Full text of Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas) : May 1965

View original document

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

business
•
review

may 1965

FEDERAL RESERVE
BANK OF DA lL LAS
This publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org)

contents

the texas dairy industry

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

the texas
dai,·y industry
The dairy industry of Texas has undergone
s~lbstantial adjustments and is presently a
highly commercialized endeavor in each of the
stages involved in getting dairy products from
th~ farm to the consumer. The production of
mrlk has evolved from a small, part-time dairy
~n~erprise on many farms to a highly specialized
f Cllry operation on a much smaller number of
.arms. Likewise, the number of firms engaged
In the processing and distribution of milk has
also been reduced. Although the volume of milk
prOdUced on farms in Texas has decreased, the
vOlume of milk marketed from farms and
through processing and distributing firms has
shOWn an increase. This increase primarily results from a reduction in the on-farm use of
milk and a shift from retailing of milk by
farmers.
d T~e changes that have occurred in the proII UChon and marketing of dairy products reect the response of the industry in adapting
~ethods and techniques of operation to fulfill
e demands brought about by a changing
~arket structure. This article will discuss some
~ the .more important changes in the produclon, dIstribution and utilization of dairy prodUct .
,
s In Texas during the past two decades.

trends in production
f Milk production in Texas in 1964 was oneOUrth smaller than in 1945. During the 20Year
.
4 1 ~e~lod, total output decreased from about
I' bllhon pounds to 3.0 billion pounds. A
rg
oa e part of the decline in milk production
C9curred in the years immediately following
I
d .
t 45·,unng
the past 10 years, production has
lended to be relatively stable. Despite the
OWer total production, a larger supply of milk

has been available to consumers because of a
reduction in the on-farm use of milk. Twenty
years ago, about 40 percent of the milk was
used on the farm where it was produced, in
contrast to about 6 percent at the present time.
In addition, some milk and milk products
supplying Texas markets come from out-ofstate sources. For example, some of tlle Federal milk marketing areas serving Texas consumers include producing counties in Oklahoma and New Mexico. Also, some processors
draw milk regularly from midwestern points,
and such processed products as butter and
cheese manufactured in other sections of the
country are available to Texas consumers. Precise data are not available regarding ilie extent
of milk and dairy product imports into ilie
State, but these supplies probably constitute an
important marginal amount. During the drought
period several years ago, ilie inflow was considerable because production within Texas declined as a result of poor pasture conditions.
During the period when the proportion of
milk produced on farms and sold to consumers
was rising, there was a change in the proportion of milk reaching the consumer through the
various channels of distribution. Of ilie total
milk produced in Texas in 1945, 7 percent was
sold directly to the consumer by the farmer in
the form of fluid milk and cream. By 1964, this
percentage had declined to less tllan 2 percent,
as increased amounts of total production were
channeled through plants and dealers. Milk
churned on farms for butter constitutes a negligible use of milk, even though as much as 15
percent has been used for this purpose in the
past. The smaller number of calves on dairy

business review / may 1965

farms has also reduced the on-farm use and
provided larger amounts for commercial sale.
Moreover, the larger urban but smaller farm
population has served to curtail on-farm milk
consumption and boost commercial sales.
The total quantity of milk and milk products
demanded has increased as a result of population gains and higher incomes. The increase in
demand has been tempered, however, by a
downtrend in the per capita consumption of
dairy products, partly reflecting greater consumer acceptance of some items of nonmilk
origin. To meet the challenge of supplying
greater quantities of milk on regular schedules
has required changes in assembly, processing,
and distribution. Dairymen have found it advantageous to specialize in production and permit other firms to provide the necessary functions for getting the milk from the farm to the
consumer in the form and at the time desired.
Despite declining numbers of cows, a particularly notable change has occurred in the production of milk per cow. Milk cow numbers in
Texas have declined steadily in the past 20
years. In 1945, there were nearly 1.6 million
head of milk cows 2 years old and over on
Texas farms and ranches, representing 17 percent of all cattle. Two decades later, the number is placed at 489,000 cows, or slightly less
than 5 percent of all cattle. Although milk cow
numbers declined about 70 percent during the
past two decades, the total output of milk decreased only 26 percent as there was an advance in production per cow. The high level of
output from a relatively smaller number of
cows has been attained through general improvements in Texas dairy herds.
The attention being given to improved breed··
ing through artificial insemination, selection
practices, and better feeding and general care
is among the factors contributing to the rise
in output per cow. Production per cow more
than doubled in the past two decades. In 1945
the average production per cow in the State

was 3,040 pounds per year, while the 1964
figure is placed at 6,150 pounds. Although the
doubling of output per cow during the past two
decades is impressive, Texas dairymen as a
group have considerable room for furt her improvement in the performance of their herds
when this performance is compared with the
U. S. average of 7,880 pounds per cow. The
averages of many herds belonging to members
of dairy herd improvement associations in
Texas are double the Texas average.
MILK DISPOSITION BY TEXAS FARMERS

SOURCE: U. S, o.ponmenl 01 AQrlC\oIII",,. ,

Despite the decreases in the numbers of milk
cows and dairy farms, the size of herd has increased, as the shift toward a more intensified
dairy enterprise and improved management
have resulted in a more commercialized dairy
farm enterprise. The 1945 Census of Agriculture reports 11,867 dairy farms in Texas, with
about 12 cows per farm . A downward adjustment in the number of farms continued during
the next 15 years, and the number of dairY
farms reported in the 1959 Census of Agriculture is 6,436, with slightly over 50 cows pef
farm. Empirical evidence suggests that the reduction in the number of dairy farms and the
expansion in the average herd size have continued.
Several factors account for the decline in the
total number of dairy farms and the growth in

individual herd size. The market demand for
larger quantities of grade A whole milk has
been a particularly important factor. The
~hanges required of dairy farmers to specialize
~n the production of grade A milk have sharply
Increased capital outlays. The expansion and
upgrading of the herd require more careful
selection and breeding of milk stock or the purchase of better-quality cows and heifers; this
Upgrading of herd quality represents a major
Outlay. The production of grade A milk has
a!so necessitated improvements in the type and
Size of the milking parlor and related facilities.
.T~ meet sanitary regulations and reduce
milkmg costs (especially labor costs), dairymen
have installed pipeline milkers and refrigerated
bUlk hOlding tanks. Of course, hand-milking
Was .an early casualty of changes in dairy production. Additional investments have been
made in complementary facilities and equipment, such as water and electrical systems and
paved lots. Currently most dairy farms with
50
'
Or more cows may have over $50,000 invested in milk-handling equipment and facilities
al on.e . In addition, the purchase of forage harvestIng equipment, provision of hay and feed
storage I:uaCI'Ii'ties, and pasture and fencing im~rovements have materialIy increased the capHal outl ays of' modern dairy
. farms.
MILK PRODUCTION AND MILK COW
NUMBERS IN TEXAS
(1945 ' 100)

20 0

.-",.-.-'
150

,;
Mil K PRODUCTION
PER cow

'..."., .... -., ..

