Full text of Agricultural Highlights : November 1984
The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
DALLAS Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas November 1984 Risk Taking Pays Off in Texas Agriculture Over the past several years, weatherrelated calamities have struck Texas agriculture. The drought of 1982-84 and the Christmas freeze of 1983 in the Lower Valley are some examples of the harsh treatment that the Texas climate provides ranchers and farmers. Because Texas climatically divides the wet Southeast United States from the dry Southwest, the risk of weathercaused economic calamity varies wide ly among agricultural producers. Variability of income is one measure of risk. An examination of the 1969-83 period shows that higher risk in Texas agriculture is usually rewarded with higher returns. sales and the variation in those receipts for both crops and livestock operations were calculated using Reporting Service data for the 1969-83 period. From these statistics a crude version of the theoretical risk premium was constructed, and the 15 crop reporting regions were ranked accord ing to the riskiness of their agriculture. For total cash receipts, the northwest quadrant of Texas is the riskiest, an area that includes the Panhandle, the High Plains, and the Low Plains. By this same measure, the Lower Valley and the Trans-Pecos areas are the least risky. The Reward for Taking Risk Texas Shielded from Declines in Agricultural Exports Economic theory suggests that a risk premium must exist for an in dividual to be attracted to a risky in vestment. The greater the risk, the higher the risk premium must be. For example, speculators in agricultural futures markets can have sizable returns on an investment, but the level of risk also can be high. Passbook ac counts at federally insured banks yield much lower returns, but there is hardly any risk. The size of the risk premium needed to entice an individual into a risky investment can be related to the variations and average level of invest ment income over time. Exports of U.S. agricultural com modities are far below the level a few years ago. Increased competition and the strong U.S. dollar can explain much of the decline. Agricultural income suf fers because foreign countries are a significant market for U.S. com modities. The export decline has not been as severe for Texas as for other major agricultural states, however, because the mix of crops and livestock produced in Texas is not as heavily weighted toward exports. Regional Risk and Return The Texas Crop and Livestock Reporting Service divides Texas into 15 crop reporting regions. To estimate relative regional risk, average gross Decline in Farm Exports Since the late 1960s the value of U.S. a g ric u ltu ra l exports has grown significantly, constituting an increas ing share of agricultural income. In 1968, exports were 14 percent of U.S. farm cash receipts; the share had grown to 30 percent by 1981. This To calculate the return on invest ment (ROI), additional information was needed on farm and ranch assets and costs of production. These data for 1978 and 1982 were gathered from the quadrennial Census of Agriculture. Only full-time farmers and ranchers were considered. In both years a gross measure of ROI and a limited net ROI (not all production expenses were netted out) were examined. The returns in all cases show similar rankings. Greater Returns to Higher-Risk Regions Statistical analysis indicates that (Continued on back page) growth ended in 1982, when the value of farm exports fell 20 percent, fol lowed by a 1-percent decline in 1983. Several factors have contributed to the decline in exports. Increased foreign competition has played a significant role. The impact of competi tion has been exacerbated by the ap preciation of the dollar. A strong dollar, relative to currencies of other agricultural exporting countries, means that U.S. agricultural com modities are more expensive for importing countries than commodities produced by other exporters. Impact on Texas Agriculture The decline in exports reduced total U.S. agricultural cash receipts. Of the major farm states, however, Texas has probably been the least affected. While (Continued on back page) PRIME INDICATORS OF THE TEXAS AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY TEXAS CASH RECEIPTS INDEX OF PRICES RECEIVED: TEXAS PRICES RECEIVED/PRICES PAID’ i— 170 (1977 = 100) r- 120 (1977 = 1 0 0 )-------------------------------------- ALL FARM PRODUCTS 1984 - •— 110 80 r f SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 'm ' a 'm' j ' " 1_ 1^ K. I I A S O N D j 1. Prices received by farmers in Texas divided by prices paid by farmers nationwide (No separate series exists for prices paid in Texas). SOURCES: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. INTEREST RATES ON TEXAS FARM LOANS1 TEXAS FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES*1 — 12 HUNDRED DOLLARS PER ACRE--------------- — 10 — 8 — 6 i— 23 PERCENT---------------------------------------------------------------- IRRIGATED CROPLAND DRYLAND CROPLAND ’81 I 1982 I FEDERAL LAND BANK ASSOCIATIONS 1983 I ’81 I 1984 1982 I 1983 1. FLBA rates are for farm real estate loans. SOURCES: Quarterly Survey of Agricultural Credit Conditions, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Federal Credit System. 1. 3 quarter centered moving average. SOURCE: Quarterly Survey of Agricultural Credit Conditions, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. ELEVENTH DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL LOANS Bankers report whether the variable is “ greater,” “ the same,” or “ less” than a year ago. Percent reporting “ greater” or “ less” are depicted below. DEMAND FOR LOANS * AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS * i- 60 PERCENT OF BANKS REPORTING |— - 40 ’81 I 1982 I 1983 I 55 PERCENT OF BANKS REPORTING 1984 COLLATERAL REQUIRED * RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS * i— |- 80 PERCENT OF BANKS REPORTING * SOURCE: Quarterly Survey of Agricultural Credit Conditions, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. 