5-988 MARCH ‘I962 An Analysis of F all-time Commercial Farms in Northeast Texas THE AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. D. LEWIS. DIRECTOR, COLLEGE STATIQN, TEXAS Summary Opportunities are available to raise incomes from full-time commercial farming operations in Northeast Texas, especially on farms where livestock enterprises are predominant. Many of the dominately crop farms could be reorganized into livestock type farms. Land resources (cropland and pastureland) are not being fully utilized. 'Output of forage crops (pasture, hay and silage) is responsive to soil treat- ments, such as tillage, fertilization and crop variety improvement. Rainfall is usually sufficient, if utilized properly in combination with other inputs, to bring about a more productive basis for livestock v production. Management is probably the most significant obstacle to increased incomes on many of the full- time commercial farms, although factors beyond the operators’ control prohibit substantial increases in incomes. Many factors, such as lack of land, live- stock, equipment and other capital which limit pro- duction on many farms, are directly related to man- agement. Efficient management tends to diminish the extent of other restrictions on productivity. A fifth to a fourth of the cropland on the farms studied was idle. Fifty to 80 percent of the pasture- land was frequently unimproved; it was not well “cleared,” was covered with poor quality grass and the soil fertility level was generally low. Productivity can be increased without heavy expenditures in most cases. This and other studies show that both crop and livestock production rates are significantly low; they are considerably lower than the State average. To a certain degree, production rates can be increased through improved management and very little addi- tional expense. The average full-time commercial livestock-type farm paid a 5.5 percent return on its capital invest- ment and approximately $2,300 to the operator for his labor and management. The average crop-type farm paid less than 5.5 percent interest on investment and nothing to the operator for his effort. Generally, livestock farms have certain advan- tages over crop farms in Northeast Texas. First, livestock enterprises are more efficient users of labor, since the labor requirements are distributed m evenly over the whole year. Second, livestock prod tion improves soil fertility in the long run with excessive expenditures for thispurpose. Third, maintenance and production of livestock do not f pend so critically on the farm where in-place-prod tion conditions become unfavorable to crop p duction. The size of business directly affected the 1e, of production and income. The average farm in t study employed one man productively only 59 perc of the time. The average livestock farm had eno ;g employment for only 55 percent of one man’s t'_ These types of farms had incomes considerably L than other types. With increased size of busin_ operators engaged in livestock farming can ex _ considerably higher incomes. This appears especia true for qualified business and technical mana ment. More than half of the operators intervi indicated that obtaining control of more acreage not a significant problem. A series of opinioi obtained from them indicate that many of operators have: (1) a certain resignation regard’ ' their economic alternatives (some with good econo reason); (2) considerable personal liking for farm' as “a way of life” with perhaps less than commi surate realization of the economic and manag q requirements necessary to yield a satisfactory liv hood. The relatively low level of education, _ the restricted variety and level of occupational Q perience have had a significant influence on the o look of the farm operators in this study. In t the managerial initiative and operating force of th‘ operators are adversely affected to the extent t the management factor is very critical in hig, commercialized farming. ~ Although there is little question that the of production resources on the average full-t’ commercial farm in Northeast Texas is now too I to yield a satisfactory income, there may be "of question as to which factor of production is ~’_ restrictive on increasing incomes. Information 1, this study indicates that management may be strictive. < REPORT CONCERNS INCOMES of full-time com- gercial farms in Northeast Texas. It is part of er study of the area which was initiated in l A e to a report of the Secretary of Agriculture The geographic areas of Texas and other states pf widespread low farm income conditions exist A tlined in Figure 1. These areas are classified iy“serious,” “substantial” and “moderate” low- , areas. This particular study was confined to orthern half of the Texas area designated as - s.” Che Census of Agriculture shows the average ;lcash income per farm from farm production in udy area was less than one-third that of the ‘v States or of Texas. The declining incomes a ve occurred became of serious proportions for {full-time commercial farm families during the o or three decades. Area l: 24-county area of the low farm income areas of Agriculture’s 1955 Report was surveyed This area coincides largely with the East y-type-of-farming area Number l4 in Figure 2. ._= same as U. S. Census Economic Area XII. e number of full-time commercial farms in ‘a declined 31 percent, or proportionately as did the number of all farms, between 1954-60, if 1. The acreage per commercial farm rose 32 t during the same period, while the value of _ d buildings increased 15 percent. Land in e commercial farms in the area declined i1 acres during 1954-59. _e 24-county study area comprised most of the ‘exas Timberlands (pine interspersed with hard- ), Figure 3. Because of characteristics of the iough surface features, small acreages with ir- V shaped fields and the attitudes of the people— ization and other technological developments Q» en adopted more slowly than in other areas. e soils are sanwdy and low in organic matter Q erent fertilityfl; They are generally deficient E-ogen, phosphorus and potassium, and are y to strongly acid (2). The land is gently to 2y rolling with some steep slopes which con- i to extensive erosion. Maintenance of soil in the area is difficult and expensive, espe- uneconomic size farms. These factors aggra- p An Analysis of Full-time Commercial Farms in Northeast Texas Vance W. Edmondson, Associate Professor Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology vate severely the low income problem on full-time commercial farms in the area. Climate The climate is warm, temperate and humid. Most of the 24 counties receive 40 to 45 inches of rainfall annually, most of which comes during the spring. The average length of the growing season is 230 to 260 days. Vegetation The predominant vegetation is timber, mainly pine with hardwoods in some areas. There are small areas throughout Northeast Texas where all kinds of bushes and seedling-type small trees grow. Bermuda and Dallis grasses are the predominant grazing vege- tations of economic importance and are well adapted to the area. Economic Development The size and relative concentration of the popu- lation give certain indications of industrial and non- ated in the Northeast part of Texas by the. Con ten ts Summary Introduction Area Soils _______ __ Climate Vegetation Economic Development .............................................. .. The Problem Objectives of Study Method of Study Definition of Terms Resource Levels and Combinations .............................. __ Land Resources Land Use ....... .. Land Control by Tenure Types ........................ ._ Land Use by Type of Farm ................................ .. Cropland Use ....... .. Pastureland Use ..................................................... .. Labor Resources .. Employment Level l0 Labor Supply .. ll Farm Operator ll Capital Investments . 12 Total Capital Investments .................................... ..l2 Capital Investments by Type of Farm ............ ..l2 Income and Expenses __ .. Income ............................................................................. ..l2 Expenses ....... .. Net Income .................................................................... ..l3 Returns to Capital Investment and Operator Labor-Management .............................. ..l4 Opinions of Farm Operators .......................................... ..l5 Reference: __ l5 ID9D¢DW®WMMQAOOQ9UQOOQQOZIM farm business activity. Tyler and Texarkana, in or 0n the border of the survey area, had populations of 50,000 or more in 1959 (3). Longview and Marshall had populations between 20,000 and 40,000 people. Ten other population centers ranged from 5,000 to 15,000 people; these were located evenly over the survey area. Manufacturing industries added approxi- mately $2l8 million to the value of goods produced by industries in the 24-county area (3). Wages amounted to $272 million while bank deposits were ‘$458 million. The limited industrial development which has occurred in the area since World War II brings about economic possibilities for some full-time commercial farm operators. At the same time, farm business reorganization problems are encountered. Some of the problems are institutional, and some are farm managerial weaknesses. The construction of a net- work of high quality farm-to-market roads in North- east Texas has made it convenient to move freight to and from the farms in the area. Roads are ade- quate. Fairly adequate markets have been available in the area; however, as changes are made in the kinds of commodities produced on farms, new prob- lems arise in marketing farm products. TABLE 1. CHANGES IN SELECTED ASPECTS OF FAR ING IN NORTHEAST TEXAS, 1954 TO 1959 Commercial Average Year All farms full-time Acreage Value of l s, farms per farm and buildin Number Number; Acres Dollars . 1954 49,026 18,37 1 150 13,448 1959 33,576 12,603 198 15,504 Source: Census of Agriculture 1954 and 1959. The Problem The land of East Texas in early settlement tim was “taken up” in relatively small tracts by the settlei Most of the land was taken by ownership contr Cotton was the primary source of cash income fro early times to the 1930’s. Under the technology an methods of production during this period, cott_ required large amounts of labor. Since the settle _ were inclined toward family-type farm operations a i ownership control of land, many small-acreage far were established in East Texas as both a way of li and as a way of livelihood. When oil was discover GENERALIZED AREAS . APPALACHIAN MOUNTAINS AND BORDER AREAS. . SOUTHERN PIEDMONT AND COASTAL PLAINS. . SOUTHEASTERN HILLY. . MISSISSIPPI DELTA. SANDY COASTAL PLAINS OF ARK , LA., AND TEX. , OZARK-OUACHITA MOUNTAINS AND BORDER. . NORTHERN LAKE STATES. 8. NORTHWESTERN NEW MEXICO. 9, CASCADE AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN AREAS \l°fv\§(¢§@_e U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE LOW-INCOME AND LEVEL-OF-LIVING AREAS IN AGRICULTURE SERIOUS g (all 3 criteria) SUBSTANTIAI. (any 2 criteria) = MODERATE (any I criterial CRITERIA * _ I. less than $1,000 residual farm i income to operator and lamily , the regional average and 25% O or more ol commercial farms hut‘ u OF HM‘ classified as low-production . COUNTIES HAVING URBANIZED nus i 2. Level-ol-livinfi "Id" "I i ' lowest lilth ol the notion. 3. 50% or more ol commercial larms classified as "low-production". OF 250,000 OR MORE EXCLUDED (sure ECONOMIC nu usis) PREPARED BY AMS AND ARS NEG. T804-5S(9) AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE Figure 1. Low-farm-income areas, 1955. Forty-five counties in East Texas were designated as problem areas by the Secret, of Agriculture. Other low-farm-income areas in the United States are also outlined. 4 with level-ol-living index below area, the desire to hold land was reinforced. g and after W'orld War II, many people shifted if farming into off-farm employment but still lithe land. These developments, along with the of land leasing experience, have impeded size expansion and enterprise adjustments need- take advantage of new technology. incomes on full-time commercial farms in North- exas were low relative to incomes in other of the economy in this and other areas. They Zlower than incomes in other parts of the State. percent of the full-time commercial farms in ea have net family money incomes below $3,000. {_of these farms had incomes under $1,000 per ~ lelief of the low income problem on full-time commercial farms may lie in: (1) operational control of land, (2) adequacy of capital investment and operat- ing credit, (3) development of appropriate managerial skill and (4) development of appropriate markets. To adjust the type of farming in Northeast Texas to larger units, more capital is needed for land, equip- ment, livestock and short-term operating expenses. Supplies of capital require loan security in the form of assets or a history of profitable operation under present technology, or both. Neither of these has prevailed in Northeast Texas since World War II. The problem then becomes one of where the adjust- ment “break-out” is going to occur; size-of-business expansion cannot occur without capital, and capital is not available because loan security is not estab- lished. ~~ thern High Plains. | 0 f. Wheat, sorghum and livestock. j‘ Wheat, sorghum, livestock and vegetables. Small grains and livestock. Cotton, sorghum and wheat. m 4d , ian Breaks—cattle ranching. 2i f them High Plains. r Farming-cotton and grain sorghum. _ i" Ranching-mainly cattle. ,4’ ~-~- r I ‘ ing Plains and Prairies. |¢ L‘ "- 7 Cotton, grain sorghum, wheat and livestock. \ ‘j tains and Basins—cotton and ranching. 