100

_'fill'

,,,"

__ .. _____ - . - - - - - • ..,.TOTAL MILK

PROOUCTIO N

........................................................ ) ..................
MI LK

19 50
SOuRCE : U.S, OepOllmtni 01 AQrlcullur, .

19!55

cows

The new methods and equipment have enabled dairymen to enlarge herds and , yet, employ little if any additional labor. On a national
basis, the man-hours required to produce a
hundredweight of milk were reduced about 60
percent in the last 20 years. The total cost of
producing milk, especially grade A, has been
rising but, with larger volumes, the per unit
cost has been held down through the use of
laborsaving equipment. The overall effect of
cost increases has been partially offset through
the higher prices for grade A milk and the
larger proportion of the total milk supply that
is used in the bottle trade .
The development of commercialized dairying
in Texas has resulted in a lessening in the
seasonality of production. When herds were
smaller and the dairy enterprise was just a
sideline operation, farmers maintaining a milking herd often devoted most of their time and
financial resources to the farm's major enterprises. Little emphasis was placed upon pastures and other forage needs of milking stock.
The large percentage of the total production of
milk from herds given such casual management
provided a highly erratic supply to the market.
Milk production continues to vary from
month to month but is far more stable than in
the past. The peak production months are
usually March through May, with the lowest
output coming in December and February.
Climatic factors have a very decided effect
upon the peak, or flush, season of milk production because of the availability of adequate
forage. Pasture plants respond to the mild temperatures and high rainfall that are typical of
the spring months in much of Texas. Growing
conditions for pastures in the other months of
the year - particularly during the winterare not as favorable as during the spring; and,
as a result, milk output tends to decline.

................. .

1960

1964

Efforts have been made to moderate the
swings in milk production during the year
through the use of the improved management

business review / may 1965

techniques that specialization in the dairy enterprise has fostered. Less fluctuation in output
from season to season has been achieved
through improvements in forage management.
The planting of adapted varieties of summer
grasses and forage crops and the provision of
green winter crops have afforded a better feed
ration. Rotational grazing and the use of fencing to boost forage utilization are widely used
by today's dairymen. Better-quality hays and
silage, together with more liberal feeding of
concentrates, have also helped to maintain
production.
Wide variations in the production of milk
result in problems for the entire industry. Demand for fluid milk by consumers is relatively
constant. A deficit poses more problems than
does a surplus because of the necessity of obtaining milk supplies outside the usual milkshed. Unless adequate milk supplies are available, processors are unable to operate at the
desired plant capacity. Long transport hauls of
milk from distant sources may raise the procurement cost of milk for processors, However, the rapid improvement in the Interstate
Highway System and its interconnecting road
network, together with the development of
large-scale trucking equipment for transporting
milk in bulk, has greatly expanded the area
from which milk supplies can be drawn.

quires that a small volume of milk be maintained in excess of normal expected use.
Another development that has encouraged
efforts to reduce the seasonal variation in the
production of milk has been various pricing
arrangements. These price plans have been devised in a way that gives incentives to produce
as much milk as possible during the normally
low output season. Under these pricing plans,
dairymen selling a larger volume of milk during
the normally low period, relative to other producers, are permitted to sell a greater proportion of their milk at the higher grade A fluid
price during periods when milk supplies are
normally in excess of fluid milk needs.

major production areas
Dairy farms are located in all areas of
Texas, but, according to the 1959 Census of
Agriculture, six major regions account for almost 70 percent of the dollar value of milk
sold. Some shifting of milk production is taking
place to adjust for changes in crop production.
Cotton production has been discontinued in
many areas of east Texas and reduced severely
in the Blacklands area. The Blacklands area
and adjacent counties are also located close to
some of the larger metropolitan centers.

In the case of surplus milk supplies, milk not
needed for fluid milk may be diverted into manufactured dairy products. However, a continual
surplus of any sizable magnitude leads . to a
need for adjustment in production. A dairy
farmer could not continue producing grade A
milk for a prolonged period if a substantial
proportion of this production were sold at the
lower prices paid for milk used for manufacturing purposes.

The heaviest concentration of dairY farms,
as well as the largest volume of milk sales, is jJl
the northeastern section of Texas. The dairying
enterprise in this section of the State haS
achieved particular importance in the last tWO
decades. Hopkins County, the leading milkproducing county in Texas, is in the northeastern area. Other major milk-producing regions
include areas in the north-central, upper
coastal, and south-central parts of the State.
The largest dairy farms in Texas are found ill
the Panhandle and western sections.

The consumer's consumption pattern has
some minor day-to-day variability, especially as
related to weekends and holidays. Therefore,
this fluctuation in the quantity demanded re-

The climatic factors of the western part of
the State are considerably different from those
of the eastern areas. The requirements for providing pastures and forage crops are largely

FEDERAL MILK MARKETING
AREAS OF TEXAS

I!31l

NORTH TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO
CENTRAL WEST TEXASAUSTIN-WACO
CORPUS CHRISTI
TEXAS PANHANDLEREO RIVER VALLEY
LUBBOCK-PLAINVIEW
RIO GRANDE VALLEY-

$3.55 per hundredweight in
1945 to $5.10 per hundredweight in 1964.
Since raw milk is one of the
more perishable agricultural
commodities, pricing becomes
highly important. For this reason, a method was needed to
give some measure of stability
to prices in order to assure that
adequate supplies of milk
would be available and that
the movement of milk to the
consumer would be more
orderly.

