil types it does y on well-drained loams. It is not Well adapted- sandy soils or poorly drained soils and does t, grow well in areas of high rainfall. » Although a large portion of the U. S. dom, tic disappearance of barley is used as feed, l_. one-fourth is used for alcohol and alcoholic I erages. A larger portion was used for this ter purpose in the last decade than in the 1930’s and early 1940’s. é exas produces only a small portion of the U. S. barley crop. Usual production in the ,'1940’s exceeded 1 percent of total U. S. pro- ,1 but has been less than 1 percent since te 1940’s. I E TRENDS roduction varied between .5 and 7.5 million from 1935 through 1957, with the peak 4, Figure 17. However, the 1958 record ' iwas estimated at over 10 million bushels. ge production in the late 1930’s was slightly I2 million bushels. This compares with an ope of over 5 million in the early 1940’s, 2.5 in the late 1940’s and 4.6 million bushels 4-58. The latter period average was con- bly influenced by the heavy 1958 crop. fEAcreage varied between 45 thousand in 1951 1441 thousand in 1958. The 1935-39 average 6 thousand compares with 291 thousand in rly 1940’s, 156 thousand in the late 1940’s, lthousand in the early 1950’s and 237 thous- in the 1954-58 period. QThe average yield per acre for the State t between 11.5 and 23 bushels. The 5-year ng average shows no tendency for yields to Yields were somewhat higher in the ,’s than the late 1930’s. The 1954-58 average was 19.5 bushels compared with 15.2 dur- 1935-39, but the recent 5-year average was i nced by a 21-bushel-per-acre yield in 1957 anestimated 23 bushels in 1958. A 159-percent increase in average annual uction from the late 1930’s to the early ,’s, along with a 48-percent increase in aver- iiprice, contributed to a 287-percent increase f- Decreases in production in the late 1940’s - than offset increases in price to cause a rcent decline in value. Further declines in uction in the early 1950’s caused the value of barley crop to drop still more. Production 454-58 was over three times the 1950-54 aver- - and counterbalanced a 21-percent lower 3* level to increase the value by 151 percent. CT TRENDS i Most of the barley in Texas is produced in ‘ricts 1, 2 and 3, Figure 18. s W1‘ - f. erage farm value of the barley crop, Table’ TABLE 18. PROPORTION OF STATE ACREAGE OF BARLEY GROWN IN SPECIFIED DISTRICTS BY CENSUS YEARS Census years District 1939 1944 1949 1954 — — — — ——Percent——-———— 1 35.2 64.2 37.3 32.4 2 21.8 11.7 20.5 27.0 3 39.0 21.3 34.3 32.7‘ Other districts 4.0 2.8 7.9 7.9’ State total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ‘Since the census did not enumerate barley acreage in 1954 in some counties where it is grown. the acreage for Dis- trict 3 and the State was estimated. The basis tor estimat- ing total 1954 acreage in District 3 was the percentage change that occurred between 1949 and 1954 in the acre- age in counties that were enumerated. A similar basis was used in estimating total State acreage in 1954. From 92 to 97 percent of the total acreage was grown in those three districts during recent census years, Table 18. The census data show no significant trend in proportions grown in the districts, even though marked changes occurred from one census to another. Rather, it appears that the proportion by districts varied between census years because of weather or other unpre- dictable factors. District 1, as an example, grew 64 percent of the total State acreage in 1944 compared with only 35 percent in 1939. However, the propor- tions grown in the district dropped to 37 percent in 1949 and 32 percent in 1954—proportions sim- ilar to the 1939 level. District 2 grew 22 percent of total acreage in 1939, only 12 percent in 1944, 20 percent in 1949 and 27 percent in 1954. Districts 1 and 3 usually contribute roughly a third each to the State’s total production, while District 2 contributes about a fourth. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was made under the Texas Agri- cultural Experiment Station’s State Contributing Project to the Southern Regional Cooperative Grain Marketing Project No. SM-11, “Marketing and Utilization of Grain in the South.” 19 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 joa/ay is WeJear-cA .95 jomorrowh rogredd State-wide Research The Texas Agricultural Experiment Statio, is the public agricultural research agencf oi the State oi Texas. and is one oi ten‘ parts oi the Texas A&M College System IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are 16 sub" matter departments, 2 service departments, 3 regulatory services and administrative staii. Located out in the major agricultural areas oi Texas’ 21 substations and 9 field laboratories. In addition, there are 14- coopera stations owned by other agencies. Cooperating agencies include the "'7 Forest Service, Game and Fish Commission oi Texas, Texas Prison Sys“ U. S. Department oi Agriculture, University oi Texas, Texas Technolo College, Texas College oi Arts and Industries and the King Ranch. --C experiments are conducted on iarms and ranches and in rural homes. i THE TEXAS STATION isconducting about 400 active research projects, grou in 25 programs, which include all phases oi agriculture in Texas. Am these are: f Conservation and improvement oi soil Conservation and use oi water Grasses and legumes Grain crops Cotton and other iiber crops Vegetable crops Citrus and other subtropical fruits Fruits and nuts Oil seed crops Ornamental plants Brush and weeds Insects Beei 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 V, Marketing agricultural produ _ Rural home economics Rural agricultural economics Plant diseases 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 coniront 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 iind solutions to these problems. _\ i A