Full text of Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas) : July 1969

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

business
•
revIew

july 1969

FEDERAL RESERVE
BANK OF DA ILIL AS

This publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org)

contents

the cattle fe eding industry
in the high plains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

3

district highlights . ... . . .... ....... .. ....... 10

the cattle feeding
indust.·y in
the high plains
Agriculture, like other producing sectors of
the economy, often turns to mass production
for greater efficiency. Consequently, it is not
Surprising to find that beef producers have
adopted mass-production techniques in order to
meet the increased demand for beef. The result
is a sizable expansion in the cattle feeding industry. Fed beef comprised approximately twothirds of the Nation's beef output last year,
compared Witll about one-third in 1950. In the
1950-68 period, the production of fed beef
accounted for practically all of the increase in
beef production.
Coupled with tlle expansion of the industry
has been a shift in the interregional structure of
the fed beef economy. The industry has expanded to the western and southwestern regions
of the country. One of the fastest growing regions is the area tllat includes eastern New
MeXico, the High Plains of Texas, the Oklahoma Panhandle, and southwest Kansas.
The following article highlights the development of the fed cattle industry in the High
Plains area of the Eleventh Federal Reserve
District,l tries to derive economic explanations
for the growth of cattle feeding operations in
this area and to estimate the economic impact
of the new industry upon the area, and discusses the possibilities of further expansion in
the High Plains.

-

For the purpose of this discussion, the Higb Plains
area includes parts of the Northern and Southern
~ig~ Plains of Texas and a portion of eastern New
"VleXlCO. (See map on page 5.)
1

fastest rate of growth
Nationally, tlle sharpest expansion of the
fed cattle market in recent years has occurred
in the Southwest, particularly in the High Plains
area as defined in this article. In the High Plains
area, the number of cattle and calves on feed
as of January 1, increased from a little ove;
100,000 head in 1960 to approximately 950 000
head in 1969. The total number of cattl: fed
in this area during 1968 was 1.9 million head.
By March 1969, one-time feedlot capacity had
reached 1.2 million head.
~he expanded fed cattle market in the High
Pl~ills has been characterized by highly mech-

aruzed and commercial feeding operations.
Large feedlots - those with a capacity of 1,000
head or more - presently account for about 98
percent of all cattle on feed in the area. Most
of the cattle are fed in lots having capacities
of 10,000 to 25,000 head.
~he cattle feeding industry in the High
Plams has become big business only since the
early 1960's. Preceding the actual development
of tlle industry in that area, some important
changes were occurring in both input and output
factors, changes which would lay the foundation for shifts in the interregional structure of
the fed cattle economy.

interregional structure
The southwestern states of New Mexico and
Texas have long been cattle producers, but the
area is a relative newcomer to the fed cattle
industry. For many years, cattle were raised on

business review/ july 1969

3

the ranges and then shipped out to the central
markets as grass-fed beef. Other regions, especially the Corn Belt, produced the majority of
fed beef. California and Arizona later became
major producers, and the fed cattle industry
moved into the High Plains area in the late
1950's.
There are several economic criteria which
can be used to help explain the development of
the fed cattle industry in the High Plains.
Among the most important have been the
changes in technologies in meat processing and
transportation.
A growing demand for beef, which has accompanied the expansion of population and per
capita income in the United States, helped
create the technological change in transportation that aided the development of the fed cattle
industry in the Southwest. The economies that
existed in the forties and fifties made it profitable for meat processors to transport beef animals to the major metropolitan centers where
the beef would be processed and distributed to
markets tlll"oughout the Nation. With the advances in cold-storage transportation in the
early 1960's, tlle cost of transporting processed
beef to markets trended downward, while the
cost of shipping major inputs - such as feed
grains and cattle - to the central markets increased. This diversity in cost has made it more
profitable to process the beef near the source of
supply and then ship the meat to market centers.
Consequently, operators of packinghouses
gained more flexibility in choosing locations and
tended to be less concerned about having a plant
near larger population centers. Because of the
greater efficiency in shipping cold meats, the
meat-packing industry has become less centralized, and a majority of the new processing plants
are being built near the source of the cattle
supply.
As the meat-packing industry has decentralized, it also has become less concentrated. In the

4

midfifties, the four largest packers in the United
States accounted fol' approximately 40 percent
of the industry's market, but the share had declined to less than one-fourth of the total domestic market by 1968. Efficiency of production
has been improved as a result of the replacement of huge multipurpose plants by plants
designed for the most efficient processing of one
kind of meat. This greater efficiency has assisted
the entry of new films into the meat-processing
industry in the 1960's.
In the decentralization process, packers took
into account the usual factors influencing plant
location - cost and availability of feed grain,
supply of feeders, and access to large population
centers. One of the locations chosen was the
High Plains area which includes eastern New
Mexico and the High Plains of Texas. The number of meat-packing plants in the High Plains
area has increased from 12 plants with an annual capacity of approximately 400,000 head in
1960 to 20 plants with an expected capacity of
2.6 million head in 1969. Some of the neW
plants have an operating capacity of up to
10,000 head a week.

supply of inputs
The two largest input items in the production
of fed cattle relative to cost are the feed grain
supply and the feeder cattle supply. Since these
items are the biggest cost inputs, economical
sources of both are necessary when output is
effected under competitive conditions. The High
Plains area has favorable supplies of both.

feed
Feed supply is probably the most important
resource for the development of the fed cattle
industry. The basis for the abundant feed supplY
in the High Plains dates back to 1957, when a
hybrid milo maize, or grain sorghum, was
adopted on a wide scale. Total grain sorghum
production in New Mexico and Texas jumped
from 127 million bushels in 1956 to 356 million bushels in 1968. The High Plains area pro-

study conducted by the Economic Research
Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
indicates that, in areas where cattle feeding has
expanded, adequate feed grain supplies have
been available. Results of the study show that
most of the Nation's fed cattle come from the

duced nearly 224 million bushels of the crop
in 1968, or almost two-thirds of the grain sorghum grown in the two states.
Regional expansion of the fed cattle industry
is heavily related to the feed supply. A recent

ONE-TIME FEEDLOT CAPACITY AND LOCATION OF MEAT-PROCESSING PLANTS
IN THE HIGH PLAINS AREA, MARCH 1969
ELEVENTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTR ICT

~_I

22,80 0

.---

.