prices and cash receipts

Federal milk marketing
orders comprise one method
of arriving at monthly prices
to be paid producers for their
milk. An order covers a specified area, and only those producers who produce milk in
the area are subject to the provisions of the
particular order. The order is entered into by
producers only after being voted into effect by
a majority. An administrator appointed by the
Secretary of Agriculture is responsible to the
Secretary for fulfilling the provisions of the
specific order. The price so derived is determined by a formula. The factors considered in
arriving at a minimum monthly price vary
among orders but are based upon economic
data. Thus, milk is priced on a monthly, rather
than a day-to-day, basis, as is the case with
most other farm commodities.

b The average monthly price of milk received
/ Texas dairy farmers shows an inverse reI aelonship to production. This pattern is to be
Xpected, since the supply of fluid milk varies
COn ·d
th Sl erably more than aggregate demand at
~ consumer level. The low point in milk
Prices pa·d t f
.
.h
h· h
1 0 armers tends to be m June, Wit
pl~ est prices in January. The yearly average
nee of all milk sold by farmers ranged from

The Federal milk marketing orders in Texas
are relatively new, with the first order being
initiated in north Texas in 1951. Since that
time, the number of orders in force has grown
to nine. The total number of Texas producers
selling milk under Federal orders in 1964 was
3,581. These producers marketed nearly threefourths of the grade A milk sold, and the value
of the milk delivered to plants and dealers was

~
~

!JZ:::j
Iiillll!jj
~

III

-INCLUDES SOME CONTIGUOUS COUNTIES
OUTSIDE THE STATE.

~et through irrigation, and the highly specialIzed e .
f I qUlpment needed to make effective use
~ and resources under irrigation limits divers ilIed farming operations. The housing needs are
ab so greater In
. western sectIOns
.
of the State
ecause of the more extreme temperature
~anges. For maximum usage of the resources, a
t~:ger herd. is needed. Moreover, the fact that
Population over much of the area is sparce
enCOurages the concentration of production
near the larger cities.

business review / may 1965

over $100 million, or about 70 percent of the
value of all milk marketed in the State last
year.
Cash receipts from dairy marketings have
been somewhat erratic from year to year, but
total cash receipts increased from $88 million
in 1945 to almost $147 million in 1964. The
percentage contribution of daity cash receipts
to total receipts from farm marketings is about
6 percent, and this proportion has decreased
only 1 percentage point in 20 years.

processing and distribution
The adjustments taking place on dairy farms
in Texas have also resulted in some revolutionary changes in processing and distribution.
These changes have been made to keep the
various enterprises in adjustment with the demands placed on the industry. The past two
decades have brought significant shifts in the
number of plants processing and distributing
milk products. There are fewer but larger plants
today, and each plant has become more diversified. While the production of milk has become
a more specialized endeavor, the plants that
process, manufacture, and distribute milk products have tended toward the handling of multiple products.
The larger milk processing and distributing
firms appear to have gained substantial advantages in plant operations. The combining of
resources, labor, and capital into more efficient
operations in fewer plants has proceeded at a
rapid rate.
The numbers of plants manufacturing dairy
products in Texas have all declined, with the
exception of the numbers of firms producing ice
milk and nonfat dry milk. Plants manufacturing ice cream declined more than 50 percent
in the past two decades, but those producing
ice milk products increased materially. The
present methods of assembling the raw products for ice cream and the advances in storage
and transportation of the finished product lend

themselves to centralization of production and
widening of the distribution area.
The changing structure of cream production
on farms and the reduced use of whole milk in
the production of creamery butter have led to
a decline in the number of plants manufacturing butter. More than two-thirds of the firms
manufacturing creamery butter discontinued
this operation in the last two decades. The numbers of condensed and nonfat dry milk plants
have fluctuated somewhat but show a high
degree of stability.

consumption patterns
The pattern of dairy product consumption
has changed very noticeably in the past 20
years. When more people performed tasks requiring manual labor, a high-energy diet waS
necessary. Present-day employment requires
less physical energy and less fat in the diet.
Consumers have made shifts in consumption
patterns, and fat content appears to be a guideline.
On a national basis, there have been significant decreases in per capita consumption of all
high-fat dairy products except ice cream. Since
1945, per capita consumption of fluid whole
milk has decreased about 17 percent, while
that of cream and butter has declined almost
one-third. The shift in preferences during the
. same period has increased the per capita consumption of cottage cheese approximately SO
percent and aided other low-fat items, such as
skim milk, to maintain their position or gain
slightly. The changing demand for different
dairy products reflects a diet-conscious consuming public, rising incomes, and increased competition from lower-priced vegetable oils.
Mellorine production originated in Texas in
] 950, when sales were authorized by the TexaS
Health Department. Since that time, other
states have authorized its production. The number of plants producing meIlorine has continued to grow, and Texas still leads the Na-

tion in output. The increased use of milk in the
bot~le trade and competition from oleomargarIne and mellorine account for part of the
decrease in the volume of whole milk used in
m~~ufactured dairy products. A high level of
Utlltzation in the grade A market generally does
not leave a large volume for manufacturing puP
Poses. The number of producers of milk for
manufacturing purposes declined rapidly as the
grade A market was made available.

outlook
d ~he changes in the Texas dairy industry
dUrIng .the past two decades have been quite
ramabc, and further changes are likely. A
g~Owing population and rising incomes suggest
t at the downtrend in total milk production
may be at an end and a gradual rise in output
~ay be in prospect. The most promising avenue
Or increaSing production appears to lie in a
C~ntinuation of the rising output per cow, since
t e Texas average is considerably below the
average being attained in many other states. In

view 01' the heavy investment rieeded to' operate
an efficient dairy enterprise, further expansion
in average herd size is likely, and the volume
of milk produced per dairy farm is expected
to continue upward. Improvements in highways
and refrigerated bulk milk transport may, however, increase competition from out-of-state
milk sources.
The processing and distributing of milk and
other dairy products also are likely to be subject to further adaptation. Efforts are under
way to produce an acceptable and economical
whole milk and other products that will have a
long shelf life without refrigeration. New packaging materials and different sizes of containers are being market-tested. The marketing
area continues to become increasingly concentrated in and around metropolitan centers,
while, at the same time, the sources of supply
can be drawn from greater distances.