3a 4o -- Rio Grande Valley—cotton, alfalfa and products. ds Plateau and Central Basin. Iiarge ranches—cattle, sheep and goats. II, H ,8 Small ranches-cattle, sheep and goats. u.‘ : Jlentral Basin-cattle. ' i» Texas Plain. Qegetables" and cattle. plivestock, peanuts and truck crops. ‘p tton, flax and livestock. vestock and cotton. - Rio Grande Valley—cotton, vegetables and citrus. I - Bend-cotton, grain sorghum and vegetables. Cross Timbers—peanuts, dairy products and livestock. Prairie. grains, cotton, dairy products and livestock. vestock, small grains and cotton. . ' d- tton and livestock. Poultry, dairy products, cattle and cotton. ‘Texas Farming-livestock, poultry, dairy-products and cotton. jlTexas Timber-timber products, poultry and livestock. Oak-cotton and livestock. Prair’ ie. _ ce,_cattle and dairy products. . tton, rice and cattle. Figure 2. Type-of-farming areas in Texas. Low-farm-income survey area is outlined in crosshatching. Another factor critical in adjusting successfully from one type of farming to another, as well as from one size level to another, is the managerial skill of the farm operator. Successful modern management must encompass an understanding of a wide range of physical and economic factors influencing farm profits. This management also requires a certain level of training and “seasoning.” When the nature of the “bundle” of operational resources changes significantly, the managerial element is often hard- pressed to meet successful operational requirements. In Northeast Texas, management inadequacy is further aggravated by the age and level of education 0 0 0 0 0 o n 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 n o e Q 0 0 ~ n o 0 a o 0 0 o n o u n 0 n a 0 0 O0 0 o 0 0 0 u 0 n o o o 0 c 0 n 0 | u 0 o 0 0 0 0 n Q n 0 0 0 n 0 00 of the average farm operator. Sixty-one percent - the family heads on full-time commercial farms If pleted 8 years or less in school Seventy-five ' cent of family heads were 45 years old or of Operator managerial outlook and capacity are f fluenced by these two factors; a When shifts in farming "types occur in the a ,1 adjustments in product market facilities must take place. If establishment of new markets the only problem, marketing would be of little c0 p quence. But vested interests in markets forff products of the declining type of farming beciomi “drag” on potential shifts to new farm enterpr" 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0- o 0 e o a 00 A - EAST TEXAS TIMBHILANDS ‘o’. \ \ k I ‘v I _ y‘ iiiiii? iii‘ Harris, Galveston ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, - , c - consr PRAIRIE ____3:1:3:1: 2313;223:235 ‘E555 Hockley, Katy \\Q Lake Charles, Edna, Bernard 0 0000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 Miller, Norvood, Pledger Beaumont, moo, Bernard ---------- -- n - BLACKLAND PRAIRIES ‘Q Crockett, Wilson Houston Black, Houston, Austin ||||||||| Houston, Crockett E - EAST CROSS TIMBERS || |||||||||||||| a I will!!! H sage, Bowie, Tabor "II Illllflll ll III ........... _ . "HI I F - GRAND PRAIRIE I //. Tarrant, San Saba, Den G - VEST CROSS TIMBERS Uindtlwvst, Stephenville, Nimrod H - NORTH CENTRAL PRAIRIES ‘ Hedi Nu & Renfrov, Kirkland, o’ aces Darnell, Kirkland, Renfrov ma’ "m" “mtg Orelia, Goliad, Clareville I - CENTRAL BASIN V1 t 1 0r 11a Tishomingo, Pontotoc ° °r a’ e Nu Hedi $ Pedernales, Harley Brennan’ “as, o Lomalto, Point Isabel N - TRANS-PWOS ,0 v hal Hillecy, Hidalgo . R a Reagan er en _.__,,,_,_L., ea" ' ' Harlingen, Laredo Brewster, Fctor, Rough Stony Land Tivoli, Springer Eotor, Rough Stony Lona KI- EDWARDS PLATEAU Ector, Ozona, Toboea Tarmnt, Valera Figure 3. Generalized soil map of Texas. Differences l III Ill IIII/IIIIIIIIIIIIII IWIIIII/ll!!!IIIIIIIIIIII III I \ Maverick, Uvalde , Zapata ~ GENERALIZED SOIL MAP OF TEXAS SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE In cooperation with TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION I959 IIIIIIII oooooooooo n oooooooooo n oooooooooooooo n ooooooooooooooo n oooooooo n 00000 00 000 00000 00000 I H‘ 0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 22:22 222" ooooo n ooooo u 0 0 0 0 00 ' ' . . ' - o o 0 \\ / Ill“ n00 ,. I . . . ' I , , ' , ' . ° o ' o o o o o 0O ''''''''' D 0 ' 0 0 o do ...o 0 o... _.-,:.:.;: . - - - , ooooooo u oooooo u ooooo n ooooo n »/.\\. 4 elf \\“\ \\\\\\ I I . 0 0 0 ,:,:,_ 30:3“... ooooooo u ooooooo U In IIIIIIIIIIII, x q‘ “w. " NIII/IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIATTII I IIIII I i NNIIIIIIIIIIII lllllllllllllllllilunmiiifllll II III/III!!!” H Wm“ I If I / 5 IIII 1| } JI I ||||||||| ~ I o o o o o - n 0 0 0 I 0 I I I I U. ooooooooo 00 0 0 . o o o o o o 0 . . . . . . . ._ I O O I I I — 0 0 0 I 0 0 I U ll Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 00 0 0000 ll ' ‘LI \ .| ,' ‘I " v l Abilene, Potter, Roscoe 3_ M - HIGH PLAINS Pullman, Mnnsker, Zita 1 » Dalhart, Vona Amarillo, Portnlea, B - Brownfield, Ttvoli, f in surface features, related soil types and native vegetation are sf in sub-area divisions in which the soil series are closely related and adapted to similar use. 6 .1’ markets in an area have to become established 7 accordance with a whole complex of markets in a entire economy. Any weakness in market manage- ~ t experience among those attempting to establish needed new market outlets will further aggravate problem of market outlet development. Resources on some farms are not utilized; some limited in availability for several reasons, and f y others are in unproductive condition. Land ure arrangements, market availability and other jditions in the area impose adjustment impedi- A ts. Often, the most restricting factor to improve- tof income on farms in the study area is manage- ‘t. The adjustment quality of management is cted by operator outlook, training and experience 4 imagination. Poor managerial qualifications n affect the availability of finances and use of technology. Comparative advantages for some l of farm business organizations in East Texas I nonexistent. Objectives of Study , As part of the larger low farm income study, ucted by the Texas Agricultural Experiment 'on in cooperation with the Agricultural Research ice of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, the 'tives of the study were to: :1. Discover the resource and income situation jqfull-time commercial farms in Northeast Texas. i2. Identify possible impediments, within the if itself, to higher incomes. Ascertain the overall nature and extent of fm pediments as a basis for possible solution-action 4 amS. A study of this type is useful for (1) evaluation ources, (2) discovery of operating conditions, rtermination of operator capabilities and (4) dis- p of farm business potentialities. Agricultural rs and others concerned with improvement gems in the area can use this information in i, tional work and in making