98,000

18 , 050

60,000

12 ,000

DALLAM

SHERMAN

HANSFORD

OCHILTREE

LlPSCOM8

10,200

68,000

2 , 500

2 , 800

2 , 000

HARTLEY

MOORE

HUTCHINSON

ROBERTS

HEM PHILL

1.200

8 , 700

10 , 300

32 ,000

1.900

OLDHAM

~TTER

CARSON

GRAY

WHEELER

•

-•
2 2 , 000

2 15 , 100

-

DEAF SMITH

NEW MEX ICO

QUJ

•

76 ,450
CURRY

•
•

\:::"

--,

•

70 , 390

48 , 000

1.050

PARMER

CASTRO

SWISHER

BRISCOE

37 ,050

29 , 970

46 ,750

7 , 850

BAIL EY

LAMB

HALE

FLOY D

61 , 600

700

COCHRAN

HOCKLEY

LUBBOCK

CROSBY

YOAKUM

TERRY

LY NN

GARZA

DONLEY

•

2 ,300

J

6 , 120
ARMSTRONG

150 ,126

121.480
CHAVES

32,900
RANDALL

"'

TEXAS

3 , 000

J
(

20,100
EDDY
LEA

-

NUmbors indicate capacity; dots dosi&nato the lo cation of plants.
SOURCES , Southwosto,n Public So,vlc o Company ,

U.S. Bureau of the Census.

business review/july 1969

5

states which produce the bulk of U.S. feed
grains.

the availability of other inputs at reasonable
prices.

Traditionally, corn has been the most popular feed grain for fattening cattle; and until
the early 1960's, grain sorghum was not used
extensively for this purpose. The High Plains,
drawing from the experiences in California and
Arizona, learned to feed milo successfully by
"breaking" the grain. Much milo is fed today
after it is steamed and flaked so that the animals
can utilize the grain's protein more effectively.

demand factors

feede,'s
The other major cost variable in the fed cattle
industry is related to the supply of feeder cattle.
The Southwest, especially Texas, is a major supplier of feeders. Prior to the rapid development
of feeding operations in the High Plains, most
of the feeders produced in the Southwest were
shipped to the Midwest and Far West to be fed.
Witll the present expansion in the High Plains,
that area has become a net importer of feeders.
According to the results of a recent study,2 approximately two-thirds of the cattle placed on
feed in Texas and Oklahoma originate from
sources within the two states. However, the
High Plains area imports feeders from many
states in the Southeast, including Louisiana,
Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and
Norili Carolina. About one-fifth of the feeders
in the High Plains originate from sources in
New Mexico.

other inputs
In addition to good supplies of feed and feeders, the High Plains area has benefited from a
favorable climate, available entrepreneurship,
new technological and organizational techniques, experienced managerial capacity, and

2 Raymond A. Dietrich, The Texas-Oklahoma Cattle Feedi~lg. Industry - Structure and Operational
Cha!'actel'lStlcs, Research Bulletin B-1079 (College
StatIOn, Texas: Texas A&M University December
1968).
'

6

Although the location of fed cattle operations
close to feed and feeder supplies appears to be
the most important variable in the fed beef
economy, the expansion of the fed cattle industry in the High Plains area is due partly to the
growing national demand for beef. A rapidly
increasing consumer demand for beef has been
prevalent since the end of World War II. U.S.
per capita beef consumption rose from around
59.4 pounds in 1945 to about 109.0 pounds in
1968. This substantial increase in demand haS
made the expansion of large commercial feedlots possible.
However, the increase in aggregate demand
for beef does not explicitly explain the changeS
that have occurred in interregional adjustments
in production. Using location and transportation
cost as factors, interregional studies of the fed
cattle economies in the early sixties concluded
that, on the basis of iliese variables, the soutbwestem states of Texas and Oklahoma showed
a competitive advantage over other fed cattle
producing areas in most of the major markets
in ilie southwestern and southeastern regions.
Assuming that the Southern Plains did have
this competitive advantage in the early sixtieS,
the significant expansion in population and per
capita income in the Southeast and the Southwest also has assisted the development of the
cattle feeding industry. Several studies have
shown that beef consumption is highly correlated with per capita income. During the 195 565 period, household consumption of beef in
the South rose 56 percent, which is well above
the 30-percent advance in the Northeast, the
22-percent gain in the Nortl1 Central States, and
the 14-percent increase in beef consumption
in the West.
In addition to the southwestern and southeastern markets, there are indications that pro-

ducers in the High Plains area have established
a market on the West Coast. Fed cattle producers in the High Plains are able to compete with
producers in California and Arizona because
Olore favorable westbound railroad rates have
been established 011 dressed meats than on
either live animals or feed gra ins. California,
a major producer of fed cattle, traditionally
has imported a large share of its feed and
feeder supplies. For example, 37 percent of
the cattle placed on feed in California in
1966-67 were imported from Texas ; only 31
Percent were native California cattle. A sub~tantial proportion of the principal gra ins fed
In California, barley and milo, is imported
from other states.

economic impact
The development of any industry will naturally have an impact on income and employment, but the impact will vary according to the
extent to which new industries utilize resources.
Industries that utilize local resources typically
will generate more income in the local economy
per unit of output than industries that import a
larger proportion of their inputs.
Input-output studies on both national and regional bases have shown the livestock industry
to be a very important income generator. Generally, there is considerable interaction between
the livestock-producing sector and other firms in
the economy. Livestock produeers buy feeds

business review / july 1969

7

from the crop sector and sell their output to the
agricultural processing sector. By using one of
the output multipliers developed for the Oklahoma economy by Oklahoma State University3
and assuming that the multiplier (or coefficient)
for the High Plains area might be similar, estimates of the impact of the livestock industry
on the High Plains economy can be made.
The output multiplier developed for the livestock and livestock products sector in the Oklahoma study is $2.25 . TIlis means that, if the
final demand for livestock products increases by
$1.00, total output in the economy will increase
by $2.25. Therefore, the total influence of 2
million head of fed cattle, valued at approximately $500 million, would amount to an estimated $1,125 million ($2.25 x $500 million).
In addition to the impact of the livestock sector on the economy of the High Plains, the
meat-processing industry in that area exerts an
influence as well. The existence of meatprocessing plants enables the High Plains area
to keep more dollars (the value added of the
meat-processing industry) within the income
stream of the local economy and tends to discourage the exporting of semifinished products - a form of leakage for the local economy.