J. C. GRADY, JR.
Agricultural Economist

The Fritch State Bank, Fritch, 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, April 10, 1965. The officers are:
Delmar D. Hartley, Chairman of the Board; Wallace Barnett, President; W. T.
Battin, Vice President (Inactive); and J. H. Hodges, Cashier.

new
par

banks

The Jacinto City Bank, Jacinto City, Texas, an insured nonmember bank
located in the territory served by the Houston Branch of the Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas, was added to the Par List on its opening date, April 10, 1965.
The officers are: Ray McBride, Chairman of the Board; Ralph B. Lee, President; H . T. Edwards, Executive Vice President; and E. A. Noret, Cashier.
The Security Bank, Spring, Texas, an insured nonmember bank located in
the territory served by the Houston Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of
Dallas, was added to the Par List on its opening date, April 10, 1965. The
officers are : Willie H. Whitehead, President; Chester C. Strack, Vice President
and Cashier; and John P. Moody, Assistant Cashier.
The Mercantile Bank of Houston, Houston, Texas, an insured nonmember
bank located in the territory served by the Houston Branch of the Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas, was added to the Par List on its opening date, April 19,
1965. The officers are: Robert W. Baker, Chairman of the Board; Burney
Parker, Jr., President; and James B. Park, Vice President and Cashier.

business review / may 1965

dist,-ict highlights
Member banks in the Eleventh Federal Reserve District have recorded an exceptionally
strong loan demand thus far in 1965 . Loans at
the weekly reporting member banks in the District showed an increase of $153.4 million from
December 30, 1964, to April 28, 1965, in contrast to a decline of $92.1 million in the comparable period a year earlier. The strength in
the recent period principally mirrored a $125 .3
million gain in commercial and industrial loans,
but all major loan categories, with the exception of consumer-type loans, have advanced
more vigorously this year than last.
The strength in commercial and industrial
loans this year reflects increased borrowing by
all classes of business firms. The rise in loans
to service-type businesses, however, has been
especially notable. Thus far this year, these
firms have increased their indebtedness to District member banks by $51 .5 million, contrasted with repayments of $14.5 million in the
comparable period a year ago. Loans to manufacturers of nondurable goods, especially to petroleum processors and chemical and rubber
firms, have also advanced sharply. Loans to
trade concerns rose contraseasonally, as retail
firms and wholesalers increased their borrowing, probably to finance growing inventories.
The seasonally adjusted index of industrial
production in Texas declined fractionally in
March, as a 3.8-percent decrease in crude oil
production offset a slight gain in durable goods
fabrication and a 1.3-percent advance in the
output of nondurable goods. Among the
durable goods industries, gains in machinery,
transportation equipment, and lumber and
wood production were almost offset by declines
in the output of primary and fabricated metal
products. In the nondurable goods sector, output gains in the petroleum refining, chemical,

and printing and publishing industries more
than outweighed production weaknesses in the
food and kindred products, apparel, textiles,
and paper and allied products industries.
Compared with a year earlier, industrial production in Texas in March was 5 percent
higher. This gain reflected broadly based advances in both the durable and the nondurable
manufacturing industries, as well as an increase
in mining output. Mining production in the
State posted a lA-percent gain over March last
year, primarily because of an advance in crude
oil production.
Daily average crude oil production is estimated to have declined fractionally in the DiStrict during April to a level that was 1.7 percent above the year-earlier rate. All of the
decrease from March occurred in Texas, as output from fields in northern Louisiana was unchanged and production in southeastern NeW
Mexico showed a slight rise. Markets for crude
oil of southwestern origin continued relatively
weak during April, with a number of buyers
reporting troublesome surpluses stored aboyeground. Pipeline prorating was restricted, hoWever, to a few fields in northern Texas and
northern Louisiana. In late April , the conservation authorities of both Texas and Louisiana
announced reduced allowables in their respective states for the month of May.
March nonagricultural employment in the
five southwestern states advanced 0.8 percent
to reach a total of 5,018,000 persons, with
more than normal strength in the month-tomonth gains developing in both the manufacturing and the nonmanufacturing sectors. Tbe
strongest percentage increases came from the
construction and the transportation and publiC
utilities industries, where employment rose 3.Z

percent and 2.0 percent, respectively. The important retail and wholesale trade industries
like total employment, posted an advance of'
0.8 percent during March.
Southwestern nonagricultural wage and salary
employment in March was 4'.5 percent
more than in the same month last year and
there were broadly based gains in both the
manufacturing and the nonmanufacturing sectors. However, the contruction industry registered the most impressive showing, with a 12.7percent gain over a year earlier.
. R.egistrations of new passenger automobiles
for March established a new high in four major
l11arket areas in Texas, totaling 16 percent
~ove February and 19 percent higher than in
arch 1964. During the first quarter of the
~ar, combined registrations in the Dallas, Fort
1 orth, Houston, and San Antonio areas were
5
percent above the same period in 1964;
OUston paced the gain with a 17-percent rise.

Di T~e seasonally adjusted index of Eleventh
stnct department store sales in March at
119
'
I percent of the 1957-59 average, declined
~ 1110st 5 percent from the February record.
Umulative sales during the first 3 months of
1965 - also adjusted for the change in Easter

dates - were 1 percent lower than in the same
months of 1964. Stimulated by heavy buying
for Easter this year, sales in the 4 weeks ended
April 24 were up 11 percent from the comparable period in 1964. It is likely that the adjusted index of April sales will be at an alltime high for the month.
Soil moisture in the District is generally improved over a year ago. The planting of spring
crops was delayed because of cold weather and
wet fields, but increased field activity and more
open weather have about placed seeding on a
normal schedule. Range and pasture grasses
have responded to the warmer weather and are
now providing grazing. The calf and lamb crops
are improved over last year, and livestock are
generally in good condition.
The indicated production of winter wheat in
the five southwestern states is placed, as of
April 1, at 15 percent above the 1964 output.
The prospects are varied, as shown by the 21percent increase in Oklahoma and the 22-percent decrease in Arizona. Texas and New
Mexico have prospective increases of 8 percent
and 9 percent, respectively, but Louisiana
prospects are indicated to be 7 percent lower
than last year.