recommendations. Method of Study he information for this report was obtained f» by a re-survey of 202 full-time commercial rs who had been interviewed in 1956 for another if of this study. They had been selected at i u using an area sampling technique. Of the F ll-time commercial farmers interviewed in the A survey in l956,{only half could be contacted e 1958 re-canvass. The others could not be ed because of illness, prolonged absence or e from farming entirely during the intervening _ Thus, only 100 interviews were completed. p he survey information and its analysis focused A eloping a descriptive “picture” of these farms as business units. Specifically, attention was given to characteristics of the farm operator, tenure, land and labor use, capital investment, operating expenses, gross and net farm incomes and value of farm per- quisites. Definition of Terms In this report, the following definitions of terms are used: Farm: An agricultural unit with 3 or more acres of land which produced farm products with a value of $150 or more, and all units with less than 3 acres but having farm sales of $150 or more. F ull-time Farm: A farm whose operator performs less than 100 days of off-farm labor, which has gross farm sales of $250 or more and which has family income from nonfarm sources less than the value of farm sales. Commercial Farm: A farm on which the sales value of farm products amounted to $1,200 or more, or those with $250 to $1,199 and whose operator worked off-farm 100 days or less, or those whose off- farm family income was less than 50 percent of the total income. Farm Operator: A person who operates a farm, either performing the labor himself or directly super- vising it. He may be an owner, or combination owner-tenant or a tenant. Type-of-farm: A classification based on the en- terprise combination and the proportionate income from the different enterprises. Livestock Farm: A farm where 80 percent or more of the gross farm sales were obtained from the sale of livestock or livestock products, or both. Livestock-crop Farm: A farm where less than 80 percent, but more than 50 percent, of the gross farm sales were obtained from sale of livestock or livestock products, or both, and the remainder from sale of crops. Crop-livestock Farm: A farm where less than 80 percent, but more than 50 percent, of the gross farm sales were obtained from sale of crops and the remainder from sale of livestock or livestock products, or both. Crop Farm: A farm where 80 percent or more of the gross farm sales were obtained from sale of crops. Productive Man Work Unit (PMWU o-r Work Unit): The average amount of productive work (direct production of crops, livestock, livestock prod- ucts and other directly productive enterprises) accom- plished by one man with average skills and equipment in l0 hours under average working conditions. Time for repairs and maintenance is not counted as produc- tive work. Resource Levels and’ Combinations The income result 0f economic effort depends on the amount and quality of resources going into the production effort, as well as on the way the resources are organized and managed. Land Resources In Northeast Texas, the contribution of land to the farmer’s productive efforts is affected by a number of variables, especially when radical adjust- ments in land control and use are required to main- tain profitable farming. On the 100 sample farms, a total of 21,087 acres was used in farming operations. There was an aver- age of approximately 211 acres per farm, valued at about $72 per acre (land only), Table 2. LAND USE Approximately 25 percent (52 acres) of the total acreage operated on the average full-time commercial farm studied was in cropland use, while two-thirds (138 acres) was in pastureland, Table 3. One crop- land acre in four was idle. One pastureland acre in seven was improved pasture. About half of the woodland was in» timber designated as commercial, although the timber could not be described as fully commercial. LAND CONTROL BY TENURE TYPES Controlling the use of land for farm production is included under the terms “ownership” and “leasing” or some combination of them. Leasing of land is one way open to partial adjustment of the organiza- tion and the size of a farm. In an area like East Texas, where the traditional land-holding pattern ' has been ownership of relatively small acreages, insti- tutional and other problems affect satisfactory control and economic use of land through leasing. These problems are in addition to other restrictions on profitable farm reorganization, such as credit control and quality management. Fifty of the 100 farms surveyed operated only the land owned. Five of these “rented out” some land. The average total acreage per farm on the 50 owner-operated farms was 188 acres valued at an average of $78 per acre, Table 2. Eleven of the farms operated only land “rented in.” They had an aver- age of 150 acres valued at $64 per acre. On the re- maining 39 farms, there existed a combination of ownership and “renting in” of land. Their average acreage was 258 acres valued at $68 per acre. On the combination owner-renter farms, an average of 117 acres was owned while 141 acres was “rented in” with average values of $75 and $62 per acre, respec- tively. The average combination owner-renter farm had 37 percent more land than the average owner-operated 8 TABLE 2. ACREAGE OPERATED PER FARM AND VAL PER ACRE BY TYPE OF TENURE, 100 FULL-TIME i COMMERCIAL FARMS, NORTHEAST TEXAS, 1957 Average Average val r Type of tenure Farms operated Per acre, Number Acre Dollars Owner-operated farms 50 188 78 - Renter-operated farms 11 150 64 Owner-renter operated farms 39 258 68 Owned portion (117) 75 Rented portion (141) 62 Total and average 100 211 72* ‘Excludes value of improvements. The average figure would $96 per acre if improvements were to be included. farm and 71 percent more than the renter-operat farms. ‘ On the farms renting all the land operated, f percent were crop-type farms while 18 percent ~ livestock farms, Table 4. Twenty-six percent of t owner-operated farms were crop farms, and 36 ~- cent were livestock-type farms. Combination own renter land control arrangements were of similar fl quency on both livestock and crop types of fa n 31 and 28 percent, respectively. Sixty-three percent of the land used on the p, “owner” farms was used by those emphasizing li stock while the other 37 percent was operated ’ crop and crop-livestock farms, Table 4. The sad condition existed in the “owner-renter" category. contrast, crops were emphasized on the ll “rent farms; 54 percent of the total acreage was used =1 crop and crop-livestock farms, compared with 46 u. cent on livestock and livestock-crop farms. I LAND USE BY TYPE OF FARM The largest average total acreage was found i livestock-crop farms, and the smallest was in the TABLE 