possibility of increased consumer resistance. In
the long run, however, prospects for a strong
consumer demand appear very favorable and
should encourage the further expansion of the
industry.
Interregional competition, which often forces
interregional adjustments in production, is never
quite predictable. The beef industry has shown
regional shifts since 1945, but it appears that a
directional pattern has developed. If so, changes
in the future may not be as numerous or of the
same magnitude as those in the past. Given the
present structure of inputs and the strata of
major consumption areas, there is every indication that the High Plains area will continue to
be a major producer of fed cattle.
CATTLE AND CALVES ON FEED, JANUARY 1

THOUSAND HEAD

1,200

800

future expansion
The continued development of the fed cattle
industry in the High Plains will naturally depend
upon demand, interregional competition, and
the supply of basic inputs. The demand for beef
has shown vigorous strength since early 1968.
With the prices for finished beef being what
they are at present, there is, of course, a good

400

o ~~~
1955

1960

1965

1970

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Allrleutture .

3 Charles H. Little and Gerald A. Doeksen, An
Input-Ou/put Analysis of Oklahoma's Economy, Technical Bulletin T-124 (Stillwater, Oklahoma: Oklahoma State University, February 1968). The output
multiplier for the livestock sector measures the
amount of total new output generated in the economy
by a dollar change in the final demand for commodities produced by the sector.

8

The feed grain supply likely will not be a
limiting factor. The counties in the High Plains
area produced about 224 million bushels of
grain sorghum last year. It is estimated that
only one-fourth of this crop was used in fed

cattle production locally, leaving some 170 million bushels for other uses or further expansion.
In addition, acreages of other crops, such as
Cotton and wheat, could be diverted to feed
grain.
The supply of feeders could be a constraining factor. The present supply of feeders is consumed readily by the High Plains and other
areas. Therefore, the ability of producers in the
Bigh Plains to increase the number of cattle and
calves on feed would depend largely on their
ability to compete for feeders with other producing regions to tlle west and north of the High
Plains area.

In the long run, the supply of water could be
another limiting factor for the industry. A steer
on feed will require an estimated average of 10
gaUons of water per day. A feedlot with a
25,000-head capacity will require over 90 million gallons of water per year. Presently, water
is a scarce resource in tlle High Plains. The
Water table in some parts of tlle area has declined at the rate of nearly 3 feet a year since
1962. Since natural recharge is believed to be
allllost nonexistent and rainfall is the only recUrring natural source of water, any substantial

increase in the water supply will have to be
provided by imports.
Another critical resource - one that has
tended to be somewhat limiting - is capital.
Under present monetary conditions, loanable
funds from outside sources have been relatively
limited, and deposits in the local economy have
not been adequate to supply total needs. The
Jack of funds is not as striking when one considers the growth pattern of the industry and the
amount of fixed investment and operating capital required by an average feedlot.
At present prices, the investment requirement
of a fully equipped 10,000-head-capacity feedlot in the High Plains area could amount to
slightly over $500,000. A year's supply of feed
would cost about $1.3 million, and a one-time
lot of cattle would cost about $2.0 million.
Other operating requirements (salaries, utilities, repairs, etc.) would amount to around
$200,000. Assuming that all feed and feeders
were financed at 70 percent of value, annual
credit needs could run in excess of $1 million.
A subsequent article on the financing of feedlots in the High Plains area is planned.
M.

WILSON

business review/ july 1969

9

CHARLES

dist,·ict highlights
Nonagricultural wage and salary employment in the five southwestern states rose slightly
more than seasonally during May and also was
ahead of May 1968. Manufacturing employment showed a very small increase over April;
in contrast, there is usually no seasonal change.
Nonmanufacturing employment edged upward,
but the very slight advance in construction employment was below the normal seasonal gain
for the month. Most of the nonmanufacturing
sectors showed only minor changes; however,
trade, finance, and government registered fractional gains instead of small seasonal declines.
As compared with the same month last year,
total employment in the five states in May was
4.4 percent higher. Nonmanufacturing, by advancing 4.6 percent, showed a larger employment rise than manufacturing did. Transportation and public utilities, finance, and
service employment each had a gain of slightly
more than 5 percent. There was only a small
increase in mining employment.
The seasonally adjusted Texas industrial production index, at 171.6 percent of the 1957-59
base, was about unchanged during May. Durable goods manufacturing rose 1 percent, with
transportation equipment, furniture and fixtures,
and electrical machinery posting the largest advances. The greatest declines were evident in
the output of lumber and wood products and of
fabricated metal products. Nondurable goods
manufacturing was little changed from April.
Production of apparel and allied products increased significantly, but output of paper and
allied products eased considerably, as was the
case for leather and leather products. Mining
was virtually unchanged, with crude petroleum
showing a slight increase. Metal, stone, and
earth minerals registered a substantial decrease.