~------------------------------------------------------------------,
hew
11le11lbe.e
bahl~

The Texas National Bank of Dallas, Dal1as, Texas, a newly organized institution located in the territory served by the Head Office of the Federal Reserve
Bank of Dal1as, opened for business April 16, 1965, as a member of the Federal Reserve System. The new member bank has capital of $300,000, surplus of
$300,000, and undivided profits of $165,000. The officers are: Martin C.
Lovvorn, Chairman of the Board and President; F. Patrick Whelan, Executive
Vice President; Thomas J. Hayman, Vice President; and Wm. T. Buckner,
Vice President and Cashier.

business review / may 1965

STATISTICAL SUPPLEMEN1i
to the

BUSINESS REVIEW

May 1965

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF DALLAS

CONDITION STATISTICS OF WEEKLY REPORTING
MEMBER BANKS IN LEADING CITIES

RESERVE POSITIONS OF MEMBER BANKS
Eleve nth Federal Reserve District

Eleventh Federal Reserve District

(Averages of daily figures. In thousand. of dollars )

(In thousands of dollars)

Apr. 28,
1965

Mar. 31,
1965

Ap r. 29,
1964

Net loans ................................. .
Valuation roserves . ... .............. .........
Gross loans ......................... ... ....

4,712,225
82,938
4,795,163

4,648,285
82,887
4,731,172

4,203,534
75,3 09
4,278,843

Commercial and industrial loans ..............
Agricultural loans •••••..•.•••..••.•••.•.••.

2,200,848
60,392

2,188,413
58,537

2,031,786
46,289

13,494
40,412

4,274
46,165

274
59,595

2,380
291,812

2,413
291,126

3,457
245,927

122,91 7
268,993
182,624
8,267
393,792
1,209,232
2,089,523

129,357
276,736
134,923
9,173
387,604
1,202,451
2,107,658

98,318
264,495
97,727
2,225
353,601
1,075,149
2,094,540

1,302,202
118,999
0

1,337,3 90
143,975
0

1,354,890
108,242
6,642

Other securities .•••. ••.... ......•. •. . .... .
Cash items In process of collection ..............
Balances with banks in the United States .. .• •. . .•
Balances with banks in foreign countries • • .......
Currency and coin .•. ........ ...••••..... . . . .
Reserves with Federal Reserve Bank ••......•...
Other assets •...... ...•••... . . .........• •..

178,446
618,534
386,223
787,321
723,891
457,059
3,719
69,613
487,281
304,361

176,777
625,124
391,514
770,268
771,084
514,640
3,106
63,623
544,5 10
288,883

104,567
773,747
361,692
739,650
645,645
456,034
3,611
66,209
500,193
247,534

TOTAL ASSETS ••••..••..•••.•••.••...•..

8,847,672

8,941,789

8,217,300

Item

ASSETS

Loans to brokers and dealers for
purchasing or carrying:

U. S. Government securities ........ ........
Other securities ... .................... . .
Other loans for purcha sing or carrying :

U. S. Governm ent securities .•... . ..........
Other securities .............. . . ..... ... .
loans to nonbank flnancial institutions:
Soles Anance, personal flnance, etc ..........
Other ••••.••••••..••.••.•. . ••...••....
Loans to domestic commercial banks •..........
loons to foreign bonks .•... ••.... ....... . . .
Real estate loons ...... ..... ...... .. ..•....
Oth~r

loans ••.• •••••. ••.•• • • •.• •• . ..••...

Total investments •••......•... •••. .... .... ...
Total U. S. Governme nt securities .•.... . . .....
Treasury bills . .••• .. ........ ..•.. . . ... ..
Treasury certlflcates of ind e bte dness .... ....
Treasury notes and bond s maturing:
Within 1 year •••....... •..••.........

1 to 5 years •••. •.• • •••••••••••.••..••
After 5 years •• •••• •.•..•••• ••••••.•••

lIA8Il1T1ES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS

Item

1,193,617
1,018,918
174,699
1,153,456
40,161
32,747
7,4 14

1,192,999
1,016,361
176,638
1,150, 184
42,815
32,045
10,770

1,145,564
982,370
163,194
1,104,895
40,669
23,916
16,753

E)eventh Federal Reserve District
(Avoroges of dai ly figures. In millions of dollars)
GROSS DEMAND DEPOSITS
Country

cily bonks

banks

Total

clly bank.

Counlry
bonk.

8,317
8,359
8,582
8,683
8,852
9,042
8,582
8,278

4,051
3,944
4,098
4,120
4,213
4,271
4,006
4,049

4,266
4,415
4,484
4,563
4,639
4,771
4,576
4,229

3,783
4,470
4,627
4,655
4,713
4,881
4,984
4,894

1,854
2,220
2,274
2,269
2,288
2,399
2,438
2,462

1,929
2,250
2,353
2,386
2,425
2,482
2,546
2,432

2,465
183,485
327,796

5,661
176,322
328,490

2,294
160,743
269,738

October .. .
Nove mber ..
December . .
1965 , January ...•
Feb ruary ...
March .....

979,742
16,120
68,549
2,933,351

1,108,075
18,131
82,065
2,912,785

943,272
16,272
70,386
2,625,660

1,284,586
1,249,951

1,283,212
1,224,814

1,134,279
1,122,078

500
3,594
381,767

500
3,594
389,357

500
3,899
357,375

Capitol accounts •• . •...•....................

10,513
2,440
202,856
174,184
747,585

8,868
2,440
214,701
155,403
730,785

5,629
1,900
174,543
161,031
705,641

TOTAL lIA81l1TIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS

8,847,672

8,941,789

8,217,300

Rese rve

---CONDITION STATISTICS OF ALL MEMBER BANKS
Eleventh Federa l Reserve District
(In millions of dol lars)

~
lIem

Mar. 31,
1965

Feb. 24,
1965

Mar. 25,

7,773
2,592
1,606
933
198
1,029
5
671
344

7,0 17
267 8
1'477
'906
181

ASSETS
loans and discounts .•.... ...............
U. S. Governmen t obligations .............
Other securities •......... . ... •....... . •
Reserves with Fed e ral Reserve Bank •..•.. ..
Cash in vault e .•.. •..... ........ .. . ....
Bolances with banks in the United States... .
Balances with banks in foreign countriese ....
Cash items in process of collection ... ..... .
Other asse tse •••....•......... '" ..• ...