80 PERCENT OF BANKS REPORTING- I 1984 AGRICULTURAL BRIEFS Interest rates and land values steady, more cattle, no citrus • Interest rates on agricultural loans by Eleventh District banks varied little during the third quarter of 1984. Agricultural operating loans hovered around 14.8 percent, unchanged from the second quarter. Most operating loans have variable-rate provisions. Thus, recent interest rate declines in national credit markets should show up quickly in agricultural loan rates. • Average land values in the District also stayed fairly constant during the July-September period. The average adjusted values for District dry cropland, irrigated cropland, and ranchland held near $779, $1,019, and $618 per acre, respectively. Land values in drought areas con tinued to decline in the third quarter of 1984. In the Rolling Plains, for example, the fall in thirdquarter land values ranged from 3.6 percent for irrigated cropland to 4.4 percent for ranchland. • The drought that has plagued Texas still lingers. Droughts are measured by evapotranspiration (plant needs), soil moisture recharge, and runoff. The Palmer index (PI) includes all three and is a good indicator of climatic drought. It reveals that portions of South Texas bounded roughly by Del Rio, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, and McAllen are in moderate drought conditions. The PI also shows that an area of long-term drought is pushing out of western Oklahoma into the eastern Panhandle. • Texas cattlemen are steering the national fed beef market with their marketing plans. Texas fed beef producers are planning to increase their marketings 25 percent in the fourth quarter of 1984. Total planned U.S. fed cattle marketings for the October-December period are up 5 percent from the same period last year. Without Texas, the national intentions are down slightly. Many of these marketings seem to reflect herd liquidation, raising questions about future beef supplies. • The citrus crop of oranges and grapefruit, nor mally produced in great abundance in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, will be tiny. The Christmas freeze of 1983 caused so much damage that regular crop forecasts are not being made. TEXAS COMMODITY MARKET PRICES UPLAND COTTON ALL WHEAT GRAIN SORGHUM r— - 4.4 DOLLARS PER BUSHEL - i— 6.5 DOLLARS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT— - 4.1 - 72 CENTS PER POUND- / !— 40 1J. IFr I..1 I ~ NI . . DI r . M A> M J . 1 J, 1A. IS„ O 1..* SLAUGHTER STEERS 75 DOLLARS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT — A I SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture. FEEDER STEERS CORN r- 55 80 DOLLARS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT — 75 F M A M J J Z\ <— A S O N D SOURCES: Texas Department of Agriculture. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. 3.8 DOLLARS PER BUSHEL- 1983 1 J r ' i i 1 . 1. ! 1 I 1 . I J c U L . L I J 1983 1982 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture. ■— 5.7 2.2 ’ SOURCES: Texas Department of Agriculture. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. j ' f ' m ' a ' m ' j ' j ' a SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture. ' s ' o ' n ' d ' Risk Taking (cont.) Exports (cont.) for Texas agriculture the regions fac ing higher risks also generally earn higher returns on investment. The northwest quadrant of Texas does earn higher than average returns, and in the Northern High Plains the return on in vestment is almost twice the average for the state. Most areas characterized by low risk levels, such as the TransPecos and the Edwards Plateau, earned returns on investment that were less than the state average. The Lower Rio Grande Valley was estimated to have the lowest risk and the highest returns on investment. Valley agricul ture is very diversified, which keeps risks low while irrigation and highvalue specialty crops boost returns. The Valley risk-return equation is sure to change a fte r fast w in te r’ s devastating freeze. —Hilary H. Smith specific state data on exports are not available, the relative importance of ex ports can be estimated by comparing the agricultural commodities produced in a state with those that are important in the U.S. agricultural export trade. Nationally, the most important ex ported commodities are wheat, soy beans, and feed grains. These crops make up over half the value of all U.S. agricultural exports. In Iowa and Illinois, these crops constitute about 50 percent of cash receipts, making such states especially sensitive to changes in agricultural export volume. The Texas mix of agricultural pro duction is less export-intensive. About half the cash receipts come from cattle and calves. Livestock products are only a small proportion of total agricul tural exports, which helps to insulate Texas from changes in the export market. Although Texas is less vulnerable than other states to changes affecting the major export crops, exports are still important to Texas agricultural cash receipts. Cotton and rice figure prom inently in the export trade, and Texas does produce significant amounts of wheat, soybeans, and feed grains. The combined value of the five crops is 25 percent of Texas cash receipts—one reason why the state’s cash receipts fell 8 percent from 1981 to 1983 as ex ports declined. Cash receipts from exports are showing some slight improvement in 1984. This can be attributed to the con tinuing world economic recovery, which has led to increased consump tion of grains, used for livestock feeding, and of cotton. The poor wheat crop in the Soviet Union is also playing a role by increasing world demand for wheat. Despite this improvement in ex ports, however, the level will still be sig n ifican tly below the peak of 1980-81. —Roger H. Dunstan o O 3 ~n > o o CQD. (Q O CD -io 3 C =T CO — §: CD co c ~ 5 c0 CcoD Ci? CT O o> 5 < 1 — > Q_ CD CO ZT CO 0 0= CDc cr m CO 0) CoO o =£ OD o -o’ -HCO "CO 0) o O-c o 3. c 3 5T E CD O ZD » C zr > CD 3 0) QQ.. CL Z-Qc o Z O Q ) o —CD E £ 3o CD o < CD "3. cr CD "< C D CO O" O ^CD CD X > n r > 2 0 •wi -< O r- a? > r~ 50 o <n X m > OJ c m <r> to rv m o rr •< X fN X r~ * > c 1 73 x. 2 m c C C jo n > c > o n a; > 73 C X 0 73)- X X O H C m> -4 t r C 2 X o r~ -i O CD —|</) c 5C 73 mO O ir, X z : _ 1 * m *: m X o > I sS o 0>H s .-l 33 2 ^ o—O ^ c=> o o r ~n u 3 m ^ H -n <nq i ;Ol :□ ro K io M O : l i! m ! O > > (/>