10

Industrial production in the State in May was
4.2 percent higher than in May 1968. Within
the manufacturing sector, electrical machinery and nonelectrical machinery exhibited the
greatest gains, with each advancing about 15
percent. However, furniture and fixtures and
fabricated metal products also had substantial
gains. Output of textile mill products was considerably below that in the same month last
year. Mining showed little year-to-year change.
Registrations of new passenger autom.obiles
in Dallas, Fort Wortll, Houston, and San Antonio in May were 5 percent below those for
April and 2 percent below those for a year ago.
Cumulative registrations thus far this year were
4 percent less than in the same 5 months last
year.
Department store sales in the Eleventh Federal Reserve District during the 4 weeks ended
June 21 were 9 percent higher than in the corresponding period last year. There has been a
slight narrowing in the year-to-year gains in
cumulative sales thus far in 1969; and through
June 21, such sales were 9 percent above the
comparable period in 1968.
During May, daily average production of
crude oil gained 1.6 percent in Louisiana, NeW
Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas and was 2.9
percent more than in the same month in 1968.
The montllly rise reflected higher oil allow abIes
in Louisiana and Texas. Crude oil output haS
been somewhat higher because of the demand for a larger volume of gasoline during the
summer, and inventories of crude oil have
been below desired levels. On a year-to-year
basis, Louisiana raised output noticeably, but
the other three producing southwestern stateS

showed nominal changes. Oil production nationally was about unchanged during May and
Was only a little above a year ago.
Through June, oil allowables have risen
steadily in most of the southwestern states since
the beginning of the year. The Texas allowable
reached a record 63.5 percent of the Maximum Efficient Rate of production in June;
however, output has not increased proportionally because many oil fields in the State are no
longer able to produce at maximum rates. The
allowable for July has been lowered to 54.7
percent. Louisiana, where allow abIes had been
moving upward, also has lowered its allowable
for July.
Most major crops in the E leventh Federal
Reserve District are making good to excellent
progress. However, a severe hailstorm hit the
Texas High Plains on June 17 and caused considerable damage to the wheat and cotton crops
in Bailey, Crosby, Floyd, Hale, Hockley, Lamb,
Lubbock, Motley, Parmer, and Terry Counties.
Officials estimate that 200,000 acres of cotton
in these counties were damaged by the hailstorm.
During May, prospective winter wheat production in the Southwest had increased nearly
3 percent. Winter wheat production in the five
states was forecast, as of June 1, at almost 198
million bushels, or 10 percent below wheat output last year.
Ranges and livestock generally continue in
gOod condition, although surface soil moisture
is becoming short in the western part of the District because rainfall is more scattered. There
Were 1,576,000 head of cattle and calves on
{eed in Arizona and Texas on June 1. The number of cattle on feed in Texas on June 1, at
1,132,000 head, was 57 percent above a year
ago and 13 percent above the previous month.
Prices received by Texas farmers and ranchers for .all farm products during the first 5

months of this year averaged 6 percent higher
than in the same period last year, as a gain of
15 percent in livestock prices more than offset a
decline of 4 percent in crop prices. The livestock price index has been buoyed by rising
prices for meat animals, especially beef.
Total cash receipts from farm marketings in
the District states during January-April were
almost 9 percent higher than in the same months
of 1968. Livestock income was up 11 percent,
and crop receipts advanced 5 percent over the
year-earlier level.
Seasonal influences and the reduced availability of funds contributed to the decreases in
most major balance sheet items at the Eleventh
District's weekly reporting commercial banks in
the 4 weeks ended June 11. Continuing strong
credit demands were reflected, however, in the
expansion of total loans.
Loans adjusted increased $43 million, due
principally to a $46 million advance in loans to
nonbank financial institutions. Business loans
edged downward slightly; in contrast, there was
a moderate rise in such loans during the comparable weeks in 1968. Agricultural loans and
consumer instalment loans showed slight gains,
as compared with a modest decline and a small
increase, respectively, a year earlier.
Total investments decreased $192 million
during the 4-week period, principally as a result
of sales or redemptions of $119 million of municipal securities and $50 million of U.S. Government security holdings. In the comparable
1968 period, total investments were reduced
only $47 million.
On the liability side of tlle balance sheet,
total demand deposits declined $268 million,
led by decreases of $151 million and $134 million, respectively, in U.S. Government deposits
and deposits of states and political subdivisions.
In the corresponding 4-week period last year,
total demand deposits declined $81 million.

bu,siness review/ ju,ly 1969

11

Total time and savings deposits continued to
trend downward in the 4 weeks ended June 11,
decreasing $39 million. In the year-earlier period, total time and savings deposits increased
$42 million. While savings deposits rose slightly

new
put"
banJ~s

12

in the 1969 period, "other" time deposits of
individuals, partnerships, and corporations declined almost $10 million. Large negotiable
time certificates of deposit decreased $32 million to a level of $1,388 million.

The Citizens State Bank, Irving, Texas, a nonmember bank located in the
territory served by the Head Office of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, was
added to the Par List on its opening date, May 26, 1969. The officers are:
Larry R. Bellah, President and Chairman of the Board; H. A. Leftwich, Vice
President and Cashier; Byron Williamson, Vice President (Inactive); and Ken
White, Assistant Cashier.
The American Bank and Trust Company, Irving, Texas, a nonmember bank
located in the territory served by the Head Office of the Federal Reserve Bank
of Dallas, was added to the Par List on its opening date, June 9, 1969. The
officers are: Gene Glazier, President; William A. Wylie, Executive Vice
President and Cashier; and Orie Lee Craig, Assistant Cashier.
The University State Bank, Austin, Texas, a nonmember bank located in the
territory served by the San Antonio Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of
Dallas, was added to the Par List on its opening date, June 16, 1969. The
officers are: Ray Hudson, President; Malcolm D. Ferguson, Senior Vice
President; Charles R. Smith, Assistant Vice President; and Oliver M. Davis,
Jr., Assistant Cashier.

-

STATISTICAL SUPPLEMENT
to the

BUSINESS REVIEW

July 1969

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF DALLAS

CONDITION STATISTICS OF WEEKLY REPORTING
COMMERCIAL BANKS

RESERVE POSITIONS OF MEMBER BANKS
Eleventh Federal Reserve District

Eleventh Federal Reserve District

(Ave rag es of dally flgures. In thou sa nds of dollars)

(In thousands of dollars)

=---

Juno 25,
1969

Item

May 21,
1969

ASSETS
Net loans and discounts ••••.• , ••••••••.•. ••• .•
Valuation resorves • ••••.••••..••.••.•••••.•..
Gross loans and discounts •.••.••....••••••....