7,827
2,583
1,604
910
194
1,109
5
843
452

TOTAL ASSETse •••.• •..• • . •.••••.• . •

15,527

15,151

Dem and de posits of banks ...............
Other demand deposits..•........... .••.
Time deposits ..... .. .. .. .. .. ..•...... ..

1,333
7,407
5,088

1, 199
7,290
s.o19

Borrowings e .. . ... .... .......... . ......
Other liabilltiese ...... .................
Total capitol cccountse .. .. ... ..... ......

Tolal deposlls •.••..••.. ••. .....•• •..

13,828
216
195
1,288

13,508
171
188
1,284

TOTAL l1A81l1T1ES AND CAPITAL
ACCOUNTS" ..•••... .. . .••..•..•..

15,527

15,151

lIA8Il1T1ES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS

Item

Apr. 28,
1965

Mar.31,
1965

Apr. 29,
1964

Total gold certiflcote reserves ••... •.• ... • ...
Discounts for memb er banks •.. . .••.........
Other discounts and advances . • .... •. ..... .
U. S. Government securities • . •.. . • ..........
Total earning assets .••... .......•..•......
Member bank reserve deposits ............. .
federal Reserve notes In actual circulation ...•.

327,471
2,210
870
1,617,212
1,620,292
853,322
1,079,324

374,857
1,770
870
1,627,078
1,629,718
908,883
1,070,710

548,593
54,572
285
1,290,768
1,345,625
847,234
963,494

----

Re se rve

Total

4,550,425
3,087,720

(In thousands of dollars)

TIME DEPOSITS

Date

4,928,115
3,209,371

560,243
436,874
123,369
524,209
36,034
1,201
34,833

GROSS DEMAND AND TIME DEPOS ITS OF MEMBER BANKS

4,789,696
3,211,539

CONDITION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS

589,755
454,404
135,35 1
551,283
38,472
973
37,499

Tota l rese rves held ............
With Fe deral Res erve Bank ....
Currency and coin ...........
Require d reserves .. ...........
Excess reserves .......... .....
Borrowings . ... . ... . ..........
Free reserves . ...... ... .......

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

•.... . ...

581,961
448,835
133,126
546,670
35,291
1,317
33,974

All MEM8ER 8ANKS

1963, March .•• ••
1964, March ••••.

Bills payable, rediscounts, etc .... . . '"

585,321
545,496
39,825
580,686
4,635
22,715
-18,080

Total reserves held ............
With federal Reserve Bank .. ..
Currency and coin .... .......
Required reserves ........ .....
Excess reserves •.... . .........
Borrowings .......... ...... ...
Fre e reserve s..... ••........ . .

7,176,085

All olher liabilities •••••••••..•••...••..•.•.••

603,244
561,957
41,287
598,901
4,343
31,072
-26,729

Mar. 3, 1965

COUNTRY 8ANKS

7,840,900

Individuals, partnerships, and corporations
Savings deposits ••... ............ . ••. .
Other time deposits .... .. .... .......••.
Foreign governments and offlcial institutions,
central bonks, and international institutions .•
U. S. Government, including postal savings .•.
States and political subdivisions ... . . ••• ....
Banks in the United States, including
mutual savings banks •... • •.••.. .. . ...•.
Banks in foreign countries ............... ..

611,656
570,083
41,573
606,786
4,870
31,430
-26,560

Total rese rves held ...... . .....
With federal Reserve Bank ....
Curr ency and coin ...........
Require d reserves ....... . .....
Excess reserves . .. ............
Borrowing s........... ... .....
free reserves .................

7,723,047

Total time and savings d eposits . •.. ..••......

4 weeks ended

RESERVE CITY 8ANKS

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

Individuals, partnerships, and corporations ....
Foreign governments and offlciol institutions,
central banks, and international institutions ..
U. S. Government ..•• ........ .. . .... ....
States and political subdivisions ... •••......
Banks in the United State s, including
mutual savings banks .••.....•••..• ••.•.
Banks in foreign countries ...... . ....• • . ...
Certifled and off1cers' checks, etc ..... ..• . ..

4 weeks endo d
Apr. 1, 196~

5 weeks ended
Apr. 7, 1965

Estimated.

19~

1 ,08~

674
414

1 243
7'180
4:472

1 2,89~

12
201
1,22 0

~
~

BANK DEB ITS, END-Of-MONTH DEPOSITS, AND DEPOSIT TURNOVER
(Dollar amounts in thousands, seasonal ly adjusted )

======================================================
DEBITS TO DEMAND DEPOSIT ACCO UNTS'
DEMAN D DEPOSITS'

Percent change

Annua l rate
of turnover

March 1965 from

March
1965

3 months.

Standard metropolitan

(Annual-ra te

f ebruary

March

1965 from

March 31,

March

February

March

statistica l area

bas is)

1965

1964

1965

1964

14
-5
10

6
-7
7

197.3B3
31.433
BB.092

24.B
19.3
1B.B

22.9
lB.B
17.9

20.2
17.4
16.9

~1~1~IN;;-A~~'A~~:u~
:::::s-o ~-;o-·e-·.-·:-:-:-:.-·:-:-:-::-:-:-:-::-:-:-:.-.:-:-:-::-:-:-:-::-:-:-:$:-:-~::-:~-::~:-::~-:~::~-----:-----2-:~:-----22-;----:-$--:-1~::~::-~::::-;~----:~:-;~-::~:---~~~'::..:.~---...:.~..~...:.:~:......:.
NEW

Shreveport.... ... .......................

4.905.372
609.7BO
1.6B3.096

2
3

B~~~::'.~~I\·~ort ~rthur .... .. . : .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
Corp Che .Harling en.San Benito.............. ..

4.446.2BB
1.266.624

_~
11

15
11

2~~:g~~
174.414

22.0

:1:!!i.!Y

51.22B.924
463. 104
3.275,7B4

laredo.................... . ....... .. . .... .
lUb bock " .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
Midl an d " .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .... ... .. .