3. OVERALL LAND USE, 100 FULL-TIME I MERCIAL FARMS, NORTHEAST TEXAS, 1957 Proportion of Land use Average Total Subcl per farm land of 1 v Acre Percent Perc 1 Cropland . Cropped 40 19 77 Idle 12 6 23 Total 52 25 100 Pastureland Improved permanent 21 10 15 Unimproved permanent 92 44 67 ‘ Woodland 25 12 18 A Total 138 66 100 . Woodland Commercial 9 4 47p, Other l0 5 53, Total 19 9 100i Other land 2 1 100 Grand total land 211 100 100 ategory, 353 and 128 acres, respectively, Table 3st average for all farms was approximately 211 Livestock-crop farms had 67 percent more total ‘A an the average of all farms, and crop farms " percent less. The livestock farm group was _y smaller acreage-wise; crop-livestock was a bit , the average, one-fourth of the 211-acre aver- i was devoted to cropland. As might be ex- , crop farms had the highest proportion of V. and in cropland. Both livestock-crop and crop- V: k farms had more absolute crop acreage, how- '6 g "- wo-thirds of the average of all farms, or 138 was in pastureland. Much of this was unim- . All types except crop farms had more pasture J1 than the average of all farms. Seventy-five y t of the land on the average livestock farm was l tureland, one-fourth of which was improved. ix to 13 percent of the land on the various types l» s was woodland, approximately half of which csignated as “commercial timber.” 3 CROPLAND USE jThere was an average of 52 acres per farm in l‘: and on the 100 full-time commercial farms, 23 of which was idle, Table 3. An average of tjrcent of the cropland was planted to corn and l in about equal acreages, Table 6. Small grain {; were third, with about 14 percent of the planted and. Vegetable and fruit crops are still grown lily in some areas, although acreages are declining. "l. Seventeen of the 31 livestock farms had corn for Qt with an average of ll acres per farm, Table 7. .;ty-four percent of the livestock-crop farms ted corn averaging 13 acres per farm. Crop- tock farms had similar amounts, and 70 percent crop farms had 10 acres of corn per farm. nly 6 of the livestock farms had cotton, while the crop farms planted the crop. The average “ge per farm planting cotton was 10 acres on l: ock farms, compared with 18 on the crop farms 15 and l4 acres, respectively, on the livestock- 1- and crop-livestock farms. Livestock-crop farms on which small grains “nly oats) were planted for grain, had greater A ges in crops than any of the other type farms. farm in four planted small grains. The average ge of the four farms was 105 acres-—more than f times that on livestock farms and four times i on crop-livestock farms. PASIURELAND USE On all 100 farms‘! studied, nearly 1 acre in 7 of l; l pastureland” was improved, Table 8. Two- s was unimproved, and 18 percent was “wood- “c pasture.” This unimproved pastureland was v tially “cleared” of trees and big bushes. Wood- a pasture is not of significant forage value. TABLE 4. PROPORTION OF THE FARMS AND ACREAGE BY TENURE AND TYPE OF FARM, 100 FULL-TIME COM- MERCIAL FARMS, NORTHEAST TEXAS, 1957 Tenure and Farms Acreage type farm Number Proportion Acres Proportion Number Percent Acres Percent Owner Livestock l8 36 3,651 39 Livestock-crop 6 l2 2 ,264 24 Crop-livestock 1 3 26 2,399 26 Crop l3 26 1,077 ll Total 50 100 9,391 100 Renter ' Livestock 2 1 8 382 23 Li ves tock-crop 2 1 8 380 23 Crop-livestock 1 9 700 42 Crop 6 55 1 92 12 Total ll 100 1,654 100 Owner-renter Livestock 12 3 1 2,382 24 Livestock-crop l0 26 3,919 39 Crop-livestock 6 15 1,134 1 1 Crop 1 1 A 28 2,607 26 Total 39 100 10,042 100 All farms 100 100 21,087 100 Approximately 27 percent of the pastureland on livestock farms was improved. Less than l0 percent of the pastureland on livestock-crop and crop-livestock farms was improved. Crop farms had 20 percent in improved pastures. Crop farms had the greatest proportion of their pastureland as “woodland pasture.” Livestock-crop and crop-livestock farms had high proportions of unimproved pastureland. Labor Resources Labor use is critical to the productive outcome of farm businesses as well as in other kinds of busi- nesses, especially in an area such as Northeast Texas TABLE 5. LAND USE BY TYPE FARM, 100 FULL-TIME COMMERCIAL FARMS, NORTHEAST TEXAS, 1957 Type farm Land use Live- Livestock- Crop- Crop All stock crop livestock farms Number of farms 31 18 21 30 100 ——-—Acresperfarm———— Cropland 29 93 55 48 52 Pastureland 151 231 148 63 138 Woodland , (not pastured) 22 27 12 16 19 Other land 2 2 2 l 2 Total 204 353 217 128 211 —————Percent———--— Cropland 14 26 25 38 25 Pastureland 74 65 68 49 66 Woodland (not pastured) l1 8 6 12 9 Other land _ 1 1 1 1 1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 TABLE 6. MAJOR CROPLAND USES ON FULL-TIME COMMERCIAL FARMS, NORTHEAST TEXAS, 100 FARMS, 195 Proportion Farms planting, northeast Texas, 1957 State (1957) Cro Total of total ' ' ld P lanted F Per Production average Y“? P Cr°Pland arms farm per acre Pei‘ awe‘ Acres Percent Number Acres i; Corn s47 21 7s 12 1s bu. "' 24 Cotton 799 20 52 l5 218 lb. 308 Small grains 564 14 l0 56 195 lb. 771 Forage-grain crops grazed 350 9 12 29 2 Other hay 265 7 23 12 1.3 tons 1.2 a Peas 207 5 33 6 230 lb. 720 r Sorghum hay 180 4 19 l0 4.3 tons 1.4 Sweet potatoes 148 4 23 6 84 bu. 98 Peanuts 140 4 6 23 327 lb. 525 Grain sorghum 108 3 7 15 1,889 lb. 1,722 Watermelons 74 2 l1 7 1,628 bu. 4003 Legume hay 53 1 8 7 1.0 ton 2.1 Tomatoes 43 1 18 2 104 bu. 36 Cantaloupes 10 ‘ 3 3 430 lb- 270” Irish potatoes 6 “ 4 2 71 bu. 54 Other crops“ 187 5 32 23 Total 3,981 100 Legend: 11961-62 Texas Almanac. ’Grazed. “Estimated on basis of experimental yields. ‘Less than one-half of 1 percent. 5Peppers, cucumbers, blackberries, roses and others. where the operator and his family constitute almost all the labor supply. Man power requirements and TABLE 7. SELECTED CROPS PLANTED AND ACREAGE BY TYPE OF FARM, 100 FULL-TIME COMMERCIAL FARMS, NORTHEAST TEXAS, 1957 Type farms Item Live- Livestock- Crop- C All stock crop livestock m? farms Number of farms 31 18 21 30 100 Number farms planting Corn 17 17 18 21 73 Cotton 6 l0 13 23 52 Small grains (grain) 4 3 l l0 Sorghum (grain) 4 l 2 7 Forage-grain crops grazed or failed 3 2 5 2 12 Sorghum hay 4 5 6 4 l9 Legume hay 1 4 1 2 3 Other hay 7 7 7 2 23 Acreage per farm planting Corn ll 13 13 l0 12 Cotton l0 15 14 18 15 Small grain (grain) 30 105 23 15 56 Sorghum (grain) 22 2 9 l5 Forage-grain crops grazed or failed l4 62 8 71 29 Sorghum hay 15 16 5 3 10 Legume hay 30 4 1 3 7 Other hay 22 5 7 l0 12 l0 needed skills are ever changing. New farm opera tions may make traditional skills obsolete; techn logical developments may reduce hourly requirements These changes may leave the family labor forc underemployed unless adjustments are made. i EMPLOYMENT LEVEL The seasonality of labor requirements peculi to each type of farming affects, in a direct way, th level of employment. Labor