6,427,333
11 7,786
6,545,119

6,356,268
118,39 1
6,474,659

Comm ercia l and industrial loans••••••• •••••••
Agricu ltural loon s, excluding
certiflcates of interest •••. •• • • • • •• • • •• ••••

3,137,014

3,106,874

115,294

115,339

100,740

501
44,753

501
39,497

15,339
19,752

548
377,390

622
383,516

335
337,669

163,949
419,682
620,751
245,423
8,053
685,456

133,753
391,397
614,464
302,401
6,563
662,829

153,485
314,570
557,411
216,331
5,614
583,756

eec

5,618,544
107,285
5,725,829

---2,787,400

loans to brokers and dealers for
pu rchasing or carrying:
U.S. Government securities •• •••.•••••••• . .
Other securities •••.•••.••.••.••..•••••.•
Other loons for purchasing or carrying:
U.S. Government sec urities ••••..•.•••••••.
Other securi ti es •• .• •..••• •• • .••.••• • •.• .
loans to nonbank financial instit utions:
Sales Rnance, p ersonal Rnance, factors,
and other business credit companies •••• •• .
Other •••...•.•••.••••••.••••••••••.•..
Real esta te loans •• .• ... •.•• •. ..•••..•• .•..
Loans to dom estic commercial banks •••••.••••.
Loa ns to foreign banks ••••••..•••••..••••..
Consumer instalment loans .••.••.••.• • .••..• .
loans to foreign governments, ofRcial
institutions, cen tral banks, international
Inst itutio ns •••••••••••.••••••••••.••.••.•
Other loans ••••••.••.••.••••••••.••••••••

0
726,305

716,903

633,427

Total investments •••••••.•••••••• •••• . •••.•.•

2,500,914

2,546,005

2,469,626

Total U.S. Government securities • •••.•..•.••.•

946,219
36,778

974,382
41,320

1,106,509
18,106

Treasury bills .•••••..•••••••••••••••••..
Treasury certiflcates of indebtedness • ••••• ••
Treasury notes and U.S. Government
bonds maturingl
Within 1 year •••..••.•.••.••. . •••••..
1 year to 5 years •••••• • •••• • •••.•••• •
After 5 years ••.• •.•• . •• ••• •••• , ••.••.
Obligations of states and politico I subdivisions:
Tax warrants and sho rt· term notes and bills • •

All other •••••••.••••••••••••.••..•..•..
Other bonds, corporate stocks, and sec uriti es:
Participation certiflcotes in Fe deral
agency loons . • •.. ••.• ••••• . •.•• .• . • .•

°

°

°

RESERVE CITY BANKS
Total rese rves held .••. • .• • .. •.
With Fe d eral Reserve Bonk • • • •
Currency and coin •••.•• • .• •.
Require d reserves ••..••..•....
Excess reserves •• • •.. •••••••. .
Borrowings •.•• .• •••.•••.•.•..
Free reserves . • . ••.••• . • .. •• .•
COUNTRY BANKS
Total reserves he ld •• . • ...... • .
With Federal Rese rve Bank .• •.
Currency and coin ..•..••....
Re quire d res erves ••..•••... . ••
Excess reserves •••...•••...•..
Borrowings ••. • . • ..••...• •• ..•
Free reserves •••.••••••••..•..
ALL MEMBER 8ANKS
Total reserves he ld .••••..•..••
With Fede ral Res e rve Bank ••••
Curre ncy and coin . •• • • . .••. •
Req uire d re serves • . .• .•.•. • ..•
Excess reserves •• .... •••• •.• •.
Borrowings • .. •• ..• •..•... .. • .
Free reserves • .•...•...•..••..

4 weeks ond ed
June 4, 1969

5 weeks ende d
May 7,1969

5 weeks en de d

754,589
704,086
50,503
753,028
1,561
36,379
-34,818

759,848
708,529
51,319
761,901
-2,053
36,051
-38,104

697,630
648,700
48,930
691,899
5,731
36,863
-3 1,132

781,606
605,153
176,453
748,976
32,630
18,707
13,923

778,291
602,895
175,396
763,963
14,328
11 ,704
2,624

691,955
526,580
165,375
662,873
29,082
13,742
15,340

1,536,195
1,309,239
226,956
1,502,004
34,191
55,086
-20,895

1,538,139
1,311 ,424
226,715
1,525,864
12,275
47,755
-35,480

1,389,585
1,175,280
214,305
1,354,772
34,813
50,605
-15,792

Jun o 5, 1968_

°

°

105,978
608,548
194,915

112,650
605,568
214,844

244,354
592,397
251,652

16,481
1,315,657

28,136
1,310,402

28,146
1,1 23,596

134,445
88,112
1,022,306
714,698
85,405
474,431
5,817
394,576

148,15B
84,927
1,134,931
700,511
82,992
458,650
5,729
377,797

141,888
69,487
933,707
708,340
82,797
438,244
5,246
352,436

TOTAL ASSETS ••••••••.•••••••••••••••• 11,625,480

11,662,883

10,608,940

All other (Including corporate stocks) ••••••.•
Cosh items in process of collection ••.•..••••..••
Reserves with Federal Reserve Bank •••••• • ••.. • .
Currency and coin .•••• • • . • •••• •••••••• ••• •..
Balances with bonks in the United States ••••• .•..
Balances with banks in foreign countries ••• • ••...
Other a ssets •••••••• ••.•.• •. •• .••• ... •.••.• •

It em

June 26,
1968

CONDITION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DAllAS
(In thousands of dollars)

==========================================================~~
Ite m

June 25,
1969

Disco unts for me mber banks •• •• .••.• •• •. •• .
Other discounts and advanco s .••.....•..•..
U.S. Gove rnm e nt securities • •.•.. ••. .• • •• •• •
Total earning a sse ts • • • •. • • •••••. ••• .••••••
Member bonk reserve d e posits • •••.. • •••••..
Federal Reserve notes in actual circulation •••• •

2,292,655
2,433,388
1,220,887
1,589,762

May 21,
1969

June 26,

1968

---------------------------------------------------------------354,502
Total gold certiflcate reserves • • ••••.•••.••••
330,703
296,816
140,733