9
9
1~

12
10

TeXAS~EX.ICO , Roswe ll ' ...... ... .... . . . ...... ... .. ..
. Abilene

:~~i~~I ~:·:: : :::::::::: : ::::::::::::::: : : ::: :

~o[ul;:s~t·!o n~ELL

~:m:m

1
-3

f~1:~~t~~~·:~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~::~: 1~:HHH
~khi~:~~il;::::::::::::::: : ::::::: : ::::: : :: tm:m

TYler

(Texas·Arkansas ).. ........ .... .. .. ..

B58.828

~nters...... .. .................. .. .......

$ 183.626.328

~ Deposits

.. COunt

-~~

l~~:~~~

~~:~

~g:$

~~:~

~f:~

~~:~

"lmll

III

111

11~:m

n:~

~~:~

1.7B5.206
27.B40

21.B

29.2
16.7

19.7

29.4
17.3

29.0
15.7

-l~

J~:~~~
gg:m

H:!
l ~:g

lH
l ~:*

~~:~

$6.640.631

27.9

27.7

25. 1

. .

If
1~

l~:~

m:m

1~:~

l~:~

. . .

bof, in diVidua ls, pa rtners hip s, and corporation s and of sta tes and politica l subdivISion s.
aSI S.

DEPARTMENT STORE SALES
(Percenta go change In retail value )

INDEXES OF DEPARTMENT STORE SALES

March 1965 fro m

Eleve nt h Federa l Reserve District
(Daily ave rage sales. 1957·59 = 100 )

~==================================
196-- Date
adjusted
Seasonally

Unadjul te d

4' ~~~i~-·~-;-:.-::-:-:-:-:-::-:-:-:-:-::-:-:-:-:.-::-:-:-------l~~-~--------------l-~-g-------

1965danuar er.. ................ .. ....

129

~~::::: : :::::::: :: :::::::

223

:~~

February
Area

1965

Total Eleventh District •• . . • .. . .

26
31
26
20
23
35
28
26
26

Corpus Christi ..• • ... •• . . .. . . .

Da llas .. ....... . .......... ..
EI Paso ........... .. .. · · .. · •
Housto n .•.... . ..••..• •• . .. .
San Antoni o . • .. . .. .. . • ....• •
Shreveport, La . • •. . ... . .• .. ..
Waco • • .. . . . ... . • . . • . .. . • ••
Other cities .. • ...•. . .• •. .. ..

