The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
AGRICULTURAL NE!VS OF THE WEEK Number . . Thursday, July 5, 19~~1 79 -·-_.---·.- ·- -.-··. -..-· ·- .·. . - .- -.---·- · -.-...-.- .-. ----.-....- .· - ··-----.---------.:--:· Federal .Reserve Bank of Dallas FAHM INCuME. A BAE report issued last week shews c.asli-1~eceipts from farm marketings in Texas for the first four months of 19Sl at ~~468 ·million, cou1pared with ~504 million received . in the s~ne moriths of 1950. Re~eipts of $3~5 million from sale of livestock and 1 i vestock products were up 31 per .cent, while receipts of -~Pl42. million from $ale of crops were dovm 4h peI' cent. . : January-April cash receipts from farm n~ad:etj ngs in other Southwestern . · states, ar;d comparisons "with corresponding men ths of last year: Louisiana ~178 mil~ lion, $12 milJ.ion; Oklahoma· $136 milli\Jn, .down $12 rni:-i-1.J..un; Ne1·v Mexico ~~46 million, up ~~ 7 million; and Ariz.ona. $96 rnilJ.i 0n, up c:~ 24 milli :m. · U. S. farmers' r::ash receipts from fan:1 marketings in . the first haj.f of 1951 are estimated at $·13, 2 billion - 20% above receipts in the corresponding period of 19:)0. This gain, however, was partly offset by a 13/h increase in average prices farmers paid for goods used in production. up F A R M P R I C E S...-·--P-A RI T Y RAT I 0 .. ... -. ------ --··As of June 15, 19)1 prices received by U. S. f2rmers averaged 301 per cent of their 1910-lh ave.raf?;e, 4 points lJwer than a month ago, tmt 22i1' al)ove June 1950, ----·,-.--~~---..-~- -~ accordj ng to the USDA. This is the lith consecutive month in which tte U. S. index of farm prices ha[:> declined~ The , decline in · the index du.ring · the month ended on the 15th resulted fr0m lower prices fer a rnaj0rity 0f fann p.codur,ts wh~i ch were only partially offset b~f mJdest increases in prices of hogs, veal calve...,, butterfat, apples, and turkeys. The Parity Index (index of prices paid, 'interest, taxes, and wage rates) remained at th~ level of the May Index of 283 per cent of the 1910-14 base. "The. developments of the month resulted in a Parity Ratio of 106 whi .-::h means that the Index of Prices Received by Farmers was 6i above the Index of Prices Paid by Farn1ers .. U. S. average farm prices for individual c orrirn odi ties on June J.S showed wide varJ.ati ons with respect to parity J eve ls. Farm prices LtS 1Jer cent of parity: wool 178, veal calves 150, beef cattle 148, lambs ~ ~ S, cotton 12L, rice and ho ~ s 99, mi.lk 98, eggs 94, corn 92, chickens 87, wheat 86, oranges 41, and grapefru.i. t 20. CO'rTON Cot ton markets, like most farm com;i 0cfi ty markets, have shown considerable instability during recent days, influenced by crop reµort s , news from Korea, and othe::r- fact ors. Spot cotton prices in the 10 leading markets averaged ~elow 4S cents per pound early this ine el for the first time since the markets re opened in 111arch. Tuesday 1 s c::osing average for rJti ·idlim~s lS/1,; 11 c ut ton was 44. 95 cents .~ c~rn1pared ;•ri th 45.32 a week ago. However, prices at ceilin~ levels prev2il8d in the Dalla s mark2t. Cotton futures c::mtinue to clrift downward. ucto ~ er 1951 i'uture3 0~1 ti1e New ()rleans Ex change closed Tues~ay at 36.24 cents, vs. 36.43 a leek earljer anci 37 .54 a month agu. Reports indicate that the cotton cr·::)p is making ~ood pro _":ress in ·nost secticns o1 the EJcventh Federal Reserve :Jistrict. H_;t, ope n weaT,her in cent.r2l, northcentral, and East Texas has stim11lated gr·Jwth and permitted much needed cul ti- AGRICULTURAL NENS OF THE i_JVE_E_K_______________ Thuri~ay.L!_~l)'." 5~-]}51~Nuruber 79 Page 2 vation, although some fields remain grassy. Texas is in serious need of rain. The crop in some southern counties of GRAI NS Grain prices on the Fort Worth 'JralliExchan';e fluctuated considerably during the past wee~( but made little noteworthy net change. However, al1 prices, ·with the exception of corn, are from 7 to 15 cents under a mcnth ago. Rice prices in Houston stren~thened during the week ended June 25, due to the influence of increased export sales and eovernment orders. i?exora and Blue Bonnet were guoted at "-pll. 25-11. 7.rJ, and Zeni th at $10. 50-10. 75 per 100 pounds e The US~A has announced an increase in the support level for wheat prices this year. The new national average is S2.18 per bushel, vs. ~1.99 last year. However, the govern::nent will n ~ t pay storage c:1arges on wheat this season, which has the effect of lovrering the effective support price by s .:me 9 tu 13 cents per bushel. Even so, it is expected that C') nsiderable wheat from the 1951 crop will be placed under loan. 1 1 I VE S T 0 CK Livestock prices on the Fort--V!ort1lmarket made little change during the past week, except fur a 50-cent decJine for hogs e.r:d lambs, while feeder and stocker steers lost ~1.00 per cwta Steady prices prevailed in goat trade on the San Antonio market. The 1951 Texas spring pig crop is estimated at 1,436,000 head, or 15 per cent aoove the number saved during the 19)0 spring seasJn. A slight increase is expected also for tbe fall pig crop. The 1951 spring pig crop in Uklah::>ma totals an estimated 774,000, up 9 per cent from last year. The Louisi~na cr~o of 532,000 is down 12 per cent. Cattle slaughter in Texas in the first 5 ll onths of 1951 was 5;b under a year earlier. Calf slaughter v:as off 25%, and slaug11ter of sheep and la.mus was down 50ib. Hog slaughter, on the other hand, was up 19%. POULTRY A .~ D En G S Poultry and egg prices in Dallas wholesale trade hc1d steady durin_ the past week. In fact there ha.v2 been no significant price chan<?es for the· past month, except for an advance of 3 cents per pound for fryer0. Texas broiler prices averaged J0.9 cents per pound during the week ended June 23, acco din~ to the BAE. Commercial broiler chick placements on Texas farms in the fir t half of 1951 totaled over 30 million chicks, compared with less than 19 million in the same period 1 st year. ·v. M. Pritchett A ricultural Economist
@FedFRASER