°

40,902

°

2,234,932
2,275,834
1,217,995
1,550,140

14,533
741
2,173,25 0
2,188,52 4
1,137,263
1,452,278

---------------------------------------------------------------

CONDITION STATISTICS OF All MEMBER BANKS
Eleventh Federal Reserve District

LIABILITIES

(In millions of dollars)

Total deposits •• •••• •••••• . •.•• •••••••.•••.•

9,394,022

9,480,377

8,878,300

Total demand de posits •••.•.••••.•••••••.••
Ind ivi dual s, partnerships, and corporations ••.•
States and political subd ivi sions •.••••• .• •••
U.S. Gov ernment •••.••.••••.•••••• • .••.•
Banks in Ih e United Stoles ••••.•••••••.••••
Foreign:
Governments, offlcial institutions, central
banks, international institutions ••. • .••.•
Comme rcial bonks . •. . •. .•..•...•••.•..
Ce rt iR e d and offlcers' checks, e tc .••••••••.•
Total time and savings d eposits ••.••..•.•..••
Individual s, partnerships, and corporations:
Savings d e posits ••... ••••• .•.. • .••.. ••
Other time d eposits •.•••.....•.•..•..•.
States and political subdivi sions •. .•••.. • ..•
U.S. Government (including postal saving s). , •
Bonks in the Unite d States .. ........... . ...
Foreign:
Governm e nts, offlcial institutions, central
banks, internationa l institutions ••••.••••
Commercial bonks •• .. • ..••.••.••.•.. ••
Bills pa yable, rediscounts, and other
liabilities for borrowe d money •••.• •.••. ...•.
Other liabilities •••.••••..•....••.•..•••••...
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS • • •• .•..• •. • •.• ••• • . • •• •

5,716,118
3,960,810
302,392
217,159
1,116,30 1

5,741,134
3,865,804
412,735
228,068
1,124,122

5,323,355
3,709,059
260,015
141,459
1,088,233

2,811
29,393
87,252
3,677,904

2,992
25,247
82,166
3,739,243

3,325
20,818
100,446
3,554,945

997,872
1,989,030
644,838
11 ,657
27,017

994,571
2,029,984
667,744
11 ,446
28,008

1,092,779
1,813,414
610,282
9,174
23,796

7,000
490

7,000
490

5,300
200

1,031,965
236,485
963,008

976,584
248,628
957,294

598,127
219,284
913,229

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS 11,625,480

11,662,883

10,608,940

Item

May 28,
1969

April 30,
1969

ASSETS
Loans and disco unts •••••...••••.••••.•.•
U.S . Government obligations •• • •••••••••.•
Other socurities ••. . ••••••..• .. •••••••••
Re serves with Federal Reserve Bank ••••.•..
Ca sh in vault ••.•..••..••..••••..••....
Balances with bonks in th e Unite d States ••..
Bolances with banks in foreig n countries e ... .
Cash ite ms in process of collection ••.... ...
Other a ssets e • ••.• •• . • • • .••• •••.•..••..

11 ,231
2,201
3,152
1,136
251
1,136
9
1,184
726

11 ,091
2,354
3,311
1,272
251
1,194
8
1,410
679

TOTAL ASSETSe •• • ••...•••.• . •••. •. •

21,026

21,570

LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS
Demand d e posits of banks • • ••••••• • •••.•
Othe r demand deposits ....... . . . .. .. .. . .
Time d e posits •• •• .•••....••.••.• • ..••.•

1,408
8,700
7,674

9.os3

7,681

Total deposits • • •• • . ••••..•.•••.•• • .•
Borrowings ••• . ••.•• • ••.•••••.•••. ..•.•
Other liabilities& .•••••••••• •.•••••.••. .
Total capitol occountso ••• . .•..•.. •..•• . •

17,782
882
667
1,695

18,219
1,096
569
1,686

TOT AL LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL
ACCOUNTSe ..••••••••••••.••.••.•
e -

2

Estimated.

1,485

9,642
2,456
2,745
1,114
239
1 ,04~
1,012
476

-

~
1,306
8,059
6,974

-

16,339
450
357
1,586

BANK DEB(TS, END-Of-MONTH DEPOSITS, AND DEPOSIT TURNOVER
(Dollar amounts In thousands, seasonally adiuste d)

============================================================
DE81TS TO DEMAND DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS'
DEMAND DEPOSITS'
Percent change

-

May
1969
(Annual-rote
basis)

Standard metropolitan

statistical orea

ARIZONA: Tucson. _____ .• _____ . _____ ••.. ___ • _ • . _____

Annual rate
of turnover

May 1969 from
April
1969

5 months,
1969 from
1968

May
1968

May 31,
1969

May
1969

April
1969

May
1968

$ 215,827

23_6
28.0
33.4
22 .4
19.6
35.2
31.6
26.1
22.7
23.8
14.1
47.5
27.2
32.8
23 .4
36 .5
21.1
27.4
17.8
14.6
19.2
16.5
24.7
15.7
20.8
24.3
23 .9
17.9

24 .4
29.3
33.0
23.7
19.0
34.8
31.4
25.7
23.5
22.4
15.2
51.5
29.5
31.9
24.7
35.7
20 .9
32.1
18.8
13.8
20.2
17.5
25.0
16.0
23.1
23.5
24.0
20.6

23 .7
26.5
27.2
20.4
19.0
35 .5
23.5
25.9
21.0
23 .5
14.7
44.4
26.5
32.2
24 .2
35.1
20.9
24.6
17.3
12.0
19.4
15.6
23.3
16.6
22.2
21.8
22.1
17.4

34.1

35.1

32 .1

Wichita Falls ••..••..••.••• • •• • ••.•••...•••..