March
1964

3 months,
1965 from
1964

o
o

-4
6
-1

1
- 1
5

-4

-8

-2
-3
-5
-3

-1 0

-8
-7

NONAGRIC ULTURAL EMPLOYMENT
five Soulhweslern Sta tes

INDUSTRI AL PRODUCTI ON

~~~~(S~e~a~so~n~a~lI~y~a~d~j~Us~te~d==in=d=e=x=e'=.=1=9=5=7=.5~9=====1=0=0~)==============
___Area and t.
March
Feb.
Jan .
March
TeXAS_________y_P_e_ o_ f_ i_n_d e_x________l_9_6_5~
p ______l_9_65_______1_96_5_r______l_96_4_r___
Tota l indUstria l rod
.
uchon •. • . . . . .
Manu factUri p

Durable ng . . . ... •. .......
M·~ondura·bi ..... . ... . ..... .
Irllng .
e . . . . . . . .... . . . .

U
NlreD STATes· · .. ·· .. · . . ...... .
TOlol indu.t .

Manufa~:~~il

production . ..... . .
Durable ng .... . . . . ..... . .

.. .~ondura·b·l · . . . .. • .... . ... •
'V\ln lng

e . . . ' " ... . .... .

Utillties'···· · ···· · · . . . . . ... .

~ .... ... .
r_

R: rellmi nary

130.4
154 .4
15 1.4
156.6
99.0

131.0
153.0
150.8
154.6
102 .1

129.5
150.8
149.2
151.9
101.6

124.3
144.7
139.1
148.8
97.6

140 .1
141.8
144.0
139.0
11 2.4
155.5

138.9
140.5
142 .3
138.3
11 2.4
155.0

138.2
139.8
141.9
137.1
112.1
154.3

129.0
129.9
130.0
129.8
108 .8
144.8

- - - - - - - - --

- -- - --

SOUR eVised.
.
CES: Boord of G
Feder I R ov ornors of the Federa l Rese rv e System.
a eservo Bank of Dallas.

- -- - - - --

'
Percent change

N umber of persons

Type of employment
Total nonagricultura l
wage and sa lary workers .•
Manu facturing • • ...••... •
Nonmanu facturing . .. .....
Mining ••... . ....... .•
Construction ... . .......
Tra nsportation a nd

public utilities ••.. ..• •
Trade . .. • . •.. .. . .... •
Finance ••.• . .....•...•
Service .. . .. . ...•... . .
Government ... .... . . ..

Mar. 1965 from

Ma rch
1965p

Feb.
1965

March
1964r

Feb.
1965

1964

5.018.000
878.900
4.139.100
234,700
343.300

4.978.000
874.200
4.103.800
233.800
332.800

4.803.300
845.900
3.957.400
229.600
304.700

0.8
.5
.9
.4
3.2

4.5
3.9
4.6
2.2
12.7

390.800
1.186.200
253.300
730.600
1.000.200

383.200
1.176.300
253.300
728.500
995.900

387.500
1.143.500
244.000
693.500
954.600

2.0
.8
.0
.3
.4

.9
3.7
3.8
5.3
4.8

Mar.

1 Arizona, Lo uisiana, New Mexico, O kla homa, and Texas.
p Preliminary.
r - Revi sed .

SOU RCE: State emp loyment agencios.

VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

WINTER WHEAT PRODUCTION

(In millions 01 dollarsl

(In thousands 01 bushe ls)
January-March

Area and type
FIVE SOUTHWESTERN
STATES ' •••• .••. •.••• ••.
Re sidential building •.. • ..•
Nonresi dential building . ...
Nonbuil ding construction .. .

UNITED STATES ••.••••••.• •
Res idential building •.. ....
Nonresidential building ....

Nonbullding construction .. .

March
1965

Feb.
1965

449
192
136
121
4,209
1,877
1,379
953

387
149
97
141
3,223
1,299
1,060
863

March
1964

==============================================~~
1965,

Averag e

indicated

1965
1,285
505
420
361
10,531
4,443
3,588
2,501

434
213
114
106
4,215
1,991
1,2 52
972

1964
1,239
579
361
299
10,725
4,784
3,475
2,466

Area

April 1

1964

Arizona .... .... . .......... .

Texa s . . .. ..... .. .......... .

1,260
1,540
3,020
117,062
66,592

1,617
1,650
2,772
96,623
61,848

1,61 1
952
4,907
93,838
61,041

Total .................... .

189,474

164,5 10

162,349

louisiana . .... .... .. .•......
New Mexico ..... ....... ... . .

Oklahoma .••.. . ... ... .••...

1959-6':"'-

~~-----------------------------------------~
SOURCE : U. S. Dopartment 01 Agriculture.

Arizona , Louisiana, N ew Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.

NOTE . - De tail s may not add to total s because of rounding.
SOURCE : F. W. Dodge Corporation.

MARKETED PRODUCTION OF NATURAL GAS

======================================~~
DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL

In million s of cubic fe ot

(In thou sands 01 barrels)
Percent chang e from

March
1965p

Area

ELEVENTH DiSTRiCT ••••••.•
Texas ..................
Gull Coa st ••••••.••.••
West Texas ...........
East Te xa s (proper) •••••
Panhandl e .. , .........

Rest of State ...... ....
Southeastern New Mexico ..
Northern loui siana ... .. .. .
OUTSIDE ELEVENTH DISTRICT
UNITED STATES ........ . .. .
p -

3,266.3
2,774.9
528.5
1,230.8
113.1
103.2
799.3
309.8
181.7
4,606.5
7,872.8

Fe b.
1965p
3,303.8
2,804.4
536.9
1,245.8
113.2
103.5
805 .1
309.6
189.8
4,553.1
7,856.9

March
1964

Feb .
1965

3,203 .9
2,758.6
535.2
1,235.9
124. 1
107.6
755.8
285.4
159.9
4,557.5
7,761.4

-1.1

-1.1
- 1.6
-1.2
-.1
-.2
-.7
.1
-4.3
1.2
.2

March

1964
1.9
.6
-1.3
-.4
-8.7
-4.1
5.8
8.5
13.6

Sea sonall y adiusted ind.~
(1957- 59 = 100.!...--Fourlh
Fourth
Third

Fourth

Thi rd

Fourth

quarter

qua rter

quarte r

quarter

Area

1964

1963

1964

louisiana .......
New Mexico . ....
Texas ..........

1,114,400
241,300
299,600
1,650,000

966,200
212,900
297,000
1,574,400

1,039,800
216,700
247,100
1,584, 100

203
128
187
119

193
126
199
121

Total ... ..... .

3,305,300

3,050,500

3,087,700

144

145

Oklahoma •• •• ••

quO rtt (

1963

190
III
III
114
13l
~

SOURCES: U. S. Bureau of Mines.
Fedoral Rese rve 8ank 01 Dallas.

1.1
1.4

BUILDING PERMITS

Preli mina ry.

SOURCES: American Petroleum Institute .

=======================================~

U. S. Bure au of Min es.

VALUATION (Dollar amounts in thousand~

federal Reserve Bank of Dalla s.

Perc ent change

March 1965

NUMBER

NATIONAL PETROLEUM ACTIVITY INDICATORS
(Seasonally adiusted inde xes, 1957-59

Indicator

CRUDE OIL RUNS TO REFINERY
STILLS (Daily ave rag e) • •• ••.•.. •••.••
DEMAND (Dail y averag e)
Ga solin e ..... ..... . . .. .... . . .. .. .. .
Kerosene ..• .. ..•.. .• ..•.•....•.. , .
Distillate fuel oil ...... .............. .
Residual fuel oil ..... .. . . . . ... .. . ... .
Four refl ne d products .•. ... . .......

March
1965p

Feb.
1965p

March
1964

11 4

111

112

114
176
122
103
116

117
14 1
11 9
101
115

113
138
108
89
108

Gasoline ............. .. . ........ ...
Kerosene . •.... .. ..................

Distillate lue l 011 •• • • .•..•• •. •.. •• ....
Resi dual luel oil .•. •••••. . •..• . ..•• ..
Four refln ed products .••...........
p -

Preli minary.

SOURCES: American Petroleum Institute.
U. S. Bureau 01 Mines.
Federal Reserve 8ank 01 Dallas.

1965

March
1965

ARIZONA
Tucson .... .. ..
LOUISIANA

785

1,820

$ 4,030

Shreve port ••. •

304

901

1,499

4,818

-28

98
140
339
280
419
2,039
494
574
10
2,319
260
104
167
149
1,329
246
197

233
440
890
737
1,113
5,249
1,260
1,679
197
5,661
627
264
381
352
3,182
626
400

927
1,746
5,177
1,308
2,827
15,554
3,906
3,433
463
28,264
4,747
1,010
1,615
353
5,525
2,310
946

3,335
9,237
12,360
6,368
7,637
41,161
15,500
12,327
1,103
73,704
11,790
4,243
2,856
1,057
13,597
6,241
3,177

-45
-51
51
-38
4
5
- 8
-21
59
7
14
42
136
-8
28
14
74

-29
-55
- 12
-4
53
-15
-26
-14
- 32
- 11
12
58
132
-6
-25
68
24

_2
_22
_35
41
8
_18
34
_4
_37
_16
_17
S
63
_A9
_27
A4
26

116
159
110
72
111

114
148
113
68
110

108
154
124
80
113

Total-19 cities .. 10,253

26,012

$85,640

-9

TEXAS
Abilene ••••...
Amarillo .. ....

Austin . .......

STOCKS (End 01 month)

3 monthSI

1965 Iro~

3 mos.

Area

= 100)

from

March
1965

Beaumont •..••

Corpus Christi..

Dallas ... .. .. .
EI Pa so • ..••..
Fort Worth ••..
Galves ton .... •
Houston ......

Lubbock •..•• .
Midland •• .. ••
Od essa .......

Port Arthur •. .•
Son Antonio ...
Waco . . ..... .

Wichita Falls ...

3 mo s,

1965
$

6,180

$236,691

Fe b.
1965

1964

273

Mar.

_25

Full text of Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas) : May 1965

FRASER