requirements are mor evenly distributed from season to season on livestoc farms than on crop farms, especially those specializin in no more than two or three crops. The average full-time commercial farm include in this study provided productive employment f0 about 59 percent of one man’s available work time Table 9 and Figure 4. The remaining 41 percent o the average operator’s time was not productively em , ' ployed because of the seasonality of labor require ments and the lack of business size sufficient to full = employ the available labor. Even though there not enough productive enterprise on the average far to employ the operator all the time, some seasona labor was hired, especially on the farms where cro ~ enterprises predominated. The average livestock farm had 55 percen enough employment for one man. An average live stock-crop farm had 67 percent employment. Labor requirements for livestock enterprises are practically the same throughout the year. The average crop farm had only 54 percent enough productive work ring the year for one average farm laborer; how- this type farm had severe seasonal labor require- gnts. There might be certain short periods when ire was enough work for three or four laborers. _ the average crop-livestock farm, 66 percent enough l,» uctive work was available. ' The seasonal labor requirements on farms with redominance of crop enterprises are heavy during growing season. These seasonal requirements ent a labor supply problem time-wise during the in addition to furnishing too little total produc- “e labor for one man. Addition of livestock enter- Y es would “even out" labor requirements during I year. On many of the Northeast Texas full-time lmercial farms, family labor is available for the uired fraction of the year during which extra w r is needed. LABOR SUPPLY M Most of the labor needed on Northeast Texas l-time commercial farms was supplied by the “rator and his family. Some labor was hired be- e many of the operator’s children had left home l» because of seasonality requirements. 5 To the question: “In 1957, did you have any blem getting needed hired laborP”, 63 of the 100 irators said “no” and 37 said “yes.” All but two e operators said they needed unskilled labor only ‘n seasonal help was required. Further questions ealed that if the operators were to reorganize and nd their businesses, a much greater percentage § e operators would experience difficulty in getting kind and amount of hired labor needed. Only E WORK UNITS ESUMATED AS AVAILABLE WORK UNITS ACTUALLY UTILIZED _. 300 225 I50 NUMBER OF WORK UNITS 75 TYPE OF FARMS Figure 4. Productive man work units available and utilized 1 -- ~ of farm, 100 full-time commercial farms, Northeast 1957. TABLE 8. EXTENT OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF PAS- TURELAND IMPROVEMENT BY TYPE FARM, 100 FULL- TIME COMMERCIAL FARMS, NORTHEAST TEXAS, 1957 Type farms Level of Live- Livestock- Crop- Cm A11 improvement stock crop livestock p farms Number of farms 31 18 21 30 100 — — — — Acresperfarm — — — — Improved 41 8 14 13 21 Unimproved 89 180 l l0 29 92 Woodland 21 43 24 21 25 Total 151 231 148 63 138 — — — — — Percent — — — — — Improved '27 3 l0 20 15 Unimproved 59 78 74 I 46 67 Woodland 14 19 16 34 18 Total 100 100 100 100 100 two of the 100 operators reported using full-time hired labor, while 78 indicated infrequent periodic use of hired labor. FARM OPERATOR The average age of full-time commercial farm operators has been increasing. The average operator surveyed in Northeast Texas in 1957 was 55 years old, compared with 53 years in 1955. In 1957, 26 percent of the operators were 65 years old or over, as com- pared with l4 percent in 1955. Twenty-five percent of the operators in the earlier survey were 44 years old and under, compared with 18 percent in 1957, Figure 5. The average age of the livestock farm operator was 59 years, and operators on the other three types of farms averaged a little less than 54 years old. Thirty-one of the 100 operators in 1957 reported average to bad health. The remaining 69 percent said they were in good health; however, a larger number of them did say that they had health prob- lems, which were not severe enough, in their judg- ment, to limit their labor capacity significantly. The average farm operator surveyed received 8 years of formal education, Table l0. Twenty-seven had 6 or less years of schooling; 41 operators were in the 7 to 9-year range, and 30 went to school l0 _ to 12 years. Only two went to college. Forty-six of the farm operators said they would TABLE 9. AVERAGE LABOR UTILIZATION, 100 FULL- TIME COMMERCIAL FARMS, NORTHEAST TEXAS, 1957 Estimated total Average Productive Type of productive _man amountof employment farm work umts productive level that available work found existed per farm on farms (percent) Livestock 287 159 55 Livestock-crop 287 192 67 Crop-livestock 287 190 66 Crop 287 156 54 All farms 287 170 59 11 TABLE l0. AMOUNT OF EDUCATION, 100 FULL-TIME COMMERCIAL FARM OPERATORS, NORTHEAST TEXAS, 1957 Grade range Operators Years Number 3 0r less 4 4 to 6 23 7 to 9 41 l0 to 12 30 More than 12 s 2 Total 100 Average years of education 8 take a full-time off-farm job to gain a livelihood if they had the opportunity, Table ll. The remaining 54 said they would not. Of the 54 operators, 34 were '55 years old and above. Many of these stated that they were too old to get off-farm employment. Capital Investments In the farming sectors of Texas, as well as in other parts of the United States, higher wage rates, technological innovations and other factors have en- couraged the substitution of capital for noncapital resources, especially labor. Such substitution has not occurred to the same degree in Northeast Texas as it has in the more vigorous farming areas. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENTS The average total capital investment per full- time commercial farm studied in Northeast Texas was $24,442, Table 12. Approximately 83 percent of this was in land and improvements, 7 percent was invested in machinery and equipment and 10 percent was invested in livestock. Investment in land and improvements averaged $96 per acre. CAPITAL INVESTMENTS BY TYPE OF FARM Total investment per livestock and livestock-crop farm averaged $28,221 and $38,555, respectively; crop- livestock and crop farms averaged $21,657 and $14,020, respectively. The farms where livestock en- terprises were predominant had proportionately twice as much invested in livestock as did farms where crop enterprises were more important. Land and improve- ments were greater on livestock farms than on the TABLE ll. PREFERENCES OF OPERATORS FOR FULL- TIME OFF-FARM EMPLOYMENT, 100 FULL-TIME COM- MERCIAL FARMS, NORTHEAST TEXAS, 1957 If you had an opportunity for full-time off- Age farm employment, would you quit farming? Yes N0 24 or less 0 