5,063,604
2,399,760
7,654,644
808,128
1,979,460
5,271,504
9,281,760
6,122,268
1,636,692
4,866,804
423,492
100,800,840
5,895,144
19,959,696
2,438,316
86,355,876
786,084
4,250,292
1,572,528
1,925,040
1,404,492
1,073,088
15,004,368
964,224
1,503,948
2,213,748
2,681,304
2,091,504

-3
-2
1
-4
3
2
2
1
-3
6
-10
-9
-9
-1
-2
2
-1
-12
-7
4
-8
-5
-1
-1
-8
1
-4
-13

18
13
24
22
10
10
60
7
6
7
3
20
11
13
-1
12
9
16
6
22
10
8
11
7
8
20
3
6

16
16
15
19
17
12
9
9
13
18
10
10

85,197
225,533
36,857
98,938
149,502
288,725
233,665
71,713
205,873
29,9 42
2,133,324
212,838
591,749
105,348
2,369,495
36,647
155,087
85,752
128,936
73,267
65,084
598,497
61,509
73,732
89,879
111,179
115,603

Totol_28 centers •.•.•••. • ..••• • .. • ••.... • .. •• ..••••

$296,428,608

-3

16

19

$8,649,698

LOUISIANA: Monroe ..... . .... . ..... ... .............
Shreve port ••....•••..•• • • • ..•• •• .•...•..
NEW MEXICO: Roswell ' • • •• • ..• ••• .•••..••...•. •··•·
TEXAS, Abilen e .................................... .
Amarillo .... • ..• • . • •... ••• . • ••.• • • ··••··••· .
Austin . •• • •••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••• • •• •
Beaumont- Port Arthur·Orange •••••• •• •••• •• ••••
Brownsvill e-Harling en-San Benito •••••••• • ••••• ••

Corpus Christi ••• • ..••.•• • ••...•••...• • ... •• ..
Corsicana :l • •••••••••••••• • •••••••••••• • •••••

Dallas .. . ........... .. ...... . ............ ·· .
EI Pa so •..••.• • ..•• • ..••..••. • • • ..••..• • ····
Fort Worth ......................... •· ... ····
Galveston-Texas City •••..••.•• , • ... • .••.•• • ..
Houston •••• • •••••••••••••••••••••••••• • ••• •
Laredo • •••• • •••••••• • •••••••• • •••••• • • •••• •

Lubbock ......... . ................... • · ····
McAlien- Pharr·Edlnburg •.•....•..•....•..•....
Midland • .. . ••..••.......•...•...•.• ··••·••
Odessa ... . .......... . ...... .. .......... . •·