2 25 - 34 2 0 35 - 44 8 6 45 - 54 l3 12 55 - 64 19 12 65 and over 4 22 Total 46 54 12 crop-livestock and crop farms. The value per g of land and improvements between types of fa was $91 to $108 per acre. I More than three-fourths of the total capital l, vestment in all four categories of farms was for l A and improvements. Livestock-type farms had lowest proportion because of the higher proporti‘ invested in livestock on these ‘farms compared w' the other types. The proportion of the total capi invested in machinery and equipment did not , greatly from one type of farm to another. ‘ Income and Expenses Total cash incomes and total cash expenses vari widely. Total incomes ranged from $375 on a r- livestock farm to $26,782 on a livestock farm, excl , ing sales of capital items. Total cash expenditu varied from $45 on a livestock farm to $16,559 i’ another livestock farm, excluding capital purcha, Another livestock farm had total expenditures A $20,010, of which $11,330 was for livestock purcha * Income " The average total income per farm, excludi sale of capital investment items, was $4,251, Table A Approximately 92 percent of the total came fr sales of crops, livestock and livestock products, Fig 6. Of the income from farm sales ($3,919), tip, three-fourths was from livestock and livestock pr ucts. I The total income on the average livestock fa ; was $8,016, which was almost double the average If “all farms.” Ninety-five percent of the total inco t, came from the sale of livestock and livestock produc I only 2 percent of the total came from crop sales. A Crop-livestock farms tended to have the lowest to incomes. The average total income was $l,70 92 percent ($1,567) of which came from farm sal, Sixty-four percent of the farm sales was from cro PERCENT IOO [- 90 — 8O - 7O - I955 |957 6O 5O 4O 30 2O a v.4? o- 0 4Q? 69°’ a- q," “q? AGE (YEARS) AGE (YEARS) Figure 5. Distribution of farm operators by age grou" full-time commercial farms, Northeast Texas, 1955 and 195 p -third of the total income was from livestock and tock product sales. _' The average total income, exclusive of capital 7 , on livestock-crop farms was $4,078, while the age total 0n crop farms was $2,248. On both '* s, 88 percent of the total was from crop, livestock a livestock product sales. Fifty-nine percent A03) of the total income on livestock-crop farms Q: from livestock and livestock products, while g ut 86 percent of the total was from sale of crops , crop farms. I nses s The average total expenses on all farms, exclud- vpurchases of capital items, were approximately 36, Table 14. Of this, 54 percent went for feed ‘ veterinary expenses. Approximately $342 per , or 15 percent of the total costs, was spent on w» hired labor. Less than 10 percent of the El was spent for seed, fertilizer and pesticides. A We more than 8 percent of the total operating ex- »ditures was for fuels, lubricants and machine hire. The average livestock farm had total operating " nditures of approximately $4,275, while on crop- tock farms the total was $856. The average total if ating costs was $1,989 on livestock-crop farms $1,245 on the average crop farm. , Feed and veterinary expenses made up a large of costs on livestock-type farms—77 percent, or 85. Only 5 percent ($69 per farm) was expended 1 these items on crop farms. Hired labor expense ~ _ ithe average crop farm amounted to $507, or 41 '1 ent of the total compared with 6 percent on live- *k farms. Expenditures for seed, fertilizer, pesti- _' , machine hire, fuels and lubricants were pro- ,1 ionately more of the total operating costs on crop- tock and crop farms than they were on the live- "k and livestock farms. THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS 8 ---_. i- 5% 7 .__ NON-FARM INCOME 5 ... U FARM INCOME 5 i 4 __ 95% _______ '83,. ---O 3 1 __ a°/ "°/= 2 88% f--- 93% I —— 88% 92% 0 + Q + Q "o <01’ 0° 0° 0° 0* V?‘ 00+ x4e v a v v” c, / 44, 0Q o <9 TYPE OF FARMS Figure 6. Average income by type farm and by source, 100 full-time commercial farms, Northeast Texas, 1957. Net Income The average net cash income resulting from the sales of farm products and purchases of operating resources was $2,015, Table 15. When the decrease in capital investment of $39 resulting from deprecia- tion and capital sales and purchases is subtracted, the net income was approximately $1,976. This means that the average total capital investment was not maintained during the operating year. 12. AVERAGE CAPITAL INVESTMENT BY TYPE OF FARM, 100 FULL-TIME COMMERCIAL FARMS, NORTH- 1 EAST TEXAS, 1957 Capital Investments _ f Land 311d Machinery arm impmvements and Livestock Other Total Per farm Per acre equipment _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - D0113“ - - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1.1.. k 21,964 108 1,889 4,287 81 28,221 . k-crop 32,194 91 2,749 3,362 250 38,555 livestock 19,176 ss 1,256 1,160 6s 21,667 j. 11,840 92 1,261 s69 50 14,020 Tarms 20,183 h ’ 96 1,722 2,438 99 24,442 » - "— - — — — — — — — — — — — — — Percent — — — — — — — — — — — — — — m1 7s ‘ 7 16 1 100.0 lock-crop 84 7 9 1 100.0 j~ livestock 89 6 5 1 100.0 s5 9 6 1 100.0 ffarms 83 7 1 100.0 l0 1 than one-half of 1 percent. 13 TABLE 13. AVERAGE INCOME BY TYPE OF FARM AND BY SOURCE, 100 FULL-TIME COMMERCIAL FARMS, NOR EAST TEXAS, 1957 . Income Type farm Farm Nonfarm Total‘ _ Dollar % of total Dollar % of total Dollar Percent Livestock 7,580 95 430 5- 8,015. 100.0 y Livestock-crop 3,579 88 499 12 4,078 100.0 Crop-livestock 1,567 92 135 8 1,702 100.0 , Crop 1,985 88 263 12 2,248 100.0 1 All farms 3,919 92 332 8 4,251 100.0 é ‘Excludes sale of capital items except livestock. It was not possible to exclude sale of capital livestock. It is assumed that all livestock replacements were farm raised. Net cash income averaged highest on the live- stock farms and lowest on crop-livestock farms, $3,741 and $846, respectively. Livestock farms had an aver- age increase in capital investment during the year of $120. When added to the net cash income figure, this resulted in a net income of $3,861 since “increase in capital” is a receipt. Although the average crop- livestock farm had the lowest net cash income, crop farms had the lowest net income when consideration is given to the average decrease in capital investment of $300. This resulted in a $703 net income figure compared with an average of $716 on crop-livestock farms. The data indicate that capital investments on the type of farms where crop enterprises were more pre- dominant in the farm organization was not main- tained, while increases in capital investments were found on the farms where livestock and livestock products were emphasized. Returns to Capital Investment and Operator A La bar-Management The return to the average operator for his labor and management was approximately $632 after he was awarded $1,344 for the use of a total investm of about $24,442 at 5.5 percent interest return, Ta 16. If the average operator had had all his capi investment debt-free, the data indicate that he wo 1 have received a total of $1,976 for his role as inves and laborer-manager. If he had debts on which i must pay interest, he then would not get all of $1,344 return to capital investment. The average livestock farm operator received J proximately $2,309 for his labor and manageme and the livestock-crop farm operator received $1 If the average livestock farm operator had been of capital debt, he would have received an additio $1,552 as an investor, or a total net income of $3,8 Increase in capital investment contributed to y above by $120 on the average livestock farm and 1' on the average livestock-crop farm. ‘ The data indicate that both the average crop-Ii‘ stock and average crop farm operator received ~55, management incomes of minus $475 and minus Fl respectively. If their investment was debt-free, t v would have received $716 and $703, respectively, j return on their capital investment and their la and management. 7 TABLE 14. AVERAGE EXPENSES BY TYPE OF FARM AND BY SOURCE, 100 FULL-TIME COMMERCIAL FA . NORTHEAST TEXAS, 1957 . Feed, Seed, Machine Repair Insurance _ Type farm Labor veterinary, fertilizer, hire, fuels, and and Other Total . medicine pesticide lubricants maintenance taxes _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - ——Do11ars—————-————-——-———- Livestock 255 3,285 156 178 73 151 177 4,27 Q Livestock-crop 299 732 219 281 127 137 194 1,98 Q Crop-livestock 273 129 200 109 60 57 28 855» Crop 507 69 233 207 89 83 57 1,245 All farms 342 1,198 200 190 85 109 112 2,236 - - - - - - - - - - — — — — ——Percent——————————--——--- Livestock 6 77 4 4 2 3 4 100: Livestock-crop 15 37 11 14 6 7 10 100. Crop-livestock 32 15 23 13 7 7 3 100 ' Crop 41 5 19 16 7 7 5 100 All farms 15 54 9 8 4 5 5 100 ‘Excludes capital purchases. 14 7,15. AVERAGE NET INCOME BY TYPE FARM, 100 TIME COMMERCIAL FARMS, NORTHEAST TEXAS, 1957 Net cash . , F _ l d Change in Net s H arms Income‘; 5:161“ es capital’ income ca Number — - — — Dollars — — — — _ 31 3,741 +120 3,861 , ~ p 18 2,089 +225 2,314 - I k 21 846 -130 716 l’ 30 1,003 _300 703 100 2,015 a _ 39 1,976 I consideration of sales and purchases of capital items. " Depreciation assumed at 5 percent for “Improve- g ~ l0 percent for “Machinery,” none for land or l and, sales and purchases of capital items. inions of Farm Operators survey made of the 100 farm operators in cluded several “opinion questions.” The concerned size-of-business, use of additional keeping business records, farm magazine ions, work opportunities for youth in the " whether the operator would quit farming an opportunity. l -four of the 100 operators said that they had ;yacreage. With $3,000 additional funds, ll ' j-o machinery, 65 would buy more livestock ad other uses in mind; 4 said their size-of- uired more machinery, 82 thought their equipment was sufficient and 14 said they irate more land with machinery on hand; m keep farm business records, 89 thought Lshould keep farm records and 58 had no " in getting enough hired labor. -three operators said markets for products gr sale were no problem (livestock farmers f ly unanimous); 34 were regular listeners to uy more land, 35 would improve pastures,- TABLE 16. AVERAGE RETURNS BY TYPE FARM, 100 FULL-TIME COMMERCIAL FARMS, NORTHEAST TEXAS, 1957 Operator et rn Type farm Farms inljome Iitjgimlfo labor. management Number — — — — Dollars — — — — Livestock 31 3,861 1,552 +2,309 Livestock-crop 18 2,314 2,121 + 193 Crop-livestock 21 716 1,191 - 475 Crop 30 703 771 -_ 68 All farms 100 1,976 1,344 _|- 632 ‘At 5.5 percent on “end-of-year” capital investment. market reports on radio and television, 62 were ir- regular and 4 almost never listened; 64 received one or more farm magazines—of which 63 were “general information” types-and 59 received monthly peri- odicals. Sixty-one of the 100 farmers surveyed were farm- ers because they liked farming, 65 thought they had no alternative employment (mainly because of age), and 26 “liked” farming best and thought they had “no alternative”; 46 would quit farming if they had a “good opportunity” wage-wise. Ninety-one of the operators said that the youth had no opportunity in farming in the area. Eighty thought that the youth had no particularly good employment opportunity off-farm in the area, and 20 felt that they did have reasonably good opportunities. References 1. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Development of Agricul- ture’s Human Resources-A report on problems of low- income farmers. p. 44, Illus., 1955. 2. Holt, E. C., et al. “Pasture, Hay and Silage Crops for East Texas,” TAES Bulletin 893. 3. 1960-61 Texas Almanac. 4. Southern, John H. and Hendrix, W. E., “Incomes of Rural Families in Northeast Texas,” TAES Bul. 940, October, 1959. 15 1,, N“ i um umou 0 nu wanton - ‘Ill. WILD LIIOIIYOIIII A OOOFIIATIIO ITITIOII State-wide Research '1 ‘k The Texas Agricultural Experiment Stationgjti is the public agricultural research agency oi the State oi Texas. and is one oi the i parts oi the A6=M College oi Texas. Location oi iield research units oi the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and cooperating agencies ORGANIZATION IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are 13 subj matter departments, 3 service departments, 3 regulatory services and q administrative staff. Located out in the major agricultural areas of Texas =¢ 2O substations and IO field laboratories. In addition, there are 13 coopera' stations owned by other agencies. Cooperating agencies include the T i Forest Service, Game and Fish Commission of Texas, Texas Prison Syst, _' U. S. Department of Agriculture, University of Texas, Texas Technologi College, Texas College of Arts and Industries and the King Ranch. f experiments are conducted on farms and ranches and in rural homes. I THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 4~5O active research projects, grou g in 25 programs, which include all phases of agriculture in Texas. Amo these are: Conservation and improvement of soil Beef cattle OPERATION 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 Dairy cattle Sheep and goats Swine Chickens and turkeys Animal diseases and parasites _ Fish and game i Farm and ranch engineering Farm and ranch business Marketing agricultural produc Rural home economics " Rural agricultural economics Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and central servi i Research results are carried to Texas farmers, ranchmen and homemakers by county agents and specialists of the Texas Agricultural Ex- tension Service Plant diseases 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 Experi- ment Station seek diligently to iind solutions to these problems. yOélCly :4 kedearcd ~96 jomorrow 2 POgfQ65