.
.
.
.

~~~ ~~~o~i~', : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Sherman· Denison •••.•••.. • ••.••••••••••••.•• •
Ta.arkona (T exa s·Arkansos) •••• • •••. • .•••••••••
Tyler • • •..••.•••• ••• •.•• • •••••.•.•.•••••• • · .

Waco ••••..•.••.•.• •

0

••••

•

••••••••••

•

••••••

----!

$

16
14
15
19
10
6
57
6
7
5
3
30
15
11
3

14

subdivisions.
Deposits of individuals, partnerships, and corporations and of states and political
COunty basis.

GROSS DEMAND AND TIME DEPOSITS Of MEMBER BANKS
Eleventh federal Reserve District
(Averag e s of daily figures. In millions of dollarsl
BUILD ING PERMITS

GROSS DEMAND DEPOSITS

~

Reserve

Date

Total

city banks

Country
banks

1967: May ..••• •
1968: May .••...

8,833
9,460
10,682
10,752
10,328
10,268
10,497
10,231

4,089
4,382
5,007
4,935
4,734
4,781
4,893
4,777

4,744
5,078
5,675
5,817
5,594
5,487
5,604
5,454

VALUATION (Dollar amounts in thousands)

TIME DEPOSITS
Total

city banks

Country
banks

6,261
6,950
7,598
7,627
7,707
7,722
7,704
7,676

2,716
2,840
3,185
3,135.
3,091
3,042
2,988
2,962

3,545
4,110
4,413
4,492
4,616
4,680
4,716
4,714

Rese rve

Percent change

May 1969
from

NUM8ER

~ea

April
1969

May
1968

6,866

$ 23,799

-24

116

71

331
2,105

1,512
1,775

6,303
18,642

14
-67

-39
31

-41
99

203
709
2,160
565
314
1,606
10,363
153
2,281
2,539
470
13;807
172
583
276
3 17
410
264
5,149
362
154
1,147
357

1,284
5,021
14,284
863
644
3,667
49,862
87
9,627
4,676
3,498
25,256
208
2,602
549
197
989
831
4,558
227
567
1,723
1,830

5,975
14,563
77,692
4,949
5,184
11,960
151,974
1,903
43,479
40,516
11 ,673
185,097
1,890
14,502
2,262
4,711
4,449
2,615
36,130
2,439
3,533
7,972
8,194

314
10
-32
-14
1
86
80
-71
10
-51
55
-32
-57
44
-19
121
65
-35
-51
-39
54
20

-38
156
38
-48
173
20
90
-54
143
-31
110
-8
-44
21
-47
-66
342
50
-71
-18
-47
50
-25

40
54
55
-36
140
-35
43
39
41
19
148
6
66
49
-48
81
202
-51
-46
34
-1
9
42

49,788

$143,203

$692,406

-2

21

18

5 mos.

640

2,991

55
421

May
1969

1969

ARIZONA
LOTUcson ........
UISIANA
Monroe.West
Sh Monroe .... .
TEX;;veport • • ••

~bilene ••.• • ••
A.:~i~1I0 ••.. . .

48
119
465
8
........
8eaurnon ••••••
127
c'0wnsvill e •...
81
359
1l~11~~s Christl .•
2,359
Doniso······ · •
24
EI p n .......
F aso . • •.•..
449
541
Worth •...
97
l1~u:t~ston .•...
lared n ••.. • . 2,865
33
Lubb 0 . . . . . . .
118
Midl~~k ....••
48
Ode .. d ......
71
Port A~·······
thur
97
San An
•..•
49
So
gelo .••
Sh~r~~tonio •• • 1,072
66
TO)tQrk n •• • •• •
W
ana ....
38
oco
248
Wlchit~' F~il; : :
57
TotOl-2 "
--------: c'lIes •• 10,547

d";

5 months,
1969 from
1968

5 mos.
1969

May
1969

$

72

December ••

1969: January ••.
February •••

March •••..
April • • ..•.
May ......

WINTER WHEAT
ACREAGE
(In thousands of acres)
For
harvest

Harvested

PRODUCTiON
(In thousands of bushels)

Crop
of
1969

Crop
of
1968

Crop
of
1967

Crop
of
1969'

Crop
of
1968

Crop
of
1967

Oklahoma •.....
Te xas .•..••...•

81
52
183
4,310
2,830

52
96
305
5,321
3,825

50
100
141
5,217
3,326

4,617
1,404
5,490
118,525
67,920

2,704
2,112
7,625
122,383
84,150

2,450
2,600
3,948
88,689
53,216

Total. ...... . .

7,456

9,599

8,834

197,956

218,974

150,903

Ar ea

Arizona ••••••• •
louisiana .••....
New Me xico •••••

Ind icated Juno 1 .
SOURCE : U.S. Department of Agriculture.

1

3

VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT

(In millions of dollars)

Five Southwestern States'

=

January-May

Percent chang e

May 1969 from

Number of p erso ns

Type af employm ent
Total nonagricultural
wage and salary workers ••

Manufacturing . ... . •...• .
Nonmanufocturing ...•....

Mining • ..... .... . ... .
Construction .•..•.•..•.

May
1969p

May
1968r

April
1969

April
1969

May
1968

6,135,300
1,138,500
4,996,800
231,400
393,500

6,112,300
1,134,900
4,977,400
231,500
390,600

5,877,400
1,102,200
4,775,200
226,100
377,100

0.4
.3
.4
-.1
.7

4.4
3.3
4.6
2.3
4.3

458,000
1,389,200
302,800
947,300
1,274,600

454,800
1,384,700
301,200
945,300
1,269,300

433,400
1,336,400
287,100
899,100
1,216,000

.7
.3
.5
.2
.4

5.7
4.0
5.5
5.4
4.8

Tran spo rtation a nd

public utilities •.•.••.•
Trade ••••••••..•.•• . •
Finance •••••••••••.• . •

5ervice ........•.... .•
Government •...•..•...
1

Area and typ e
FIVE SOUTHWESTERN
STATES' ••......••.••..•
Residential building ••..•••
Nonresid ential building ....
Nonbuilding construction ...

UNITED STATES .•••..••••..
Resid ential building .......
Nonresidential building ....
Nonbuilding construction ...

--

May
1969

April
1969

March
1969

1969

1968

704
258
239
207
7,08 1
2,620
2,680
1,780

498
240
148
109
5,895
2,546
2,136
1,213

517
233
148
136
5,003
1,957
1,772
1,274

2,866
1,185
911
771
27,359
10,631
10,527
6,201

2,445
1,126
740
580
23,683
9,902
8,134
5,647

-

Arizona, lou is iana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
NOTE. - Details may not add to total s becau se of rounding .

1

SOURCE , F. W. Dodge, McGraw· Hill, Inc.

Arizona, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas .

p -

Prelim inary,

r-

Revised .

SOURCE, State employment agencies.

INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION

DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL

(Seaso nally adju sted indexes, 1957·59

(In thousands of barrels)

= 100)

======================================================~~
Perc ent change from

Area and type of ind ox

Area

May
1969

April
1969

May
1968r

April
1969

May
1968

FOUR SOUTHWESTERN
STATES ••• ••• . •..••. .• ..
louisiana . ...... ...... ..
New Mexico .... . ........
Oklahoma •••..••.••....
Texas ................. .
Gulf Coast •••.•• .• .•••
We st Texas ..... .. .. ..
East Texas (proper) •••.•
Panhandle ••.••.•....•
Rest af State ••••••. .• •
UNITED STATES ••..•• ••...•

6,570.7
2,392.6
354.0
612.8
3,211.3
622.4
1,533.3
146.9
90.4
818.3
9,341.3

6,468.8
2,335.2
354.0
623.0
3,156 .6
612.3
1,494.2
141.8
92.7
815.6
9,269.0

6,385.9
2,269.9
350.0
613.0
3,153.0
621.7
1,479.6
147.2
92 .9
811.6
9,205.9

1.6
2.5
.0
-1.6
1.7
1.6
2.6
3.6
-2 .5
.3
.8

2.9
5.4
1.1
.0
1.8
.1
3.6
-.2
-2.7
.8
1.5

r-

Revised.

Durable •.••••..•..••••.•••..
Nondurablo .... .......... ... .
Mining ........ . ....... ..... . .

Utilities •..•..• • •. .••..•• •.....
UNITED STATES
Total industrial production ..... .
Manufacturing . ............... •

Durablo••.•• " •.••..•.. '" .•
Nondurable •••• .. ••..•...• .. •
Mining .. .. ....• ... •• . .. .. ... .
Utilities ...................... .

171.6
195.7
216.3
181.9
125.9
228.1

171.1
195.0
214.1
182.2
125.7
228.1

17'1.2
193.2
216.7
177.5
120.1
279.8

164.7
186.4
201.9
176.1
124.7
207.6

172.8
174.2
177.0
170.6
130.5
215.0

171.8
173.2
176.0
169.8
128.9
214.6

171.3
173.0
175.8
169.5
126.5
215.3

164.2
165.8
169.8
160.8
126.9
196.1

r-

Revised.

SOURCES, Board of Governors of the Fe deral Rese rve System.
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

DALLAS HEAD OFFICE TERRITORY

SAN ANTONIO BRANCH TERRITORY
EL PASO BRANCH TERRITORY

ELEVENTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT

4

May
1968r

----------------------------------------------------- -'
p-Preliminory.

£!Zj HOUSTON BRANCH TERRITORY

o
o

March
1969r

------------------------------~-------------------------------

NEW MEXICO

o

April
1969

TEXAS
Total industrial pro duction ..... .
Manufacturing . . ..•....... .....

SOURCES , American Petroleum Institute.
U.S. Bureau of Mines.
Federal Reserve Bank af Dallas.

May
1969p